http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf (PDF)
Page 46 of the file:
Missed the edit window. However, this Supreme Court opinion (PDF) makes it sound like it’s not certain that it’s actually required.
It seems like sounding one’s horn prior to passing would be counterintuitive. When you are behind someone and you honk you horn, especially travelling high speeds on an expressway, chances are you may cause the person to suddenly swerve over one way or another-as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. The chances may not be that greatbut they seem greater than if no horn was sounded in the first place.
If the point is to ensure that the driver ahead of the passer stays in their respective lane; why would you perform an action likely to provoke lane change? Especially if the majority of people on the road are unaware of any such law existing in the first place. They hear a horn, they have no idea it is signaling a lane change.
Quoth elmwood:
Phrased that way, it sounds silly, but the three images you linked make it clear: They have to have the word “operator” right after the name of the company that operates the vehicle.
Oh, and the horn before passing also makes sense. The purpose of the horn is to alert other drivers to the presence of your vehicle. Once they’re alert to your presence, then they should pay attention and take whatever action is appropriate.
“HONK”
“Hm, there’s someone behind me who wants my attention. What do they want? Oh, it looks like they’re passing me. OK, then, I should stay in my lane”.
Pointless no turn on red signs. I understand them when visibility to the left is poor. This city (Minneapolis) has too many where visibility to the right is just fine and oncoming traffic can be seen for blocks.
I know I’ve seen school buses with two company names on the side. ( I don’t know what the second name was- could have been a school or camp. or it could have been the company which owned the bus)It makes sense to require the display to specify which company actually operates the bus
Just like the mother spots at Babies R Us, those spaces aren’t enforceable by law.
I’m no expert in the law, but can’t the owners of private property set any rules they want? Couldn’t I say that the left side of my driveway is only for parking by people over 6’4" tall with Scottish heritage? If someone else parked there, couldn’t I call a tow company and have their vehicle towed off of my private property – or call the police and ask that they be charged with trespassing?
I’m sure you could. But it’s not enforceable by law. If a lone male parks in a “Mothers Only” spot directly in front of a cop, the cop can’t do shit until the store complains.
Secondly, even though a store does have that right, how often do you think they use it? Towing people in front of your regularly for not following the stupid signs will create a lot of ill will, and eventually, lost sales.
Even then, the cop couldn’t do shit, other than escort you off of the property if the store decides to ban you. And if it’s a strip mall, one single store probably can’t ban you.
I had a run in with a stupid, kid, rent-a-cop at a store in Las Vagas in July. Skipping the details, he threatened to call “the metro” on me (not a subway company; apparently that’s what they call the sheriff’s department) for taking a photograph. Funny, him. Store policies aren’t laws. The only thing they can do is ban you from their premises, and ban you from the property if not in common with other stores. The only thing the police can enforce is trespassing, and only after notice. Since I was leaving Cardenas market with no intention of ever coming back, trespassing wasn’t even an issue.
(Of course I’m not poor, Mexican, immigrant trash, and I know my rights, which didn’t sit well with the kid. When I called his bluff and commented to my wife (a non-poor, non-trash, legal, Mexican immigrant) that she should just ignore the “power-hungry but impotent kid,” he started to get violent. Man, I wish he would have hit me.)
Amen.
Emphasis mine - that is so often forgotten, under the assumption that it has evolved into a hostile “hey, dumbass!” signal.
Also, one must bear in mind those rules date back to the time before divided freeways were as common. In the divided freeway either it’s incumbent upon the driver to stay off the passing lane unless actually passing or “a reasonable person” should expect traffic overtaking him more or less continuously and be always on the lookout; but in a rural 2-lane where normally there is NOT traffic going past you in the same direction on the left (right if in the UK), when you pull into the opposing lane you honk (or flash your lights) so as to alert the person in front that something different from normal is happening. A similar rule around here is that we should sound our horn (or if at night, flash our hi/lo beams) when coming upon a blind curve/crest in a rural road (in practice it has been mostly abandoned except for heavy rigs).
In Tasmania, learner drivers, and those in the first year after passing their tests are restricted to 80kph on roads where the normal speed limit is 100. I spent a fun 2 hour trip with a new driver, going down wide country roads where 100k would have been fine, but there wasn’t quite enough space between the bends for the pissed off line of guys stuck behind him to pass.
Great law!
cite (pdf warning)
Ohio Revised Code 4511.27.
Would appear that sounding the horn when passing on the left is determined by the type of road. Highways and roads of four or more lanes do not require an audible signal when passing.
Not that anybody honks when passing anyways.
Artificially low speed limits (i.e. 25 mph on a 4 lane road with a median) are just a place for cops to hang out and harvest $. Also speed bumps on suburban streets…where does your desire to reduce speed trump one’s desire not to have their shocks worn out?
Ditto on the useless not turn on reds.
Now for the biggie…the yield for pedestrians in crosswalk laws that have been cropping up are a recipe for disaster. It’s engendering jaywalking, not making streets safer. People are taking advantage of the new laws in heinous ways, i.e. sauntering out into crosswalks against the light without even looking (usually while talking on their cell phone or blissed out on their iPods). Hey, I want to ensure pedestrian safety as much as anyone, but I think it’s only fair if you bust jaywalkers just as much as drivers. They should at least suspend that regulation during rush hour, when there’s tons of traffic, and you aren’t able to see the jaywalkers as easily.
Technically pedestrians don’t have the right of way if the light is against them (New York, anyway). However I live in a college town and the students are oblivious to traffic when walking.
Suppose you’ve had one too many at happy hour, and you decide to sleep it off in your car. From what I’ve been told you can get a DWI doing this, and if correct it truly is a nonsensical law.
(ps- please folks, enough of the handicap parking discussion. It’s been driven into the ground. What the heck is wrong with walking a few more steps from a space further down the lot; exercise is good.)
In NYC I hated that cars would drive across crosswalks even when pedestrians were crossing. There didn’t seem much point in the crosswalks except as places where pedestrians would gather like herd animals where only the ones on the outside would get the major injuries. OK,that’s an exaggeration, but ‘walk’ should mean ‘walk,’ not ‘dodge the cars.’
I agree about some of the speed bumps. Going along them repeatedly was hell when I had morning sickness.
This is correct, of course may vary by state. There was a story in the paper not too long ago about a guy who went out to his car after leaving the bar, put his keys in the ignition but did not start the vehicle, then laid down in the seat and went to sleep. Police came about later, tapped on the glass, roused him, then gave him a breathalyzer. He was charged with a DUI, and I believe it was upheld.
The trick is to put the keys in the glove compartment and pass out in the back seat, thereby not being in a position to operate the vehicle.