FRAP law -- say what?
09-23-11, 02:03 PM
#151
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
anybody that thinks extremely slack legal wrangling about the general SMV-FRAP law wording somehow relieves cyclists from sharing two lane roadways,
please say the word "groundless" while getting a grip.
please say the word "groundless" while getting a grip.
09-23-11, 02:30 PM
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
You are lying. Evidence has been presented to you.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12825841
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...2#post12825862
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12826901
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...4#post12826994
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12825841
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...2#post12825862
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12826901
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...4#post12826994
1 doesn't mention "hand" at all.
2 doesn't mention "hand" at all.
3 is a "road design" manual not a legal or driver guide.The first "right-hand" reference is unusual.
10-2.01 Vehicle Position
The running position for a vehicle on a two-lane roadway will be in the right-hand lane except for
maneuvers. A maneuver is a passing maneuver, change in direction at an intersection or an evasive movement to
avoid contact with anything in its path. On a multi-lane facility the usual running position for a vehicle will be in
the right-hand lane except for passing maneuvers.
The running position for a vehicle on a two-lane roadway will be in the right-hand lane except for
maneuvers. A maneuver is a passing maneuver, change in direction at an intersection or an evasive movement to
avoid contact with anything in its path. On a multi-lane facility the usual running position for a vehicle will be in
the right-hand lane except for passing maneuvers.
One example (in my opinion, it's weak) does not indicate that it's a general usage at all!
Did you even look at the stuff you referenced?
You really should try to understand what is being discussed before you go off and accuse people of lying.
And I pointed out your mistake three months ago!
Close.
It's still not "right HAND" lane.
Keep in mind, too, that Forester's argument presumes that people call the opposite lane the "left hand" lane.
And there are other examples of driver handbooks using the wrong language. (I'm not suggesting that this is an example of that.)
It also ignores the important part of my argument.
It's still not "right HAND" lane.
Keep in mind, too, that Forester's argument presumes that people call the opposite lane the "left hand" lane.
And there are other examples of driver handbooks using the wrong language. (I'm not suggesting that this is an example of that.)
It also ignores the important part of my argument.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-11 at 02:55 PM.
09-23-11, 03:12 PM
#153
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Furthermore, those who wrote the statute did not choose to formally apply such a limit. Again, since they did not, then the general meaning must be applied.
09-23-11, 03:19 PM
#154
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 464
Bikes: Sun EZ-Speedster SX, Volae Expedition
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
3 is a "road design" manual not a legal or driver guide.The first "right-hand" reference is unusual.
4 is the same reference as 3!
One example (in my opinion, it's weak) does not indicate that it's a general usage at all!
4 is the same reference as 3!
One example (in my opinion, it's weak) does not indicate that it's a general usage at all!
Did you even look at the stuff you referenced?
You really should try to understand what is being discussed before you go off and accuse people of lying.
And I pointed out your mistake three months ago!
You really should try to understand what is being discussed before you go off and accuse people of lying.
And I pointed out your mistake three months ago!
09-23-11, 03:21 PM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
is having three lines of traffic side by side on that road, one line of cyclists and two lines of motorists, when we know that most two-lane roads are not sufficiently wide for that to be either safe or lawful.
On the contrary, by my argument, we are giving the overtaking motorist a whole lane to himself in which to overtake. Can't beat that, can one?
09-23-11, 03:38 PM
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
You said "there is no evidence that "right-hand lane" is ever used to refer to the former." There is evidence that it is at least sometimes used to refer to the former, and you are not ignorant of this evidence. There is the lie. You are now moving the goalposts to 'it's not a general usage.' Saying it's not a general usage would not be a lie.
You've shown one (weak) example out of 4.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-11 at 03:56 PM.
09-23-11, 03:40 PM
#157
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
You claim that there is no evidence that the phrase "right-hand lane" has ever been used to refer to one lane of a two-lane road. But your argument has even less support, in that there is no evidence that the phrase has ever been limited to apply to only multi-lane roads. If that phrase is supposed to be so strictly limited, then it can only be so limited if there is evidence that this limitation was applied with respect to traffic law. In the absence of such a specific limitation, the general meaning of the phrase must be applied, which is to the right-hand lane of any number of lanes, from two to as many lanes as roads have.
Furthermore, those who wrote the statute did not choose to formally apply such a limit. Again, since they did not, then the general meaning must be applied.
Furthermore, those who wrote the statute did not choose to formally apply such a limit. Again, since they did not, then the general meaning must be applied.
You've changed your mind about it but you haven't explained why you changed your mind.
You have two rather different interpretations of the same "quite simple" wording.
Either the words are not "quite simple" or you need to make a better argument about why the latest interpretation is the correct one.
Otherwise, people will wonder whether you are going to recant other things you are as equally adamant about!
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-11 at 03:53 PM.
09-23-11, 04:04 PM
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your current interpretation doesn't make sense. It leads to a logical absurdity.
You've changed your mind about it but you haven't explained why you changed your mind.
You have two rather different interpretations of the same "quite simple" wording.
Either the words are not "quite simple" or you need to make a better argument about why the latest interpretation is the correct one.
Otherwise, people will wonder whether you are going to recant other things you are as equally adamant about!
You've changed your mind about it but you haven't explained why you changed your mind.
You have two rather different interpretations of the same "quite simple" wording.
Either the words are not "quite simple" or you need to make a better argument about why the latest interpretation is the correct one.
Otherwise, people will wonder whether you are going to recant other things you are as equally adamant about!
You claim that applying the phrase "right-hand lane" to a two-lane road produces a logical absurdity. What is that absurdity, and, if it is a valid objection, why do you suppose that those who wrote the statute included such a logical absurdity.
09-23-11, 04:18 PM
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
We've had that discussion multiple times. There's a search feature available to find it.
If your current interpretation is so obvious, this really doesn't explain the first mistake.
Please identify the other places where you might have done the same thing!
Your interpretation leads to the logical absurdity.
=================
Here's an extensive source that strongly implies your original position.
https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
I adopted it from somebody else without applying sufficient skeptical analysis to it. And I think that I was never very adamant about it, certainly not in the way that I am adamant about the current interpretation that fits standard legal analysis and also fits the engineering facts.
Please identify the other places where you might have done the same thing!
=================
Here's an extensive source that strongly implies your original position.
https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
You may use the left lane (when there is more than one lane in your direction) to pass. You may or may not be able to use the left lane when not passing. The table below describes the law in effect in each state
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-11 at 04:39 PM.
09-23-11, 04:46 PM
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 464
Bikes: Sun EZ-Speedster SX, Volae Expedition
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I assert that there is no legal definition anywhere in the United States differentiating between the two. Regular dictionaries would work.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-hand
The 'right-hand' lane means the same thing as the 'right' lane. It's the one on the right.
When the NYS driver's manual is summarizing the NY turning laws the manual freely substitutes the synonymous 'left lane' where the law says 'left-hand lane.'
NY Vehicle and Traffic Law:
https://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LA...0$$@TXVAT01160
NYS DMV manual:
https://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/broch/MV21.pdf - page 48
Left lane is synonymous with left-hand lane. Right lane is synonymous with right-hand lane.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-hand
adjective
1. on the right.
1. on the right.
When the NYS driver's manual is summarizing the NY turning laws the manual freely substitutes the synonymous 'left lane' where the law says 'left-hand lane.'
NY Vehicle and Traffic Law:
§ 1160. Required position and method of turning at intersections. The
driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as
follows:
...
(c) Left turns on other than two-way roadways. At any intersection
where traffic is restricted to one direction on one or more of the
roadways, the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any such
intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand
lane of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the
direction of travel of such vehicle or, where travel on the shoulder or
slope has been authorized, from the shoulder or slope, and after
entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the
intersection, as nearly as practicable, in the left-hand lane lawfully
available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being
entered.
driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as
follows:
...
(c) Left turns on other than two-way roadways. At any intersection
where traffic is restricted to one direction on one or more of the
roadways, the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any such
intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand
lane of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the
direction of travel of such vehicle or, where travel on the shoulder or
slope has been authorized, from the shoulder or slope, and after
entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the
intersection, as nearly as practicable, in the left-hand lane lawfully
available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being
entered.
NYS DMV manual:
LEFT TURN FROM ONE-WAY ROAD
INTO ONE-WAY ROAD:
Prepare to turn by getting into the left
lane, or the left side of a single lane, as
close as possible to the left curb or edge
of the road. If the road you enter has two
lanes, you must turn into its left lane.
LEFT TURN FROM ONE-WAY ROAD
INTO TWO-WAY ROAD:
Approach the turn in the left lane
or from the left side of a single lane. As
you cross the intersection, enter the
two-way road to the right of its center
line, but as close as possible to the
center line. Be alert for traffic...
INTO ONE-WAY ROAD:
Prepare to turn by getting into the left
lane, or the left side of a single lane, as
close as possible to the left curb or edge
of the road. If the road you enter has two
lanes, you must turn into its left lane.
LEFT TURN FROM ONE-WAY ROAD
INTO TWO-WAY ROAD:
Approach the turn in the left lane
or from the left side of a single lane. As
you cross the intersection, enter the
two-way road to the right of its center
line, but as close as possible to the
center line. Be alert for traffic...
Left lane is synonymous with left-hand lane. Right lane is synonymous with right-hand lane.
09-23-11, 04:49 PM
#161
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,699 Times
in
2,519 Posts
this doesn't have to be personal. Take the personal stuff to trollheim
closed
closed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
The Human Car
Advocacy & Safety
10
06-16-11 06:33 AM
