On Dec 16, 2008, at 6:27 PM, "Wyatt" <wyattw@jps.net> wrote:
> ...I was merely trying to point out that even when motorists are =20
> patient and do
> pass safely, they may be exposing themselves to a ticket.
Most places, a double yellow line expressly takes away the privilege =20
of crossing into an oncoming lane to pass REGARDLESS of whether it is =20=
"safe" to do so (by which I'm guessing you mean when the passing =20
vehicle's driver felt there was no oncoming traffic). They put those =20=
lines there to tell you they don't want you deciding there isn't =20
going to be a car coming at you, hence their common use on hills and =20
curves, as well as straightaways where you might be tempted to pass, =20
but not be able to get back in lane in time to avoid crashing with an =20=
oncoming car =97 OR the vehicle you are passing, by cutting back into =20=
an occupied space. Especially where it is unsafe to pass, it is =20
unsafe to pass a cyclist. When a cyclist has to "take the lane," it =20
is MOST likely there is also a double yellow telling EVERYONE that =20
passing is unsafe.
Personally, I feel safer where there are no double yellow lines. =20
That's where I most often experience motorists enraged at having to =20
wait behind me because I've had to take the lane because it isn't =20
safe for them to pass me, and self-destructively crossing the double =20
yellow on a hill, around a curve (often both), accelerating, and =20
clueless that they are endangering me, themselves, and any unknowing =20
innocent oncoming driver. More than a few times, one has slowed =20
abreast of me to open the window and shout curses at me while looking =20=
at me, not the limited-vision road ahead.
This is madness. I don't think it is helped by a suggestion that =20
crossing a double yellow line is legal. Even if it IS legal =20
somewhere, it is terminally unsafe.
Dante
