baron von trail 

Different vehicle, different rules. When in a car, I don't fret going through a green light or rolling past cross streets as another car approaches a stop sign. I know they'll see me and not just pull out in front of my car like they do when I am on my bike.

RISKDR1

If you read my post your question has already been answered. The OP shows an attitude of entitlement that I usually see in teenagers.

baron von trail 

A bike is not a car. Therefore rules of the road meant for cars simply do not apply. Rolling on a sidewalk, blowing through stop signs, ignoring traffic lights, cutting through fields, parking lots or heading the wrong way down a one-way street are all options available to a cyclist.

Some of you need to wrap your head around that fact. You are on a bicycle.

Paul Barnard

I never have understood why some folks insist on operating a bike the way they do a car. The beauty of a bike is that it's not a car.

Paul Barnard

When you break the law you do it in adult like fashion? I can respect that.

RISKDR1

Absolutely. I am 70. I have broken laws that are no longer on the books.

noisebeam

You are correct, there is no requirement to follow the laws that are only applicable to motor vehicles or are not applicable to a bicycle. However most of what you list above is applicable to cyclists.
You are also correct that in most states bicycles or cyclists are not cars or car drivers, but instead traffic law is applicable to drivers of bicycles.
The beauty of following traffic law when driving a bicycle is that is works so well. For me it makes everything much easier - no ambiguity, no unpredictability, direct communication to other drivers, etc.

genec

Sure, but if you follow traffic law too closely, you miss the advantages of the physical aspects of cycling... such as the ability of more than one bike or bike and other vehicle to occupy the same lane at the same time, or to use the bike to go onto park paths that motor vehicles are restricted from, or to take shortcuts that cars won't fit into... just to name a few.

Traffic laws often do make sense, when a bike is part of a larger traffic situation, but bikes can go places and do things cars cannot... and this advantage should not be given up, just for the sake of following the laws... laws that sometimes don't make sense outside of the bounds of 4 wheels and a big chassis.

noisebeam

? ? ?
Of course I use paths and drive places motor vehicles are not permitted and bicycles are, but this is not in any violation of any traffic law.
Of course I allow other vehicle to share the lane I am using if safe. Again, not a violation of traffic law.

Paul Barnard

I don't depart from following the law if doing so will disrupt the harmonious flow of traffic or endanger myself or others. On the contrary, when I do depart from following the law, it's normally done with an eye toward increased safety or enhanced traffic flow.

AlmostTrick

Example please.

noisebeam

I have posted this before, but this is my driving priority pyramid:

I
am
safe
legal
practical
courteous
advantageous

I can't think of any time I have had to break a law in order to prioritize safety. I will if and when the need arises, but so far in well over 100k miles, never.

Paul Barnard

Metairie LA. Intersection of Bonnabel and the I-10 service roads south bound. If I get caught early in that light cycle and I can safely run it, I will. That way I can cruise on to where I make a right on Hesoid before the light turns green. By waiting I would hold up the 35MPH traffic as I accelerate away from the light. A secondary benefit is that I am not under the dark underpass as people pass from the brightness outside to the darkness underneath. I'd rather not be in front of people as their eyes adjust. That's but one of many examples of places I MAY run a red light and serve the interest of safety and efficient traffic flow in doing so. Basically I take myself out of competition for road space with motor vehicles in a potentially dangerous place.

genec

Er, right... traffic law covers cycling... MV law does not. Sorry, went off on a semantic tangent.

noisebeam

One of the reasons I am such a proponent of following traffic law is because it is what enables me to safely share the road with other drivers. I 'get' far more use out of the law than I need to 'give' and I am not the type who expects to get (rights) without some giving (duties).

Harhir

Very nice words. If we expect the car drivers to follow the rules and keep us safe we should do it as well. I also try to follow the rules. Especially when I have my kids with me because I don't want them to ignore lights or stop signs since they don't have the experience and are are not able to judge the speeds of cars as we adults do. We need to be role models for them until they are old enough to safely judge for themselves.

But I also have run red lights in cases where the bike did not trigger the sensors and where there was no button to push for the pedestrian light. Unfortunately we have some of these lights. I also have a stretch of road where I use the side walk since driving on that street is outright dangerous because of speeding cars. But I have hardly ever seen one walking there.
And yes when I get to stop a sign with no traffic in sight and I don't have any kids with me I normally don't stop. Guilty as charged.

adablduya

perfect. i previously posted that the best place for me in an intersection is not to be in one. you put up an excellent example of that.

adablduya

i think we can all agree that, IN GENERAL, following traffic law (that is, behaving PREDICTABLY) is expected and generally adhered to. the topic of this thread surrounds a very specific situation where deviations are mostly exercised safely, but admittedly, often not.

i gather from your post that you NEVER exceed the speed limit while driving your car. likely not so; i'm sure there are circumstances, for safety or convenience, that you do.

kickstart

Here's an improved version,

we
are
safe
legal
practical
courteous
advantageous

Using public facilities is a group activity.

noisebeam

I have not knowingly since the mid-90s. I also come to complete stops at all legally required places.

noisebeam

intersections are the most dangerous place - especially during transitions.
i have a different strategy for them. i line up with traffic instead of cutting to the front.
this means the driver directly behind me is aware of me and i don't have to deal with any of the drivers ahead.

genec

I don't "expect" the car drivers to follow the rules, nor to protect me.

I expect just the opposite, and find that often to be the case. I know this is going to sound vindictive, but I generally find car drivers either inattentive or downright lazy, either way, they tend to speed, run stop signs and occasionally stoplights, they fail to signal and to stop before a right turn on red... they fail to acknowledge and take turns with others at merge areas and 4 way stops. All those things, I EXPECT, and are against the law.

So as a cyclist, I have no moral issue with not staying at a red light when there is no one around, and occasionally rolling a stopsign, again when no one is around... my actions affect no one, as they are done when no one is around... the same cannot be said for motorists who violate the laws as I mentioned above.

noisebeam

Are you kidding me? Of course I expect drivers to follow the law and not put my life in danger and most do so within a predictable norm. That is why it is even possible for anyone to share the road. If you drop that expectation of others then all goes to hell.

jfowler85

Let's tease out your logic here - you are saying that running a red is safer than going through a green? Huh?

So, instead of waiting for a signal that is designed to give you the right of way, in addition to being a legal imperative, you run a red?

I would love to hear you argue that in a municipal court. "But your honor, it's best and safest to run a red light, don't you know that? 10 bf users even agree with me!"

If you need to cross 4 lanes (are we talking 4 lanes in one direction? 2+2 turning? Or 4 lanes both directions?), you do it well before the intersection. I cross 2+2 turning (which means 8 lanes across considering both directions at the intersection) in a very busy intersection that gets traffic from 2 major hospitals, a football stadium, university residential access, a downtown artery and main route to both an interstate and major state highway. The key is to make lane changes well before the intersection, to set your crossing up for success ahead of time so you don't have to make lame decisions like running a red light. Don't be a doofus.

Leebo

Or rides how it's safest for them on a bike with rules and traffic meant for cars. One of the highest accident spots for bikes are intersections. I will not be to the right of a car while traveling through an intersection. In front of or behind. If I go through an intersection when no cars are moving, win for me. I bike through the suburbs North of Boston. Mostly side streets, a few main roads and some nice bike paths as well. So I come up to a red light and stop, 2 cars go through on their green, no other cars visible. You as a pedestrian (walker) will just wait? You as a biker walking their bike across will wait? I will stop as a biker, look and procede when there is no cross traffic. I haven't slowed anyone down, cut anyone off and only put myself in harms way (not). I get through another intersection alive. Win. MA drivers are bad, red light runners, texters, no turn signals etc. I will obey every letter of the law when all the other road users obey the laws. Their mistakes will put me and others at risk. I'm only putting myself at risk for my actions.