Double Yellow Passing

[WestyLancs]

A lot of roads in the UK seem to be being remarked with solid whites (our version of your solid yellow) That and reducing the speed limit on rural roads from the 'national' limit of 60 mph to 50 mph is gradually eroding the fun of motorcycling.

[Bill_Walker]

Okay I am extremely frustrated and I ALMOST passed on a double yellow yesterday riding the 160 from the Highway 12 at Rio Vista to the I-5 in Sacramento.

 

They redid the road and put a solid double yellow ALL THE WAY FROM FREAKIN' RIO VISTA TO WALNUT GROVE!!!! I was beyond anger!

 

Well, hey, it is a levee road. Not a lot of room for error, y'know? But I still feel your pain.

[CoarsegoldKid]

Cal Trans spotted a sale on yellow paint.

[Mister Tee]

Cal Trans spotted a sale on yellow paint.

 

More likely, they found some very expensive yellow paint so they could use up all of their budget.

[MotorinLA]

The traffic on the roadway has the right of way over entering traffic regardless of the side they are on and the presence of a double yellow.

 

In what state?

 

Certainly not in California. Left side of double yellow would be primary collision factor for sure.

[MotorinLA]

Integrity - adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty (Dictionary.com).

 

AKA

 

Doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.

 

Arrogance - offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride (Dictionary.com).

 

AKA

 

Believing you know/do everything better than everyone else.

 

I suspect the reason many passing areas are being re-striped to double yellows in popular motorcycle areas, is due to the lack of the first and the presence of too much of the last. It is simply a way to discourage motorcyclists from riding on those roads.

 

Local authorities and LE in SoCal have tried numerous options to reduce motorcyclist fatalities on certain roads. Increased education, increased enforcement, but alas, because of the factors stated above motorcyclists continue to get killed. Not always due to their own actions, but often enough to be a real problem. Solution? Shut down the roads. Really? Really? Do we have to take away the roads to keep these guys alive?

 

I sincerely hope none of the self-proclaimed "safety-specialist" on this board end up on The Ride Home list, because they made the choice to pass on double yellow when it was "safe".

 

[OOOPS... almost took a spill there getting off my very high horse. Good thing I was wearing ATGATT ]

[bobbybob]

The traffic on the roadway has the right of way over entering traffic regardless of the side they are on and the presence of a double yellow.

 

In what state?

 

Certainly not in California. Left side of double yellow would be primary collision factor for sure.

 

So CA is saying, in effect, that the person who was stopped at a side road and then pulled out in front of oncoming traffic from his right was not at fault--at ALL? Even though he only looked to his left before proceeding?

 

My point was that civil lawsuits against the person pulling out would pervail.

[MotorinLA]

The traffic on the roadway has the right of way over entering traffic regardless of the side they are on and the presence of a double yellow.

 

In what state?

 

Certainly not in California. Left side of double yellow would be primary collision factor for sure.

 

So CA is saying, in effect, that the person who was stopped at a side road and then pulled out in front of oncoming traffic from his right was not at fault--at ALL? Even though he only looked to his left before proceeding?

 

My point was that civil lawsuits against the person pulling out would pervail.

 

Don't agree. Who was committing a vehicle code violation? The person passing on double yellow.

 

The primary collision factor - generally a violation contributing the most to the cause of the collision. Had the person not been passing ILLEGALLY to the left of the double yellow lines, there would have been no collision caused by the person making the LEGAL right turn.

[bobbybob]

The traffic on the roadway has the right of way over entering traffic regardless of the side they are on and the presence of a double yellow.

 

In what state?

 

Certainly not in California. Left side of double yellow would be primary collision factor for sure.

 

So CA is saying, in effect, that the person who was stopped at a side road and then pulled out in front of oncoming traffic from his right was not at fault--at ALL? Even though he only looked to his left before proceeding?

 

My point was that civil lawsuits against the person pulling out would pervail.

 

Don't agree. Who was committing a vehicle code violation? The person passing on double yellow.

 

The primary collision factor - generally a violation contributing the most to the cause of the collision. Had the person not been passing ILLEGALLY to the left of the double yellow lines, there would have been no collision caused by the person making the LEGAL right turn.

 

Not gonna dispute the legalities of it with you. I'm sure you know from where you speak. But as I said, I believe a civil lawsuit would be won by the person/survivors of the car already on the roadway. What if--instead of a car/moto passing on a double yellow--it was a child on a bicycle riding down the left side of the road. And the child was crushed by the car pulling out because the driver only looked to his left, and not to the right. Again--my *original* point was the car driver would be sued big time, due to negligence, and would lose.

[MotorinLA]

The traffic on the roadway has the right of way over entering traffic regardless of the side they are on and the presence of a double yellow.

 

In what state?

 

Certainly not in California. Left side of double yellow would be primary collision factor for sure.

 

So CA is saying, in effect, that the person who was stopped at a side road and then pulled out in front of oncoming traffic from his right was not at fault--at ALL? Even though he only looked to his left before proceeding?

 

My point was that civil lawsuits against the person pulling out would pervail.

 

Don't agree. Who was committing a vehicle code violation? The person passing on double yellow.

 

The primary collision factor - generally a violation contributing the most to the cause of the collision. Had the person not been passing ILLEGALLY to the left of the double yellow lines, there would have been no collision caused by the person making the LEGAL right turn.

 

Not gonna dispute the legalities of it with you. I'm sure you know from where you speak. But as I said, I believe a civil lawsuit would be won by the person/survivors of the car already on the roadway. What if--instead of a car/moto passing on a double yellow--it was a child on a bicycle riding down the left side of the road. And the child was crushed by the car pulling out because the driver only looked to his left, and not to the right. Again--my *original* point was the car driver would be sued big time, due to negligence, and would lose.

 

Unfortunately I've investigated and documented many such car vs bike collisions, some involving juveniles. The outcome is still the same. The bicyclist is at fault, as the rider is in violation of the vehicle code for riding against traffic on the left side of the road. Fortunately I have not have to respond to any fatality collisions of this nature. Civil court MAY still find against the party found not at fault, but I can guarantee you that most insurance companies will not be volunteering to pay for any damages/injuries to the party that was found at fault.

 

You also rest a lot of your supposition on the fact that the party pulling out into the road is going to admit to failing to look right. Without such an admission you'd be hard pressed to argue your case, counselor. A more likely statement would be, "I looked and I didn't see anyone coming."

 

Bottom line is don't pass on double yellow when it is prohibited, but if you do, then be ready to accept the responsibility for any collision you cause as a result of your actions/choices/violation.

[bobbybob]

Civil court MAY still find against the party found not at fault...

Right--that was my point.

 

...but I can guarantee you that most insurance companies will not be volunteering to pay for any damages/injuries to the party that was found at fault.

Again, very true. They don't even like to pay for not-at-fault parties! Thats why God made ambulance chasers.

 

You also rest a lot of your supposition on the fact that the party pulling out into the road is going to admit to failing to look right.

Well, no matter how they answer that question, the result was the same. BUT--some people babble stuff right after accidents that is witnessed by others..such as "I never look right--I don't have to because I have the right-of-way". They may view that response as "safer" than saying "I looked but didn't see anyone".

 

I'll leave the last word on this to you.

[MotorinLA]

[rgraham]

Yes, the number of passing lanes in Northern Cal back roads are becoming less and less. There are a lot of turnouts available however. Many people will use them, and some don't. If a slower driver does not use the turnout the first time while I'm close behind them, I just may pass them at the next one, whether they pull into it or not. They are usually safe places to pass in the first place, and who's to say that the car didn't begin to take the turnout, and then change their mind as I was passing and try to retake the lane. Crossing the double yellow was an evasive action. ;o)

 

The best thing about all the double yellows is that cars are the ones that don't seem to ever cross the lines to pass, except when passing bicyclists on their side of the road. This does make it somewhat easier to pass them without too much worry that both of you will be pulling out to pass slower traffic at the same time.