|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:00:45 GMT, "Pete"
wrote: "Badger_South" wrote I was stunned to learn that Newport News actually has a law the makes it illegal to ride in the street if there's a bike path adjacent. The only saving grace is that Newport News has very few actual "bike paths". The onse they do have are literally upsized sidewalks. And FWIW, I've never, ever, been stopped for not obeying this 'law'. Pete Hey Pete, that's good to know, but the upshot of this law is not the primary enforcement...it's that you may lack legal backing if you have an accident in the street and you're near a bike trail...that's all. Where do you guys like to ride in NN? My folks live near Mariner's museum, and I'm looking for some rides for Thanksgiving. Best, -B |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Keats wrote:
But why is it necessary for a version of that law [slower vehicles keep right] that singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the traffic? If the law was not written specifically for cyclists, there could be no exceptions for cyclists, and cyclists would _always_ be required to keep right, even with skinny lanes, debris on the right, or whatever. If you are moving the speed of traffic you can take whatever lane you want. If you are moving slower than traffic, move right. That's not really the letter of the law, but few people, including police, understand the letter of the ride-to-the-right laws. So we fall back on common sense, and that works fine. snipIf a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions, what good is it in the first place? What are you suggesting--that cyclists should be exempt from the stay right rules? That everyone should be exempt from the stay right rules? What is the alternative? ISTR in one of his articles, John S. Allen considers an hypothetical situation where this law could be used in combination with a mandatory bike lane law to the detriment of an injured-by-car cyclist's insurance claim. The cyclist encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone, so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law. I dont think cyclists are legally required to run over a dog or any other obstacle in the bike lane. On the other hand, it is their responsibility to make sure the path is clear before swerving like a madman out of said lane, or, if there were no bike lane, swerving from their established position at the right side of the road. This wreck would be the responsibility of the dog owner, partially of the cyclist. Definitely not the motorist's fault. The dog got away--tough titty. Stuff happens. There are no magical easy answers. Robert |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(R15757) writes: snipIf a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions, what good is it in the first place? What are you suggesting--that cyclists should be exempt from the stay right rules? That everyone should be exempt from the stay right rules? What is the alternative? I'm suggesting that pre-existing legislation governing slow moving vehicles in general is sufficient for governing bicycles in particular. Here's how it works where I live: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs....htm#bylawSlow City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849 (as of March 30, 1999) Slow Moving Vehicles 59. The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle. ----- http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat...htm#section150 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - Continued [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318 Part 3 Driver on right 150 .... (2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. ------ None of this legislation eternally banishes slow moving vehicles to the right-hand gutter, with no legal right to make left turns or avoid obstacles or hazards. And yet the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act also contains the usual, bicycle-specific: "A person operating a cycle must ... ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway." Note the use of the word "highway", which is defined as including any paved shoulders. The "roadway" is the usually-travelled part of a highway; i.e: the traffic lanes. So, there's one example of how the bicycle-specific keep-right law restricts cyclists from the roadway. For the convenience of motorists. Of course cyclists here aren't required to ride over bad shoulder pavement, or into obstacles or hazards on the shoulder. We're 'allowed' to ride around them, and then get back onto the shoulder. But I suspect this law could be interpreted such that if there is a good, clear, paved shoulder present, a cyclist wanting to carve high-speed turns during a mountain descent isn't allowed to leave the shoulder and ingress into the traffic lane. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
R15757 wrote:
Tom Keats wrote: But why is it necessary for a version of that law [slower vehicles keep right] that singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the traffic? If the law was not written specifically for cyclists, there could be no exceptions for cyclists, and cyclists would _always_ be required to keep right, even with skinny lanes, debris on the right, or whatever. How so? If you are moving the speed of traffic you can take whatever lane you want. If you are moving slower than traffic, move right. By move right do you mean the right lane or the right side of the right lane? In your view is a bicyclist entitled to fully use the right lane of a multi-lane road? That's not really the letter of the law, but few people, including police, understand the letter of the ride-to-the-right laws. So we fall back on common sense, and that works fine. If a law is not understandable, even by those intended to enforce it, then it should be re-worded to be understandable or abandoned. Wayne |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Keats wrote:
I'm suggesting that pre-existing legislation governing slow moving vehicles in general is sufficient for governing bicycles in particular. Here's how it works where I live: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs....htm#bylawSlow City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849 (as of March 30, 1999) Slow Moving Vehicles 59. The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle. That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists. ----- http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat...htm#section150 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - Continued [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318 Part 3 Driver on right 150 ... (2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. This is a typical example of poor wording. The first conjuction "or" is illustrative. One can drive in the right hand lane, *or* drive as closely as practicable to the edge. Does this "or" mean choice, and/or is wording missing, such as "... or when the roadway is unmarked as closely as practicable ....?" Wayne |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Wayne Pein writes: City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849 (as of March 30, 1999) Slow Moving Vehicles 59. The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle. That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists. I'm afraid I don't see how it is any more discriminatory than the typical bicycle-specific keep-right law. I'm assuming the "unless it is impracticable to travel on such side" part provides a similar 'out' for avoiding door zones, making left turns, etc. Am I wrong? Please explain. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Keats wrote:
City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849 (as of March 30, 1999) Slow Moving Vehicles 59. The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle. That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists. I'm afraid I don't see how it is any more discriminatory than the typical bicycle-specific keep-right law. I'm assuming the "unless it is impracticable to travel on such side" part provides a similar 'out' for avoiding door zones, making left turns, etc. Am I wrong? Please explain. Maybe it isn't any more discriminatory than typical. :-) But it IS discriminatory. Two big problems as I see it. First, the use of "possible" rather than "practicable." Big difference. Second, I think the sentence "For the purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle." is a real offender. It ignores actual bicycle speed. So if a bicyclist is doing 25 mph (40 kph) when the speed limit is the same, the bicyclist is still required to drive as close as *possible.* Here, I sometimes exceed the speed limit on descents. I hope I don't get cited! One little nuance that I have recently become enamored with is the fact that in every country, motor vehicle operators are placed closer to the centerline rather than the curbline. Here in North America, we drive on the right, but the steering wheel is on the left. This is for the very real safety reason of improved sightlines. Regards, Wayne |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Badger_South" wrote Hey Pete, that's good to know, but the upshot of this law is not the primary enforcement...it's that you may lack legal backing if you have an accident in the street and you're near a bike trail...that's all. Where do you guys like to ride in NN? My folks live near Mariner's museum, and I'm looking for some rides for Thanksgiving. Currently, I'm in NN only occasionally, but the roads from the Mariners Museum south along the water are nice. Quiet residential area, mostly. For local MTB, Harwood Mills in Denbeigh is OK. York State park is better. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle police officer on bicycle hit | [email protected] | General | 121 | February 6th 04 03:44 PM |