deputyjones

I JUST told you that is not the case, and gave a specific example from MI law. There is no "exhibition of power" statute in MI.

noisebeam

What about waste of finite resource?
Or reckless (which is what you use it sounds like)?
Al

deputyjones

Here is the MI statute that does not describe a specific action:

natelutkjohn

Oh, don't feel bad, if it doesn't help his cause, it must be due to "cyclist inferiority"

deputyjones

That is correct, Al

Helmet Head

What you gave was an example of a behavior that is illegal because a law says it is illegal, which makes my point.

The "Careless", "Reckless", and "Felonious" driving statutes specifically and others more generally are what makes doing donuts illegal.

Get it?

pj7

No use man.
I've been on hundreds of message boards over the years and every one of them has their own laywer wannabes, can you guess who the one here is.
It's even been pointed out to him how his assumption can be incorrect but he throws up his wall of words to defend it.
I'm sure the first person convicted of beastiality wasn't breaking a law either, but thanks to the case law way things are handled here he did time in jail and then a law was enacted.
I've already given up on this thread.
Now I'm off to comit a nonillegal *thing*.

galen_52657

Unlikely......

Helmet Head

And there is the law that makes doing donuts illegal.

No one said anything about a specific action having to be called out specifically in that law in order to make the action illegal. If that's what you think I meant, please tell me what words I wrote that caused you to have such an absurd interpretation, so I can fix it.

joejack951

You said previously:

And then:

Based on this statement, you seem to be distinguishing between "passing a line of stopped traffic" and "passing on the right" and maybe it's just me, but the only distinguishing feature between the two is that one is stopped and the other isn't. You made no mention of "while in the same lane."

Now, reread the Michigan law. Nowhere does it state that the lines of traffic must be in marked lanes (whereas Delaware's vehicle code does make this distinction if the road is not a one way roadway). I commented on this and it seems that you ignored it or didn't notice. What's your interpreation of "substantially continuous lanes of traffic?" If you read this as "lanes of traffic" why do you think they bothered to make the distinction? As I said before, I believe they are saying that the pavement width has to be consistent to allow for substantially continuous use, not that it must actually be marked for individual lanes. I could be wrong though.

Helmet Head

And of course he picked something to do with donuts for his example.

noisebeam

Thats right. The real laywers on the board would interpret the law just posted as:
"257.626b Careless AND negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.

Sec. 626b.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway AND a frozen public lake, stream, AND pond AND other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless AND negligent manner likely to endanger any person AND property, but without wantonness AND recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction."



Al

Helmet Head

Cya

deputyjones

Not really an absurd interpretation since the discussion was in regards to a specific action of filtering in traffic. My point was that just because there is no law in MI that says you may not does not mean you necessarily may.

And Galen you can climb back into HH's designer pet carrier anytime.

and I used the donuts reference on purpose Glad you caught it.

galen_52657

I am only here for the donuts...

pj7

You're right, I did overlook that point in your statement.
As for where I was talking about "in the same lane" and such it was in the previous posts that started this entire discussion. Maybe you didn't see those, as there has been at least a full page of posts since then so it is likely. But back when I made the first comments, I made it clear to everyone in the discussion at the time that I was talking about passing a line of stopped cars while in the same lane, and passing on the right.

joejack951

Man, it's tough to keep up with these threads. Al posted in reply to my original statement and was spot on with my intent. I personally rarely hear "get on the sidewalk." As sad as it may be, I often (weekly) get gestures from passing drivers waving their hands to the right telling me where I should be riding. This happens both on narrow lane roads and on wider roads where I am avoiding right turn lanes. Just tonight, I had some teenager pass me on the right using a right turn lane while pointing to the right turn lane like that was where I should be. Of course this is all happening while we are approaching a red light.

In my experience, the notion that cyclists should stay to the right of any line seperating the main traffic lanes (not including turn lanes) from the rest of the roadway is the cause of much more harassment than the notion that cyclists shouldn't be on the road at all.

pj7

How about you little rant on eating broccoli being illegal?
That points out a "specific" thing as being illegal.
Don't do the John Kerry flip flop thing on us now.

joejack951

I've read the entire thread and understand the difference between passing on the right in a seperate lane and passing on the right in the same lane. My question to you is: where does the Michigan code state that the vehicles must be in seperate lanes? Also, if you interpret "substantially continuous lanes of traffic" as meaning "seperate lanes for traffic" why do you think they made the distinction in this law? For the record, I don't believe that Michigan means "seperate lanes for traffic" when they state "substantially continuous lanes of traffic."

deputyjones

Actually HH is more the Rush Limbaugh of BF. If you can't win the argument just insult them.

pj7

Of course we were just using Michigan as an example here. And I'm not necessarily interpeting anything here. It's the people who try to "interpet" laws just so they could do something in order to avoid something that everyone else is part of that are the ones standing in front of a judge trying to show why they played lawyer instead of playing it safe.

Here is the relevant part in the Michigan Vehicle code that pertains to passing traffic on the right. Of course it is not clear, at least not as clear as people would like it to be.

(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by
parked vehicles of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles
in each direction and when the vehicles are moving in substantially
continuous lanes of traffic.

You'll see in the snippet that it says "and when the vehicles are moving" as well as "continuous lanes of traffic".
Nowhere do I see it saying anything about sharing a lane.
I was looking for something telling me it was legal to pass on the right in the same lane, and as of yet I haven't been shown that.

pj7

JF himself resorted to that earlier in this thread.
Like Father like son.

chipcom 

Incorrect. I've posted my suspicions before. HH is:

pj7

Actually, we have a cop in here right now, we can just ask him.
Deputy Jones. What would you do if.
You saw two lanes of traffic sitting at a stop light. The outside lane is wide enough for two cars but is not marked as an extra lane. So there are only two marked lanes for traffic. Someone in the right lane pulls to the right, passes all the other traffic and waits at the head of the line right next to the lead car in the right lane. The light goes green. The impatient driver then gives it the gas and pulls in ahead of the lead car.
What would you do as a police officer on patrol?
Now imageine that the impatient car filters up to the front, and while the light is still green he turns left in front of the lead car and is now the lead car himself. The light goes green and they all take off.
what would you do then?

joejack951

(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction and when the vehicles are moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic.

What part of the bolded text says that you must be in a different lane? Seems pretty clear to me that they are just saying you need to stay on the pavement to pass on the right.