At 1:25 PM -0500 9/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Someone said "now we at least have technically a more correct answer". I >beg to differ. It's more confusing to me now than ever.
I agree, I found the 'clarification' to be lacking in clarity. >> Essentially, the law states that bicyclists may not "impede" the >> normal flow of traffic by their actions. If they are traveling >> slower than the normal speed of traffic, they are required to ride >> as close as practicable to the right-hand curb, she said. > >What if there is not enough space between the vehicles parked along the >street and the live flow of traffic to accomodate bicyclists (such as on >Midvale Blvd. where cars are parked)? Their only choice is to ride in >the live lane of 30 (+) MPH traffic, or ride on the sidewalk. Well, in the case of Midvale, a passing lane is available, so there is no legal argument that a cyclist is impeding traffic. Impatient motorists, however, will see things differently. >> >> If there is more than one lane of traffic, bicycles must ride in the >> right-most lane. > >What if they want to turn left? Strictly speaking, the statement should include 'unless they are turning left'. Impatient motorists, however, will see things differently -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Darin Burleigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
