Oregon vs California law graphic

Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California
Driver's Handook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this
is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the
written test).
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them
that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious
of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It
specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize
the point.
Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is
influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane".
Nonsense. They know better.
As Tom keeps saying over and over, we don't live in California and as
I keep saying, don't assume that the state laws are uniform, or in
this case the manuals.
Since California drivers are known to honk at cyclists for various
reasons, the URLs above are highly relevant - it shows that the
problem is not that drivers have not been educated. The problem
is something closer to read rage, and the only solution that will
work is to start lifting licenses.

You assume that by putting something in the driver's manual, that
"educates them" and it is nonsense that they don't know.

Bicycle questions are on the driver's test, and everyone knows you
have to read everything in the manual because anything in it might be
on the test - they ask picayune questions that require memorizing
silly numbers: given the rule, "The speed limit is 15 mph within 100
feet of a railroad crossing where you cannot see the tracks for 400
feet in both directions," they'll ask you if you have to be within
100 feet, 80 feet, or 120 feet, yet most driver's can't visually
distinguish these three distances. So you pretty much have to
read the whole thing and memorize all the numbers in it for the
test, after which you simply forget the numbers and drive so as to
leave adequate safety margins.

The last time I sat down and studied the manual was over 35 years
ago. Do you think I know even 1/10th of what is in there? Yet my
license keeps getting renewed. Around here, they lift licenses
regularly and it stops very few people from driving.

Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.

whine snipped


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. schrieb:

Bicycle questions are on the driver's test, and everyone knows you
have to read everything in the manual because anything in it might be
on the test

Oh, here they have a fixed catalog of multiple-choice questions that you
can simply memorized. At least it was like that in 2000 - maybe they
change that when introducing computerized tests.

Bill Z. schrieb:

Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.

And if it is owned by the bank?

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.

And if it is owned by the bank?

Or by a relative?

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.

And if it is owned by the bank?

And what about LA?

Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:

Bicycle questions are on the driver's test, and everyone knows you
have to read everything in the manual because anything in it might be
on the test

Oh, here they have a fixed catalog of multiple-choice questions that
you can simply memorized. At least it was like that in 2000 - maybe
they change that when introducing computerized tests.

While at any one time, they ahve a fixed number of types of test sheets,
you don't know what is on them in advance.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.

And if it is owned by the bank?

See Sections 14602.6 and 14602.7 of the CVC at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=85931526433+0+0+0&WAISaction=re trieve.
They can take the car regardless. If a bank owns it, the bank can
take it back but can't return it to the driver until the state would
have allowed the driver to pick it up. Read the law for the full
details.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Eric Vey writes:

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Around here, if they catch you driving without a license, they can
confiscate your car and often will.
And if it is owned by the bank?

Or by a relative?

It still gets confiscated. The law distinguishes between a registered
owner and a legal owner, but if you are probably out of luck if you
loan the car to someone who does not have a license. At least you'll
get it back after some time period. The registered owner has to present
a driver's license to take the car back.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I
rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization
that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who
want to make left turns.
Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left
turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane.
No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane
and do indirect left turns.
BZ still doesn't understand that since "they have their own lane"
motorists want cyclists to stay in those lanes. Turning left out of
that lane is the cyclist's problem, not theirs. "We can't go in their
bicycle lane, why do they think they can come into ours?"
Buses sometimes have their own lane, including bus lanes on the right
side of the raod, and drivers do not expect buses preparing for left
turns to make their turns from the rightmost lane.

Well gee. The bus, unlike the bicycle, is a motor vehicle.

The issue was the lanes and road design, not how a vehicle is
powered.

How the vehicle is powered makes a different in how fast it will go. Duh.

The bus, unlike the bicycle travels at roughly the same speeds as the
motor vehicles.

The bus, unlike the bicycle, will "win" in a collision between itself
and a personal motor vehicle.

So will a hummer versus a subcompact car.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unlike the bus or bicycle versus
SUV comparison.

The bus, unlike the bicycle, is big enough that it is hard for even an
inattentive motorist to miss.

Size has nothing to do with it.

Really? Even the most mentally dim cager can judge that the bus is much
bigger than the cyclist.

In conclusion, the bus differs from the bicycle in some important aspects.
The above should be obvious, even if not mentioned in the California
Statutes.

What should be obvious is that you are full of it.

It? INDEFINITE PRONOUN ALERT!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb:

Yes, the cagers would like for us to dismount and make two (2) street
crossings as pedestrians. The cagers would also like us to ride on the
sidewalk, since they consider bicycles toy only suitable for multi-use
paths.
Conspiracy theory. BTW, since the vast majority of the public in the
U.S. are not cyclists, including the legislators, perhaps you'd care to
eplain why they haven't managed to get the legislature to make their
alleged wishes a matter of law.

The vast majority of motorists in the US do not obey speed limits, yet
the laws are not revised.

Non sequitur - you were talking about what drivers' want. Even most of
the speeders don't want the speed limit changed - at least not in their
own neighborhoods.

Citation?

The truth is that insurance companies like speeding tickets, since it
allows them to raise the rates on a convicted individual. If you have
not noticed, insurance companies have much more influence that the
majority of the public, or we would have single-payer health care in the US.

Of course, the US has evolved into something that is a democracy in
appearance only.

Another non sequitur.

No Zaumen, you contended by implication that the majority could get
their wishes put into law. That requires democracy, therefore my point
is relevant to the discussion at hand.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful