What does "a combination of vehicles" mean in this context? Does that mean a pick-up truck towing a boat? Or a semi (tractor and trailer)? Or a bunch of tailgating cars all trying to go through at the same time?
And doesn't the with due regard for all other traffic part sort of mean that they can't deviate from their lane if someone is already there? Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) [email protected] All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or any other group with which I am affiliated. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Clayton Griessmeyer via Bikies < [email protected]> wrote: > Speaking of worse proposals. How about this one that just got passed. > Now drivers of large vehicles can deviate from their lane before and at > roundabouts, and the little people have to yield the right of way. > > > > An Act to create 346.13 (5) and 346.18 (8) of the statutes; relating to: > right-of-way in roundabouts. > > The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, > do enact as follows: > > Section 1. 346.13 (5) of the statutes is created to read: > > 346.13 (5) Notwithstanding sub. (1), the operator of a vehicle or > combination of vehicles with a total length of not less than 40 feet or a > total width of not less than 10 feet may, with due regard for all other > traffic, deviate from the lane in which the operator is driving to the > extent necessary to approach and drive through a roundabout. > > Section 2. 346.18 (8) of the statutes is created to read: > > 346.18 (8) Roundabout. (a) The operator of a vehicle shall yield the > right-of-way to any vehicle or combination of vehicles with a total length > of not less than 40 feet or a total width of not less than 10 feet when > approaching or driving through a roundabout at approximately the same time > or so closely as to constitute a hazard of collision and, if necessary, > shall reduce speed or stop in order to so yield. > > (b) If 2 vehicles or combinations of vehicles each having a total length > of not less than 40 feet or a total width of not less than 10 feet approach > or drive through a roundabout at approximately the same time or so closely > as to constitute a hazard of collision, the operator of the vehicle or > combination of vehicles on the right shall yield the right-of-way to the > vehicle or combination of vehicles on the left and, if necessary, shall > reduce speed or stop in order to so yield. > > > > > > *From:* Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John > Wagnitz via Bikies > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:32 PM > *To:* Brian Mink <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] No counterflow lane on the Square > > > > I agree with Brian. I like contra flow lanes as much as the next person > but there are much worse proposals moving through the Legislature. For > instance, today, the Assembly is taking up Assembly Bill (AB) 563, which > will let Dane County towns opt out of countywide zoning ordinances, AB 600 > and AB 603 that further erodes local control of shoreland zoning > ordinances. These bills are part of a package of "gifts" to developers and > realtors that will be taken up in the last days of legislative session that > will do more harm for bicycling in Dane County and Wisconsin. > > It seems that people don't know, don't care or care and focus on small > battles when such larger threats are coming. > > Fred Risser is one of the most supportive legislators bicyclists have ever > had. He is NOT the problem. > > John > > > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Brian Mink via Bikies < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Look, my point is, if planners did not go out of their way to enlist the > support of Fred Risser, then they missed an opportunity and likely made a > tactical error. So, they weren't invited or were discouraged from attending > a meeting ! What's wrong with an office visit or phone call. Seems like a > blunder viewing it as a relative outsider. > > On Feb 9, 2016, Peter Gray via Bikies <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just sent this email. Thank you Grant Foster for finding the SCERB > purpose in WI state statutes. > > > > Feel free to borrow from this in writing your own email. > > > > Peter > > > > ================================== > > > > To: > > [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected] > > > > Subject: Disappointed by SCERB veto of contra-flow lane on Mifflin St. > > > > Just want to express disappointment in SCERB's vote against a bicycle > contra-flow lane on Mifflin St. alongside the Capitol building in Madison. > > > > I understand that Madison city planners were disc ouraged from attending > SCERB's recent meeting, and thus were not able to explain the contra-flow > lane and why it is needed. This traffic engineering decision seems outside > SCERB's expertise and purpose "to direct the continuing and consistent > maintenance of the property, decorative furniture and furnishings of the > capitol and executive residence." > > > > Currently, people ride bicycles on the Mifflin Street sidewalk on Capitol > Square because there isn't a safer and more convenient way for them to > cross the Square eastbound between State Street and East Mifflin, two > heavily used bicycle corridors. A contra-flow lane would have addressed > this issue. > > > > I hope SCERB will reconsider this wrong call. > > > > Thank you, > Peter Gray > [street address, city] > > > > On Tue , Feb 9, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Paul T. O'Leary via Bikies < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 2016/02/09 07:43, Robbie Webber via Bikies wrote: > > > It should be noted that City of Madison staff were not allowed to testify > or even attend the meeting where the vote was taken, so no "convincing" was > possible. > > And Fred is not a transportaron bicyclist. He only rides recreationally. > > Second point is underscored by the Senator's reference, multiple times, to > "against traffic". Um, NO, Senator, use of a counterflow lane is not > "against" traffic; it IS traffic. If the "against traffic" argument were > valid, there wouldn't be so many counterflow lanes in use today, including > several around the Square. The unfortunate thing is, Sen. Risser is > probably seen as "the bike guy" on this committee, making this an even > harder ship to turn around. > > Re. testifying/attending the meeting, isn't that at the very least a > violation of the open meetings law? Shouldn't any citizen have been allowed > to testify, or at least attend? > > -- > Paul T. O'Leary > Chronic Nuisance > Madison, WI USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > -- Sent with *K-@ Mail* > <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onegravity.k10.pro2> - > the evolution of emailing. > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
