2012.05.29 21:24, Zhiniukas rašė:
> Man rodos, kad tu ne ten slieku ieskai. O jei tas pat "kelias yra
> skirtas pestiesiems ir dviratistams, kaip tada, o jei kelio nera, tik
> linijos ant asfalto?...
> Dviraciu takas nera kelias, kurio apibrezimas figuruoja tavo minetoj
> sankryzoj. Sankryzoj (susikirtime) su dviraciu taku (pazymetu zenklais
> ir atskirtu arba nea inzinerinias statiniais) dviratis praleidzia visus.
> Jei sankryza be zenklu ir vsais keliais gali masinos vaziuot, tada
> galioja desines rankos taisykle.

Atsibodo su paniatlyvais ginčytis. Tebūnie tavo tiesa, nors ir 
nepateikei nei vieno tavo teiginius paremiančio KET punkto. :P

> Olandijoj taksistas minejo, kad nors ir yra visur zenklai, kada kas ka
> turi praleist (pasakysiu - dafiga zenklu tiek dviraciam, tiek
> automobiliam), bet jei nukirsi dvirati - visada busi kaltas.

Taksistai visur vienodai „protingi“. Net ir Olandijoje kaltas liks tas, 
kas pažeidė taisykles, tik kad įrodinėjimo priedermė tenks motoristui.

The law draws a distinction at the age of 14 years. In a collision with 
a cyclist or pedestrian aged under 14, a motorist is likely to be held 
to be responsible. However, a cyclist or pedestrian who is older than 14 
years of age is expected to know how to behave on the streets and is 
likely to be held at least partly responsible in the event of a crash. 
If they're behaving recklessly then they can instantly expect at least 
50% of the blame for any collision. An adult pedestrian dressed in black 
and crossing a road without looking can expect to be held to be liable 
for damage to a motor vehicle which hits him. That is what the law makes 
clear.