Or do we prefer INVISIBLE IDIOT?
After seeing quite a few cyclists out tonight without lights, I suddenly got an awesome idea for a lights-at-night propaganda poster. With, okay, an insulting edge, but these people really make me nuts. Riding a lightless bike at night wearing black clothing is just dumb. Especially when you’re riding on the Caltrain platform. Do not run into me with your invisible bike when I’m wearing a yellow vest and showing a bright white light.
Picture a nearly invisible cyclist-shaped black blotch on a slightly lighter background, captioned LOLcat-style: INVISIBLE NITWIT. For a less insulting edge, we could go with INVISIBLE CYCLIST. Think the SVBC will go for it?
On a more serious note, here’s a question: how do you handle bidirectional turn lanes where it’s entirely possible for two people going the opposite direction to both be aiming to stop at the same spot in order to turn left? It’s not always easy to tell where someone’s going to stop. Obviously the thing to do safety-wise is watch carefully, slow down, and prepare to stop, but what are the right-of-way issues?
Right-of-way is the same as for any vehicle on the road: anyone intending to turn to the left should yield to oncoming vehicles that are within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
I would interpret that as you said to watch carefully, slow down, etc.. I’d let an approaching cyclist turn first because I’m very cautious that way — and it’s habit from years of being a pedestrian.
Comment by Melissa (oddharmonic) — January 16, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
See, but the problem is that both vehicles are intending to turn left (using the same lane, just going opposite directions), so neither has more ‘oncoming vehicle within the intersection’ status.
Comment by Alexis — January 26, 2008 @ 7:40 am