The Human Car

"although the law requires cyclists to stop at uncontrolled intersections, stop signs, and red lights, the UVC is silent on the definition of "stopping" as specifically applied to cyclists."


"If you want to fight an unfair "stop means dismount" argument, this is the logic to use:

- I did stop, and the stop was of sufficient duration under the circumstances that any reasonable cyclists of my level of experience could safely and courteously observe and appraise the need to yield or proceed."

- Bicycling & the Law by Bob Mionske

iltb-2

If that were true, I wouldn't think Boston would have very many messengers left. Because the messengers didn't look you in the eye, or rotate their head around from side to side to your satisfaction is not necessarily evidence of "not even looking" when passing through intersections.

chipcom 

Running a red light is proceeding through the intersection while the light for your lane/direction is red.

Running a stop sign is proceeding through the intersection without having the right-of-way to do so, which usually requires one to at least slow down enough to make that determination.

So what was so hard about this again?

aMull

I yield to everyone. I go through only when the way is clear.

Agreed.

gcottay

When riding, I often run stop signs in the sense of not quite coming to a full stop unless there is traffic present. When riding, I sometimes run red lights in the sense of first coming to a full stop and then proceeding as soon as the way is clear.

BarracksSi

This:

versus this:

The thing is, we're all trying to ride safely, yet we can't even agree on how to do it.

My personal theory about our collective zeal is this -- we're so passionate and adamant about our views because our hobby, fitness regimen, daily transport, etc., is accomplished by an object that we squeeze against our privates. Nothing else, apart from a spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, a doctor, or certain "adult novelties" is granted such a close relationship.

makeinu

Who cares?

Do whatever you thing is safe and let the judge decide what's legal. It's not like we're talking about going to the slammer.

BarracksSi

Enough people care to blow 30+ posts in a thread about the subject.

chipcom 

I don't figure we need anyone else's agreement to ride safely. I stop at lights but don't wear a helmet...other's blow lights and wear a helmet, while still others blow lights, don't wear a helmet and ride the wrong way down the road. Riding safely is in the eye of the beholder - if you are alive your eyes can behold...if you're dead, not so much.

BarracksSi

Then we should just stop *****ing at each other so much here in A&S...

iltb-2

And the New Era of a Useful/Pleasant Forum could even begin with a cease fire in the posting of mind numbing rants about how bad/evil/stupid all the other guys are, i.e.everybody that doesn't match the poster's concept of an approved background/profile. What exactly is the point, or being accomplished, by incessant whining, ranting and anecdotes about stereotypes of "cagers", "incompetent cyclists", "SUV Moms on Cell Phones," "Fat Lazy Americans", etc. who don't share the profile of self righteous posters?

makeinu

Straight from Burlington, Iowa I assume.

In any case, to answer your question: catharsis and nothing more.

moleman76

friend, THE LAW says stop at the stop line. Then move forward to see if it is clear; stop if it isn't, proceed if it is.

In most places, the stop line is located so that a pedestrian can walk in a straight line from the sidewalk on one side of your street, across in front of your car bumper, to the sidewalk on the other side.

I'm willing to wager that if all motorists, cyclists and other vehicle operators were tested annually, and only the ones who aced the test had the privilege of "driving" whenever / wherever they chose to, there would be a lot less congestion on the highways, byways and streets ...

piper_chuck

And I'm willing to wager that if all motorists followed the EXACT letter of the law, instead of applying some judgment to overcome the dumbed down traffic system in the US, there would be even more gridlock than there is today. This country has way too many stop signs, stop lights, solid red left turn arrows when the straight lanes have green, etc. We waste huge quantities of time and fuel sitting at an intersection, unable to go due to the traffic controls, even when there's no traffic in sight.

Carusoswi

Biblethumber

Carusoswi

You can cause that shift without coming close to actually stopping your vehicle. The top speed at which you can demonstrate this shift is limited only by the power of your engine.

Caruso

Carusoswi

I agree. That x% (pick some outrageously high number) that "blow through" lights would have to be super suicidal to do so, and extraordinarily lucky to blow more than one or two lights without succeeding in their suicide attempt.

My real life observations as a cyclist and a motorist cause me to conclude that not many cyclists actually "blow" traffic lights or stop signs.

Caruso

Carusoswi

. . . or your biblethumping which is also irrelevant.

Caruso

Carusoswi

Yea, right. They just dart through intersections full of cross traffic, and God, for them as with Moses and the Red Sea, just clears a path. They blow through intersections throughout their work day, day after day, year after year. Most never have a problem, and the percentage that are killed or maimed somehow escape media scrutiny. That's why only you know of these Darwin-deselected souls and the rest of us are unaware of them. Sure, right.

Caruso

BarracksSi

It might not be an applicable comparison, but the towns in Germany in which I've driven/walked/bused/train'd/cycled have very few stop signs (in particular, anyway). As you approach an intersection, you'll either see a yellow diamond sign to indicate that you have the right of way (you're on the "primary" road) or you'll see a dashed line crossing the pavement in front of you (basically the equivalent of a yield sign).

Sometimes, you'd see a four-way intersection where the primary route doesn't go straight through -- it'll actually turn to the left, say, and the other two directions need to yield.

However, I'm not sure that such an arrangement will work on many US street layouts. Over there in Germany, the street plans are, in sense, older than North American colonization, and traffic control needed to be adapted to their fairly convoluted routes & intersections.

powerhouse

I define "running" a red light or stop sign this way: It is not coming to a complete stop when one one reaches a red light or stop sign that others can see and act accordingly.

When reaching a red light or stop sign, the bicyclist must come to a complete stop with one foot on the ground. Using the hand signal before stopping might be optional.

Local, county, and state police have seen me do this and have never given me any trouble. However. I continue to hear various things from motorists who either don't know the traffic laws, have no patience or respect for bicyclists, or have high blood pressure going through the roof.

I don't speak for anyone else. That's just me.

Ed Holland

Run them or don't run them. I realise I'm powerless to stop you [sic], accept the consequences but for the love of bikeforums let us please never have this fruitless debate ever again.

TRaffic Jammer

To the untrained eye it might look that way, but you can be sure there is a lot of vector analysis goin' on.
After my years messin', I'm pretty comphy riding my safe line. How it interacts with those right light thingies changes on a daily basis.

Blowing through is running IMHO.

wagathon

Think in terms of lawsuits: e.g., You come to a corner with the intention of turning right. There's a dude on the corner that could step off in either direction but why would he? To cross in front of you shouldn't happen because he does not have the "walk" sign. To cross the street that you plan to turn onto wouldn't be right because the light is red.

What should you have done to avoid paying this guys medical bills for the rest of his life? (a) come to a complete stop before carefully beginning your right turn--just before you ran over him because he irrationally and illegally lunged in front of your car at the last minute, or (b), anything else?

randya

If it's clear to make a right turn on red, it's also clear for the pedestrian to cross. Right on red is the penultimate motorist-first law.