07-03-2022, 02:15 AM
(07-02-2022, 03:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Meanwhile in Peterborough they just plowed ahead and painted a crossride at a PXO on one of their MUTs that has zero regulatory authority. There is nothing legally requiring drivers to yield to cyclists here because the shark teeth have no regulatory authority by themselves. That's a dangerous situation.
I agree more or less with all the legal interpretation, but I disagree that it is "dangerous". Or at least, I disagree that it is more dangerous than any other marking.
Cyclists are not going to dismount...it doesn't matter what you do, dismount signs, whatever cyclists won't...and I agree fully with them.
Drivers are going to yield some of the time, but probably equally to cyclists and pedestrians...drivers don't know the law either. Cyclists and pedestrians are going to look for drivers equally and almost all the time as they know drivers often do not yield whether they are required to or not.
So what is the "danger" here? I don't consider "legal risk" danger, if you even think there is any legal risk here to engineers or the city, which I doubt there is anyway.