From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Hi.
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:59:22 GMT

In article <crystal.721666684@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>In <1992Nov12.143216.1167@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
>
>>In article <crystal.721538728@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>>>
>>>Nope, not polite at all.  In fact, it is ILLEGAL!  Once a turn signal goes
>>>on you are REQUIRED to let that person into the lane in this state.  But
>>>nobody seems to know the law. :<
>
>>Huh?!?  Can you cite the actual law?  This little bit of counter-
>>intuitive legaleese was never drummed into us in Steering and Parallel
>>Parking, uh, Drivers' Ed class, or Speed Trap Jail, uh, the Defensive
>>Driving course.  It goes counter to the rule of the road that a person
>>*on* a road has the right of way over a person *entering* a road.  
etc...

>It's been a couple of years since I found out about this, so exact source
>is not available.  I *think* it came out of the AAA motorist newsletter,
>along with the law of not driving in the far left lane for extended periods
>of time, but to use it only for passing. (This is for ememrgency vehicle
>access).

Actually, emergency vehicle access has nothing to do with this law.
The law exists so that people can pass slower traffic.  If you have
somebody loping along at 50 MPH in the left lane, then traffic backs
up because nobody can get around them.  If you're in the left lane,
you should be passing the cars to the right of you.  If you're not
passing them, you shouldn't be in the left lane.

>I can't believe your comment:      
>
>"It goes counter to the rule of the road that a person
>*on* a road has the right of way over a person *entering* a road." 
>
>How in the world would anyone ever GET on the road to begin with?
>And remember, there are "Merge" signs, which tell you to let the other
>guy in.

It's very simple - you pull onto the road when doing so will not
interfere with the free flow of traffic on that road.  This means
that when you are stopped at a cross-street, you do not pull out
into traffic unless there is enough room (between you and the cars
approaching) for you to get up to speed (by the time they reach you).
In layman's terms, this means you can't cut people off.  Those cars
on the road you wish to enter *have* the right-of-way.  That's the law.
A merge sign does not tell you to let the other guy in as much as it is
to warn you that traffic may be coming into your lane and you should be
aware of that.  Remember, most of those merging lanes have Yield signs
in them - meaning yield to traffic already in the lane.  A courteous
driver will let a merging car in (if that merging car is up to speed),
but please don't expect freeway traffic to slam on their brakes and
slow down for a merging laggard - that's not their responsibility.

>But as far as two cars moving in the same direction, both are already in
>the roadway, and if one doesn't yield, the other guy is likely to just 
>bulldoze, and THAT is how accidents happen.  And that is why the law went
>into effect.

So that if the guy *does* bulldoze, the accident is the fault of the
guy s/he bulldozed *into*?  Again, this is counter-intuitive.  A turn
signal is not a grantor of the right-of-way.  If this has been
superceded in Washington, then we are a minority of one in the
automotive world.  I *am* going to look this up, because such a
law will lead to grief for many innocent motorists.


-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |
Newsgroups: seattle.general