from the stopped bus to not create any crossing risks. • Texas adds an interesting and useful
clarification to this notion by stating that “a highway is not considered divided if the highway has roadways separated only by a left turn lane.” Tis important safety con- sideration seems to have been overlooked by virtually every other state — unless their regulation writers simply assumed that this aberration’s (i.e., a left-turn lane) exclusion from the exemption of stop- ping for a loading or unloading school bus would be obvious to all or most motorists. • No sooner did Texas clarify the left-
turn lane issue than Utah obscured it by exempting oncoming vehicles from stop- ping only on a highway of five of more lanes, “which may include a left-turn lane or two-way left turn lane.” (I am curious as to what the latter actually is.) As a few of these exceptions illustrate,
one problem that exacerbates the con- fusion is the vast array of differences
in regulatory wording. Nowhere is this point more clear or the problem more fuzzy than with descriptions of divided roadways. As one of the worst examples of obscure wording, a New Hampshire regulation qualifies the divided highway issue by stating, “but the exemption on a divided highway applies to the opposite direction on its other half only.” Huh? Other times, the contents of certain
regulations are so unclear that they verily defy compliance. New Jersey’s mandate that oncoming vehicles traveling on high- speed, divided highways slow to a speed lower than 10 mph when approaching a loading school bus or ice cream truck provides a salient example. Clearly, such a regulation cannot help but be commonly ignored. Otherwise, a school bus stop- ping along any divided roadway would not only bring a thick stream of other- wise high-speed traffic to a crawl but also would create a series of multiple rear- endings in the process. In the world of
regulation writing, one must not only be careful about what he or she wishes for: One must also be careful about what he or she mandates. Because the regulations cited here are
only a tiny fraction of any state’s regula- tions, and even a small fraction of any state’s motor vehicle regulations, alle- viating both the content and language problems would seem to be an insur- mountable task. At the same time, the difference in
competence in regulatory language among various states, and the obvious obsolescence of so much of it, makes the task of updating the language, much less attempting to reach some level of unifor- mity among states, strikingly urgent. ■
Einstein is an expert witness and owns Transportation Alternatives in New York City. Te opinions expressed do not neces- sarily reflect those of STN’s editors. He may be reached at
einstein@transalt.com.
www.stnonline.com 73
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84