Re: Kansas "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ..."
Toby On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, "Paul Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. >> >> > >> >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, >> >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a >> >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? >> >> >> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: >> >> >> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles >> >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no >> >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public >> >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission >> >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or >> >> sign." >> > >> > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting >> > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging >> > is never bad). >> > >> >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be >> >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I >> >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And >> >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive >> >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my >> >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. >> > >> > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, >> > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except >> > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a >> > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt >> > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous >> > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. >> >> The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on >> public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I >> can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. > > Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and > Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in > that state for some reason). >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
