|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable chance of driving around without getting tickets. Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way *all* the states have gone on this important question? Interesting that you claim the rules are "different" but won't state what you think the difference is. :-) It's common sense, though - you don't let people make right turns without being in or to the right of the rightmost through lane. Otherwise the inevitable would happen. That, after all, is what we were talking about. "Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption. And most of what are in them has been adopted by most states. In Oregon, from what I have previously read, motorists are *not allowed* to enter or use the bike lane for anything and that includes right turns. You read that correctly, exactly 180 degrees from California and my state Florida laws. I have not been able to find anything definitive about Washington State law in this regard. I found a web page that says the law is roughly the same as California, but it referred me to code number that doesn't exist. While I agree with your opinion, you should realize that and caution should always be the rule when commenting on how things are in your state and you should not project your knowledge of your state laws on people that live in other states. There is a good reason that lawyers talking to someone in another state will always say, "Check the laws in your state" or "I'm not sure what the laws are in your state, but generally . . . ,but don't rely on that, because the laws in your state may be different. " Here in Florida most motorists do not know that they are supposed to take the bike lane when turning right. They routinely right cross me at intersections if I stay in the bike lane. I've asked policeman if theyy knew and a traffic engineer once asked me what the law was. Even my wife isn't sure. I explained the law to her, but she still has her doubts as did the traffic engineer and the cops. Who am I to know the law when they all say I don't. So, when I move close to the curb (as the FL law says I should) to make my right turn, my wife always says "Your going to get a ticket for that someday." And she is probably right. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey schrieb:
So, when I move close to the curb (as the FL law says I should) to make my right turn, my wife always says "Your going to get a ticket for that someday." And she is probably right. Well, they probably drop the charges in court ... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable chance of driving around without getting tickets. Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way *all* the states have gone on this important question? Interesting that you claim the rules are "different" but won't state what you think the difference is. :-) It's common sense, though - you don't let people make right turns without being in or to the right of the rightmost through lane. Otherwise the inevitable would happen. That, after all, is what we were talking about. "Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption. And most of what are in them has been adopted by most states. Appears as though Washington State law is similar to FL. RCW 46.61.290 Required position and method of turning at intersections. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows: (1) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. But they have the same trouble there as here with taking the bike lane when making a right turn. Look at this letter to the editor about the article: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...6&query=danger We are currently treating cars and bicycles as equal modes of transportation when they are not. You will never remove the risk of "right- hook"-type collisions with our current bike lanes because automobiles are not allowed to cross into, and use, the rightmost or leftmost lane of traffic — which is the bicycle lane. Basic traffic flow works at intersections because a car must be in the leftmost lane to turn left and the rightmost lane to turn right. This concept is violated with a bike lane because a car cannot block the lane for turning right. This allows cyclists to have the perceived right of way and puts them at risk of collision. We have solved this problem for pedestrians. They have a dedicated lane (sidewalk/crosswalk). Their flow is also governed by their own traffic signal (Walk/Don't Walk signals). Their path through an intersection is slow and clearly seen by vehicles at an intersection. The only way to manage bicycle/vehicle traffic is to recognize bicycles as a distinct form of transportation. There should be dedicated bicycle lanes with dedicated bicycle-traffic signals governing their flow through intersections, in concert with vehicle and pedestrian traffic. — John Thornquist, Seattle |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Jens Müller wrote:
Eric Vey schrieb: So, when I move close to the curb (as the FL law says I should) to make my right turn, my wife always says "Your going to get a ticket for that someday." And she is probably right. Well, they probably drop the charges in court ... Yes, but I have to go to court and also agree to more serious punishment if found guilty by the judge. That's the way it works here, in this state. Challenge a ticket and subject yourself to more risk than pleading guilty. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey schrieb:
Jens Müller wrote: Eric Vey schrieb: So, when I move close to the curb (as the FL law says I should) to make my right turn, my wife always says "Your going to get a ticket for that someday." And she is probably right. Well, they probably drop the charges in court ... Yes, but I have to go to court and also agree to more serious punishment if found guilty by the judge. That's the way it works here, in this state. Challenge a ticket and subject yourself to more risk than pleading guilty. Oh, here you can take back the "appeal" in court, then you just pay for the court proceedings, but cannot get more serious punishment. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable chance of driving around without getting tickets. Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way *all* the states have gone on this important question? Interesting that you claim the rules are "different" but won't state what you think the difference is. :-) It's common sense, though - you don't let people make right turns without being in or to the right of the rightmost through lane. Otherwise the inevitable would happen. That, after all, is what we were talking about. "Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption. And most of what are in them has been adopted by most states. In Oregon, from what I have previously read, motorists are *not allowed* to enter or use the bike lane for anything and that includes right turns. You read that correctly, exactly 180 degrees from California and my state Florida laws. You moved it from Washington to Oregon? :-) But of course, there is a simple solution to the problem in Oregon - sue the state for the accident, claiming that they put in a dangerous facility given state law. If you can win the suit, they'll change the law really quickly - that's a lot cheaper than removing the bike lanes. I have not been able to find anything definitive about Washington State law in this regard. I found a web page that says the law is roughly the same as California, but it referred me to code number that doesn't exist. While I agree with your opinion, you should realize that and caution should always be the rule when commenting on how things are in your state and you should not project your knowledge of your state laws on people that live in other states. There is a good reason that lawyers talking to someone in another state will always say, "Check the laws in your state" or "I'm not sure what the laws are in your state, but generally . . . ,but don't rely on that, because the laws in your state may be different. " I've yet to see anyone traveling to a different state prepare for their trip by getting that state's DMV's driver's handbook (or whatever that state calls the pamphlet you are supposed to read before taking a written test). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable chance of driving around without getting tickets. Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way *all* the states have gone on this important question? Interesting that you claim the rules are "different" but won't state what you think the difference is. :-) It's common sense, though - you don't let people make right turns without being in or to the right of the rightmost through lane. Otherwise the inevitable would happen. That, after all, is what we were talking about. "Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption. And most of what are in them has been adopted by most states. In Oregon, from what I have previously read, motorists are *not allowed* to enter or use the bike lane for anything and that includes right turns. You read that correctly, exactly 180 degrees from California and my state Florida laws. You moved it from Washington to Oregon? :-) But of course, there is a simple solution to the problem in Oregon - sue the state for the accident, claiming that they put in a dangerous facility given state law. If you can win the suit, they'll change the law really quickly - that's a lot cheaper than removing the bike lanes. I have not been able to find anything definitive about Washington State law in this regard. I found a web page that says the law is roughly the same as California, but it referred me to code number that doesn't exist. While I agree with your opinion, you should realize that and caution should always be the rule when commenting on how things are in your state and you should not project your knowledge of your state laws on people that live in other states. There is a good reason that lawyers talking to someone in another state will always say, "Check the laws in your state" or "I'm not sure what the laws are in your state, but generally . . . ,but don't rely on that, because the laws in your state may be different. " I've yet to see anyone traveling to a different state prepare for their trip by getting that state's DMV's driver's handbook (or whatever that state calls the pamphlet you are supposed to read before taking a written test). See my post about the variability of bicycle laws. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable chance of driving around without getting tickets. Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way *all* the states have gone on this important question? Interesting that you claim the rules are "different" but won't state what you think the difference is. :-) It's common sense, though - you don't let people make right turns without being in or to the right of the rightmost through lane. Otherwise the inevitable would happen. That, after all, is what we were talking about. "Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption. And most of what are in them has been adopted by most states. Appears as though Washington State law is similar to FL. RCW 46.61.290 Required position and method of turning at intersections. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows: (1) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. But they have the same trouble there as here with taking the bike lane when making a right turn. Look at this letter to the editor about the article: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...6&query=danger The letter is ambiguous - the writer also complained about being nearly hit by bicycles while walking, which suggests a shared bike/ped path or sidewalk rather than a bicycle lane. Also, nothing in it provides a definitive indication of what the law is. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Eric Vey writes: See my post about the variability of bicycle laws. You mean you don't really have a response? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Danger in the Bike Lane
Eric Vey writes:
Bill Z. wrote: vey writes: Bill Z. wrote: Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California, That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not found in the rest of the US. Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in all states. California is no exception. Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in Louisiana and see what happens. People engaged in commerce don't have to make quick decisions while traveling over a mile per minute. Your example is not relevant. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DO NOT WEAR YOUR HELMLET!! DANGER, DANGER, danger | TJ | Mountain Biking | 4 | December 23rd 06 06:03 PM |
Fast Lane/Fat Lane wins award | Mark Thompson | UK | 0 | December 14th 06 05:14 AM |
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane | AndrewJ | Australia | 8 | March 30th 06 10:37 AM |
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? | [email protected] | Techniques | 29 | June 8th 05 10:07 PM |
Yarra bike path incident and current danger - watch out! | Richard Sherratt | Australia | 4 | November 30th 03 11:10 PM |