"No Turn On Red" Vigilante

[Usetacould]

I've taken my dad's advice on driving to how I approach riding with cars around. Everybody out there is trying to kill you, so just try to minimize their chances.

I like the earlier post about Boston drivers being predictable in their bad driving. Just expect that every car is going to do something wrong, and let the good behavior be a pleasant surprise. If you go out trying to be some sort of traffic vigilante you are going to do two things: 1)up the ire of drivers you encounter so they aren't as accomodating to cyclists they meet on the road in the future, and 2)up the ire of drivers that you encounter so they aren't as accomodating to you when they meet you on the road in the future.

Just thought of a funny traffic incident from a few years ago. While I was in Korea I had a guy turn left in front of me while I was barreling along at about 45mph and missed him be just a few feet. This wouldn't be all that unusual except for the fact that I was in a tank!:eek:

[FLBandit]

Nope, no emergency driving, there are systems in place for that, staffed by trained professionals. You're lucky, had your wife been t-boned ignoring a traffic posting not only would a stranger possibly have been injured, but also your wife, and you, a nice sharp impact to an already broken back spells spinal cord injury.

As for people who are "in a hurry" I can tell you from my experiences as a professional driver & biker that the fastest way to anyplace is not "in a hurry". Everytime.

Not stopping doesn't mean not looking. If I'm heading somewhere in an emergency situation, I will run the traffic devices. However, it doesn't mean I'm not watching for other traffic. But, I digress. As far as blocking a car on a no turn on right intersection, I don't know how I'd react. I usually take the lane at redlights and such, so I'd likely just sit there. If the driver reacts as mentioned above, I don't know, I can be a sucker for a good altercation!:rolleyes:

[SingingSabre]

Since when on a regular road or a road with no posted minimum speed?

Since the law said that the speed limit is between the posted maximum and 15 under it.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Since the law said that the speed limit is between the posted maximum and 15 under it.
What law? Where?

[FLBandit]

Actually the posted speed limit is the maximum allowable under ideal conditions. Unless a minimum is posted, there is no minimum speed limit.

[nova]

Since the law said that the speed limit is between the posted maximum and 15 under it.


Im sure some state counties and cities have tried to sneak these invalid local laws in to place and probably tickets 100s of motorists a year. But federal law trumps state and below laws. Meanign that any local laww that goes against the intent of federal law is not a valid law.

It would be like norton ohio in summit county making kidnapping legal. Sure its a extream example but its a valid example and quite easy to understand why it would still be against the law.

With laws you have blatent violations and things that go against the intent (or tense if you so choose to use the legal term) of the law.

I think a non posted speed min law would be simply a invalid law im not sure if theres a federal law that specifically disallows a state or local gov to pass such a law. In oher words while invalid and any tickets given out do to such a invalid law when chalenged would be dismissed and like any other court case looser pays court costs.

[MasterHalco]

That legality of being an oblivious road slug must explain the drivers who won't turn right on red despite it being legal, no conflicting traffic and a dozen motorists behind blowing their horns. Probably also explains those who drive 35mph in 55 zones or stay in the left lane for miles on end just doing the speed limit while a zillion cars backup behind and/or pass the "lawful" motorist from every possible angle. They are "right" and everybody else is wrong. OK, got it.

In some places it is actually ILLEGAL to travel the speed limit in the left lane.

[MasterHalco]

Back to left on red, it freaks me out, but that's allowed here, and many other places, when you're going onto a one-way street (maybe it's only allowed from the left if it's a 2 lane one-way, so you can take the left lane and somebody facing you could go right on red into the right lane).

But, because you're talking Boston, I assume you're not talking about left onto a one-way.

It's definately left on red from a TWO-WAY street and onto a TWO-WAY street. I've seen it five times in the past 2 years. Once it caused a collision.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

In some places it is actually ILLEGAL to travel the speed limit in the left lane.
Where?

[SingingSabre]

What law? Where?

Most driver's handbooks in the US have reference to this law written in it. When practicable, you need to be travelling between the posted maximum and 15mph under it. Any less is impeding the flow of traffic.

[nova]

In some places it is actually ILLEGAL to travel the speed limit in the left lane.

Again same thing unless federal law allows a state to pass such a law the law is invalid and tickets for such a law can be challenged and will be dismissed.

federal law trumps all local laws below fedeal level state county city
state laws trump all laws below state level county and city
county laws/ords trump all city laws and ords.

So if a federal law has no wording that specifically allows states counties or cities to pass laws and ords regarding speed of travel in left passing lanes of highways then any such local law or ord is rendered invalid. States counties and cities how ever may still isue tickets. But these tickets will not and can not stand up against any challenge. Meaning go to court for ticket challenge ticket based on federal law and the ticket is rendered void and court costs are paid by the loosign party such as state county or city that has the local ord/law.

Also when a state or federal law specifically disallows such laws state/county/city may not pass such laws and if any are on the books at the time of the new law/revision they may no longer ticket legally any locality that does hand out such a ticket can be fined or have other penalties levied against the state county or city.

I only know about the part where a new law or revision do to the fact ohios house bill 389 was recently signed in to law so i looked it up. Thouse HB389 makes no mention of penalties for these now ilegal laws/ords this means its up to the first judge to decide the punishment for a city handing out a ticket.

Be quite funny should the judge in question be a avid cyclist ticket to check conversion any one?

It has happened in the past with other ilegal ords and laws.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Most driver's handbooks in the US have reference to this law written in it. When practicable, you need to be travelling between the posted maximum and 15mph under it. Any less is impeding the flow of traffic.
Again, WHAT law? Where? What state has codified this alleged "law?" I doubt if you can reference any specific driver's manual with your alleged "law" either, but don't bother looking since such guidebooks are NOT law.

[HardyWeinberg]

Most driver's handbooks in the US have reference to this law written in it. When practicable, you need to be travelling between the posted maximum and 15mph under it. Any less is impeding the flow of traffic.

There are impeding laws in the NW, violation is defined by how many cars are piled up at you ('pull over at next turnout if 5 or more cars are behind you'), but they're road-specific. I've never seen them enforced either.

[sentinel4675]

Nova, you need to get some things straight. States, counties and cities can issue laws or ordinances that are stricter than Federal law, but cannot be less strict. Also, some cities in Indiana converted the state statutes to local ordinances and write tickets on the ordinances and not the state law. The reason for this is if I write a ticket under state statute, the department only gets $5 per ticket for training. If I can write it under city ordinance, the city gets all of the fine.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Nova, you need to get some things straight. States, counties and cities can issue laws or ordinances that are stricter than Federal law, but cannot be less strict.
No argument from me on that issue. Now, which states, counties, cities or whatever have the laws dreamed up by our resident traffic law authorities?

MasterHalco
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2795112&postcount=57
or SingingSabre
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2795292&postcount=60

The point? Traffic tickets aren't written citing driver's manuals, Internet rumors, or daydreams.

[sentinel4675]

Well, law enforcement can't create laws, in my case, the city council create ordinances I can enforce.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Well, law enforcement can't create laws, in my case, the city council create ordinances I can enforce.
Oh I agree. I don't expect you look up these mystery laws. I would expect the dreamweavers to do so.

[balboa682]

Today going through Kenmore Square I was cut off by a van from NH turning left (from the right) and got caught in traffic in the middle of the square to go to Fenway with a cop standing right there. I yelled all kinds of stuff and slaped the back of his van, but the cop just stood there, and the driver just sat there. Drivers in Boston are such *******s.

[nova]

Nova, you need to get some things straight. States, counties and cities can issue laws or ordinances that are stricter than Federal law, but cannot be less strict. Also, some cities in Indiana converted the state statutes to local ordinances and write tickets on the ordinances and not the state law. The reason for this is if I write a ticket under state statute, the department only gets $5 per ticket for training. If I can write it under city ordinance, the city gets all of the fine.


Oh realy sence when?

Go read up on some of the links ive posted previously about house bil 389 and the this will get you going HH thread where i listed some local laws that go against the wording of ohio laws. Like avon and avon lakes making it ilegal to ride a bike on any road where there is a side walk. This is much more strict that ohios law yet avons and avon lakes ord is invalid. Infact stories relatign to avon lakes handing out of tickets to cyclist made local newspaper headlines about 2 to 3 years ago when cyclists took the case to court and won and the ticket was dropped.


A state county or city can not put more restrictive laws in place that go against the intent or wording of a law above it.
A very simple example would be
In ohio its legal to ride your bike on the road
avon lakes local ord
its only legal to ride your bike on the sidewalks
avon lakes ord is invalid and when it meats a chalenge it crumbles.

Ohio has no law regarding unposted speed mininums there for norton, barberton, arkon, avon, avon lake and wadsworth can not try to impose such a law or enforce a local ord imposing such a mininum speed.

Same goes for un marked no turn on red. Yes a couple cities tried that one to if i recall the state fined them to the tune of $150K.

Mininum speed limits must be posted. This is one time where the old ignorance of the law is no excuse doesnt hold true. As a driver or cyclist or pedestrian or what ever. There is simply no possible resonable way for me to know that city x enforces a mininum speed law that is not posted on a sign.

Hres a example where a city can have a more strict law than a state. Weapon laws such as what is considered a weapon or illegal weapon. One city or county can say you can carry a 5 inch closed or fix bladed knife and another can make that length 4 inches or even 3 and dissallow a fix bladed knife. Thing is i beleive in ohio at least a cop can not confiscate a knife just because you have it on you. You need to be legitimatly pulled over for another infraction first.

I suppose a city could legally have a law on the books about unposted mininum speeds but not ticket you unless you was for example driving drunk to. But they could never legally ticket you for only driving below this mininum speed. Then theres the old where conditions allow clause. Well bikes going up a huge hill well guess what conditions dont allow for the bike to trael at this minimal speed and there for no cop can legaly give a ticket. They could how ever get the cclist coming down the hill if the pavement was dry even and conditions allowed the cyclist to acheive this min speed but only if that cyclist were also drunk or breakign some other law.

That could make for some funny tickets. One way street with min speed in place of 20 mph and cyclist was riding wrong way at 10 mph. Heh if the cyclist was going 20 mph on the one way street goign the wrong way hed only get one ticket instead of both :\

[brokenrobot]

Where?

Colorado, for one.

[sentinel4675]

Nova, I don't care what the court case is in Ohio. It has no weight in Indiana.

[nova]

Nova, I don't care what the court case is in Ohio. It has no weight in Indiana.
Then indiana is one realy screwed up state if they allow a local city gov make up their own laws with out regards to state laws that may in many cases be in dirrect conflict with state laws.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Colorado, for one.
One what? Without a reference: more hot air.

[brokenrobot]

One what? Without a reference: more hot air.

One state where it's effectively illegal to drive at the speed limit in the left lane. You really aren't smart, are you?

Here's a good reference for you: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Note that the references to "normal" speed of traffic rather than the "legal" speed of traffic in effect means that you're required to stay out of the left lane unless you want to go faster than the fastest car near you, even if that car is exceeding the legal speed limit. The law therefore effectively requires those in the left lane to speed.

Colorado's state patrol is very forthcoming about it; their brochure on the law, available at the link below, candidly explains that the purpose of the law is to allow them to ticket drivers travelling at the speed limit for impeding traffic.
http://www.dot.state.co.us/Publications/Brochures/leftlanebrochure.pdf

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Then indiana is one realy screwed up state if they allow a local city gov make up their own laws with out regards to state laws that may in many cases be in dirrect conflict with state laws.
If the conflict is there, then the local ordinance gets overturned due to Constitutionality or other technicality. What he is saying is that a local govt often codifies a state law as a local ordinance to get the revenue to the local gov. rather than share it with the state. Indiana, actually, is a rather bike friendly state!
Shoot, I can't even get the local police to write me a written warning for speeding, nuch less a ticket for speeding on my bicycle! I've been lectured, but when I ask if I can at least get a written warning, they tell me they "Won't give me the satisfaction!" http://forum.batteriehuhn.de/avatar/silke.gif Terrible, aren't they! Well, back on topic, a local ordinance will stand UNTIL it is successfully challenged as restraining of trade, or Constitutionality under either State ir Federal Constitution, and until overturned, the law enforcement officers are OBLIGATED to enforce them. Simple concept, what can I say?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/bevelheadgrl/thud.gif

[bikingshearer]

Boston ranked #1 in in having the most ignorant drivers. It also ranked #1 in the most predictable drivers. That means that although no one in Boston knows the law you can, at least, always expect them to break it. Back me up Bostonians.
I'm not a Bostonian, but I lived there for three years, and I'll back you up. Boston drivers are the worst. The fact that the road "system" (and I use the term loosely) is dreadful beyond description doesn't help, but the drivers (and the pedestrians, for that matter) would be gawd-awful anywhere (except, oddly enough, on the Mass. turnpike - drivers are surprisingly well-behaved there for reasons I cannot explain, because they suck on every other controlled-access highway). Here are a few of the unwritten but very much obeyed rules of the road that Bostonians follow:

(1) Lines on the road are there purely for decoration. (Anyone who has driven on Storrow Drive knows exactly what I mean, although this rule is not limited to that deathtrap by any means.)
(2) Turn signals are never to be used on pain of death - why give the other guy an unfair advantage?
(3) If you make a dumb maneuver, make it as slowly as humanly possible so as to inconvenience as many people as possible.
(4) At a rotary (what Bostonians call traffic circles, which in the Boston area are scientifically designed to kill and maim), traffic entering the rotary has the right-of-way over the 57,000 cars already in it trying to get out. (If you think about it for a second, you will see how incredibly dumb this is, but I swear it is how the average Boston driver takes these things.)
(5) Turns can be made from any lane pretty much at any time. Hey, give vent to your creative side.
(6) Wanting to make a left-hand turn is a valid reason to play "chicken" with oncoming traffic for up to 200 yards before the actual turn.
(7) Stop signs and trafiic lights are an unconstitutional infringement on my right to drive however, wherever and whenever the hell I want.
(8) Reverse is a valid gear choice in normally-flowing traffic.

In short, the average Boston driver has no regard for their own life, so expecting them to have any regard for the life of a cyclist is simply to be out of touch with reality. It's not that they will go out of their way to hurt you, they just drive as though they don't much care, one way or the other, if you are turned into a grease spot on the road. Driving or riding in NY, DC, SF or LA is much, much easier than in Boston.

[nova]

If the conflict is there, then the local ordinance gets overturned due to Constitutionality or other technicality. What he is saying is that a local govt often codifies a state law as a local ordinance to get the revenue to the local gov. rather than share it with the state. Indiana, actually, is a rather bike friendly state!
Shoot, I can't even get the local police to write me a written warning for speeding, nuch less a ticket for speeding on my bicycle! I've been lectured, but when I ask if I can at least get a written warning, they tell me they "Won't give me the satisfaction!" http://forum.batteriehuhn.de/avatar/silke.gif Terrible, aren't they! Well, back on topic, a local ordinance will stand UNTIL it is successfully challenged as restraining of trade, or Constitutionality under either State ir Federal Constitution, and until overturned, the law enforcement officers are OBLIGATED to enforce them. Simple concept, what can I say?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/bevelheadgrl/thud.gif

Well thats a big difference. Alot of cities do that and they should. Why the heck should the state gov get the ticket money for tickets handed out localy for violations?

What im talkign about is if a state has no such legal non posted speed min and a locality tries to add one of its own.
The only time a lower governing body can put in place a local law is when its benificial to the community. Example federal min wage is 5.35 yet some states and in some cases cities have passed laws stating the min wage is 5.50 or even 6.00. In this case the more local law trumps the federal law. Of corse its the federal min wages that no wage can go below.

Ive made it a point to know my local laws so i can make use of them to my benifit. Wich basically means forcing my isps hand for example when they would block port 80 or other port. The paper i signed at the time of install stated no on paper tos and was a blind contract.

"A blind contract is sumairly ilegal and non binding. Contract wich state the terms of this contract may change at any time and with out notice are also illegal unless i sign off on said contract wich by law i am not required to do and no action may be taken agaisnt the person or persons refuseing to sign said contract." Excuse any blatent spellign etc errors in the above.

Ive used that little qoute/speeach m a few times. Like when mcdonolds tried to change their contract to one that would only allow me to have one ring on my hands instead of 2. I used it to get what essentialy was fired and rehired in at a new wage. as their store min wage went up yet my pay rate did not go up to match it. In that case i printed it out and handed it to the owner of the chain and the store general manager as well as the asstiant manager and said i will sign the new contract and even accept the 30 days probationary period like i was just hired. But i will not sign off other wise as i am not required to by law. So if you want me to remove one of my rings (my choice of rings not yours) you will also raise my pay rate to your current hire in wage of $7 and you will also sign and date this copy of the law.

The mangers were not impressed but signed any how the chains owner was quite impressed with my knowlage of the grand father laws and contract laws.

It pays for you to know yur local and state laws regarding this type of stuff. I personaly recomend looking up and learning them to any one who has a job gets a job rides a bike or drives a car or leaves their house.

You would be surpised to know that you can in some states force your power company to re imburse you for over payign on your bill do to a estimated bill for example.

We have done that a few times over the years during the hottest of the summer months. Got a check one year for about 80 bucks from the electric company. We just signed the lower portion sent the check back and had the check applied to our future bills 10 bucks per bill.

All sorts of little known laws you can use to get various things done by useing them.

[HardyWeinberg]

(4) At a rotary (what Bostonians call traffic circles, which in the Boston area are scientifically designed to kill and maim), traffic entering the rotary has the right-of-way over the 57,000 cars already in it trying to get out. (If you think about it for a second, you will see how incredibly dumb this is, but I swear it is how the average Boston driver takes these things.)

I have to say that's not my experience, rotaries always did and still do work well for me (but otherwise I can't hack driving in/around Boston after enough exposure to the rest of the world). People at 'traffic circles' in the rest of the country are way too timid both entering and operating in them. Even locals in my time (getting to have been a while ago) were very clear on right of way belonging to those in the rotaries.

Regardless of how the rotaries are operating *now*, I have to assume that a MA approach to 4-way stops (pretty much absent from the state in my time) would still be orders of magnitude worse.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

One state where it's effectively illegal to drive at the speed limit in the left lane. You really aren't smart, are you?
I guess you missed the part where this only applies to multilane roads with 65mph or higher limits. But yes that does allow ticketing for only going the speed limit in the left lane; a good idea where too many blue hairs in their Buicks don't know how to get out of the left lane. I'd like to see that law adapted elsewhere, instead of being isolated to Colorado.

Now about that requirement to stay within 15mph of the posted top limit? Any references for that "law"?

[brokenrobot]

I guess you missed the part where this only applies to multilane roads with 65mph or higher limits. But yes that does allow ticketing for only going the speed limit in the left lane; a good idea where too many blue hairs in their Buicks don't know how to get out of the left lane. I'd like to see that law adapted elsewhere, instead of being isolated to Colorado.

Now about that requirement to stay within 15mph of the posted top limit? Any references for that "law"?


No, I'm totally aware that it applies only to streets where the limit is 65 or higher. What's your point, if any?

You *really* think it's a good idea to pass a law that requires you to break the law? You're truly a jackass.

[SingingSabre]

No argument from me on that issue. Now, which states, counties, cities or whatever have the laws dreamed up by our resident traffic law authorities?

MasterHalco
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2795112&postcount=57
or SingingSabre
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2795292&postcount=60

The point? Traffic tickets aren't written citing driver's manuals, Internet rumors, or daydreams.

So now I need to reference everything I say or you will claim that I fabricate things? I have not claimed to be an authority, not do I claim that I know everything. I simply stated that I know many states have laws which dictate a minimum speed along with a maximum speed.

As to your impatience awaiting my answer, I would like to apologize for the fact that I have a life.

I will not reference my post or claims, as I don't care to nor do I have the time or energy. You will certainly call me a liar for that. Your hostility continues to be the reason that I do not buy an upgraded membership, so realize that your asinine and condescending methods of communication actually hamper the bandwidth bills of a site you subscribe to.

Nova and many other members of this board are civil and respectful. I suppose that's too much to ask of you, though.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

So now I need to reference everything I say or you will claim that I fabricate things? I have not claimed to be an authority, not do I claim that I know everything. I simply stated that I know many states have laws which dictate a minimum speed along with a maximum speed.

As to your impatience awaiting my answer, I would like to apologize for the fact that I have a life.

I will not reference my post or claims, as I don't care to nor do I have the time or energy. You will certainly call me a liar for that. Your hostility continues to be the reason that I do not buy an upgraded membership, so realize that your asinine and condescending methods of communication actually hamper the bandwidth bills of a site you subscribe to.

Nova and many other members of this board are civil and respectful. I suppose that's too much to ask of you, though.
Not a liar, just a typical Internet denizen throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick; a whiney cry baby who takes skepticism of his Internet doodling as a personal affront. A credible reference would have changed my mind; obviously there is no need. I take this rhetoric as an excuse for passing off gossip/guesses as fact; the hostility claim as a dodge for being caught BSing about the law.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

No, I'm totally aware that it applies only to streets where the limit is 65 or higher. What's your point, if any?

You *really* think it's a good idea to pass a law that requires you to break the law?
The point is that the law you referenced applies in one state on some roads. Perhaps someone from Colorodo can report if it this law has ever actually been enforced and a motorist ticketed for doing the speed limit in the left lane.

You don't get much out of NYC do you? How much long distance driving do you do? Ever done?

[savage24]

Pick your battles carefully, lest we have another "dead right" cyclist. You see, you never know who you are dealing with. I fail to see what the fuss is about. If you are going straight, and a person comes up behind you to turn right, legal or not, shift left in the lane and let them by. Why do you care if they get a ticket? And another thing, if you are going straight through in the curb lane, your lane position should be such that you cannot get into conflict with a person turning right unless they ram you since you will be center in the lane and they can not fit to your left. If you are paying attention, ramming should not happen as you will move left and left them pass....

+1

When I am riding in traffic that is moving faster than me, especialy commuting home in the morning, I stop 2-3 car lengths before the intersection and stay up against the curb. (This has nothing to do with 'giving up my right to the road' or 'cowering in the face of car traffic'; it is simple common courtesy - like holding the elevator for someone or moving your cart out of the middle of the isle at the grocery store.) If an approaching car wants to turn right, I wave them on by me and they can make the turn without worrying about me. If 5 or 6 cars going straight get to the red light, when it turns green I stay against the curb and wave them on by me - they are all going to pass me in the next block anyway and I would rather they do it while I am stopped, next to the curb instead of when I am riding along next to parked cars. I fall in behind the last car and proceed through the intersection keeping a close eye on any oncoming traffic waiting to turn left. This takes little effort on my part, makes my riding less stressfull, and seems to generate goodwill from drivers and it doesn't really add much time to my commute (if I was in a hurry, I'd be driving a car). I'm all about eliminating as much drama and stress from my life as possible. You rightously indignant *****holes who get on your bike and look for confrontations with cagers are not doing anything good for cycling or yourselves. If you screw with enough maniacs in cars, eventually you may find one who will teach you that it is a dumb idea to bring Halt spray to a gunfight. Pick your battles carefully.