Driver fights late merging ordinance / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Associated Press

April 9, 2008

Overland Park — A man ticketed for merging late in a construction zone has filed a lawsuit challenging the way Overland Park applies its "no passing zones," asking that the city be banned from enforcing the law on highways.

Linus L. Baker, a Stilwell lawyer, was ticketed last year after he merged near the front of a line of cars in a highway construction zone. After successfully fighting the ticket, he wants his victory to apply to others similarly cited.

In his lawsuit, filed in February in Johnson County District Court, Baker seeks to stop Overland Park from enforcing its "no-passing zones" ordinance in highway construction sites. The lawsuit also seeks to have the city reimburse thousands of dollars in fines and fees paid by drivers prosecuted under the ordinance.

An Overland Park official did not immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.

After Baker challenged his ticket last year, a Johnson County district judge ruled in his favor. Judge John P. Bennett found, among other things, that the city's ordinance was vague as applied to the type of highway Baker was on.

Overland Park conceded the ordinance was probably not designed with multilane, divided roadways in mind. The city did not appeal the judgment.

Baker contends reasonable drivers don't know what the no-passing signs mean when it comes to when they have to merge. He also said the enforcement of the ordinance was arbitrary and capricious.

He says the city is misapplying the law to create a merging buffer zone, or what Baker calls a "be polite zone."

Baker says he is a polite driver, which the officer even noted on the ticket. But he doesn't see the point of joining a long line of cars in one lane when the other lane has yet to close.

The issue of late mergers is a perennial problem for highway officials and early mergers. Highway officials see such laws as necessary for the safety of drivers and construction zone workers.

Late mergers create shock waves where everybody has to stop or slow down, said Steven Schrock, assistant professor with the Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at Kansas University. That shock wave rolls back upstream and can create dangerous situations.

Law enforcement officials say drivers should merge as soon as possible in no-passing highway construction zones. But Kansas' no-passing statute and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices do not say how quickly a driver is expected to merge.

Enforcement of that statute, as well as others that would be applicable to work zone safety, is left up to the discretion of the officer, said Cait Purinton-Day, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Highway Patrol.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 April 2008
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“its “no-passing zones” ordinance in highway construction sites. “Are they confusing “no-passing” with “merging” or “lane changes”?”Overland Park conceded the ordinance was probably not designed with multilane, divided roadways in mind.”Guess so.”He says the city is misapplying the law to create a merging buffer zone, or what Baker calls a “be polite zone.”“Yes, it would be polite. And how you hate it when people zoom up front to beat the system! “But he doesn't see the point of joining a long line of cars in one lane when the other lane has yet to close.”Yeah, like those types!But, what happens when one finds himself unable to merge over ahead of time and in the merge zone? Wait until the lane is opened back up several weeks down the road?”Late mergers create shock waves where everybody has to stop or slow down, “So, move it further away from the construction area and lengthen it moer! Problem solved.”But Kansas' no-passing statute and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices do not say how quickly a driver is expected to merge.”No passing means no passing - it doesn't mean no merging - it doesn't mean no lane changes.
9 April 2008
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

99 % of attorneys give the rest of them a bad name ! ! ! This guy is a PR*CK !!
9 April 2008
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

if you know a mile ahead that the lane is going to end do not wait till you are out of lane to try and get over just get over.
9 April 2008
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

I late-merger, go-to-the-front-of-the-line type. One of the more loathed types of “drivers.” Linus should be thrown in a pit and burned.
9 April 2008
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

zzgoeb (Anonymous) says…

If he had to pay the going rate for a laywer, he would never have gone to court. Shame on the judge for not seeing the intent of the law; to prohibit “cutting in line.” How many times have we all seen this…an idiot blasts past a long line to then “cut in.” Don't let them do it…move up and make them wait. It is different when someone back in line gets caught in the merge lane. I always let the polite person in. This case is a classic example of what is wrong with our court system. The judge should have dismissed the case and lectured the knucklehead!
9 April 2008
at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Throw the book at this S*O*B!!!!! The only people I hate nearly as much as this type is the milquetoasts who let them in. They should have to sit there for 2 hours while a stream of bumper-to-bumper, merged-when-they-were-supposed-to vehicles refuses to let them in. (For the record, I am very generous about letting people in when they are not trying to pull something unfair on the rest of us.)Good for the cop for ticketing this jerk. Dollars to doughnuts, he blithely sped up to get ahead of the earlier mergers and jockey for unfair advantage. He probably does it all the time, because (at probably $200/hr) he is so much more important than the rest of us schmucks.We see this all the time, and most people know when someone is pulling this number. I have seen very few instances of people refusing to let someone in when they are trying to merge in good faith & in good time, and NOT racing to get to the head of the line before merging.
9 April 2008
at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Shame on the judge for not seeing the intent of the law; to prohibit “cutting in line.”“Should there be laws about being polite and not cutting in line?”Dollars to doughnuts, he blithely sped up to get ahead of the earlier mergers and jockey for unfair advantage.”I think he basically admitted as such.”We see this all the time, and most people know when someone is pulling this number.”How about straddling the line so they can't get past you? If everyone did, should prevent the problem from both the jerks and those who don't know what's happening.

9 April 2008
at 1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toe (Anonymous) says…

Does this also apply to passing the buck?
9 April 2008
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

d_prowess (Anonymous) says…

I don't like people that do this either, but when is the appropriate time to get over? As soon as you see the sign? As soon as you see traffic in the open lane begin to slow? I think people will have varing opinions on this, so it seems like it would be tough to agree. Also, how can something like this be enforced without a specific rule to follow (e.g. half mile before the closing)?
9 April 2008
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

How about the road rage this piece of sh@% causes become some wimpy “oh I'll let you in” caved in.. I think we should be armed with 50 mm roof mounted machine guns with lazer/computer technology to incenerate this kind of A-hole. A few burnt spots on the merge lane would solve this problem in a hurry. yahooooooo!!!!! You know the bad thing about 10,000 Lawyers drowning on a ship don't you???? Answer: It wasn't 20 thousand.
9 April 2008
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

I try to force them into the ditch by pulling out of the merged lane in front of them. Then pull back into my cozy little spot while I wait. I think we should have howitzers mounted on the roof of our cars with lazer / computer technology and incinerate a few of these “important” people. A few charred remains along side the merge lane might teach em.
9 April 2008
at 1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

well if you are passing someone then stay left other wise you should already be in the right lane, if that lane is the closing get over when you see the sign that says lane closed ahead.
9 April 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

salad (Anonymous) says…

Whether or not it's legal is beside the point, the intent is to cheat. I've had this argument with others who've claimed the, “I just choose to merge in a different place” argument. They rationalize that they are merging when the lane runs out and not cheating, but the intent is the same.
9 April 2008
at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

Well, I'm a lawyer and an admitted late merger—maybe it's genetic. :)Okay, kidding, but honestly I do find it pretty amusing that this guy is accused of “road rage” yet the people whining about late merging are suggesting perhaps killing the guy….? There is no law that says “be polite and wait in line.” Yes, it would be nice if that was the eutopia we lived in, but it's not. Until it is, I will continue late merging proudly. Because if it's not me, it WILL be someone else.
9 April 2008
at 1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

well some where is says if your not passing move to the right or something like that, also slower traffic keep right and it just good manners.

9 April 2008
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

I can see why this can be a sticky situation to pin down, as each road construction setup is a bit unique.BUTMost of us have been in a road work/merge/lane closing situation where traffic is backed up in the open lane, only to see some self-important schmuck speed up to the front of the line (then another schmuck lets them in).As was stated earlier, it's simply a matter of courtesy. We're all trying to get where we want to go, and unless you're an ambulance, police car, or fire engine, you can wait with the rest of us. By butting in line, you can cause more delays and even injuries.In these situations, I would love to see:1. Everyone in the correct lane sneak over enough into the closing lane so another rude driver can't fit. Especially 18-wheelers.2. If you are in the correct lane…don't let someone “in” if they've obviously butted in line. You are not doing them a favor, and they're probably the type of person that wouldn't dream of letting you in no matter what the situation. Make the rude @^#$% sit and wait.
9 April 2008
at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

“…suggesting perhaps killing the guy:.?”Then maybe, “Tee hee, it's really nothing.” is the wrong way to look at it?
9 April 2008
at 2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

The Truck Driver, Priest, and Lawyer A truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he saw walking down the side of the road. Every time he saw a lawyer walking along the road, he swerved to hit him and there would be a loud “THUMP”. Then he would swerve back on the road. One day, as the truck driver was driving along the road he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good deed and pulled the truck over. “Where are you going, Father?” The truck driver asked. “I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road,” replied the priest. “No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck.” The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road. Suddenly, the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road. Instinctively he swerved to hit him. At the last moment he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so he swerved back to the road and narrowly missed the lawyer. Certain he should've missed the lawyer, the truck driver was very surprised and immediately uneasy when he heard a loud “THUMP”. He felt really guilty about his actions and so turned to the priest and said, “I'm really sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer.” “That's okay,” replied the priest. “I got him with the door.”
9 April 2008
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Hey Hodge, If your logic is correct, that some else WILL do it, I just wanted to let you know, there are also people who jump of the bridge, (w/out bungies) “getting any ideas”????
9 April 2008
at 7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

consumer1 (Anonymous) says: Hey Hodge, If your logic is correct, that some else WILL do it, I just wanted to let you know, there are also people who jump of the bridge, (w/out bungies) “getting any ideas”????––––––––––––––––––––––––-It's not logic, it's a fact. And what does it mean “people who jump of the bridge?” Is English your second language?(Okay, slightly catty, but come on…..who started the immaturity here. Sorry you can't handle honesty.)
10 April 2008
at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“It's not logic, it's a fact”Did you miss the logic part of consumer1's complaint? Do Lawyer's have a problem following arguments?”people who jump of the bridge?”What's non-English about that statement?
10 April 2008
at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

gr (Anonymous) says: “people who jump of the bridge?”What's non-English about that statement?–––––––––––––––––––––––-Okay, I give up. Please tell me what “jumping of the bridge” is……I have no problem following logic, and additionally, I can read and spell.
11 April 2008
at 7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ahhh. Spelling error. Or wrong (English) word choice. However, nothing non-English.Logic not addressed, though.===================As far as no passing:I have seen the No Passing signs on a 4 lane divided highway and had no idea what they meant. I mean, why would someone move into oncoming traffic to pass someone when they could just change lanes but remain on the righthand side of the highway? But, maybe they mean, don't pass when it narrows to a two lane road. I have thought it would be interesting to try to dodge the cones down the center line in order to pass someone, but didn't seem worthwhile. I guess that's why there's no passing.But, reading about this, it appears they are trying to make a rule for one situation apply to another completely different situation. Kind of like some idiots who think not crossing the yellow line means you can't make left hand turns!In the driver's handbook, it has a “do not pass” sign saying, do not pass other vehicles. It also has a “pass with care” sign saying, you may pass with care if there are no vehicles coming from the opposite direction. Anyone see one of those after the construction zone? Any one know how that would work?Suppose you are approaching a work zone at 45 miles per hour and you are in the ending lane. Beside you is a little old lady driving 20 mph. Does this NEW rule mean you have to slam on your breaks? Preposterous!A complete misapplication of the no passing rule!

11 April 2008
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

gr (Anonymous) says: Ahhh. Spelling error. Or wrong (English) word choice. However, nothing non-English.Logic not addressed, though.–––––––––––––––––––––––-Okay, you want me to address the non-logic of the comment? Done. Consumer was trying to compare an individual act done for positive outcome (late merging—the actor gets the satisfaction of cutting in line) to the detriment of general society (feeling “cut off” in traffic), to an individual act done for negative outcome (suicide) which has no effect on society at large.It was masked as logic, but it was really just a jab at me. A terrible analogy, with no point. Feel better now?
11 April 2008
at 9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Hey! Guess who?http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/may/04/mos_gas/I pity the poor lawyer that has to give up her Porshe when times are rough.
11 April 2008
at 12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says: Hey! Guess who?http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007:I pity the poor lawyer that has to give up her Porshe when times are rough.––––––––––––––––––––––-True enough. I have never tried to hide behind anonymity around here. Yes, I sold the Porsche. Though honestly that was more because it was my “fun car” and I didn't really need two cars. Of course then I turned around and bough another roadster, but hey, at least I had good intentions.
11 April 2008
at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Objection.Consumer was making a comparision that if someone will do something, then there is nothing wrong with anyone else doing it. Which is not supported.Using your argument:”an individual act done for positive outcome…to an individual act done for negative outcome (suicide) “Objection. Negative outcome is only viewed in your eyes. In the eyes of the one jumping, it is seen as the only positive outcome.”which has no effect on society at large.”Objection on the grounds of why is suicide against the law?”it was really just a jab at me.”Well, it was true it was a jab at you.
11 April 2008
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

gr (Anonymous) says: Objection.Consumer was making a comparision that if someone will do something, then there is nothing wrong with anyone else doing it. Which is not supported.Using your argument:”an individual act done for positive outcome:to an individual act done for negative outcome (suicide) “Objection. Negative outcome is only viewed in your eyes. In the eyes of the one jumping, it is seen as the only positive outcome.”which has no effect on society at large.”Objection on the grounds of why is suicide against the law?”it was really just a jab at me.”Well, it was true it was a jab at you.–––––––––––––––––––––––—Wow. I just love nit wits. Okay, I'll play your game. It's a slow day…..”Consumer was making a comparision that if someone will do something, then there is nothing wrong with anyone else doing it. Which is not supported.”That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. By that logic if someone wins a million dollars, there's nothing wrong with someone else winning a million dollars—wait? That's not supported?? Only one person can win a lottery. Yeah, that makes no sense. So, if that was your point, and I am following YOUR logic now, if someone late merges, there's nothing wrong with someone else late merging—which means you actually agree with me.”Objection. Negative outcome is only viewed in your eyes. In the eyes of the one jumping, it is seen as the only positive outcome.”Perhaps. Ever talked to a suicide survivor? Generally speaking, it's regarded as the last painful option to them. You want to call that a positive. Fine by me. I think you're a little warped, but fine by me.”Objection on the grounds of why is suicide against the law?”I have no idea. If you have some ideas I'd love to hear them. Personally, I think suicide should be legal, and I stand by the comment that regardless of legality or illegality, it has no impact whatsoever on the general population. Once again, your flawed logic would assume that by virtue of doing something “illegal” you're effecting the general population. So, I hope for your sake you're not having any oral sex, (which given your dialouge, I am highly doubtful about) because that's illegal, and thus MUST have an impact on the poplulation, right??”Well, it was true it was a jab at you.”Yes, I know. And a weak one at that.Let me know when you're done playing lawyer.
11 April 2008
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justfornow (Anonymous) says…

I'm proud to say I have not let one evil doer cut in front of me in over 20 years.
11 April 2008
at 3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read.” (Personally, I think you didn't follow)But you did agree (or at least imply that you did) that if someone jumps ofF a bridge, it would be wrong for someone else to.”and I stand by the comment that regardless of legality or illegality, it has no impact whatsoever on the general population.”Are you saying that some laws exist not for the benefit of society? Hmmmm…..Which is obviously from your intent of being rude on the road. Still not saying that currently IS a valid rule nor should it become one.Maybe you can tell us the purpose of laws, you bein' one of those lawyer's and such.To get your name on a law? To get your name as a lawyer who made a big case out of a law? Is that the purpose?Snicker.
12 April 2008
at 2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Erin truly lives up to the lawyer stereotype.Inconsiderate beotch.Case dismissed.

13 April 2008
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

blue73harley (Anonymous) says: Erin truly lives up to the lawyer stereotype.Inconsiderate beotch.Case dismissed.–––––––––––––––––––––––—Thanks!! I'm honored, given that you know me so well. I'll reserve comment on what stereotype you're living up to……
13 April 2008
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

gr (Anonymous) says: Are you saying that some laws exist not for the benefit of society? Hmmmm:..Which is obviously from your intent of being rude on the road. Still not saying that currently IS a valid rule nor should it become one.–––––––––––––––––––––Gr, if you want to debate with me, you are going to have to learn to write intelligently. I have NO idea what point you are even trying to make. Perhaps when you learn how to better communicate your thoughts, I can answer your question.I quote the above for reference—”which is obviously from your intent…” What?? I guess when there is a well thought out comment or question, I will respond to it. Until then, I will assume I am “debating” with a grade schooler.