Street Beat for Oct. 11

» 1 Comment | Post a Comment

Q:In the Oct. 4 Street Beat, a reader had a question about enforcement of the "move right" law. This is the law that requires slower-moving drivers to move right when traffic behind them wishes to pass.

I asked Tom Lambert of the state police. He said that if the obstructing drivers are going less than the speed limit and won't get over, they can be ticketed. Fines range from $30 to $81.

But he noted that the law is not a permit to speed.

"Remember, if you have to speed to pass, you are the one breaking the law. And if you travel at an unlawful speed to get around the obstructing driver, you no longer have the right of way.

"The best answer to another driver's discourtesy is to drive defensively, safely and within the limits of the law," he said.

"Aggressive and reckless driving to get around another vehicle endangers the driver, passengers, other motorists, and can result in criminal charges."

. . .

Q:In Chesterfield County when going north on Woods Edge Road at Ruffin Mill Road, I see that the signs and pavement markings indicate that the right lane ends. In fact, the left lane ends. This error causes traffic turning right off Ruffin Mill Road to have to immediately move to the left lane, only to have to move back to the right as the left lane ends.

The current markings make no sense and create a potential safety hazard. -- Robert L.

Answer: I'm always glad to alert the proper authorities to confusing situations. The next step usually is for them review accident reports and decide whether the problem is severe enough to warrant a change.

In this case, the Virginia Department of Transportation reviewed crash data from Nov. 1, 2005, to Oct. 31, 2008. The conclusion: A change is not warranted.

"During this time, there were only two reported crashes," which were classified as sideswipes of vehicles going in the same direction, said VDOT's Taya M. Jarman. One crash reported the vehicle moving to the right lane, while the other crash had the vehicle moving to the left lane.

"Therefore, based on the crash pattern history, there is no reason to change the traffic pattern on this roadway."

Nevertheless, I am running this in Street Beat as a way to alert readers about the possible confusion at this site.

. . .

Q:Several months ago, the city deposited beige rocks (bigger than gravel) on the streets of Church Hill south of Broad Street.

Supposedly they would all adhere to the street after a week, according to someone you queried at the city.

A short time after that column, the city came and "vacuumed" up the rocks on several of the streets, but not on Libby Terrace or some other streets. The entire neighborhood is opposed to these rocks. They ding up our cars, the kids can't ride their bikes through them, they scratch our shoes, and worse, stick to the bottom of your shoes and scrape up hardwood floors. Please, can they come back and take all the rocks away?

We've been tempted to bring buckets of them to the city, because they are so easy to scrape up. We're all tired of living on basically a gravel road. -- J.K.

Answer: I want to un-rock your world. So I asked the city about this.

Sharon North of the Department of Public Works said the city plans to sweep up the rocks tomorrow.

I hope everything goes smoothly from now on.


Do you have a question for Street Beat? Contact Patrick Owens at or (804) 649-6802. Follow him at http://twitter.com/RTDStreetBeat

Advertisement

 
View More: traffic,street beat,patrick owens,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by PaganLinq on October 11, 2009 at 7:49 am

“signs and pavement markings indicate that the right lane ends. In fact, the left lane ends.“

“the Virginia Department of Transportation reviewed crash data…The conclusion: A change is not warranted.“

Excuse me! The markings are patently incorrect, but because no one has been killed yet, the state isn’t going to bother to correct their mistake?

And when someone is killed, and the state is sued for negligence, with this article cited as evidence that the state knew of the problem and refused to correct it? What then?

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement