Commuting - Road rules

As a new bike commuter that came from mtn biking, it was literally news to me that traffic laws should be followed when bike commuting. I know this sounds dumb, and I understand the why and I now follow the rules, but how far do you go in obeying?

As I was coming to a complete stop at a stop sign yesterday on my way home from work, my mind wandered to the extreme cases. For example, do you stop behind a school bus with its red lights on?

So my question to the bike commuting forum is:

Which of the rules of the road do you break in your commute?

I always stop for a school bus, and am also very careful around schools. Small kids are pretty un-predictable at times and the last thing I need is an irate parent and a hurt kid suing me (not to mention feeling bad for hurting a kid). I run an occasional stop sign in residential neighborhoods when the streets are empty but wait for lights religiously. I try to stay away from school buses if possible to avoid being slowed down by their sign.

I roll stop signs at empty intersections, but don't blast through them.

If I come up to a red light with no traffic around, especially if there is a road sensor to trigger the lights, I'll look both ways and go.

I sometimes use the sidewalk or cut through a parking lot if it'll help me avoid a dangerous situation. To be honest, I'm finding it better to just wait for a break in the traffic instead of hitting the sidewalk, and parking lots are never really safe.

I always stop for a school bus with the warning lights/sign on.

My rule of thumb is to obey all traffic regulations, unless they place me in danger. If I do break any rule, I have to take full responsibility, not rely on anyone else to be nice to me, and never to endanger other road or sidewalk users. I also try, whenever I can, to take my right of way, and not yield it to anyone.
That is a difficult one to judge and needs some experience. Newbies dont always know where danger comes from.
Have a look at "Effective Cycling", a book/instruction course, for the roadsense that you need.

For me, a stopped bus is an instant source of danger. It can pull out into you, and the passengers can run into you.

When I was a kid living down in Los Angeles, I got hit by a car. I was riding on the left sidewalk (wrong side of the street) by a truck coming out of a parking lot. Anyway, the officer involved told me that I was lucky he didn't give me a ticket, coz I was the one at fault!

I always ride on the right side of the street now. :p

As I said in another post, I always stop for stop signs and stop lights. I sometime ride with a couple of others and usually lose them because when a stop light changes to red, they will inadvertantly jump on the side walk and go right on across the street, while I am stopped with all of the traffic. As I keep warning them, a car is going to be coming through the side street they are croosingand will hit them someday, or a cop will see them and give them a ticket.

There are 54 controlled intersections each way in the 13 miles of my route. Rigid adherence to the law would add an unacceptable amount of time to the ride.

Nevertheless, I always act on the presumption that I'm bound by the law, that my default action is to obey it, and that any other choice is made on a case-by-case basis with full understanding that whatever consequences ensue are earned.

That includes actions that I judge are safer for me (although illegal) than strict adherence would be.

So I don't stop at every stop sign, but I slow enough to be able to see in all directions. I stop at red lights, but if there's no traffic I often proceed. I never pass illegally, and that particularly includes school buses and public transit.

In short, my guideline is to never do anything that could negatively impact anyone else, and to take no risks, calculated or otherwise, that I can avoid.

I find that the best way to achieve this is to always be predictable. I hold my line just inside the lane I'm in, and I don't weave. I make no sudden changes in direction, and signal my intentions when turning or changing lanes and other traffic is present. I take the lane where necessary to discourage cars from attempting dangerous attempts to pass. And I try very hard to focus my entire attention on situational awareness.

I still have close calls, because there will always be drivers out there who just don't get it. But following the rules really does help reduce not only your risk, but the amount of road stress felt by everybody around you.

RichC

Originally posted by Rich Clark
There are 54 controlled intersections each way in the 13 miles of my route. Rigid adherence to the law would add an unacceptable amount of time to the ride.

Nevertheless, I always act on the presumption that I'm bound by the law, that my default action is to obey it, and that any other choice is made on a case-by-case basis with full understanding that whatever consequences ensue are earned.

A men Brother!

Finally a treastise on lights that I agree with.

I have 37 in my 15 mile route. Including some sweet early morning one way streets that you can see down from about a block a way. In the morning they are on timer, and you have to maintain 32 miles per hour to breeze through them.
Can't quite get up to that speed jusss yet!!

I knew there was something about you I liked Rich!

Originally posted by William Karsten
I knew there was something about you I liked Rich!

Eh? I'm a very likable guy. Ask anybody. :D

RichC

Originally posted by Repp5
]Which of the rules of the road do you break in your commute?

I was so busy loving Rich's answer that I forgot to answer your question.

I:

Run lights, and stop signs.

Will ride in a traffic lane with another cyclist if traffic is very light.

Split lanes when crossing streets.

Will ride in the left lane around public transit busses that make frequent stops down town.

Speed limit on occasion. :D

Litter (if you consider spit litter).

Boy, I'm a baddd man.

Justifications for those who are ready to flame me:

But my commute would go from 60 minutes (on the way to work) to 90 if I stopped for every light and hit the pedestrian buzzer.

Splitting lanes is a hazard, but, an acceptal risk to me.

I'm not sure exactly that riding in the left lane is illegal for me, but I usually utilize it to get past and then return to the right lane. Usually traffic is slow enough that they let me in and out anyway.

I'm aware of risks I take and the consequences, and the responsiblity as well.

But, at any time I feel that I'm endangering someone else (even in a car) I would not continue that activity. It's not fair for them to be at risk by me.

Originally posted by Rich Clark
Eh? I'm a very likable guy. Ask anybody. :D

RichC

I could take lessons then!

I run stops signs in residential neighborhoods when no one else is around (and continue to do so after a ticket). Although I have never ran a signal. I only have 27 on my commute, but all have buttons that can be pushed for pedestrians. I do watch others just ride across, but I cannot bring myself to that.

Now I some of my training rides there are no ways to activate the signal. In that case I stop, look and then cross with caution. Signals are usually in places with high speed traffic and I do not like getting hit.

I generally obey the rules, with some exceptions. If it is safe to go through red light and I have no way to proceed because the sensors will just not trip to green, if I travel in the bike lane in a T intersection alongside the straight path and it seems safe. I also take right turns from bike lane to bike lane without complete stopping, but I'll slow down and make sure it is safe. I will generally not enter a highway from bike path without stopping, even if I don't have to do so. I find pedestrians (specially sleepy Middle School kids) and people buzzing utility bikes on the sidewalks way more dangerous than cars. I think that what you should do is mostly a common sense, but the cops may not feel that way, so you might get ticket. Actually here I find them most understanding, helpful and friendly. If I am in car lanes, I behave like I am in a car and I'd certainly always stop behind a school bus. Little kids (actually even quite big ones) just don't know enough to be scared and do dangerous things. Passing a stopped school bus is potentially the most dangerous situation for something to go unexpectadly wrong.

Just to add another note, here in Tennessee, at least in Nashville, if you are at a red light for a reasonable amount of time and it does not change becuase of not being in the line of sight of the sensor, then you are allowed to go through the light. Now what a reasonable amount of time is, I usually wait about 2 - 3 minutes.

One note that I forgot to add is that I will turn by bicycle horizontally to the light to help in its sensor detecting me

I'm with Mr. Clark on all aspects, including the count of controlled intersections. Seems Mr. Clark and I share a similar style of commute.

I generally follow the rules. I never go through red lights (unless the signal isn't going to change), and although I'll rarely come to a complete stop at a stop sign with no other traffic, I slow significantly at every stop sign regardless of traffic in the vicinity.

The school bus thing, I always stop and wait, but it's easily the thing I feel stupidest, almost embarrased, doing. It's much worse for me than sitting at a red light at 2am with no traffic around for miles (which is still pretty bad). Especially when the bus is on the other side of the street. It's strange how you don't feel self-conscious or weird like that when sitting in a car, even though you're basically in the exact same situation. I console myself by saying that drivers will see me stopped there and gain some level of respect for me, or at least realize that not everyone out there on a bike is a kid riding around in random patterns. I still imagine though that most of them think "This guy's on a bike, what's he waiting for? What a weirdo!"

I don't know if I could justify to myself the idea of running lights simply because they make my trip take too long. After all, if I can do it on my bike, why can't the millions of people driving their cars do it as well? They'd get where they're going faster too if they didn't stop for lights (well, at least until everyone started running lights and utter chaos reigned). That said, everyone's commute is unique, so maybe I'd feel different given another situation.

Originally posted by Neil G.
I don't know if I could justify to myself the idea of running lights simply because they make my trip take too long.

Niel,

If you're ever in San Diego, ride a long with me and see if you still agree. If I'm ever in Chicago, I'll do the same and we'll compare notes.

Of course, we could still come away thinking the same thing, eh?

It seems pretty contrary to break the very laws you expect to protect you. It also undermines our legitimate right to be on the road. Traffic lights that don't recognize your presence are 'broken' and you should do what any reasonable person would do: stop and proceed when it's safe to do so. If a bicycle is a legal vehicle on the road in question and the signal is supposed to control those legal vehicles, but doesn't recognize yours then it is broken. At the very least the conscientious cyclist should obey the sprit of the law if not the letter of it. This covers those stop signs where there's obviously nobody around. Personally, I don't mind stopping because it just gives me a chance to work on my power by getting up to speed again very quickly. It's also fun to race bike commuters who think they're saving time by blowing through intersections when they could really save time by becoming better, stronger cyclists.

I do my best to obey the law on my commute. There is however, one intersection where I always blow through the stop. My route takes me through some back roads and there is a stop sign that merges at about a 45 degree angle. I always have a clear view of either direction and tend to blow through. ONLY when I don't see a car ANYWHERE in sight. Everywhere else on my route, there is a high probability of cars in view and I stop at all lights and slow to walking pace at all stop signs.

My question for everyone. When turning left (USA Roads) do you pass the cars stacking up to also turn and get to the front of the line, or do you hold you position and hope to make the light?

I usually pass the cars and move to the front. Then I look at the driver and use hand motions to express my intent to turn, but stay right. The few times I've held my position behind the stacked cars, I was passed by a car speeding to make the light. Scared the beejeesus out of me.

L8R

I usually move to the front so as to be wildly visible, but only do so when I'm assured that the light won't change and I get stuck in between (I know every light's cycle to a 'T').

Originally posted by xxmdaniel
It also undermines our legitimate right to be on the road.

Sigh, there's always one. And it's your first post. Welcome to the forum.

I disagree. I submit that I'm responsible for my actions. As such, if I get a tickete, or worse, get injured, I'm responsible, it's my fault. And I suffer. I draw the line, as I said, when it could endanger others.

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
My question for everyone. When turning left (USA Roads) do you pass the cars stacking up to also turn and get to the front of the line, or do you hold you position and hope to make the light?
L8R

Depends upon the intersection. If its pretty hairy and busy, I'll hold fast in line. If not I might pull up. Also the type of people. If there's some hyper agressive folks, I'd slow up.

I obey all the laws on the road. Well, not perfectly. I will sometimes substitute a very slow roll for a stop. By and large, though, I comply.

Apart from the practical worries-- public relations and safety-- these requirements are the law, after all. I can't see a permission to break the law simply because it's more convenient for me to behave illegally.

That's not an absolute deference, of course. If things are bad enough, then lawbreaking is understandable. But surely traffic typical for a big city is not sufficient cause to break the law all the time. Yes, stopping adds time (but not thirty minutes per hour), particularly in big cities like NYC or LA. But sometimes the law requires you to do things that are inconvenient. That's life in civilization.

There are some other reasons to comply with the code. Other drivers become resentful if you don't. Especially near your home, where you cycle a lot, your traffic encounters are likely to be more pleasant and even safer if other users respect you for being law abiding. My non-cycling friends complain a lot about law breaking cyclists, for example. A surprising number of them are at least willing to say that they don't mind law abiding cyclists on the roads, too.

I think this goes particularly for stopping at school busses. Other drivers may well have kids, too, and they might find themselves annoyed that you won't stop while kids are rolling off of the bus.

Lights at night are another big deal. Riding around in stealth mode freaks motorists out, and makes a lot of them pissed off.

I thought I'd say something about traffic lights, too. I agree with the poster or two above who think it's legal to run a red light if the sensor won't recognize your bike. It's a reasonable theory that the light is not functioning properly, and is "inoperable" or whatever your code says, if the sensor won't recognize your bicycle. There's no question, at least, that this is the way things would be seen with a motorcycle or a car. In those cases, you're not obliged to sit there all night. You can proceed with caution if the light won't change.

You ought to take those remarks with caution, though. While I think they correctly indicate the state of the law in every state, if you get the wrong cop and the wrong judge you never know. It might seem perfectly reasonable to them that while a motorcycle or a car could legally run the light a cyclist is obliged to get off and punch the crosswalk button. Stranger things have happened.

Originally posted by a2psyklnut

My question for everyone. When turning left (USA Roads) do you pass the cars stacking up to also turn and get to the front of the line, or do you hold you position and hope to make the light?


I usually slide to the front and put myself on the right edge of the left turn lane. I try to make eye contact with the driver at the front of the line.

As for the rest, I usually stop for lights (and practice my trackstand) and treat stop signs like yields. Fully expecting that if I get stopped by a cop that I'm liable for a moving violation and possibly a point on my DMV record.

If I ever get a speeding ticket, I'm framing it.

If I ever get a speeding ticket, I'm framing it.

I actually got pulled over for speeding. I was coming down this long rolling hill. I shifted to the Big Ring and was hammering. Right past the School Zone sign.

The officer pulled the old, "I'm just going to give you a warning this time" routine, and was almost shocked when I responded with, "A warning, are you sure? I'd love to be able to brag about a ticket". We both got a chuckle. I think it made his day!

L8R

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
My question for everyone. When turning left (USA Roads) do you pass the cars stacking up to also turn and get to the front of the line, or do you hold you position and hope to make the light?


I hold my position. If I don't make the light I pull up far enough for the cars behind me to trip the signal, but stay back so I don't get clipped by the corner cutters that turn across my lane.

I don't really have to worry aboot red lights much, there are only 8 in this podunk town. And along with the nice bike lanes that went with the road remodeling, we also got triggers in the bike lanes at most lights.


Originally posted by Merriwether
I thought I'd say something about traffic lights, too. I agree with the poster or two above who think it's legal to run a red light if the sensor won't recognize your bike. It's a reasonable theory that the light is not functioning properly, and is "inoperable" or whatever your code says, if the sensor won't recognize your bicycle. There's no question, at least, that this is the way things would be seen with a motorcycle or a car. In those cases, you're not obliged to sit there all night. You can proceed with caution if the light won't change.
[/B]

What aboot carbon bikes? The induction loops are designed to trip with large masses of metal, not "silly plastic toys". Would the broken light theory still hold for something it's not designed to detect in the first place?

Try to obey every traffic law when possible. If it's not possible, come as close as you can.

I "stop" a few feet from a stop sign so that I can roll very slowly up to the "stop line" while looking at the traffic situation before proceeding.

I'm sure I spend more time pausing and looking than any motorist.

Right, Pete. Similarly, the only time I ever proceed (after first stopping ... I always stop) at a red light is where the road narrows beyond the intersection. In this way, I beat the traffic and I'm safer as a result, and the drivers have less negotiating to do.

I do, however, slow but don't typically stop at red lights at 'T's, where there is no travel lane to the right of me. I am cautious of merging traffic in this case, however.

At stop signs I do the same thing you do. I'll often use a car as a shield if the timing is right.

Thanks for your input everybody.

It sounds like you're saying: "Safety First"
and, because the laws are designed to keep people safe, follow them in most cases.

Originally posted by Merriwether
[B] I can't see a permission to break the law simply because it's more convenient for me to behave illegally.
I don't have permission, if I did, it wouldn't be illegal. Its a choice. I have a choice to do what I do, and with that, I have the due regard to suffer punishment for such choices.


Yes, stopping adds time (but not thirty minutes per hour), particularly in big cities like NYC or LA.
You want to put money down on that?

I can easily get 15 more minutes on my commute. 20 on an average day. 30 if its bad.


I thought I'd say something about traffic lights, too. I agree with the poster or two above who think it's legal to run a red light if the sensor won't recognize your bike. It's a reasonable theory that the light is not functioning properly, and is "inoperable" or whatever your code says, if the sensor won't recognize your bicycle.

No, it's not legal in California. And we have recourse to use a cross walk. I would like to see the code where it's written that you "may run a red traffic light if the light does not change for a XX period of time. Show me that.

Originally posted by Repp5
Thanks for your input everybody.

It sounds like you're saying: "Safety First"
and, because the laws are designed to keep people safe, follow them in most cases.

EXACTLY.

I think of the saftey of those around, and mine. I don't want to cause motorist to freak out and hit me or others. And I'm not going to put myself in a risky spot.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/3834.0.html

Timely discussion - somone asks Bob to define the word stop.

Zack

I guess others are inconvienced more than I am at red lights. If there is no car at the light and there is a crosswalk, I go over and push the button. Just running the redlight when you can use the crosswalk button to turn it green is just wrong (and illegal). The joys of being on a bicycle is you can be a pedestrian too.

I do know that not all intersections have crosswalk buttons, on some of my training rides there are none. If there is one, push it and use it. You are already stopped for the light, take a second or two and relax.

If you have to many signals in your route to work, change your route. I adjusted mine to include more to practice my sprinting. I used to ride a route that had almost half as many, just more stop signs.

Originally posted by Styk33
Just running the redlight when you can use the crosswalk button to turn it green is just wrong (and illegal). The

I’m not sure it s illegal. Here is a quote from ‘The Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver’s Manual’ ( a great site: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/hwyIntHS.nsf/frmBikeManual )
Chapter 9 ‘Ways to Deal With Tough Situations’

‘If your bike doesn't trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red isn't against the law, because the light is defective. If you ever have a crash or get a traffic ticket because a traffic light won't turn green, it's the fault of whoever installed the detector.’

I’m sure it isn’t he same everywhere, but many states do copy each others traffic laws.

Originally posted by Styk33
If you have to many signals in your route to work, change your route.

Not feasible really. And it wouldn't make that much of a difference, as an alternate route that has less lights adds five miles, less hills, and only removes 6 lights.

You are right, it is illegal. You are right, it is a saftey issue.

It's not that it's an incovienance for me. I won't bend the truth that much to say it's a hassle. I could do it your way. But it would be silly. It's just something I refuse to deal with if I don' t have to, and the reprocussions are severe enough.

If the tickette was immense, or the situation to dangerous, I'd do differently.

But guilt won't change me into it.

Originally posted by Merriwether
Yes, stopping adds time (but not thirty minutes per hour), particularly in big cities like NYC or LA. But sometimes the law requires you to do things that are inconvenient. That's life in civilization.

I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that people who come to a complete foot-on-the-ground stop (or track-stand) at every stop sign and stay stopped for the duration of every red light are not riding in Eastern urban environments, where the blocks are short and there's a sign or light at the end of every one of them.

There are parts of my commute whgere there's so much traffic that I do have to do that, and my average speed is literally half of what it is during the other parts. Slavish adherence would easily add 20 minutes to each hour, if not more.

Because there's more to it than just stopping or not stopping. Sprinting to make a green light counts as not stopping, and is perfectly legal. It's also intensely stupid to sprint through an intersection in the city, especially one where the light is about to change. Much safer to slow down to the speed necessary to be sure the intersection is clear, then go on. This approach also keeps the cyclist out of the mad rush of traffic accelerating out of the light when it turns green, a very dangerous situation at many intersections where there's no shoulder.

I don't know how many people who aren't familiar with the densely-packed cities of the East, like Philadelphia, DC, New York, Boston, really comprehend what they're like as cycling environments. My 54 controlled intersections in 13 miles are on the route that makes the best possible use of arterials and highways. Any other route would have even more stops than 54.

And having ridden in both places, there's no comparison between NYC and LA. Cities in California are simply much more spread out, with longer blocks and wider roads, than cities in the East.

RichC

Rich, I agree with all your points regarding stops and "slavish adherence". I only mildly disagree with the generalizations you make between East and West (I've lived and biked in both, and the South too, for that matter). The crummy commute route I have through SJ sounds very much like yours in Philly. I think it's more a matter of urban center commuting versus suburban versus rural, no matter where each type is actually located.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Rich,The crummy commute route I have through SJ sounds very much like yours in Philly. .

I agree with you on SJ. I grew up there, and used to ride my bike to work a lot as a teenager. Down town SJ has only gotten worse light wise.

What makes matter worse in SJ is that ridiculous contraption referred to as "Light Rail", the $1B bus-on-rails that serves only to consume otherwise valuable road surface. It does have the benefit, however, of "tripping" lights -- if you time it just right, you can zig and zag with the train such that it forces lights green (it has a higher priority) just as you're catching up to it again at the light. Then it stops at the next station, then you catch up for the next light, and so on. Do it just right (and average 20+ MPH on the flats) and you'll be able to beat about half the lights on First Street. Miss it, and you're screwed.

The only other people that know this trick are cab drivers. Funny how attuned to these types of things you become as a bike-commuter.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
[B]What makes matter worse in SJ is that ridiculous contraption referred to as "Light Rail", the $1B bus-on-rails that serves only to consume otherwise valuable road surface.

If it connected to BART, it'd be worthwhile. I'll have to remember that if I ever go back. My mother sold her house there about a 2 years ago and move out to the Pleaston area. I used to work of Monterey Highway...

Monterey Road is actually a perfect example of a route that has lights spaced far enough away that you gear up to 15-20MPH. Yet it has a million lights. The trick is to pace yourself so that, even if you "hit" the light, you're at least hitting the end of the red cycle, not the beginning. Monterey Road, because it's straight as an arrow, allows you to see pretty far so this is possible.

I used to work at Ann Jans Feed right across from the Bold Night.

I also used to ride my bike down Montery Highway to Gilroy. When i was 13 my parents let me ride "where ever you want".

Imagine their suprise when I called them from Gilroy!

Originally posted by OhiOH
I'm not sure it s illegal. Here is a quote from the Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver's Manual

Chapter 9 Ways to Deal With Tough Situations

If your bike doesn't trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red isn't against the law, because the light is defective. If you ever have a crash or get a traffic ticket because a traffic light won't turn green, it's the fault of whoever installed the detector.

I'm sure it isn't he same everywhere, but many states do copy each others traffic laws.
Very good, courtesy of John Allen, who wrote the manual.

I will always wait for a car to trip the light for me, since there is usually one forthcoming. However, if one is not, I will not sit idly by like a court jester while the crickets chirp their derision at me.
I will proceed (with caution.)

May I add that no motorist would ever exhibit the patience that a lawful cyclist does?

Originally posted by William Karsten
I don't have permission, if I did, it wouldn't be illegal. Its a choice. I have a choice to do what I do, and with that, I have the due regard to suffer punishment for such choices.

Huh? Obviously I mean a moral permission, in saying that I don't think you have permission to break the law because it's inconvenient to obey it.

Of course you have a "choice"-- if you didn't there'd be little point in deliberating about what to do.



You want to put money down on that?

Well, who knows how you ride? I've commuted in both NYC and L.A. Traffic slows one down compared to the open road. But running lights and stop signs in traffic only saved me 4-6 minutes in a forty minute commute (back when I was younger, and didn't ride properly). But it saves you 30 min per hour? Ok, whatever.


No, it's not legal in California. And we have recourse to use a cross walk. I would like to see the code where it's written that you "may run a red traffic light if the light does not change for a XX period of time. Show me that.

Sheesh. Maybe a better idea would be for you to look up the code in your own state?

In any case, I wonder why you ask for a code that specifies an "XX amount of time" before you can run the light. You quote my post, but if you read it you'd see that I don't say the code in CA or anywhere else says that.

What I say is that a light that won't detect your vehicle counts as "inoperative". For example, CA vehicle code 21800 (d) (1) says: "The driver of any vehicle approaching an intersection
which has official traffic control signals that are inoperative shall
stop at the intersection, and may proceed with caution when it is
safe to do so. This subparagraph shall apply to traffic control
signals that become inoperative because of battery failure."

I claim that a light that won't detect a vehicle, and hence won't change, counts as "inoperative". If you think otherwise, then I guess you want to say that if a light stays red for hours and hours a driver has no legal recourse but to sit there. Let's just put it this way. It would be a rare judge indeed who would interpret the code in this way.

At the very least, that a light that simply doesn't detect a car counts as "inoperative" is a reasonable interpretation of the law. So the next question is whether a bicyclist has some special obligation to push a button on a crosswalk. But there's nothing in the code that indicates that. Anywhere.

But, as I said, you never know for sure what the wrong cop or the wrong judge will do.

However, this is a matter that is not specified as clearly as it could be in the vehicle code, and, particularly in the case of bicyclists, it's an underlitigated matter.

Originally posted by William Karsten
I agree with you on SJ. I grew up there, and used to ride my bike to work a lot as a teenager. Down town SJ has only gotten worse light wise.

If I was only talking about downtown I wouldn't have mentioned it. Eight miles of my route are inside the city limits, and the lights and stop signs are unrelenting the entire way.

RichC

Common sense:

There is a vast difference between cyclists that blow through stops and those who exercise lawful judgement by stopping, then proceeding with due caution if the light doesn't change.

Traffic law has always been interpereted with latitude for motorists. This is where we get the precedent that prevailing traffic speed on the freeway can supercede the authority of the posted limit (within reason.) Hence, if everyone is travelling at 65 instead of 55, 65 becomes the limit.

Also, if a radar gun detects you travelling 44 mph. in a 35 mph. zone, you cannot be charged with speeding, not unless you are clocked 10 mph. over the limit.

Originally posted by William Karsten
I don't have permission, if I did, it wouldn't be illegal. Its a choice. I have a choice to do what I do, and with that, I have the due regard to suffer punishment for such choices.

Of course you have that choice. I think why many of us are railing on you is because we perceive that your actions reflect on all cyclists. In your case, I wouldn't worry about it. There are so few commuting cyclists in SD that I doubt that the entire cycling community there could make an impression on all those motorists one way or the other. I should add that SD motorists are fast, but have always given me more room and courtesy than I expected.


Originally posted by William Karsten
[B]No, it's not legal in California. And we have recourse to use a cross walk. I would like to see the code where it's written that you "may run a red traffic light if the light does not change for a XX period of time. Show me that.
Law is more complicated than what's printed on paper. The law is what a judge or policeman wants it to be at a particular moment. There's also the notion of common law which is based on a the actions of this mythical 'reasonable person'. It's not reasonable for you to have to go hit the button although it might be a good idea for getting across some of those busy, fast S. Cal roads. If you were driving a horse and buggy (also a legal vehicle) that didn't get recognized by the sensor, then it is just as unreasonable to have to hop off the buggy and press the button. The horse might take off without you. I'm being absurd, but only to make a point. I could also ask where it is written that you must push a button if your vehicle isn't detected by the signal. I doubt the law makers gave it that much thought.

<p>Btw - I don't mean to pick on you (with 2/2 of my posts) I merely hope to elicit intelligent discussion that we can all benefit from. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum. I hope we can learn from one another.

Originally posted by Merriwether
[B]Huh? Obviously I mean a moral permission, in saying that I don't think you have permission to break the law because it's inconvenient to obey it.
This has nothing to do with permissions.


Well, who knows how you ride? I've commuted in both NYC and L.A. Traffic slows one down compared to the open road. But running lights and stop signs in traffic only saved me 4-6 minutes in a forty minute commute (back when I was younger, and didn't ride properly). But it saves you 30 min per hour? Ok, whatever.

As I said, ride with me, and you'll know. Otherwise, don't debate it and dismiss it.




Sheesh. Maybe a better idea would be for you to look up the code in your own state?

[QUOTE]What I say is that a light that won't detect your vehicle counts as "inoperative". For example, CA vehicle code 21800 (d) (1) says: "The driver of any vehicle approaching an intersection
which has official traffic control signals that are inoperative shall
stop at the intersection, and may proceed with caution when it is
safe to do so. This subparagraph shall apply to traffic control
signals that become inoperative because of battery failure."

I claim that a light that won't detect a vehicle, and hence won't change, counts as "inoperative". If you think otherwise, then I guess you want to say that if a light stays red for hours and hours a driver has no legal recourse but to sit there. Let's just put it this way. It would be a rare judge indeed who would interpret the code in this way.


Now you've gone and looked up the law. Cool. But you missed the point.

I'm not going to stop, even for a second when it's 530 am, the streets are empty, and I can see both directions. Not to put my foot down for a second to wait.

I'm not concerned with functioning signals in the morning. There's one that won't trip, and the others all appear to be on timers.

I've not made a claim about stop lights that won't trigger. Check my post. I said I will not wait for a light in the morning where I know it's safe for me to do so with out endangering myself or others. If I get a tickete, or I get hit, it's my fault, and my job to deal with the consequence with out whining.

Code, no code, triggers, moral authority or what ever: I don't when I'm comfortable with it.

My afternoon commute is a different story. The streets are filled with cars, and I owe due regard to not complicate thier driving as they owe me due regard not to intefere with my riding. When there is traffic I share the road.

You can go on and on, but until you realize that all you can do is say "it's not right" and deal with the fact that this situation exist, you'll just be typing.

And anytime you're in San Diego and want do the morning commute with me over the period of two days, we can clock it to validate my point. I'll bet you breakfast.

Originally posted by xxmdaniel
Of course you have that choice. I think why many of us are railing on you is because we perceive that your actions reflect on all cyclists. In your case, I wouldn't worry about it. There are so few commuting cyclists in SD that I doubt that the entire cycling community there could make an impression on all those motorists one way or the other. I should add that SD motorists are fast, but have always given me more room and courtesy than I expected<p>Btw - I don't mean to pick on you (with 2/2 of my posts) I merely hope to elicit intelligent discussion that we can all benefit from. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum. I hope we can learn from one another.

No knock on me, I accept that people will differ with me. And if I found a valid counter point to my idea as to why it was ok, I would infact cease.

SD motorist are really wierd. When I drive, the freeways are a war zone. On the street on the bike, I find I get tons of room, people rarely invade bike lanes, and often will slow if they see me stuck behind a bus. One guy stopped to help me change a pinch flat once when I was "forced over" by him when he was making a right turn ~ he didn't see me, and admitted it. I learned from that to make sure I can see the eyes of the person in the mirror. Who knew?