|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Smith |
Ads |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Stoplights
On Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 5:42:50 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
I once witnessed an egregious example of not understanding the rules: A traffic light changed and a car stopped in the intersection to wait for it to turn green again. Though we call it a stop light, a red light doesn't mean "stop". It means "it is not your turn to use the intersection". Had the driver understood this, he wouldn't have remained in the intersection when it wasn't his turn. The most-common way to avoid entering an intersection is to stop, but it's also permitted to move slowly enough that the light turns green just as you reach it, or to turn off on a side road if one presents itself. Likewise, a green light isn't a command to shut your eyes and plow straight ahead. A green light grants permission to enter the intersection if it is, in your considered opinion, safe to enter the intersection. -- joy beeson at comcast dot net http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/ The above message is a Usenet post. I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site. Well, I admit that's the best description of how lights should be treated I've seen. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On 9/7/2015 6:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
NFN Smith considered Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:41:39 -0700 the perfect time to write: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. And will be completely different for countries following the Vienna conventions on road traffic (most of the world outside North America). Can you tell us what the rules are for passing slow-moving bicycles in those countries? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On 08/09/2015 3:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400 the perfect time to write: On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... The trouble with a fixed passing distance is that what is safe depends on the size and speed of the passing vehicle, as well as things like crosswinds. Even if the mandatory distance is stated to be a minimum, once people have a figure, they tend to use it whatever the circumstances. I'll happily accept a small motorcycle passing at less than a metre if it is only going 10mph faster than I am, but a 44 tonne truck doing 50mph with a crosswind from the right (the passing side in the UK) is a whole different matter, and anything less than 2 metres is at least very unpleasant, and a metre is downright dangerous. But likely a 44 ton truck is not going to be able to pass me in the same lane with 1m to spare so he will be forced to move to the other lane. Well theoretically anyway. That's what they seem to do in places where the 1m min is in effect. At the moment here it's up to the driver to determine what a safe passing distance is. 1 meter minimum is better than that, I think. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote: On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto closer then the afore mentioned distance? Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem to encounter. -- cheers, John B. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On 09/09/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane wrote: On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto closer then the afore mentioned distance? Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem to encounter. Not sure why you would need a law to tell you not to ride in a door zone. I guess we have lots of laws trying to prevent stupidity though. One of the main reasons for riders getting doored here is that the law is written in a way to imply that they should be in the door zone. There are even some bike lanes that are exactly in the door zone. Rather than a law requiring riders to not be in the door zone, I'd prefer a clear exclusion to the ride right law that allows riders to move to the left to avoid doorings. Better to legislate against behavior that's injurious to others and allow behavior that protects the individual in my opinion, if you see what I mean. I also think that increasing the fine from 35 bucks to 500-1000 bucks like Ontario is doing will go a long way to alert drivers to not be stupid. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:59:02 -0400, Duane
wrote: On 09/09/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane wrote: On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto closer then the afore mentioned distance? Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem to encounter. Not sure why you would need a law to tell you not to ride in a door zone. I guess we have lots of laws trying to prevent stupidity though. One of the main reasons for riders getting doored here is that the law is written in a way to imply that they should be in the door zone. There are even some bike lanes that are exactly in the door zone. Rather than a law requiring riders to not be in the door zone, I'd prefer a clear exclusion to the ride right law that allows riders to move to the left to avoid doorings. Better to legislate against behavior that's injurious to others and allow behavior that protects the individual in my opinion, if you see what I mean. I also think that increasing the fine from 35 bucks to 500-1000 bucks like Ontario is doing will go a long way to alert drivers to not be stupid. Singapore has always done that. Back when the average monthly wage was probably under $2,000 a month the fine for spitting on the sidewalk was $1,000. They did the same thing for talking on a hand phone without a hands free device. Needless to say, you very, very seldom see anyone spitting on the sidewalk or driving a car holding a phone up to their ear. They also hang dope dealers, usually about a month after conviction. Surprisingly, there is a relatively small drug problem in Singapore. -- cheers, John B. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On 9/9/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane wrote: On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the bicycle until it's safe to do so. There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane... Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto closer then the afore mentioned distance? Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem to encounter. Judging from what I've read on various cycling advocacy forums, some U.S. state's minimum passing clearance laws do apply to bikes passing cars. I think those aspects of the laws are generally bad. Yes, cyclists should be out of the door zone. But on occasion, competent cyclists prefer to filter forward in heavy stopped traffic (even though it's only rarely needed in my case). I don't think a slow moving cyclist should be prevented from closely passing a stopped car. FWIW, I also don't think three feet is always adequate passing clearance. One NE state (Maine? New Hampshire? I forget) has a more complicated law, something like three feet up to 40 mph, plus an additional foot for every extra 10 mph. Trouble is, it's hard to get overly complicated laws passed. You usually have to settle for what's politically possible. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Legal isn't always smart
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 5:33:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2015 6:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote: NFN Smith considered Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:41:39 -0700 the perfect time to write: Frank Krygowski wrote: Good post. Just one quibble: "... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a double yellow line, but a single white line, as well." In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so, in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half the speed limit. It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out of the gutter. The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for passing truly slow vehicles. Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a measure of variance from state to state. And will be completely different for countries following the Vienna conventions on road traffic (most of the world outside North America). Can you tell us what the rules are for passing slow-moving bicycles in those countries? -- - Frank Krygowski In France I didn't see people passing people other than casually. I also didn't see racers inside the city limits. That was in 2002 and things might have changed. Stress levels seem to be a LOT higher now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger | Mrcheerful | UK | 10 | February 13th 14 10:43 PM |
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 13 09:15 PM |
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement | John Benn | UK | 25 | August 19th 12 09:33 AM |
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 5 | June 13th 10 07:37 PM |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton | [email protected] | UK | 167 | February 1st 09 10:44 AM |