the area you show, near an intersection is clearly a no passign zone, however the investigators said in teh article that he was probably in a passing zone. it seems that you jjumped to a conclusion, based upon the offending driver, that the biker was in a no passing zone.
now that might be true, but why take some that might have been said to cover the guy’s behind over what the impartial investigators found?
that said, I understand that we all take our personal viewpoints when reading something like this article. it seems to me that the driver was wrong either way.
Actually, I didn't 'jump' to a conclusion, nor did I take either the offending driver's or the investigator's word at face value; I used "street view" on Google maps to examine the road markings leading up to the intersection to check for myself. Later, I realized that I had misread the direction of travel in the article and corrected my observation in a follow-up posting (post 17).