What is the law with regards to lane splitting car/bike?



W

Wayne Pein

Guest
The Wogster wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>
>> Notice the "OR." There is no indication to stay right within a lane.
>>

>
> So if the speed limit is 55MP/H and your going 54.99999 MP/H your also
> supposed to stay in the right lane, and if your going 55.00001 your
> technically breaking the law.


The law with respect to speed limit is not precise. Obviously.


There is no indication to stay right
> within a lane, but there is also no indication that your supposed to be
> out of a lane either.


I don't understand your point.

Wayne
 
Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > A common question is, if I'm taking a narrow lane on a road with a
> > double yellow, and if there's adequate visibility that shows that it's
> > safe to pass me, is a motorist allowed to cross that double yellow or
> > not?
> >
> > My answer, for myself the cyclist, is "I don't care." That is, I need
> > to take the lane, I have no alternative, and the legal consequences of
> > his action are his to deal with. But a) what's the letter of the law?
> > And b) how should a cop react when he sees this done?
> >
> > In the case I'm visualizing, the road is a residential collector with
> > frequent cross streets. Most of it is 24 feet wide, which (due to low
> > speeds and good pavement) I'm willing to share. But about three
> > (short) blocks drop down to about 20 feet wide - so, two 10 foot lanes
> > where I have to take the lane.
> >
> > Comments? (BTW, I'm assuming Illinois & Ohio are similar.)
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski

>
> ... Letter of the law- no passing means no
> passing.
> As to B, it's only three short blocks and the driver would be delayed
> for what, an additional 30 to 60 seconds? Speaking only for myself I
> wouldn't hesitate to stop that driver, explain that the bike has as
> much right to the road as they do, and give him or her at least a
> warning. If I thought the warning would be disregarded I'd be reaching
> for a ticket book.


OK. I've seen this (safely) violated so many times that I wondered if
there might be an exception for those cases where it's obviously safe
to pass a slow moving vehicle. In fact, I once had a cop car pass me
that way in that location.

ISTM that the "no passing" lines are almost always painted with the
assumption that the vehicle being passed is moving at a speed near the
speed limit. I've seen so many places, especially on country roads,
where it's obviously safe to pass, say, a tractor going 10 mph, but not
a car going 40. Those areas always have the yellow lines.

I assume individual cops make (hopefully) reasonable judgements about
when to let the spirit of the law suffice.

- Frank Krygowski
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>A common question is, if I'm taking a narrow lane on a road with a
>>double yellow, and if there's adequate visibility that shows that it's
>>safe to pass me, is a motorist allowed to cross that double yellow or
>>not?
>>
>>My answer, for myself the cyclist, is "I don't care." That is, I need
>>to take the lane, I have no alternative, and the legal consequences of
>>his action are his to deal with. But a) what's the letter of the law?
>>And b) how should a cop react when he sees this done?
>>
>>In the case I'm visualizing, the road is a residential collector with
>>frequent cross streets. Most of it is 24 feet wide, which (due to low
>>speeds and good pavement) I'm willing to share. But about three
>>(short) blocks drop down to about 20 feet wide - so, two 10 foot lanes
>>where I have to take the lane.
>>
>>Comments? (BTW, I'm assuming Illinois & Ohio are similar.)
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski

>
>
> I'm sure both Ohio and Illinois law on this one is the same since an
> unbroken double yellow line is the USDOT standard lane marking for
> designating no passing zones. Letter of the law- no passing means no
> passing.
> As to B, it's only three short blocks and the driver would be delayed
> for what, an additional 30 to 60 seconds? Speaking only for myself I
> wouldn't hesitate to stop that driver, explain that the bike has as
> much right to the road as they do, and give him or her at least a
> warning. If I thought the warning would be disregarded I'd be reaching
> for a ticket book.
>


Is the marking intended to indicate legally no passing, or is it an
advisement, by the road engineers that it is unsafe to pass. Big
difference, if it's a law that you can't pass, then there would need to
be a law, amendment or bylaw enacted before they can get out the spray
gun. This is because they would need a law or bylaw to charge you under.

W
 
B

Bob

Guest
Charles M wrote:

>
> Hmmmm, well then I must ask, if a motorcycle can not share a lane with a car,
> or be passed by a care in the same lane, then why is OK for a bicycle? From
> the wording, this does not have anything to do with their speed but rather
> avoiding hazards and being visible. I mean, you could make a speed argument,
> but that's not the argument the rules of the road is giving. (admitedly thr
> rules of the road is not the law and probably would not be considered such
> in a court of law, but if that's what it says it's seems to imply bicycle are
> second class citizens).


Bicycles are not citizens. Citizens ride bicycles. That the law
recognizes the difference between cars and bikes doesn't mean the law
relegates cyclists to an inferior status anymore than the law's
recognition that cars and 80,000 lb sixty foot long truck
tractor/semitrailers aren't the same relegates either of their
operators to an inferior status.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
L

Leo Lichtman

Guest
"The Wogster" wrote: (clip) This is because they would need a law or bylaw
to charge you under.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They have it. It is illegal to cross to the left of a double line, and it
is illegal to cross to the left of a double line in which one side is a
series of dashes, if the solid line is on your side. (California Vehicle
Code--I believe all states have adopted similar laws, so that people can
cross state lines without confusion.)
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Bob wrote:

>
> It's not "advice". The lane lines we're talking about are official
> traffic control devices, no different than a stop sign or red light.
> You better get out your rules of the road booklet before the next time
> you have to renew your driving license. <g>
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>


According the the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices at:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part3/part3a.htm

Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations

Markings have limitations. <snip>

The general functions of longitudinal lines are:

1. A double line indicates maximum or special restrictions,
2. A solid line discourages or prohibits crossing (depending
on the specific application),
3. A broken line indicates a permissive condition, and
4. A dotted line provides guidance.


Whereas stop signs and signals are more explicit, lines seem to be
subject to interpretation.

I could not find any NC state statutes that deal with longitudinal
lines, but they certainly exist for other traffic control devices.
Perhaps other states have explict wording regarding line.

Wayne
 
B

Bob

Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:
> I could not find any NC state statutes that deal with longitudinal
> lines, but they certainly exist for other traffic control devices.
> Perhaps other states have explict wording regarding line.
>
> Wayne


Read Sections 20-150 (d) and (e) of Article 3 of NC's statutes.

Regards,
Bob Hunt