Bachman

I commute on a major road that has 3 traffic lanes and a very wide shoulder in each direction. I pass this T intersection daily, and occasionally hit the red light.

Let's say I am approaching the intersection along the green line. The light turns red and cars from the cross street begin turning left into the 3 traffic lanes. Would it be acceptable for me to continue riding in the shoulder and blow through the light?

SCROUDS

Red means stop and wait till its green.

Bachman

thanks

pacificaslim

People on this forum always say that the shoulder is not part of the roadway. If so, then traffic signals do not apply to you on the shoulder. Carry on.

GamblerGORD53

+1 Carry on , FRAP
I did it a few times this week.

Doohickie

Since the stop line for the intersection does not extend onto the shoulder, I think you've at least got a reasonable argument if you ever get a ticket for running it.

BarracksSi

Stop if there's a pedestrian crossing at the time, but besides that, keep going.

What cross traffic would you hit anyway if you ran the red? None, that's what.

Here's the thing -- I think that traffic signals were invented to keep drivers from arguing about who goes first. They weren't invented to wear out brakes or add a reason for cops to write tickets.

If so, then why would a car wait at a red? Because the other direction is green, that's why. Whether the stopped car has a good view of cross traffic or not, or whether the intersection is a T or a five-way junction, the expectation as another car approaches a green light is that it's his turn to proceed and you should wait.

So, say that you're coming across the top of the "T" as in the OP's pic. Say that the traffic from the left has a green light. What are you going to collide with? More to the point -- what can you hit that isn't any different from the traffic already headed in the same direction and in the lane next to you? Cross traffic from the left has to turn and head in the same direction as you, and they have to stay in their lane -- just like the traffic next to you has to stay in their lane. No difference, IMO.

There's blind adherence to rules, and then there's real-world practicality. I don't think they always coincide.

10 Wheels

Your Green Line is on the shoulder.
There is no red light for the shoulder.
Look for traffic and keep going.

Scrockern8r

I would continue, regardless of the light. However, I would use caution regarding pedestrians (doesn't look likely) and try not line up with any cars that may swing wide towards the shoulder while making a left into the direction along the green line.
Move along folks.

Edit:
Came back to visit due to the high response count.

AndrewP

Slow down and watch for pedestrians, and speeding cars that may swing onto the shoulder when they make the left turn. It there were businesses on the right you would also have to watch for cars exiting from them.

dougmc

That might be specific to certain states. It seems to be true in Texas at least.

In any event, if a cop decides to stop you, you've probably got a good case for talking him out of it. If that fails, you've got a good case for fighting it in court. And certainly there's no safety issue involved.

However, motorists will see you as yet another scofflaw cyclist who blows red lights. I don't see this as a real concern (as it doesn't really matter what they think, especially when they're wrong), but you might.

Roody

You do know that what you think has absolutely nothing to with the law, don't you? IOW, no judge or jury gives a crap what you (or I) think.

Personally I would go through the red light in this situation. But I would do it with the understanding that I might be breaking or at least bending the law. So I wouldn't get too upset if I got charged with something, or sued if an injury resulted.

Wake

What happens when cagers get this idea? Then you'll be run over by them trying to beat the light in the breakdown lane.

Every "excuse" I've heard for violating traffic laws depends on the cyclists being an infinitesimal part of traffic. Every such excuse falls apart when confronted with 1) A large number of cyclists, or 2) Cars that follow the same rules.

I wish all you salmon, ninjas, etc. would quit acting like 5-year olds that believe the world belongs to them personally.

LesterOfPuppets

I have two examples of the same situation on my daily commute. I always come to a complete stop before proceeding. This allows me to check for peds and left-turning cyclists with a green light who may be entering the shoulder after their turn.

Sometimes I'll roll Wake's way and wait for green.

I think he's overblown the whole situation, as I've seen about as many autos sneak by on the shoulder as just plain run reds, actually probably fewer. I can't foresee my doing so encouraging them to do so and I've never had it anger them. There's a no turns on red intersection around here where hundreds of motorists per day turn right while the red arrow shows. I figure this T situation requires about as much law abidance as that.

LesterOfPuppets

Thinking on it some more, if I were as hardcore as Wake about this kinda situation, I'd be taking the lane while completely obeying said traffic signal.

As it is, I'm not so VC as to avoid using a perfectly good shoulder for cycling. Perhaps someday there will be a T law for cyclists which states OK to proceed after complete stop and check. Until then, I'll take my chances against John Law and the motoring public.

degnaw

If you were a car driver stopped at the light, had perfectly clear visibility, and it was obvious that no more cars were coming, would you proceed through the red?

As long as pretty much everyone answers 'no' to this question, you'll be viewed as a scofflaw for riding through the light. Whether you care or not, is your call.

LesterOfPuppets

I've done it on several occasions. I speed all the time, too. I'm officially a scofflaw.

mnemia

This is part of why I stop in situations like this even when I think the law doesn't make a ton of sense. I also don't think it makes sense to require cyclists to come to a full stop at all stop signs when there is no opposing traffic with the right of way, but I do it anyway because I want to promote the idea that cyclists obey the rules of the road. I think it makes sense to have separate rules for cyclists in many cases, and I support that, but until the rules change I will obey them as is because I figure that the more I stay within the boundaries of what motorists view as the rules, the better they will treat me and other cyclists. Stopping in a situation like this doesn't put me in any real additional danger; it's just a slight inconvenience. And I don't mean to be an overly submissive gutter bunny: I just mean being assertive about my rights but respectful of the law.

pacificaslim

Cars are prohibited from driving on the shoulder. Therefore it would be illegal for them to do what I would do on my bicycle (it's legal to operate a bicycle on the shoulder).

Your failure is assuming the cyclists and car drivers have the same laws! There are lots of differences. There is no logical reason why cars and bikes should be regulated exactly the same and the reality is that they are not. In this case, in my state anyway, the cyclist would be legal to ride on the shoulder and keep going, just as a pedestrian would, while a car must stay on the roadway and come to a stop at the red light.

mikeybikes

I used to blow through a red light at a similar intersection all the time. Watch for pedestrians and turning cars that will swing onto the shoulder and just keep going.

rogwilco

I guess you can ignore the red light since the part you're riding on doesn't really interact with the cars, but ****, what a nighmarish commuting route.

sudo bike

Seeing as it's generally illegal to drive in the shoulder without due cause, I doubt it. They'd be risking a ticket for that rather than a ticket for the red. Pick your poison.

Generally cyclists are exempt from this prohibition.

Not in this case. In this case the argument is a legal one: The stop light controls traffic in the roadway, not the shoulder - since bikes are legally allowed to ride in the shoulder, whereas a car isn't, it would logically allow a cyclist to ignore the light since it has zero effect on him in the shoulder. Of course, an argument could be made that riding in the shoulder de facto makes it a "lane" you are riding in, hence the light still applies. I doubt there's much precedent.

Personally, I think it's over-thinking it. I'd probably stop or slow, then proceed if it appears safe. It's obvious traffic shouldn't be effecting me on the shoulder, and I can't see a cop citing for it unless he's looking to meet quota. Sometimes people get all tied in knots over the letter, rather than the spirit of any given law.

Why is it acting like a 5 year old? Seems to me people are just thinking of a situation logically and choosing a proper course based on that. Seems fairly reasonable to me.

sdold

Just stop at the red. In general don't take advice from amateur traffic engineers if it's contrary to regulations.

pacificaslim

Well, in this case, there is no regulation requiring a stop here. If you feel like stopping anyway, be my guest. But there is no law, nor any safety concern, that requires the cyclist to just sit there because the light on the road next to him was red.

ItsJustMe

At least be cautious. Many drivers tend to be very sloppy on turns and often swing wide into shoulders. Also if a large truck is making the corner, they often will go into the shoulder.

Personally I have an identical situation on my commute, and I wait for the green.