Driving out the Sumner Tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3632875,-71.0541946,3a,57.9y,228.08h,73.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDhg-RdsV2kNzL3IF4V-Ysg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Boston a few weeks ago, and thru the LIE leaving from Stony Brook (EXAMPLES: 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8052213,-73.2561382,3a,75y,265.68h,74.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWkD75YWDC4lXkckTIius6A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.804789,-73.2638523,3a,22.8y,264.95h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbaRNujKbrxcyTJlahUvNGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) in New York back in February, I saw some double white lines that had a broken segment on one side and a solid segment on the other, similar to how a variant of double yellow lines on two-lane highways (single carriageway) permit overtaking on one direction on the broken side only.
Do these lines have the same meaning as if they were yellow, meaning
lane changes are only permitted on the broken end, or does the solid portion
discourage, but permit lane changes? I want to take a guess and say the first option however unless I'm not looking hard enough, trying to find an actual statute regarding that came up inconclusive. I did find these, which suggest crossing a solid white line is discouraged, but not prohibited:
Quote from: Massachusetts Drivers Manual, Page 91
White Lane Lines
White lane lines separate lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. Single white lines may also mark the right edge of the pavement.
Solid White Line
A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic going the same direction, including bicycle lanes. You can go in the same direction on both sides of this line (except the shoulder), but you should not cross it unless you need to avoid danger.
Quote from: New York Drivers Manual, Page 31
One solid line: You can pass other vehicles or change lanes, but you can only do so when obstructions in the road or traffic conditions make it necessary.
I've only seen these in Hawaii, but yes, they do act exactly like the yellow lines. You can pass over the broken line to get out of your lane, but not the solid line. It is supposed to help encourage people to get out of a lane and keep others from merging in, I usually saw it just after an on-ramp.
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 22, 2020, 12:24:41 PM
I've only seen these in Hawaii, but yes, they do act exactly like the yellow lines. You can pass over the broken line to get out of your lane, but not the solid line. It is supposed to help encourage people to get out of a lane and keep others from merging in, I usually saw it just after an on-ramp.
I seem to recall a similar use somewhere in the continental US but am unable to recall where. I would be happy to see it used more often rather than the current design in some places where the lines seem to permit merging in a very small area (usually leading to a lot of people cutting across the gore area if there is someone who can't find the gas pedal in front on the ramp).
There used to be one example on I-287 NB at the interchange with I-78. Too bad it's gone now.
My hunch is that there is no legal definition for this type of lane marking. There's probably an intent but not an official meaning.
Quote from: kphoger on November 22, 2020, 04:16:53 PM
My hunch is that there is no legal definition for this type of lane marking. There's probably an intent but not an official meaning.
I thought there was some definition for this. But I actually couldn't find any in the MUTCD (Chapter 3B makes mention of double solid white lines, but not a solid and broken combo). I also didn't find anything in the Nevada DMV's driver handbook, and the NRS doesn't really define meanings of pavement markings. That said, I still think it's a good idea in limited applications.
I realise you are probably after US-specific legislation, but for parties to the Vienna Convention that type of line is clear in meaning regardless of it being white or yellow:
Quote from: Vienna Convention Article 263. Where a longitudinal marking consists of a continuous line adjacent to a broken line on the carriageway, drivers shall take account only of the line that appears on their side. This provision shall not prevent drivers who have overtaken in the manner permitted from resuming their normal position on the carriageway.
And solid line = no crossing while broken line = allowed.
The NJ Tpike used to have this type of striping on most of the exits, however, they seem to have been removed. The stripes permitted you to enter the exiting lane until just before the gore, but you were prohibited from rejoining the highway for most of the exiting lane's length. I am assuming that it was because it is easier and faster to slow down than to speed up, and as some of these ramps are fairly slow-speed, they wanted to avoid people getting rear-ended while attempting to renter the flow of traffic. I wonder how well that actually worked, considering it was NJ, where normal drivers fear to drive...
I seem to remember Connecticut used to do this on interstates with slow vehicle lanes. There would be double broken dash lines to indicate the slow vehicle lane. When the slow vehicle lane was going to end, they would use the solid/dashed lines to indicate vehicles could exit but not enter the lane. The examples I remember are not there anymore so I think Connecticut stopped doing this.
Quote from: doogie1303 on December 19, 2020, 04:13:22 PM
I seem to remember Connecticut used to do this on interstates with slow vehicle lanes. There would be double broken dash lines to indicate the slow vehicle lane. When the slow vehicle lane was going to end, they would use the solid/dashed lines to indicate vehicles could exit but not enter the lane. The examples I remember are not there anymore so I think Connecticut stopped doing this.
I-84 E has one instance just outside Hartford. It's that left entrance ramp just after the mixmaster.
Quote from: doogie1303 on December 19, 2020, 04:13:22 PM
I seem to remember Connecticut used to do this on interstates with slow vehicle lanes. There would be double broken dash lines to indicate the slow vehicle lane. When the slow vehicle lane was going to end, they would use the solid/dashed lines to indicate vehicles could exit but not enter the lane. The examples I remember are not there anymore so I think Connecticut stopped doing this.
Speaking of those Connecticut slow vehicle lanes, I really don't get the point of some of them. A slow vehicle lane between exits 13 and 14 on I-84 East begins, and then ends after barely half a mile. Why even bother if the lane will end so quickly? If you ask me they should just convert it into an exit-only lane for Exit 14, although ConnDOT probably has more important things to focus on.
GSV: https://bit.ly/3rGNdog
I found another one in Providence RI, on the I-95 South to I-195/US 6 East ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8137306,-71.4095156,3a,76.3y,114.6h,90.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ocisjIztfzl2CtUOZ-ZqQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ocisjIztfzl2CtUOZ-ZqQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D110.10491%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), at the Franklin St on-ramp.
In Denver, CO, CDOT added this striping to 6th Ave west of I-25 where the C-D lanes join the mainline (overhead view (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=map¢er=39.725648,-105.033208&zoom=20&basemap=satellite)); that was part of a rejiggering of the westbound lanes a few years after rebuilding the freeway from Knox Ct to I-25. They also added BGS with a yellow "← MERGE" diamond on it over the lane on the dashed side of the line, I assume to give an indication of how the unfamiliar striping works (Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=pano&viewpoint=39.725580,-105.031745&heading=-65&pitch=0&fov=40)).
The project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/archived-project-sites/us-6-i-25-perry-street) that made the striping change didn't address it specifically, and I don't see anything about it in Colorado's driver's handbook, so I think we're in the same intent-only boat here. From my limited experience, though, I like the idea for this location.
Out on Interstate H-1 (Lunalilo Fwy) in Honolulu, HI, there are some of half broken, half solid white lines. These lines appear only at freeway entrance ramps where traffic merges onto the freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@21.3321071,-157.871908,3a,44.5y,160.89h,79.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suthWZV-rL8LOl_gaJm6NgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: rellis97 on January 18, 2021, 09:41:02 PM
Out on Interstate H-1 (Lunalilo Fwy) in Honolulu, HI, there are some of half broken, half solid white lines. These lines appear only at freeway entrance ramps where traffic merges onto the freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@21.3321071,-157.871908,3a,44.5y,160.89h,79.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suthWZV-rL8LOl_gaJm6NgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That seems like an unnecessary interior merge situation. But the striping does seem like a good way to help mitigate problematic lane changes through the merge area.
Ontario has a few of these, and they're usually placed where the right-most lane would exit. This is to discourage drivers from using the exit lane to bypass traffic and jump back in before the lane exits.
White broken and solid line:
(https://i.imgur.com/rX7Xfgy.png)
Usual lane marking:
(https://i.imgur.com/APzs939.png)
Quote from: andrepoiy on March 09, 2021, 09:13:57 PM
Ontario has a few of these, and they're usually placed where the right-most lane would exit. This is to discourage drivers from using the exit lane to bypass traffic and jump back in before the lane exits.
Although, curiously, this is slightly different from American applications where solid white is still legally crossable. In Canada, it would not be legal to leave the exit-only lane with a solid white line to your left. So more than simply "discourage", but an outright ban.
On the southbound FDR drive approaching the Brooklyn Bridge, you see the following sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7088285,-73.9979643,3a,37.5y,276.72h,103.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJAmQGppaV9r48H4kHWAtFw!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i16384!8i8192
"unlawful to cross solid line on your side"
This seems to indicate that at one time there was a 1/2 solid 1/2 broken lane configuration, although there is no evidence of that from the GSV. Now, the two right lanes must exit, but earlier GSVs show right lane exiting with two left lanes continuing south. I bet given the heavy traffic exiting for the bridge, they felt that a restriction on lane changing was necessary, but now with two lanes, it no longer is. Yet the sign remains.
On the other side of the river, the BQE exit to the Brooklyn Bridge used to have the 1/2 and 1/2 striping:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7015846,-73.9899234,3a,75y,275.76h,84.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz-3cRmqLZxfL6FV1CHBeRQ!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: mrsman on March 10, 2021, 08:20:30 PM
This seems to indicate that at one time there was a 1/2 solid 1/2 broken lane configuration, although there is no evidence of that from the GSV.
I think this GSV image shows what you are describing: https://goo.gl/maps/7s4t66U1pGXr2iey8
The exit-only lane has dashed lines, but the #2 lane has a solid line.
Link above has been fixed; subsequent discussion of the incorrect link pruned to help return conversation back to topic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:53:49 PM
Link above has been fixed; subsequent discussion of the incorrect link pruned to help return conversation back to topic.
Joke's on you, I never was any fun in the first place! :D
Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 22, 2020, 12:54:42 AM
Driving out the Sumner Tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3632875,-71.0541946,3a,57.9y,228.08h,73.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDhg-RdsV2kNzL3IF4V-Ysg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Boston a few weeks ago, and thru the LIE leaving from Stony Brook (EXAMPLES: 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8052213,-73.2561382,3a,75y,265.68h,74.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWkD75YWDC4lXkckTIius6A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.804789,-73.2638523,3a,22.8y,264.95h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbaRNujKbrxcyTJlahUvNGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) in New York back in February, I saw some double white lines that had a broken segment on one side and a solid segment on the other, similar to how a variant of double yellow lines on two-lane highways (single carriageway) permit overtaking on one direction on the broken side only.
Do these lines have the same meaning as if they were yellow, meaning lane changes are only permitted on the broken end, or does the solid portion discourage, but permit lane changes? I want to take a guess and say the first option however unless I'm not looking hard enough, trying to find an actual statute regarding that came up inconclusive. I did find these, which suggest crossing a solid white line is discouraged, but not prohibited:
Quote from: Massachusetts Drivers Manual, Page 91
White Lane Lines
White lane lines separate lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. Single white lines may also mark the right edge of the pavement.
Solid White Line
A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic going the same direction, including bicycle lanes. You can go in the same direction on both sides of this line (except the shoulder), but you should not cross it unless you need to avoid danger.
Quote from: New York Drivers Manual, Page 31
One solid line: You can pass other vehicles or change lanes, but you can only do so when obstructions in the road or traffic conditions make it necessary.
In California it's illegal for the solid white line side to cross the line. Penal Code § 21460. I've seen these on some of the exit lanes for the 91 Express Lanes.
Slightly, different, but still of interest. L.A. has modified marked unsignalized crosswalks on many major streets across town. (But this treatment seems to be limited to city of L.A., as I have not seen it in the suburbs doing GSV searches. But it does seem to exist in many places within the city.)
Anyway, yield triangles are used to denote an active yield to pedestrians, as opposed to the more standard stop bar that used to be more prevalent. Button activated yellow flashers are there to get drivers' attention. Signs to yield to pedestrians and paddles placed in the middle of the street. And, to keep it related to the thread topic, double white lines to make lane changes illegal ahead of the crosswalk. The double white lines seem really rare on surface streets, otherwise. Based on the GSV, the markings are fairly recent, showing up about 5 years ago.
Cesar Chavez at Cummings in Boyle Heights:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0491061,-118.2129963,3a,75y,144.54h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su7Xx3rogFo53h-42J5Dh_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
6th and Grand View near MacArthur Park:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0604857,-118.2771505,3a,75y,120.62h,69.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svwS9wrUBezpF6CUQAKKDQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Beverly and Edinburgh in the Fairfax District: (no flashing yellow lights)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0760431,-118.3641178,3a,75y,116.95h,69.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seh9Xb7VuDJg50E2LZvzMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Hawaii does use these a lot and not just on freeways. Here's a common setup on a two-lane road approaching a signal.
https://goo.gl/maps/7Va8ehvVZihePEYd6 (https://goo.gl/maps/7Va8ehvVZihePEYd6)
Traveling past the signal, you'll see that the solid/dashed is reversed, which prevents through drivers from jumping over into the merge lane and using that to pass on the right.
Quote from: mrsman on March 14, 2021, 03:08:10 PM
Slightly, different, but still of interest. L.A. has modified marked unsignalized crosswalks on many major streets across town. (But this treatment seems to be limited to city of L.A., as I have not seen it in the suburbs doing GSV searches. But it does seem to exist in many places within the city.)
Anyway, yield triangles are used to denote an active yield to pedestrians, as opposed to the more standard stop bar that used to be more prevalent. Button activated yellow flashers are there to get drivers' attention. Signs to yield to pedestrians and paddles placed in the middle of the street. And, to keep it related to the thread topic, double white lines to make lane changes illegal ahead of the crosswalk. The double white lines seem really rare on surface streets, otherwise. Based on the GSV, the markings are fairly recent, showing up about 5 years ago.
Cesar Chavez at Cummings in Boyle Heights:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0491061,-118.2129963,3a,75y,144.54h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su7Xx3rogFo53h-42J5Dh_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
6th and Grand View near MacArthur Park:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0604857,-118.2771505,3a,75y,120.62h,69.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svwS9wrUBezpF6CUQAKKDQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Beverly and Edinburgh in the Fairfax District: (no flashing yellow lights)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0760431,-118.3641178,3a,75y,116.95h,69.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seh9Xb7VuDJg50E2LZvzMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I think the double white approaching a crosswalk is a great idea. Solid white is a good first step, but straight to double white is excellent too.
I personally think so because drivers approaching a crosswalk may not realize why the car in front of them is stopped, and may whip around them only to hit the pedestrian the other car stopped for.
It does seem like cars are less apt to cross a double white, although compliance is not 100% obviously (and wouldn't be without a physical barrier, I suspect).
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2021, 07:54:32 PM
I think the double white approaching a crosswalk is a great idea. Solid white is a good first step, but straight to double white is excellent too.
I personally think so because drivers approaching a crosswalk may not realize why the car in front of them is stopped, and may whip around them only to hit the pedestrian the other car stopped for.
It does seem like cars are less apt to cross a double white, although compliance is not 100% obviously (and wouldn't be without a physical barrier, I suspect).
When I was about 19 and inexperienced I did the worst thing I've ever done behind the wheel. Whipped around the car stopped in the right lane, and fortunately the guy in the wheelchair in the crosswalk whom I couldn't see over the hood over that car wasn't crossing so fast that he couldn't stop for me. 40 years later I'm still PO'd about that one.
Quote from: gonealookin on March 14, 2021, 09:44:11 PM
When I was about 19 and inexperienced I did the worst thing I've ever done behind the wheel. Whipped around the car stopped in the right lane, and fortunately the guy in the wheelchair in the crosswalk whom I couldn't see over the hood over that car wasn't crossing so fast that he couldn't stop for me. 40 years later I'm still PO'd about that one.
I actually did something similar to that myself. I was riding in a bike lane slightly behind and to the right of a car. We both approached an intersection without crosswalk markings; the car to my left slowed for a pedestrian crossing from left to right, but I kept riding at the same rate. I didn't clue into him slowing for a pedestrian for whatever reason. Luckily the pedestrian was still on the opposite side of the road, so it wasn't close. But it reminded me to not sit somewhere that doesn't allow me to see the whole road in front of me.
I've seen a few close-calls similar to yours. Luckily most end with panic-braking, but certainly not all sadly.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2021, 10:28:56 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on March 14, 2021, 09:44:11 PM
When I was about 19 and inexperienced I did the worst thing I've ever done behind the wheel. Whipped around the car stopped in the right lane, and fortunately the guy in the wheelchair in the crosswalk whom I couldn't see over the hood over that car wasn't crossing so fast that he couldn't stop for me. 40 years later I'm still PO'd about that one.
I actually did something similar to that myself. I was riding in a bike lane slightly behind and to the right of a car. We both approached an intersection without crosswalk markings; the car to my left slowed for a pedestrian crossing from left to right, but I kept riding at the same rate. I didn't clue into him slowing for a pedestrian for whatever reason. Luckily the pedestrian was still on the opposite side of the road, so it wasn't close. But it reminded me to not sit somewhere that doesn't allow me to see the whole road in front of me.
I've seen a few close-calls similar to yours. Luckily most end with panic-braking, but certainly not all sadly.
Shortly before I became of driving age, I remember when CA had put in place a law that basically required stopping if a car in an adjacent lane stopped. After the law came into effect, there were some ticketing blitzes to re-enforce the point with a plain-clothes officer attempting to cross the street and another officer in a motorcycle of squad car who would then nab anyone who did not stop for the pedestrian. Given that experience, stopping when an adjacent driver has stopped has fortunately become second nature to me.
Obviously, the whip around is far worse, so the new lane markings were meant to address that. It is interesting. Technically, every intersection is an unmarked crossing, and peds may cross (if they choose to) anywhere. At many of the intersections that I remember as a youth, there was always a marked crossing, even if there was no signal, on at least one corner of most intersections. Then, I remember reading that LADOT decided to remove the painted crosswalks from all regular intersections and only leave painted crosswalks for signalized crossings or those that had special treatment.
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 12:17:47 AM
I remember when CA had put in place a law that basically required stopping if a car in an adjacent lane stopped.
This makes no sense. What if there's a line of stopped cars trying to turn left at a red light and you're continuing straight with a green light?
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 12:17:47 AM
Technically, every intersection is an unmarked crossing,
Not necessarily. At least in Illinois, a T-intersection at which the terminating street has no parallel marked crosswalk or theoretical sidewalk extension across the through road
does not have a legally defined crosswalk.
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 12:17:47 AM
I remember when CA had put in place a law that basically required stopping if a car in an adjacent lane stopped.
This makes no sense. What if there's a line of stopped cars trying to turn left at a red light and you're continuing straight with a green light?
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, but I'm case you are serious:
I imagine that it is worded to avoid ambiguity for cases like this. I imagine that at signalized intersections, or where a car is obviously stopped to make a turn (signaling, in a marked turn lane, stopped near a driveway or intersecting road), stopping is not mandatory.
Quote from: MCRoads on March 15, 2021, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 12:17:47 AM
I remember when CA had put in place a law that basically required stopping if a car in an adjacent lane stopped.
This makes no sense. What if there's a line of stopped cars trying to turn left at a red light and you're continuing straight with a green light?
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, but I'm case you are serious:
I imagine that it is worded to avoid ambiguity for cases like this. I imagine that at signalized intersections, or where a car is obviously stopped to make a turn (signaling, in a marked turn lane, stopped near a driveway or intersecting road), stopping is not mandatory.
Yeah, that's great if you can see the turn signal of the car that's turning. But, if there's a car behind
that one, then you don't know what's going on.
So, on a four-lane 40 mph arterial
like this (https://goo.gl/maps/vE6xwbGEq6CsmtDx6)
or this (https://goo.gl/maps/tVG1jf6sndP4gbi39), if you see a line of three cars stopped in the left lane, you should just automatically stop in the right lane as well? That's ridiculous, and it would likely get you rear-ended.
Quote from: MCRoads on March 15, 2021, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 12:17:47 AM
I remember when CA had put in place a law that basically required stopping if a car in an adjacent lane stopped.
This makes no sense. What if there's a line of stopped cars trying to turn left at a red light and you're continuing straight with a green light?
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, but I'm case you are serious:
I imagine that it is worded to avoid ambiguity for cases like this. I imagine that at signalized intersections, or where a car is obviously stopped to make a turn (signaling, in a marked turn lane, stopped near a driveway or intersecting road), stopping is not mandatory.
I believe this may be the operative legal language. It seems to have been in place since 1959, 16 years before I was born. Perhaps, there were renewed enforement efforts when I was a child, because it seemed like a relatively new concept to me.
Quote
Universal Citation: CA Veh Code § 21951 (2019)
21951.
Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
Perhaps there is other language requiring a stop, even if you dont' know why the adjacent vehicle is stopping. I couldn't find any such language explicitly. I gather that the enforcement effort in the 1980s and 1990s was meant to tell people that if a driver in an adjacent lane is stopping, you should assume that he may be stopping for a pedestrian that you cannot see, so you should also be prepared to stop. To actaullly give tickets for this, there probably has to be a pedestrian actually crossing so that the above Vehicle Code section is violated. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there would be a decoy plain-clothes cop acting as a pedestrian so that they could give a failure to yield ticket if you do not yield also.
Obviously, if you can plainly see that there is no pedestrian, and the other guy is simply stopping to wait for opposing traffic to clear to complete a left turn, no stop is required. The problem, though, is what if someone in an adjacent lane is stopped to make a left (and is signaling left) and a pedestrian also happens to be crossin at the same time. Obviously, if the adjacent car is stopped for no apparent reason, the prudent thing to do is to slow down with the assumption that there could be a pedestrian there. But here the adjacent car is stopped for a good reason and the presence of a possible pedestrian could sadly be an afterthought to most drivers.
Given where I grew up in L.A., where many arterials have two lanes in each direction and a left turn lane, it was ingrained in me (almost as second nature) to stop if someone in the adjacent lane is stopping. But it is not so ingrained if the person in an adjacent lane is slowing down and also signaling a turn. My expectation is that he is slowing down for the turn, not for a pedestrian that is blocked from my view.
Quote from: mrsman on March 15, 2021, 05:12:17 PM
I believe this may be the operative legal language. It seems to have been in place since 1959, 16 years before I was born. Perhaps, there were renewed enforement efforts when I was a child, because it seemed like a relatively new concept to me.
Quote
Universal Citation: CA Veh Code § 21951 (2019)
21951.
Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
And that makes sense.
On the other hand, some states don't require a driver to stop unless the pedestrian is actually in
their lane. At least I think that's true. It might just be their half of the roadway, though.
This story might provide some insight into the thinking behind laws like California's regarding stopping if a vehicle in an adjacent lane has stopped:
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2015/07/08/dmv-six-month-suspension-for-driver-who-killed-sammy-cohen-eckstein/
In this case, an NYC driver hit and sadly killed a 12-year-old that had went into the street to retrieve a ball. The ball rolled into the street, and the vehicle to his left traveling in the same direction had come to a stop. But the driver continued straight and passed it on the right, hitting the boy. Had he recognized what was happening and stopped, he might have avoided the accident. NY doesn't have a specific law about stopping if an adjacent vehicle has stopped, but rather, the person was charged under due care and passing on the right laws. His license was suspended for 6 months.
Noticed a lot of ½ broken, ½ solid lines being used frequently in Québec from my last road trip there in May. Like in Ontario, it's used to discourage drivers from using the exit lane to bypass traffic and jump back in before the lane exits. However, I saw them being used in these scenarios to prevent merging conflicts asides from being used at exit lanes:
- On A-15 Nord / North, at the Route 134 exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.39354,-73.512279,3a,16.3y,51.47h,87.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6kTxbL63h_VXcs-uIlXo7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), it's used for the left most lane to prevent drivers from the left lane to dive to the Route 134 exit. There's also an onramp that is very close to the exit as well.
- They were used on A-20 Est / East (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4473085,-73.6803544,3a,60.7y,94.35h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPXRR-K2Jq_lTYUw8LYu2Sw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with the HOV lane ending just shy of YUL (Montréal-Trudeau International Airport). This one has an example of the smaller broken lines (usually used for lane drops or merges), as well as one with the normal broken line. The intent of this one is to reduce merging and diverging conflicts between the left lane and the ending HOV lane.
- Some interior lane merges seem to be candidates of this treatment, like at the A-73 Nord at A-20 (Route Transcanadienne / Trans-Canada Highway) merge in Levis, just outside of Québec. (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7320862,-71.2809129,3a,29.9y,355.88h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKZNueIsX5K0nMusWIZQ0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) Here, the centre lanes have a chance to merge to the outside lanes while also discouraging those in the outside lanes from merging into the centre lane while merging.