Obeying the law

[ngateguy]

Okay now let me slip into my brand new Kevlar flame suit before I post this little essay of sorts. You know Kevlar is so much nicer than asbesestos (sp), it doesn’t itch at all any more and no more rash :p

What I would like to point out is some of the hypocrisy that I notice on this forum when it comes to traffic laws. I’ve read a lot of threads that take drivers to task on all the laws they break when dealing with bikes and that they should be held responsible for their law breaking. Yet then on other threads I read where cyclists believe that they are above the law and will ride wrong way down streets, run red lights (and I don’t mean sensored lights, here if you can’t trigger the light you treat it as a stop sign) what’s with the double standard? If we are going to hold car drivers up to the law we ourselves must set an example and obey the traffic laws. Whether you like it or not or even consider it fair the actions of riders like that have an impact on the rest of us. When drivers see that kind of behavior they equate it to all bike riders. What gives you the right to hold yourself above the law? These are not laws that are directed at just cyclist they are for everyone who uses the streets (save the civil right stuff it doesn’t belong on this thread) and it is a pretty elitist attitude to do such. When I ride the 34 miles home I have 22 lights I deal with my fastest time home was 2hrs 20 min my longest ride home was 2hrs 30 min so the inconvience have hitting every light cost me a whole 10 minutes and you know what any car driving the same way would have the same problem. If we are going to truly share the road then we must observe the rules that are laid out for everyone and not decide which we can obey and which we can ignore, just as a convience for ourselves. Well this is just this old farts $.02 worth.

[joeprim]

Good points. I try to be equally sloppy both driving and riding. I will yield the right of way to anyone, but I hate yeilding to no one for example.

Joe

[chewa]

Excellent post.

[Stor Mand]

Agree completely. :thumbup:

[shaharidan]

good post :)

hehe but i do have one flame. i think you mean nomax not kevlar :). i could be wrong but i dont think kevlar has any fire resistent properties. in the army we wore kevlar to help stop bullets and shrapnel, and nomax while in vehicles to help protect us from fire. race car drivers also where nomax suits.
a little off topic i know but i thought since you went to the trouble of putin on the suit i'd flame you a bit :)

[Rich Clark]

All I can say is if you applied your admirable standards to riding a dense eastern metropolitan commute, where 4 stops per mile would be common (that's what my commute averages), you'd need a wireless laptop to post your opinion here because you'd never get home.

There's another current thread on this topic -- "Road Rules" -- in the Commuting Forum.

RichC

[nathank]

hey nateguy,

good question and i'd like to give a complete answer... which means i can't right now... but i will try after the weekend...

in short: cyclists don't endanger others when they break the law and motorists do ---- a motorist who runs a stop sign or a red light or cruises at 60mph down a residential street is a DANGER to others, a cyclist who does the same is for the most part only risking his own life.

while it is important to follow the letter of the law to an extent, otherwise the laws have no value and corruption, laws should be there to prevent you from improperly harming others or violating their rights. when a car driver runs a red light he is potentially harming others because if he makes a mistake, OTHERS may be injured, thus their rights are violated. it is difficult to argue that a cyclist is harming others or violatzing the rights of others when running a red light (he will in general not cause other drivers to wait any longer as the bike takes up neglible space compared to a car AND is not a danger to the lives of other road users).

there's a lot more to it than that... most traffic lights and intersections are deisgned to accomodate cars and their strenghts and weaknesses (i.e. they take up lots of space and are a hazzard to others, but can travel fast) meaning traffic lights make sense for cars but less so for bikes as they don't create as much traffic or endanger others to near the extent.

as i posted in the "road rules" thread, the best approach is one like Oregon with special provisions in the law for cyclists: for example in Oregon bikes are allowed 1) to pass on the right and 2) to go through a controlled intersection (red light) after stopping when determined it is safe.

as to the argument that cyclist should follow the laws if they want respect from the motorists: well, 99% of the motorists out there bend the laws too so it's really not any different (how many drivers never exceed the speed LIMIT? yes, according to the law the speed limit is the maximum speed under ideal weather and road conditoins that someone may drive, yet the speed limit is usually treated as a guideline with most people following a "5 mph over" or "10mph over" practice. how many drivers make a FULL stop? so saying that motorists do not respect cyclists b/c they do not follow the law to the letter is false. and i know that saying "everybody else is doing it" is a very slipery slope, but... motorists may not respect cyclists because cyclists are different and motorists do not understand them - sure, but this is different. and it might help if bikes act as much like cars as possible, but why force the wolf into sheep's clothing? a bike is not a car even though it is important to have basic shared rights to the road --- bikes are not allowed on the Interstate and shouldn't be - a bike is not a car. (ok, i'm not sure that i formulated this one well, but here is my stream-of-conscious jabber, maybe it makes sense?)

i'll try and post my "complete" opinion later. (sorry the above is rough, but i think the main points are there)

[RobertTank]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ngateguy
[B]Okay now let me slip into my brand new Kevlar flame suit before I post this little essay of sorts. You know Kevlar is so much nicer than asbesestos (sp), it doesn’t itch at all any more and no more rash :p

What I would like to point out is some of the hypocrisy that I notice on this forum when it comes to traffic laws. I’ve read a lot of threads that take drivers to task on all the laws they break when dealing with bikes and that they should be held responsible for their law breaking. Yet then on other threads I read where cyclists believe that they are above the law and will ride wrong way down streets, run red lights (and I don’t mean sensored lights, here if you can’t trigger the light you treat it as a stop sign) what’s with the double standard?


I totally agree.:)

[Harry]

Originally posted by shaharidan
good post :)

hehe but i do have one flame. i think you mean nomax not kevlar :). i could be wrong but i dont think kevlar has any fire resistent properties. in the army we wore kevlar to help stop bullets and shrapnel, and nomax while in vehicles to help protect us from fire. race car drivers also where nomax suits.
a little off topic i know but i thought since you went to the trouble of putin on the suit i'd flame you a bit :)

OI there,

Nomex and Kevlar are trademarks of Du Pont! They are both Aramid fibers! They both can withstand heat!

Your Kevlar suit would be kinda stiff anyway. :D

[ChezJfrey]

Originally posted by nathank
in short: cyclists don't endanger others when they break the law and motorists do ---- a motorist who runs a stop sign or a red light or cruises at 60mph down a residential street is a DANGER to others, a cyclist who does the same is for the most part only risking his own life.

But what happens if, for some reason, you fail to notice an approaching vehicle, that driver swerves to avoid you, and crashes? They could then injure themselves or another (pedestrian, cyclist, motorist, pet, etc.). These people would have therefore been endangered by your actions, thereby rendering your argument null. You could try and further justify that you exercise due caution, this could never happen, etc., but in truth, you really have no way of knowing this for certain.

And you even allude to this fact in your statement by acknowledging that, "for the most part," a cyclist only endangers one's self. Why is it acceptable that they only endanger others sometimes?

[shaharidan]

didnt know that thanks for the info.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Rich Clark
All I can say is if you applied your admirable standards to riding a dense eastern metropolitan commute, where 4 stops per mile would be common (that's what my commute averages), you'd need a wireless laptop to post your opinion here because you'd never get home.

There's another current thread on this topic -- "Road Rules" -- in the Commuting Forum.

RichC

hmmm, I isn't quite eastren but it is dense I cut my teeth riding in the streets of Cleveland. and as far as dense urban areas how long has it been since you have been in thee Seattle area anyway? Still all and all it is just mere justification that you are above everybody else who has to obey the law!

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Harry
OI there,

Nomex and Kevlar are trademarks of Du Pont! They are both Aramid fibers! They both can withstand heat!

Your Kevlar suit would be kinda stiff anyway. :D

Yep it gives me good posture and helps me from falling over all the time :D

[Rich Clark]

Originally posted by ngateguy
Still all and all it is just mere justification that you are above everybody else who has to obey the law!

It's presuming a lot to ascribe motivations to people you don't know.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions is, to me, the acid test of good citizenship. If I ride so as to maximize my safety and that of any other road user who might be affected by my presence, I am satisfied that I'm being a responsible cyclist. There are occasions when I disagree with the letter of the law over how best to accomplish that goal, and if an agent of law enforcement cites me for an infraction, I'll pay up.

"Above the law?" A very glib and convenient perjorative. It's much easier to just throw labels on people than to try to understand them.

RichC

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Rich Clark
[B
"Above the law?" A very glib and convenient perjorative. It's much easier to just throw labels on people than to try to understand them.

RichC [/B]

So what label should I use for someone who all though everybody else has to obey the law has decided that they are better at deciding what the law society has put down, which is not always for control but safety. You can justify it all you want your actions are showing people that you don't think the law is for you therefore you think that you are above the law. If you do not like the label then change your actions I do not need to meet you to see where you are comming from when you answered this post.

[oscaregg]

I choose as close to absolute obedience as possible; if we are, as John Foresteer has written, "n#@@$#@ of the road," than we've got to show that we're whiter than any motorized honky.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by nathank
in short: cyclists don't endanger others when they break the law and motorists do ---- a motorist who runs a stop sign or a red light or cruises at 60mph down a residential street is a DANGER to others, a cyclist who does the same is for the most part only risking his own life.

In short it has been my experience that the above statement is far from true. A bike who runs a red light can and has endangered other people. Here is an example a couple of years ago we had a cyclist here blow a red light and he got creamed this did not affect anyone else? Wrong the driver who hit him not only had damage done to their vehicle but now has to live with the memory of killing someone for the rest of their life. His daughter is now having to deal with the fact that he is not around and his mother buried her son which no mom should ever have to do. As far as I am concerned compared to every one else involved he got off easy. And because a car speeds down the road at 60 miles an hour still does not justify a cyclist breaking the law. As I was told many times growing up, two wrongs don't make a right. that argument sound a lot like "well Johnny does it why can't I " Be a responsible citizen and obey the law. And if it is legal to pass on the right and treat a red light like a stop sign then it is not against the law so that point is moot and not what I am discussing on this thread.

[Rich Clark]

Originally posted by ngateguy
So what label should I use for someone who all though everybody else has to obey the law has decided that they are better at deciding what the law society has put down, which is not always for control but safety. You can justify it all you want your actions are showing people that you don't think the law is for you therefore you think that you are above the law. If you do not like the label then change your actions I do not need to meet you to see where you are comming from when you answered this post.

So obviously it's even easier to just label people than to try to understand them than I thought.

Clearly, you have a black-and-white attitude towards this issue, and there's no point in discussing it with you because you're not interested in anyone's point of view but your own. So I will opt out, because life's too short.

RichC

[Stor Mand]

If you haven't noticed, labelling is rampant in the bike forum so you must be used to it by now.
Bicyclists should not be above the law .. you have a red light, too bad .. stop and put your foot down. If cyclists want to be equal, adhere to the traffic laws.

[Rich Clark]

What's so amusing is that I'm the most law-abiding cyclists I know. I'm always the one stopped at red lights while others blow through them. I'm always the one properly positioned in the lane while others are weaving in and out, jumping on and off sidewalks, making left turns from the right lane, etc., etc., etc. I always yield when I'm supposed to, and I never approach any intersection (controlled or not) without being prepared to stop.

But I refuse to follow blindly rules that may put me at risk. Not every traffic regulation has been thought through with cyclists in mind. Cyclists may have the same rights and responsibilities as other road users, but they are NOT equal. They are smaller, more vulnerable, slower, and often quite unexpected.

Everything isn't black and white. It's not a choice between blowing every red light at full speed vs always stopping for the full duration. It's not a choice between always taking the lane or never taking the lane. It's not a choice between always merging left before a turn or never merging.

My goal as a cyclist is to have no effect on the other traffic. To be so much a predictable part of the traffic flow that nobody ever has to react to my presence. Usually this means following the same rules as all the other traffic. Occasionally it means doing something differently because I'm smaller, slower, and more vulnerable. So be it.

One more thing: I ride in and out of Philadelphia every day. I grew up riding in Chicago. I've also ridden in a number of other cities, including Boston, DC, LA, and San Francisco, over the years.

There really is a difference between the old cities and the newer ones. Shorter blocks, narrower streets, stop signs at every single intersection without exception. I mentioned that there are 54 controlled intersection on my 13 mile route; that number would be doubled if I went through residential neighborhoods instead of sticking to arterials as much as possible.

Still, my default action is to stop, which seems to puzzle the other drivers, since it's something they almost never see cyclists here do.

RichC

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by Rich Clark
What's so amusing is that I'm the most law-abiding cyclists I know.

But I refuse to follow blindly rules that may put me at risk.
Experience has shown me a few things:

-- Following the law makes me more predictable to drivers, therefore safer;

-- Sometimes the law is inadequate in protecting me, so I have to use my best judgement;

-- The law often provides more than one way for me to solve any problem on a bike.

-- The spirit of the law is safety.

[JRA]

This is a good topic!

Cyclists who disobey the law are a pet peeve of mine. They are lawbreakers and, if they pretend to be advocates of vehicular rights for cyclist, they are also hypocrites. Like most lawbreakers, the cycling miscreants come up with excuses why the law does not apply to them. Excuses are all they are.

One of the lies the lawbreakers are most fond of is one that says that cyclists who ride carelessly endanger only themselves, and not others. This statement is fairly common on these boards, and it is pure horse-hockey. As explained in some of the previous posts in this thread, a cyclist who causes a motorist to swerve and run over a pedestrian does not endanger only him/herself.

Wrong-way cyclists and cyclists who run stop signs and red lights should be ticketed and fined.

Motorists are so accustomed to idiot cyclists who run stop signs that they are surprised when I stop at stop signs. They yield me the right of way even though I clearly don't have it.

Cyclist have the same rights and responsiblities as motorists.

I'm afraid many cyclists forget the "responsibilites" part. They give us all a bad reputation.

[uciflylow]

As far as running red lights go. I still have never gotten a good answer as how to handle those redlights that are NOT GOING TO CHANGE for a bike to pass. Do you stop, then go on through or do you just sit there all morning?

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by uciflylow
As far as running red lights go. I still have never gotten a good answer as how to handle those redlights that are NOT GOING TO CHANGE for a bike to pass. Do you stop, then go on through or do you just sit there all morning?

it depends on your local laws and it is not usually found in the traffic code you may need to call the local authorities on how they enforce it, Here most places let you treat it like a stop sign.

[John E]

Originally posted by uciflylow
As far as running red lights go. I still have never gotten a good answer as how to handle those redlights that are NOT GOING TO CHANGE for a bike to pass. Do you stop, then go on through or do you just sit there all morning?

This is one of our biggest problems, right up there with inattentive motorists and high-speed free merges and diverges (and wrong-way cyclists!). If I can safely proceed in my intended direction of travel, I treat the red light as a stop sign, and prepare to argue, if necessary, that the signal is legally inoperative. I report nonresponsive detector loops in my own city of 55K to traffic engineering, and obtain a remedy about half the time. If I need to cross a major, heavily traveled street, I detour to the pedestrian button, if one is available.

My personal philosophy is closely aligned with Pete Clark's post. My personal safety is by far my primary concern; following the letter of the law is secondary. Fortunately, these two objectives are USUALLY mutually consistent.

[uciflylow]

Thanks for the answers. These make for a sensable aproach to this problem. I will also contact my local enforcement, they have a bike patrol BTW, and see what they have to say about those red light sensors. The most important thing to me is my own skin! I won't just be blowing through any place where I could be struck down!

I pulled along side a bike rider last week who was riding against traffic and tried to convince him to ride with the flow. He just acted like I had insulted him! He almost caused 2 accidents because the auto drivers couldn't predict what he was going to do next!:eek:

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by JRA
Cyclists who disobey the law are a pet peeve of mine.
Mine too.


Wrong-way cyclists and cyclists who run stop signs and red lights should be ticketed and fined.
In principle, I agree with you, especially since lawless cycling behavior hurts our cause, which is that we have an equal right to use the roads we pay for. Sometimes it's roadies that are so pumped and focused on their workout that they see stopping as unimportant; sometimes it's the uneducated who cycle against traffic, since that's the pedestrian rule; sometimes it's just mavericks that don't give a s*t about the law.

Cyclist have the same rights and responsiblities as motorists.

I'm afraid many cyclists forget the "responsibilites" part. They give us all a bad reputation.
All in all, you're right.

Let me add one thing. When motorists routinely roll through stops, why should cyclists have to "put their foot down?"

[Sandra]

[i]
Let me add one thing. When motorists routinely roll through stops, why should cyclists have to "put their foot down?" [/B]

Because "two wrongs don't make a right"?

[Chris L]

Originally posted by uciflylow
As far as running red lights go. I still have never gotten a good answer as how to handle those redlights that are NOT GOING TO CHANGE for a bike to pass. Do you stop, then go on through or do you just sit there all morning?

First thing you should do is check your local laws. In this part of the world you are quite legally entitled to proceed through a red light if the censor is non-functional (assuming there is no traffic on one of the 'green' approaches to the intersection).

As far as motorists routinely ignoring red lights/speed limits and so on: Hey, that happens around here all the time. The thing is, just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Personally I follow the road rules all the time, simply because it's the right thing to do, and for no other reason than that.

I will, however, take issue with the "give us all a bad name" point. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is lacking the basic intelligence to tell me apart from the cyclist they allegedly saw running a red light earlier, their opinion is not one that I'm likely to lose any sleep over.

[nathank]

A bike who runs a red light can and has endangered other people. Here is an example a couple of years ago we had a cyclist here blow a red light and he got creamed this did not affect anyone else? Wrong the driver who hit him not only had damage done to their vehicle but now has to live with the memory of killing someone for the rest of their life. His daughter is now having to deal with the fact that he is not around and his mother buried her son which no mom should ever have to do. As far as I am concerned compared to every one else involved he got off easy.

ok, it's a matter of degree. as you drive a car down the street you are potentially endagering people at all times: if you don't see someone and run them over or fail to notice a light and plow through a green you could injure or kill people. risk is everywhere. and you should be held accountable for your actions (i never said and would not agree that the said cyclist in the above example is not liable for the accident). i maintain that the risk of a cyclist running a red light is VERY low for all users other than himself -- for example, a car making an unprotected left turn is very likely MORE of a risk to others than a cyclist running a red light. should we disallow all unprotected left turns because someone _potentially_ could be injured? should we make all aspects of driving illegal so there is no risk? it's not possible. risk is there and again, i maintain that the level of risk a cyclist presents to other road users by running a red light (i don't mean blowing a light, but mean after stopping and checking traffic and proceeding when safe) is very low.

in the example above, it's irrelevant that the family members miss the cyclist - the traffic laws (in general) are not to protect people from themselves (ok, sometimes like seat belts and helmet laws) but to help reduce the risk to OTHERS. and any road user must take responsibility for his own safety - and the law should ensure that he must minimize his risk to others and face consequences for failure to do so. and in this case if a cyclist causes an accident he should be responsible and liable for some or all of any damages and subject to legal action - i.e. held accountable for his actions exactly as i advocate motorists should be.

now just to make this clear: i am not advocating irratic unpredictable cycling, wrong-way cyling or other weird stuff... but reasonable and responsible special exceptions for cyclists like passing cars stopped in traffic outside of a normal lane and going through a controlled intersection on red after determining it is safe to do so. these things _should_ be made part of the law as in Oregon. but in places where they are not i will in general still do them (of course only when safe) - and if i cause an accident or am caught by the authoriteis, then i have to face consequences for my actions.

And because a car speeds down the road at 60 miles an hour still does not justify a cyclist breaking the law. As I was told many times growing up, two wrongs don't make a right.
in my initial post i admitted this exact thing - that just "because everybody does it" is a slippery slope. but the fact is, the number of road users who really do completely follow the letter of the law (speed LIMIT and full stop at stop sign) is REALLY low. for that matter how many POLICE follow the speed limit? from my experience most police also have a loose interpretation of the "maximum speed limit under ideal consitions" to be a "good suggested average where 5 to 10mph more is quite fine". so we're not talking about cyclists here, we're talking about all citizens not following the law to the letter - i.e. it's not an issue for cyclists but equally for all road users ---- and since cars pose a larger threat to others due to greater speeds and large size, the consequences of autos bending the law are much higher than cyclists... so arguing that cyclist should follow the letter of the law more than motorists seems a little misdirected --- or that cyclists will loose respect from motorists for bending the law (in ways that result in fewer potential riaks for others)

[FOG]

I think both cyclists and drivers ought to be permitted reasonable slack in obeying the law. I really don't have much problem with rolling slowly through stop signs on bikes, nor in motorists travelling 10 over the speed limit. What gives me a lot of heartburn are drivers blowing through red lights well after they have changed and bicyclists totally ignoring traffic lights with substantial cross traffic, as I often see along K street in DC. I also don't like to see fast bicycling on crowded sidewalks, as is often the case in DC. I don't want other motorists and cyclists to obey the law just so they are bound by the same rules as I am, but rather I want them to adhere to the laws so as to make themselves and others safe.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Rich Clark
So obviously it's even easier to just label people than to try to understand them than I thought.

Clearly, you have a black-and-white attitude towards this issue, and there's no point in discussing it with you because you're not interested in anyone's point of view but your own. So I will opt out, because life's too short.

RichC

You know Rich I really am not trying to label anyone here and I don't see the issue we are discussing as having any "grey area" as I read the law we have here in Washington in a nut shell it says that I have the same rights and responsibilities as ANY OTHER VEHICLE that uses the road which means I am to obey all the laws that are set down. I do not see anywhere in the law that excludes cyclists that commute, or are more experienced than others. there a drivers of cars out there that are wise enough that the would be able to decide whether they can safely cross an intersection against a red, however there are a lot that don't so where do we draw the line? who and how do we decide who should be able to ignore the red light or not? The law reads do not run the red light if you do you just broke the law period, there is no grey area or reasonable doubt. So this Is a Black and White issue. And in my OPINION anyone who is doing that is placing themselves above the law. And any explanation they use for doing it is nothing more than an excuse or justification of it.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Chris L
[BI will, however, take issue with the "give us all a bad name" point. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is lacking the basic intelligence to tell me apart from the cyclist they allegedly saw running a red light earlier, their opinion is not one that I'm likely to lose any sleep over. [/B]

I agree with you on your sentiment that they shouldn't judge you for others actions. But the harsh reality of the world is such that they do. And here we are trying to acomplish a goal, that is give us the space on the road we deserve, and to achieve this because we are the minority, and whether it seems fair or not, we have to be even more diligent then they do because the are juding us more closely than themselves. And we need there cooperaation to achieve this (not to mention there votes) so when a fellow cyclist breaks the law it does impact the rest of us. No it is not fair nor is it right but we all to one point or another us do it. Are you just a bit more aware of the actions of a pick up drive or an SUV? Do you remain just a bit more alert when they are young people behind the wheel?

[Chris L]

Originally posted by ngateguy
I agree with you on your sentiment that they shouldn't judge you for others actions. But the harsh reality of the world is such that they do. And here we are trying to acomplish a goal, that is give us the space on the road we deserve, and to achieve this because we are the minority, and whether it seems fair or not, we have to be even more diligent then they do because the are juding us more closely than themselves.

Here in good old redneck Queensland, the mere fact of being a minority group is enough to give someone a "bad name". The mere fact of cycling at all is enough (in some people's eyes) to give someone a bad name. I don't intend to stop riding on that basis. I will also add that here in good old redneck Queensland, following the road rules will make you more unpopular than breaking them (fact). Again, I don't intend to change my policy here just to maintain my "good name".

Originally posted by ngateguy
Are you just a bit more aware of the actions of a pick up drive or an SUV? Do you remain just a bit more alert when they are young people behind the wheel?

In answer to the second question, I rarely (if ever) find out who is specifically behind the wheel, so it's unlikely I'm going to be aware of that. I'm paying less and less attention to the first question every day.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
When motorists routinely roll through stops, why should cyclists have to "put their foot down?"
Originally posted by Sandra
Because "two wrongs don't make a right"?

I agree, two wrongs never make a right.

But not all laws are right.

:)

Regarding the laws that state a cyclist must put a foot down to consummate a stop: I am not aware of any law that forces a motorist to put his car in park at a stop. Lawmakers would scoff at the suggestion.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Regarding the laws that state a cyclist must put a foot down to consummate a stop: I am not aware of any law that forces a motorist to put his car in park at a stop. Lawmakers would scoff at the suggestion.

I'm not aware of any law that says you have to put your foot down (although there may be local differences). However, it's just easier to avoid falling over if you do so when stopping all of your forward momentum.

[Pete Clark]

This publication is a gold mine of information for cyclists. This chapter in particular seems to address many points raised in this thread.

:thumbup:

http://bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter9a.htm

[Sandra]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
This publication is a gold mine of information for cyclists. This chapter in particular seems to address many points raised in this thread.

:thumbup:

http://bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter9a.htm

Thanks, Pete! :)

[uciflylow]

Well I got it strait from the cats mouth this evening! I happened upon the local bike police and asked about the problem of the lights that won't change. They said "stop, look both ways, and ride through just like a stop sign". Thank goodness! I feel better about riding through them now.

[ngateguy]

I read the chapter Pete posted and bookmarked ti to read the rest of it later. They were some very good defensive ridding tips in there. I have to add that I think they may have adjusted the sensors on one of the lights I have to go through it has been changing the last week everytime I pull up I think I should contact the DOT of Seattle and see if this is true. Then I can maybe get the DOT here in Everett to do the same.

[uciflylow]

Now I read in the paper, that the state has just passed a law to allow motorcycyles to stop and go at lights that won't change! I guess if a motorcycle will not activate the light, an aluminium bicycle frame is out of the question!;)

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by uciflylow
Now I read in the paper, that the state has just passed a law to allow motorcycyles to stop and go at lights that won't change! I guess if a motorcycle will not activate the light, an aluminium bicycle frame is out of the question!;)

I have that problem all the time. You don't know it's not working until the light has changed a couple times .. then I go when it's safe.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by uciflylow
Now I read in the paper, that the state has just passed a law to allow motorcycyles to stop and go at lights that won't change! I guess if a motorcycle will not activate the light, an aluminium bicycle frame is out of the question!;)

Frankly, I'm staggered that this law wasn't already in place. I can't ever remember a time when we didn't have such a law in place over here. And Queensland is about 35 years behind the rest of Australia!

[oscaregg]

I do watch and PROFILE drivers by age, gender, and type of vehicle as well as other things. Worst drivers in my area will always be middle-aged white men with mustaches in big pickup trucks--and the ones who pass me with the least room and act the most impatient will invariably have Christian and conservative political stickers on the hind end of the truck. This applies whether I'm driving or cycling.

[Tom_The_Bikeman]

in short: cyclists don't endanger others when they break the law and motorists do ---- a motorist who runs a stop sign or a red light or cruises at 60mph down a residential street is a DANGER to others, a cyclist who does the same is for the most part only risking his own life.

Hate to disagree with you Nathank, but a very close friend of mine managed to kill someone breaking a law, and there are an enormous number of cyclists here in Switzerland who endager people by not obeying the law (riding 5 abrest, yadda yadda, yadda)

Not only that, but Mr. Physics does have something to say about speeding about at say, 40 km/h weighing in at 100 kg. That hurts when you contact them, even if they are running AWAY from you... ;)

That being said...it's a matter of personal responsibility.