 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008Good Sensible NJ Driving Law Repealed
A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop intersection without stopping twice. From http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html NJ had this law on the books since Christopher Columbus sailed down Rt22, no problems with it, made sense, saved gas, time, cut pollution, now this lame brain Governor we have, steered by idiot legislators, REPEALS this law effective June 8th, 2008. Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go through at once. No one ever had a problem with it, so why now in this time of astronomical gas and energy costs do we find this repealed? This stinks, badly. GK > A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing > vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop > intersection without stopping twice. > <snip> > Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already > stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go > through at once. If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear? There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially when you have the right of way and they're not yielding.  Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing >> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially when > you have the right of way and they're not yielding. Well for starters, no one ever had a problem with it, it made sense, saved time and gas, and it was one of the good things about NJ. Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in a reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse. GK >>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing >>> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in a > reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse. Well, I'm not clear what this law does, and as described it doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain in more detail what this law does/did, and maybe include an example? Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >>>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision >>>> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > sense to me. Could you explain in more detail what this law does/did, > and maybe include an example? Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection. Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled intersection. Now in practical reality, 9 out of 10 times, a few cars at a time would go through and you could not really count on many people knowing that they had to stop if you had the stop sign, so drivers wouldn't "push" the law to its limits, but it sure helped a lot to have that on the books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion. GK >>>>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision >>>>> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled > intersection. Weird. I didn't know about this law. I drive through NJ quite often, coming and going to NY, but then the interstates have no stops signs. ;) In any event, what you describe as example application is an intersection that needs a traffic light. (That would be the case, I believe, when you have many cars in more than one direction). What I thought it was when I read your first message, and what would make sense to me, would be to have the line of cars moving, as long as there were no cars coming from the cross street. As soon as a car appeared at the cross street, the rule would revert to the "first come" common law. Come to think of it, it is a good thing I didn't encounter such an intersection with a line of locals who were driving according to that law. I would have certainly tried to break the line and been rightly furious if they didn't yield. Yeah, that law is bad for out-of state drivers and they were right to repeal it. However, I think that the more sensible part - a line moving as long as there is no cross traffic - should be adopted by all states. >Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a >continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled >intersection. The conga-line was legal in NJ? Now that is messed up. What you are saying is that if someone was on a minor road could wait until the end of rush hours if people driving on the main road just ignored the red signal. Basically the driver on the minor road would have to treat a green signal as a stop sign and red signal as a prohibition of movement. He'd have to find a gap in traffic only on a green. That's screwed up and could cause monumental congestion. >but it sure helped a lot to have that on the >books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion. It would cause long lines of congestion for those drivers who were denied their green signal. >> Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a >> continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It would cause long lines of congestion for those drivers who were > denied their green signal. In practicality, the drivers going through the stop sign would not push there luck much thinking that the other line of traffic would yield for them, even though they legally could. It did not get to the point of congesting the flow of traffic on the main road much, and it applied only at stop signs, not red/green signals. AND STILL DOES until June 6, 2008. GK >>> Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a >>> continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >there luck much thinking that the other line of traffic would yield for >them, even though they legally could. That's like saying laws that violate our rights are ok because cops will only use them as tools to arrest bad people. >It did not get to the point of congesting the flow of traffic on the >main road much, and it applied only at stop signs, not red/green signals. >AND STILL DOES until June 6, 2008. Only on stop signs.... guess that eliminates some of the idiotcy. >> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision >> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > except in cases where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to > make sure it's clear? The application is to keep traffic flow moving, obviously. > There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, > especially when you have the right of way and they're not > yielding. But you DON'T have the right of way. That's the point. The conga line has the right of way until the conga line no longer is a line. Then the other conga line takes over. > A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing > vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > GK Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help please. >> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing >> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help > please. Its not stop sign running, and the old law, which was on the books since the beginning of cars and roads in NJ greatly improved the quality of life here. But then I should know better than to argue sense with you. GK >>> GK >> >> Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help >> please. > Its not stop sign running, and the old law, which was on the books since > the beginning of cars and roads in NJ greatly improved the quality of > life here. Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call it? >>>> GK >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call > it? Following the law. Clearly, the stop sign laws have an exclusion for continuous traffic flow. Look, I realize it's confusing to you. I mean, anything more than just "red=stop" is beyond your comprehension. I get it. Just don't f.ck it up for the rest of us. > Clearly, the stop sign laws have an exclusion > for continuous traffic flow. "A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop intersection without stopping twice." http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html Clearly not. "Under certain conditions" may mean... anything. Remaining ignorant of what it "really" means and forming an opinion, while common practice here, does not demonstrate even an average intellect. You're accepting the OP's interpretation, who may or may not also be an idiot of your caliber, about an 8 gauge, unless I miss my guess. ----- - gpsman gpsman <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote in news:6e600b26-623f-4603-af3a-adac2df9d68f@l64g2000hse.googlegroups. com: >> Clearly, the stop sign laws have an exclusion >> for continuous traffic flow. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Clearly not. "Under certain conditions" may mean... anything. No, "Under certain conditions" are spelled out in the law. Just because you're ignorant of the law doesn't mean they don't exist. >> Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call >> it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > comprehension. I get it. Just don't f.ck it up for the rest of > us. As usual, you can't think logically. This is stop sign running. It may be legal but it's still SSR. If rape was made legal, it would still be rape even if it's no longer a crime. THINK >>> Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call >>> it? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It may be legal but it's still SSR. If rape was made legal, it > would still be rape even if it's no longer a crime. THINK No, actually it wouldn't, since rape is a legal term, like murder. But why am I arguing with someone who doesn't understand the term "intent"? Bored, I guess. > >> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing > >> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > GK I live in NJ. Moved here around 13 years ago, and I cannot think of a single time where I encountered this situation. > Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already > stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go > through at once. What does that law state, verbatim? ----- - gpsman > > Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already > > stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - gpsman Same question here. That law, as he laid it out, basically says that noone ever has the ROW at the intersection and everyone is his own judge of stopping or not. Harry K >>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already >>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Harry K Nope, not at all, in answer to Speeders and Drunk Driver Against Moderation and others, the following is what the existing law reads as: Traffic Laws 39:4-145. Line of vehicles entering stop or yield intersection after stopping One or more vehicles or street cars following directly in line with another vehicle or street car and coming to a complete stop, caused by the first vehicle or street car nearest the intersection complying with section 39:4-144 of this Title, may proceed into or across the intersecting street without again coming to a complete stop. No driver of a vehicle or street car approaching the intersection on the intersecting street shall fail to yield to the vehicle so proceeding into or across the intersecting street. Amended by L.1958, c. 114, p. 589, s. 5. , p. 486, s. 5; L.1958, c. 114, p. 588, s. 4 From: http://www.lickyourtickets.com/trafficlaws/39_4_145.shtml Notice that the law requires drivers on the intersecting street to yield to he "conga line" as its been called. And yes, very many NJ drivers are not aware of this law. Out of informally discussing it with about 20 NJ drivers only 2 of them knew about it. GK Here's another webpage with the same law quoted: NJSA 39:4-145. Failure to yield to a line of vehicles entering stop or yield intersection after stopping Fine ranging from $50-$200 or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both. For information regarding points or surcharges contact the Motor Vehicle Commission. For information about car insurance eligibility and points contact your car insurance company or the New Jersey Department of Insurance. One or more vehicles or street cars following directly in line with another vehicle or street car and coming to a complete stop, caused by the first vehicle or street car nearest the intersection complying with section 39:4-144 of this Title, may proceed into or across the intersecting street without again coming to a complete stop. No driver of a vehicle or street car approaching the intersection on the intersecting street shall fail to yield to the vehicle so proceeding into or across the intersecting street. From: http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/39.4-145Failureyield.html GK > Here's another webpage with the same law quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > GK Hmm...that was posted after my Apr 22 post. The amount of fine there shows that it is _not_ an anachronistic law. That is a sample of a law written and approved by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of ROW. It basically is saying that noone at that intersection has the ROW. The stop sign isn't needed at all, a simple 'yeild' would do....hmm...no it wouldn't. For some reason they wanted it so traffic on the main road has to yeild for traffic coming past a stop sign. Rediculous! Harry K > >>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already > >>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Aha, as I thought. It reads just like those old, old laws written back in the dawning days of traffic. One that should have been repealed way back when but has been overlooked until recently. There are lots of those anachronistic laws still on the books around the country. Harry K |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.