right hook

[Claire Petersky]

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...

>The bus signals, you yield. Period. That's the law here too.
>We've simply codified the law of the jungle.

Actually, I'm just fine with that -- as long as the driver signals. It's
actually quite helpful to me riding through city traffic. I'm sharing the
right hand lane with the bus, maybe my progress is slow because I'm climbing
a hill. I look to the bus to see if it's signalling. If it has its right
signal on, I slow and let it ahead. If it has its flashers on, I know --
it's loading passengers, and I can go ahead and pass it. What's hard is when
it's just sitting there, and there's no signal at all. If the driver starts
to pull out it's unexpected. Legally, I'm supposed to yield, but it would
have been very nice if the driver would have given me a little warning. I
try to study the tires as I approach a bus just sitting at stop, to try to
anticipate what its actions are going to be, which isn't always successful.
That's why the signal is so helpful.


Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr­al/Cpetersky

 

[Bruce & Lois Nelson]

I don't know about where you are, but some jurisdictions police will accept
a report, and issue the drive a warning. Meaningless? Not the one I heard
about. The local cops watched for infractions of any kind by a "warned
vehicle".

Report what she did. You never know.

Bruce

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:40:56 -0400, <[email protected]>,
> Joe Canuck <[email protected]> wrote, in part:
>
> >
> >Unfortunately, where I come from motorists also seem to think they can
> >try to beat the pedestrians waiting to cross at the light when they try
> >to turn after waiting for the light.
>
> Monday I almost got wiped by a chrome and vanity plated Hummer while
> crossing in a cross walk. They didn't feel like waiting for a guy on
> crutches. Their left-turn was more important. I could have reached out
> and touched her shiny black scud. She'd have creamed a car had there
> been one approaching the intersection on the side street I was
> crossing. She had to go into their lane to cut me off so you know that
> I was fully occupying the x-walk before she started her turn.
>
> BTW, The BC vanity plate read "MAGGIE".
> --
> zk

 

[OnTwoWheels]

"lokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:36:24 -0400, "lokey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>"jj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:13:38 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> >>>>In my area the bus has the right to just pull into traffic from a
stop.
> >>>>Drivers have to yeild to the bus, not the bus to other drivers.
> [...]
> >>> When you say 'your area' do you mean your city has a specific law to
> >>> yield
> >>> to all busses? What if a cyclist can not yield at the time - does this
> >>> give the bus driver a legal right or tip the scales in the driver's
> >>> benefit?
> >>
> >> If it is like the ones I'm aware of: A bus pulling into traffic from a
> >> bus
> >>stop has the right-of-way and other vehicles must cede that right to
allow
> >>it to return to traffic rather than the usual rule where the vehicle
> >>trying
> >>to pull into traffic has to wait for an opening and the through traffic
> >>has
> >>the right-of-way.
> >
> > Huh? To do this - give a bus an automatic right-of-way you'dhave to
equip
> > it with a siren and flashing lights. This is what works for emergency
> > vehicles. But busses don't have this. OK, I kid a little - the obvious
way
> > to do this would be better city planning and better bus-stop design. But
> > when you say usual rule you seem to be saying like all vehicles pulling
> > out
> > into traffic it's up to -them- to yield - it's mostly physics - moving
> > vehicles and inertia vs stopped vehicles and time.
>
> Legality. Maybe Bob Hunt would like to chime in but:
>
> If Car A is pulling into traffic from a stop and is hit by
through-traffic
> Car B, then Car A is considered to be at fault.
>
> With this Bus Bylaw: If Bus C is pulling into traffic from a bus stop and
> is hit by through-traffic Car D then Car D is at fault.
>
> I dunno what the legality would be if Car D is also a bus.
>
>
>

We have the same law here. I have never read it but I would assume that
yielding to a bus is like the law we have about vehicles yielding to
pedestrians in the crosswalk (which I have read). I don't believe it gives
the bus the right to pull out in front of someone at speed. I think it
means that cars can't continue to stream by without ever letting the bus
out. The wording on the books regarding pedestrians is something to the
effect of "a pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right of way, but cannot
just jump out in traffic". As such, it makes sense to me.

 

[OnTwoWheels]

"lokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In my area the bus has the right to just pull into traffic from a stop.
> > Drivers have to yeild to the bus, not the bus to other drivers.
>
> I am familiar with these types of bylaws. In my case the bus was not
> pulling into traffic from a stop. He was making a right turn at a light.
> And as described I doubt any jurisdiction gives the bus driver the right
to
> right turn before the light has changed.
>

Nor would it give that driver the right to turn right from a lane left of
the rightmost lane (especially if there were traffic in the rightmost lane).

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"lokey" wrote: (clip) she passes me and cut's over so I have to ht the
brakes. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She may have been talking ABOUT YOU on the phone, saying something like,
"This jerk on a bike ought to be on the sidewalk. I'll show him!"

 

[J.V.]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:28:06 GMT,
> <[email protected]>, "OnTwoWheels"
> <[email protected]> wrote, in part:
>
> >
> >Nor would it give that driver the right to turn right from a lane left of
> >the rightmost lane (especially if there were traffic in the rightmost
lane).
>
>
> If the rightmost lane is exclusively a bicycle lane it demonstrates
> the problem with bike lanes and the status of cycling in a car-centric
> economy/culture.
> Right turns on red are legal here so is see this **** all the time.
> --
> zk

I fully agree with you. I feel bike lanes are not better in any specific
case than roads without them. I feel they are worse. What cars are
supposed to do, (and here at least the bike lanes are marked properly with a
dotted line preceding intersections) is move into the bike lane behind
bicylists that are in front of them or in front of cyclists that are behind
them forming a queue where all right turners line up in order of arrival.
Cyclists going straight will then have room to go around the left of right
turning cars that supposedly have their blinkers on. Of course so much for
what is safe, logical, the law and courteous.

There is one effect of bike lanes in this area that is positive, and that is
that there are many cyclists on the road who I really don't believe would be
there if it weren't for the feeling of "I am protected and entitled to be
here". They don't realize that many motor vehicle operators take them as
"you belong off the road" lanes.

But that is for this area only, elsewhere in more car centric areas even
close by there are miles of bike lanes completly empty.