Arizona Traffic Law
phxbrd
lanes approaching a crosswalk on city streets? Do they have the same
meaning of the similar lines at freeway merge points? In that case, it's
simply illegal to cross. Why don't they use yellow instead of white?
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
CosmicDawg <CosmicDawgHEA...@cox.net> two-fingered to all:
|>On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:54:14 -0700, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net>
|>wrote:
|>They have no legal significance. They are supposed to make you drive
|>more cautiously near crosswalks. The ONLY kind of lines you can't
|>cross are -
|>Double solid lines
|>and
|>Lines the form a painted gore area.
I was told you weren't supposed to change lanes (cross the line) in those areas.
It's a hazard to other traffic and pedestrians.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
Jason Pawloski
You are't supposed to change lanes within some number of feet of a crosswalk
or intersection (I *believe* its 100 feet). Some of those lines are that long,
some are not. If they are not that long, then anything further back is legal.
The only time I've ever seen someone pulled over for a case like this was
changing lanes IN the intersection (like an idiot).
Jason Pawloski
Blair P. Houghton
>Fiction as far as I can tell from reading the law. The only 100'
>restriction says you can't go to the left of the CENTERLINE within
>100' of an intersections or RR crossing or if a no passing zone has
>been defined. WHen the city of phx started painting all these solid
>lines they pretended there was a law but they were never able to
>produce one.
They paint lines according to DOT standards so as to have
the same markings as every other state.
The other fiction caused by this is stop lines when there
is a crosswalk. Stop lines only apply when there is
no crosswalk.
Gore points used to be a fiction, but now they're the law.
They're the only solid white lines that you can't cross.
Trust this to creep into the other markings until we're
just coupled front-and-back to police cars to drive from
place to place.
>Even that is questionable. I have heard that since there are no
>"lanes" in an intersection it's not possible to change lanes there in
>terms of being cited under that statute. You could be cited for
>reckless driving, etc however.
"Space makes lanes" is how traffic school teaches it.
So if there's no marking, and you can fit two cars there,
you're good (this works best near flaring corners).
The lanes do exist through the intersection, though it's
probably not relevant.
Unsafe lane change is a valid ticket, but if the cop's
only reason to give the ticket is a safe lane change in
an intersection, fight it, because he's wrong.
--Blair
"We need to start giving Traffic School
as a prerequisite."
Blair P. Houghton
>In our last exciting episode, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Will someone explain to me the significance of solid white lines between
>>lanes approaching a crosswalk on city streets?
>
>
>Basically, they are reminding you not to change lanes near a
>intersection.
Which is a lot like reminding you not to drive barfoot.
--Blair
"Euripides told me so."
qaz
<qine...@lnubb.pbz>
>In our last exciting episode, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Will someone explain to me the significance of solid white lines between
>>lanes approaching a crosswalk on city streets?
>
>Do not cross solid white lines - stay in your lane. :)
>
This is what I figured it meant - I would think that even though each
state makes their own traffic laws, that they are pretty similar
nationwide. The most divergent area is probably in penalties for
infractions.
I suppose I'll have to get an Arizona driver's license soon. Or maybe I
should see if there's some way to maintain residency in my current state
which has no income tax.
JB the 3rd
news:e4g28vc4cj7ed2bck...@4ax.com...
:
: They have no legal significance. They are supposed to make you drive
: more cautiously near crosswalks. The ONLY kind of lines you can't
: cross are -
: Double solid lines
: and
: Lines the form a painted gore area.
It is illegal to cross the white line on the shoulder side of the freeway.
Lets say traffic is backed up (I know, it never happens here, but let's
pretend) and your exit is close. If you go to the right of the white line to
pass other vehicles to get to your exit you can be ticketed.
jb3
Blair P. Houghton
>It is illegal to cross the white line on the shoulder side of the freeway.
>Lets say traffic is backed up (I know, it never happens here, but let's
>pretend) and your exit is close. If you go to the right of the white line to
>pass other vehicles to get to your exit you can be ticketed.
It's not because of the white line.
It's illegal only because you left the "roadway" to pass
on the right.
Even if the white line isn't there on any part of that
road, if you can tell the diffrence between the roadway and
the shoulder then you can't use it to pass on the right,
because shoulder is not roadway.
Could you argue that the white line doesn't exist in
the law, therefore the pavement was part of the roadway?
Sure you could argue it, but you'd probably get shot down
by the manual that says where to paint the white line,
which would probably say "left edge of the shoulder" or
"right edge of the roadway".
In summary, "it is illegal to cross the white line on the
shoulder side of the freeway" is not correct. It's legal
if you have a good reason to leave the roadway, but not
just to pass the traffic, and not for probably several
reasons I didn't bother with.
--Blair
"IANANAL."
Blair P. Houghton
>This is what I figured it meant - I would think that even though each
>state makes their own traffic laws, that they are pretty similar
>nationwide. The most divergent area is probably in penalties for
>infractions.
They're all similar enough that you can't get hurt doing
the obvious things or driving sanely. And none of them
ban driving barefoot.
>I suppose I'll have to get an Arizona driver's license soon. Or maybe I
>should see if there's some way to maintain residency in my current state
>which has no income tax.
Read this:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/title28.htm
so you'll know which laws you're breaking on the road,
whether or not you decide to stop breaking the law by
freeloading on the backs of AZ taxpayers.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/43/01091.htm
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/43/01071.htm
--Blair
"No jail can hold me."
bi...@pipping.com
(Wotan) wrote:
>As part of a Turing test
>Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> posted:
>
>>JB the 3rd <j...@notanisp.com> wrote:
>>>It is illegal to cross the white line on the shoulder side of the freeway.
>>>Lets say traffic is backed up (I know, it never happens here, but let's
>>>pretend) and your exit is close. If you go to the right of the white line to
>>>pass other vehicles to get to your exit you can be ticketed.
>>
>>It's not because of the white line.
>>
>>It's illegal only because you left the "roadway" to pass
>>on the right.
>>
>>Even if the white line isn't there on any part of that
>>road, if you can tell the diffrence between the roadway and
>>the shoulder then you can't use it to pass on the right,
>>because shoulder is not roadway.
>
>It is illegal to cross the white line, for safety reasons. It went from
>an unenforced traffic law to crimnial law after a DPS officer was killed
>by someone crossing the line on I-17 a few years ago.
Wasn't that for gore points?
If it's actually illegal to cross white lines, how would one get into
or out of the diamond (HOV) lanes?
>
>>Could you argue that the white line doesn't exist in
>>the law, therefore the pavement was part of the roadway?
>>Sure you could argue it, but you'd probably get shot down
>>by the manual that says where to paint the white line,
>>which would probably say "left edge of the shoulder" or
>>"right edge of the roadway".
>>
>>In summary, "it is illegal to cross the white line on the
>>shoulder side of the freeway" is not correct. It's legal
>>if you have a good reason to leave the roadway, but not
>>just to pass the traffic, and not for probably several
>>reasons I didn't bother with.
>
>IIRC, the reasons are things like breakdown, being pulled over, being a
>good samritan, etc.
>
>Driving over the lines, or where a reasonable person would expect them to
>be, is a definate problem.
Now we aren't allowed to cross non-existant white lines???
--
Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
Experience is what you get when you expected something else.
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> posted:
>>>It is illegal to cross the white line on the shoulder side of the freeway.
>>
>>on the right.
>
>an unenforced traffic law to crimnial law after a DPS officer was killed
>by someone crossing the line on I-17 a few years ago.
That change only applied to the "gore area", which at
most will be from the point at the exit to the point at
the following entrance. On the rest of the road, the
"leaving the roadway to pass on the right" argument is
the one that counts, and doesn't care about white lines.
Gore points used to be part of the shoulder/safety lane,
so it wasn't illegal to cross them.
The cop got killed because he was standing on the driver's
side of a pickup truck stalled in the gore point in the
middle of the night with zero traffic going by and some
classic dirtbag decided to get onto the freeway 20 feet
sooner by going around the broken-down truck instead of
straight past it, at full speed.
IIRC it was on the ramp from the Hohokam (143) to the 202
Westbound, just NE of the airport.
Which really should have resulted in a reckless driving
conviction (or at least having the gross stupidity not to
hit something that's just sitting there in the roadway).
But we ended up with a law that gets in the way in far
more situations than the one that caused the problem.
--Blair
"Just don't act like a dickhead on
the road and it'll all work out."
Jack Hoff
what is the gore point.
The gore point is that triangular-shaped area that divides the on-ramp
or off-ramp from the freeway as you enter or exit the freeway. It
usually starts from the shoulder/landscaped area of the fwy (the base
of the triangle) and ends when the ramp finally joins the freeway (the
tip of the triangle). I am sure there is a very complicated, technical
explanation of the gore point in the traffic law books; this is the
'plain english' explanation.
IIRC the DPS had a good-sounding rationale for asking the mob of
cretins we call the Legislature to pass a law re: the gore point. I am
pretty sure it had something to do with the fact that it wasn't
illegal for said dirtbag to pass through the gore point in order to
enter the freeway; at the time there was no law re: the gore point.
Since it was not illegal for the dirtbag to drive through the gore
point (pay attention next time you drive a fwy here, people cut
through it all the time regardless of the law), I believe that it
mitigated somewhat the charges against him. I am not sure if that
means that the dirtbag was not charged with anything, or if they just
couldn't throw the book at him as hard as they would have liked.
I disagree with Blair's conclusion, I don't understand how the law
inconveniences anybody, except for those with the misfortune to break
down on the fwy and the closest (or only) place they have to get out
of the way of traffic is the gore point area. In which case, it is
still illegal to be there regardless of the reason. I just hope our
good DPS officers have the heart to give these people with a flat tire
or whatever, a break.
Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote in message news:<LVuka.678334$wQ6....@news.easynews.com>...
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair has it mostly right but I didn't really 'get' his explanation of
>what is the gore point.
>
>The gore point is that triangular-shaped area that divides the on-ramp
>or off-ramp from the freeway as you enter or exit the freeway. It
>usually starts from the shoulder/landscaped area of the fwy (the base
>of the triangle) and ends when the ramp finally joins the freeway (the
>tip of the triangle). I am sure there is a very complicated, technical
>explanation of the gore point in the traffic law books; this is the
>'plain english' explanation.
Yours is longer than theirs.
"For the purposes of this paragraph, 'gore area' means the
area that is between a through roadway and an entrance ramp
or exit ramp and that is defined by two wide solid white
lines that guide traffic entering or exiting a roadway."
(ARS 28-644)
So that means it's only as long as the part of the ramp
that doesn't have anything else between it and the roadway.
So it goes from the pointed tip of the painted lines to
the pointed tip of the landscaping or the wall or whatever.
And doesn't include the shoulder under the bridge, or most
of the shoulder either side, which will be good for the
local bikers to know in monsoon season.
I'm not sure what the penalty is for driving on the
landscaping, although I've done it to get out of a traffic
jam...it was only pea gravel and already had tracks on it,
so I'm not feeling too guilty for saving myself an hour
that way...
>mitigated somewhat the charges against him. I am not sure if that
>means that the dirtbag was not charged with anything, or if they just
>couldn't throw the book at him as hard as they would have liked.
I forget, too, but they sure sold it like it meant he
was free to kill a cop that way. But you can't trust
local news outlets to give you the right interpretation
of things more often than not. You certainly can't trust
them to go back and explain when they get it wrong.
>I disagree with Blair's conclusion, I don't understand how the law
>inconveniences anybody, except for those with the misfortune to break
>down on the fwy and the closest (or only) place they have to get out
>of the way of traffic is the gore point area. In which case, it is
>still illegal to be there regardless of the reason. I just hope our
>good DPS officers have the heart to give these people with a flat tire
>or whatever, a break.
It shortens the length of roadway you can use for safe
(or at least expeditious) merging.
Which for most drivers means they don't even shoulder-check
until they pass the gore point, because they aren't even
thinking of trying. And then it's too late and they
haven't come up to speed and all that crap that stupid
people do around merges.
Sure, once every hundred years it will prevent a freak
accident, but the other 118 billion times a person enters
or exits a freeway, it's an inconvenience.
And it possibly could cause a freak accident.
Say a freak realizes he's going to miss his exit *and*
has to beat the gore point. So he oversteers himself
into a loss-of-control situation, or spooks the mental
midget behind him into looking up from his nose goblins and
stabbing at the steering wheel. And then we're all stuck
in a rubbernecking traffic jam, because hey, there might
be guts hanging out and shit and I could tell the kids.
--Blair
"Which is what driving in Arizona
is really all about."