door silverjaw » 20 jan 2019, 07:48
oh - so the point here is the presence of a cyclist in the continuous cycle lane coming from the left or not, not the colour of the cycle lane? then, am i right that at an intersection i have priority over an empty cycle lane and a car to the left, but if there is a car to the left and also a cyclist in the cycle lane to the left then i give priority to the cyclist, but not the car?
that is not obvious from the text. the grammer in the english text version is quite bad throughout the book. this makes the meaning very difficult to accurately understand many times. *sigh* i don't know how non-native english speakers can understand it at all...!
thanks,
tim
oh - so the point here is the presence of a cyclist in the continuous cycle lane coming from the left or not, not the colour of the cycle lane? then, am i right that at an intersection i have priority over an empty cycle lane and a car to the left, but if there is a car to the left and also a cyclist in the cycle lane to the left then i give priority to the cyclist, but not the car?
that is not obvious from the text. the grammer in the english text version is quite bad throughout the book. this makes the meaning very difficult to accurately understand many times. *sigh* i don't know how non-native english speakers can understand it at all...!
thanks,
tim
:)