SHA's proposed amendment ____ cyclists over the original text (ref: Right-of-way in a bike lane law)

1/1: SHA's proposed amendment ____ cyclists over the original text (ref: Right-of-way in a bike lane law)

really helps
0.00%
does some good for
33.33%
does nothing for or against
0.00%
does some harm for
0.00%
really mucks things up for
66.67%
Other polls | 3 votes | 2 Comments
  • SHA's proposed amendment ____ cyclists over the original text (ref: Right-of-way in a bike lane law)
  • 2 comments
Login required to comment
How is this a problem? The only differences that I can determine are: 1. The proposed changes allow for the possibility of non-motor vehicles (i.e., bicycles) not using the bike lane. In such a case the right-of-way goes to the rider in the bike lane, which is reasonable. 2. The bike lane does not confer any additional right-of-way to a cyclist coming up on an intersection. This, too, is reasonable, and probably safer as well. Does the SHA have any comments on this change? Why did they not like the original wording? What are they trying to accomplish with the new version? This I would like to know. L. Peterson
Re:2) What are they trying to accomplish with the new version? I have been trying to get Martin Harris 410-859-6870 on the phone for the past couple of days to comment on the language and so far no response. I Talked to the State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access about the wording and he was ether unable or unwilling to explain what problem SHA is trying to fix with the additional wording.