To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
First panel reads, “Here’s [sic] some [laws] you need to know.”
No. Incorrect.
It should have read, “Here ARE some that you need to know.”
“Some” (laws) = plural.
Are you a thought cop as well?
Get a life.
She (the writer) is calling it a group of new provisions, justifying the singular. You are calling them separate, which would make it plural. Either one works. I’d have used the plural too, but she’s just being vernacular. [As in: you knock on a door and they say “Who’s there?” You answer “it’s me.” The correct usage would be “It’s I,” but since no one speaks that way now, it’s not the one to use.]
Damn, let us find something more important to debate other than cartoon info panels, like why the Gilfeather turnip is the new state vegetable. Take a breath everyone….
Staying 4 feet away from cyclist is almost impossible with the roads we have and the cyclist who love to ride in the middle of a lane going up hill where the driver cannot see oncoming traffic…
It isn’t impossible to stay 4 feet away from a cyclist. You can not pass them when it’s not safe to pass. For example going over a hill where you can’t see the oncoming traffic.
It would be great if Seven Days was to investigate if the old law of “Exercise due care, which includes increasing clearance, to pass the vulnerable users safely” was ever enforced.
not only is it impossible to stay four feet away from cyclist on most roads. It is also impossible to know what the cyclist has in mind to do. With this new law it empowers the cyclist to keep encroaching on you forcing you to keep moving over. I was taught to ride on the right side of the road and to give vehicles the right of way. This is another law by people that don`t want to be held accountable for their own actions.
With the new North Ave bike lane the 4 foot law would technically mean that drivers should be 4 feet to the left of the bike lane.
Perhaps the city council should consider having lights that would only allow vehicle traffic one way at a time?
THAT WOULD BE A SUPER PLAN !!!