Regular buses have to also.
Which also makes no sense to me.
When the buses do it, they open the doors, maybe to make Sure nothings coming.
Abosulutely! Splitting and filtering made so much sense when I was working in Europe and saw it all over. After the year-round beautiful weather that lead the list of reasons to move to Santa Barbara, lane splitting was surely somewhere in the rest of the top ten.
So that’s my change to the laws. Universal lane-splitting. If not that, then some sort of technology to make it impossible to see or operate a mobile phone while driving.
One thing that’s always bothered me is that a person riding a motorcycle can be convicted of DUI. Even a bicyclist can be convicted of DUI, at least in Ohio, which makes zero sense to me. So I would be tempted to decriminalize the riding of a motorcycle while under the influence as long as they’re alone on the bike. (Can someone offer a good counterargument?) At the very least, I would definitely decriminalize the riding of a bicycle while under the influence as long as they’re alone on the bike.
Back in 1975 some people wanted a law passed, so they called their congressman, and he said “You’re right, there ought to be a law…”
I’m trying to figure what your argument is to decriminalize it in the first place. A drunk motorcyclist could easily kill someone.
Yeah, this. A drunk on a bicycle is less of a threat, because if they’re really drunk, it’s probably hard to ride fast enough to hurt someone else. A motorcycle, though, does all the work for the drunk. Slamming into a person or another vehicle at 100 km/hr will mess up everyone’s day, even if the drunk gets the worst of it.
But this is America, land of liability. Some hiker trespasses on your land and a tree branch falls on their head or they step in a hole and break their ankle. They can sue you and might win themselves a large judgment. Simpler and easier to post your land “No Trespassing” because it helps shield you from idiots who could cause you to lose your land from having to pay off a liability claim.
As far as the bicycle in Ohio goes, that’s because the statute there is called “Operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs - OVI” which does not refer either driving or “motor vehicles”. There is a separate law defining vehicles as basically anything that operates on wheels including motorized bicycles ( which are not considered motor vehicles). I’m not sure why riding ( not operating) a motorcycle while under the influence is a criminal offense (although I couldn’t find a cite for anywhere that it actually is an offense- but as far as the bicycle ( or skateboard, for that matter) goes , there really isn’t anyone on the road who can only hurt themself - bicyclists can injure or even kill pedestrians. Even pedestrians can endanger others - if a pedestrian pops out from between two parked cars , a driver trying to avoid the pedestrian may end up in an accident that injures the driver. (rear ended, or car smashes into parked car or building as a result of trying to avoid the pedestrian ) or even a third person. But it’s kind of impossible to make it illegal to walk under the influence.
That was one advantage of horses as transportation. No matter how plastered the human in charge is, horses have built-in navigation and collision avoidance. Much safer.
Really?
When i was a kid, i rode my bicycle across a street, popping out from between two parked cars. I thought the street was one way, and only looked in that direction, and there was a car coming, but i had time to beat it across the street.
Except there was also a car, much closer, coming from the other direction. It swerved to avoid me, and crashed head on into the other car. I saw the car at the last minute, and leapt off the bicycle, which was good, because the car did hit my bicycle despite swerving.
The cars weren’t traveling quickly, and i was the only person injured. But both (old, cheap) cars were totaled. My bicycle also lost the front fork and wheel.
Anyway … Yeah, i don’t think you should be riding a bike on public roads when you are drunk. Also, what i did was really stupid.
Good point, though I think the risk of a motorcyclist causing harm to someone else must be significantly less than someone operating a full-size vehicle. At any rate, I still think a bicyclist shouldn’t be charged with a full-blown DUI. Make it a minor misdemeanor.
I think that actually riding bicycles should be a chargeable offense if you’re drunk, especially if you endanger others (which is harder to do than on a bike, albeit totally possible as others have pointed out.)
However, being charged with DUI while walking a bicycle because you’re drunk is a bridge too far for me. I’m not even quite sure that getting charged with DUI while sitting in a car outside of the driver’s seat should be charged, but the consequences for changing your mind and driving nonetheless when you are behind the wheel of an auto are much worse than the same on a bicycle.
These kind of rules are always written in blood. A 1938 bus-train crash killed 27 children and the bus driver.
I think every time I’ve noticed it, if the green arrow is on, the red hand (do not walk) is on for pedestrians who would have been crossing. The green walking man doesn’t come on until the green turn arrow is off. The way you’ve described it (unless I’m completely misunderstanding what you’re describing) sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Yeah, it’s called a “protected turn arrow” for a reason, at least around here. Having a green turn arrow and the pedestrian signal NOT be a “don’t walk” signal is completely unexpected to me. I cannot believe that was the intended design.
Not a new law, per se, but how about enforcing TURN SIGNAL rules.
Around here, it’s definitely NOT the norm to use them. We snarl “What? is your car ouf of blinker fluid??” every time we see cars turning, changing lanes etc.
How about equipping cars with dissolvable caltrops that can be sprayed behind you if someone is tailgating. Small ones. It’ll give the car several slow flats - you don’t want to blow out the tires, after all - that’d be unsafe, and they need to be quick dissolving so you don’t mess up the next car behind that one.
How about requiring cars (especially ones sold in colder climes) to have some kind of heating unit on all flat surfaces. I nearly lost a windshield once when some dumb woman in a huge SUV above me sent a huge sheet of ice and snow aloft and into my windshield. We were stopped at a light right after that, and I ran up and let her know what she’d done, hence my knowing the driver was female. Here’s a hint: if you cannot reach the roof of your car to clear the snow off, your car is too big for you.
Or, alternatively, if you’re too lazy to clean your car, you’re legally required to pay the extra it costs to store it in a garage all winter.