[Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
toby.murray at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 08:12:51 BST 2011
"Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the
rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of
a vehicle ..."
On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, "Paul Johnson" <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
>> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz <peter at dobratz.us>
>> >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
>> >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all,
>> >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a
>> >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle?
>> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law:
>> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles
>> >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no
>> >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public
>> >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission
>> >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or
>> >> sign."
>> > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting
>> > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging
>> > is never bad).
>> >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be
>> >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I
>> >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And
>> >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive
>> >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my
>> >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias.
>> > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance,
>> > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except
>> > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a
>> > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt
>> > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous
>> > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street.
>> The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on
>> public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I
>> can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does.
> Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and
> Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in
> that state for some reason).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us