General Cycling Discussion - Who's gotten a ticket before?

describe

tonight, I was riding home from a coffee shop. I've got red rear blinkers, white front blinkers, and a Giro helmet. I stop & wait at the red light for 2 cars on the cross-street.. I waited for both to pass the intersection... and proceed accross the street (with ZERO cross-traffic).

40 seconds later i hear a bullhorn, and see O-S ('oh shi*t') blinkers behind me. 2 piggies step out, ask for license, and issued me a ticket.

I was nicely dressed.. was being polite.. had no traffic or criminal record.. max safety gear.. completely empty cross-traffic.. and still got cited. what's more: they were state highway patrol!!! and i was in the city near downtown~!!!!


well, i guess you cant win all the cards...

Yep. Ran a red light on a pedestrian only cycle. It was a fair cop.

First of all, the state highway patrol has jurisdiction in every single part of the state. If they are in uniform, they are on duty. They have no limited jurisdictions like the city police or county sheriffs.

I'm guessing you were cited for running a red light. No matter what kind of vehicle you are using on the road that is against the law, the officers were within their right to cite you for breaking the law. Why were you in such a big hurry that you had to run a red light?

Don't get to upset over this, you were clearly in the wrong and admitted as much. It is cyclists like you who break the law that give the rest of us a bad name. It pisses me off every time a cyclist complains they got a ticket for breaking the law. You do realize this makes it harder for the rest of us who are trying to advocate for better cyclists rights and conditions on the road don't you? Why in the hell can't some cyclists get a clue on matters like this? I commend the officers for citing you, next time obey the damn law & stop making it harder for us advocates!

First of all, the state highway patrol has jurisdiction in every single part of the state. If they are in uniform, they are on duty. They have no limited jurisdictions like the city police or county sheriffs.

I'm guessing you were cited for running a red light. No matter what kind of vehicle you are using on the road that is against the law, the officers were within their right to cite you for breaking the law. Why were you in such a big hurry that you had to run a red light?

Don't get to upset over this, you were clearly in the wrong and admitted as much. It is cyclists like you who break the law that give the rest of us a bad name. It pisses me off every time a cyclist complains they got a ticket for breaking the law. You do realize this makes it harder for the rest of us who are trying to advocate for better cyclists rights and conditions on the road don't you? Why in the hell can't some cyclists get a clue on matters like this? I commend the officers for citing you, next time obey the damn law & stop making it harder for us advocates!
yes, i realize that it was in their jurisdiction and it was lawful for them to ticket me.. im not crying foul about the legality of the ordeal.. all im saying is that, considering the circumstances, the issuance of the ticket (rather than a warning) was unreasonable.

tell me you've never jaywalked, or driven 5mph over on the freeway. :rolleyes:

moreover, i've never seen anybody get a ticket on a bicycle... less get pulled over. my main point was to get people's experiences for insight into the appellate process. (more/less leniency from judge... which record ticket will affect... normal offense or reduced... etc)

from what i understand, it's a normal traffic citation... so im looking at a ~250$ fine

yes, i realize that it was in their jurisdiction and it was lawful for them to ticket me.. im not crying foul about the legality of the ordeal.. all im saying is that, considering the circumstances, the issuance of the ticket (rather than a warning) was unreasonable.

tell me you've never jaywalked, or driven 5mph over on the freeway. :rolleyes:

moreover, i've never seen anybody get a ticket on a bicycle... less get pulled over. my main point was to get people's experiences for insight into the appellate process. (more/less leniency from judge... which record ticket will affect... normal offense or reduced... etc)

from what i understand, it's a normal traffic citation... so im looking at a ~250$ fine

damn.. that's steep! $250 fine? i wonder if that will raise up ur car insurance. btw, do you need any kind of insurance to be riding a bike? i know it's a stupid question, but since the say a bike is like any other vehicle on the road.. then should it require insurance as well?

what about those dumbass traffic lights that don't recognise when a bike has pulled up? Do you just have a picnic on the road and wait for a car?

what about those dumbass traffic lights that don't recognise when a bike has pulled up? Do you just have a picnic on the road and wait for a car?

You can argue that the traffic signal is defective.

I find it humourous that cyclists want to be treated with respect on the road, that is to be recognised as a "motorised vehicle" by cars and the police, then complain when they are caught for breaking the law. Why should the law discriminate between car and bicycle? You can't have it both ways.

You might be able to talk your way out of it with the "defective signal" defense. Here in California, if a signal does not respond to your presence after some reasonable period of time, you can proceed with caution when it is safe to do so. I do this from time to time at lights that are not capable of detecting my bike. If I ever get stopped because of it, that will be my defense.

Of course, your local laws could be different, and if the cops saw you pull up to the light and then run it shortly afterwards, that defense might not work for you.

damn.. that's steep! $250 fine? i wonder if that will raise up ur car insurance. btw, do you need any kind of insurance to be riding a bike? i know it's a stupid question, but since the say a bike is like any other vehicle on the road.. then should it require insurance as well?
well, the ticket was issue by a state patrolman.. and is under the 'department of public safety' (Texas' version of DMV)

i wasnt able to find a $fine-chart for the TX-DPS, but the fine for failure to comply to red light in my city (Austin) and its surrounding cities is approximately 250$.

logistically i do not expect it to have any bearing on my vehicular insurance or "driving" record (imagine if i had not a license nor a car)


I find it humourous that cyclists want to be treated with respect on the road, that is to be recognised as a "motorised vehicle" by cars and the police, then complain when they are caught for breaking the law. Why should the law discriminate between car and bicycle? You can't have it both ways.

firstly, the law is not binary. that is why I mentioned the mitigating circumstances. there are very certain differences between cars and bikes... its ridiculous to equalize bikes to car. would you, then, think it befitting for an issuance of ticket to a biker for moving too slow? (unless you avg 25mph riding somehow)

yes, i realize that it was in their jurisdiction and it was lawful for them to ticket me.. im not crying foul about the legality of the ordeal.. all im saying is that, considering the circumstances, the issuance of the ticket (rather than a warning) was unreasonable.

tell me you've never jaywalked, or driven 5mph over on the freeway. :rolleyes:

moreover, i've never seen anybody get a ticket on a bicycle... less get pulled over. my main point was to get people's experiences for insight into the appellate process. (more/less leniency from judge... which record ticket will affect... normal offense or reduced... etc)

from what i understand, it's a normal traffic citation... so im looking at a ~250$ fine

Law enforcment officers are trained to use their best judgment when doing their job. Sounds like they did just that. But with that said they are not perfect or infallable by any means.

I've never been issued a ticket while riding my bike, but I've never broken any laws while riding it either. I am how ever by no means perfect. Yes, I've jay walked a time or 2 and even driven over the speed limit.

I do think how ever $250 is a little steep for running a red light. Are you sure that is all you were cited for? I'd take a closer look at the ticket if I were you. You may want to fight it in court. I think if the officers do not show up the judge throws it out and you don't pay the fine, but don't quote me on that.

If you do fight it keep some things in mind though. All state patrol cars across the nation ar enow equipped with camers that record both audio & video you may have been recorded running the light & certainly were recorded when the officers pulled you over.

Because you were recorded & because of the means in which a traffic light functions the "defective traffic light" or the traffic light sensor did not detect me defense will probably not work. Traffic lights detect traffic at an intersection using differant methods. Some of those include motion sensors, weight sensors, metal detection, camera, counters & timers. Most have at least 2 of these to operate the traffic light. If one is not needed the other kicks in or serves as a back up if one fails.

If you fight it in court the best you may be able to hope for is a reduction in the fine.

If cyclists want to be considered legal vehicles of the road we need to obey the same traffic laws. Where I live the only place a cyclist can not legally ride is on any highway or interstate that has a posted minimum speed limit. Other wise a cyclist can legally ride on any public road way. The minimum posted limit was set up to keep farm equipment off the interstates because of the safety risks to motorists travelling at higher speeds then a large tractor could move at. It had nothing to do with cyclists.

I'm pretty sure the speed limit laws are the same in your area. So your comment about a cyclist being able to average 25 mph is a little off base. Most areas I've been do not have minimum posted limits on road ways that have a maximum speed limit of less then 65 mph. For example I have never seen any minimum speed limit posted on a highway that has a max. limit of 55 mph. I have seen several areas that have a max. speed of 65 mph and no minimum speed limit. Generally the max. limit and the minimum limit go hand in hand.

I was pulled over many years ago from supposedly rolling through a stop sign.. The cop said I blew threw it and I told I know for a fact that I came to a complete stop.. He said how do you know that, I went back to my bike and showed him my cyclocomputer that show MPH in 10ths of MPH.. I told him nicely of course that it registered 0 mph and I looked both ways. He let me go.. Remember there are a lot of police officers who see bike riders as a nuisance. Be polite and you might get off.. If you act like a jerk your getting the ticket for sure..

describe

tonight, I was riding home from a coffee shop. I've got red rear blinkers, white front blinkers, and a Giro helmet. I stop & wait at the red light for 2 cars on the cross-street.. I waited for both to pass the intersection... and proceed accross the street (with ZERO cross-traffic).

40 seconds later i hear a bullhorn, and see O-S ('oh shi*t') blinkers behind me. 2 piggies step out, ask for license, and issued me a ticket.

I was nicely dressed.. was being polite.. had no traffic or criminal record.. max safety gear.. completely empty cross-traffic.. and still got cited. what's more: they were state highway patrol!!! and i was in the city near downtown~!!!!


well, i guess you cant win all the cards...

What State?
So what if you did not have a license. I find that funny. I never cary a license around with me on my bike. What if you never even had a license?

I never got a ticket while riding my bike but I have been pulled over by city police. I was riding at night and made the mistake of waving at the officer as I passed him. It's kind of weird to have the lights turned on you while riding. I didn't break any laws but he thought it was suspicious that I was riding at night. I told him that I just got off work and that this was a good time for me to ride. He wanted my name, address and phone number incase of any buglaries that may happen. Great, I'm a suspect before any crime has been committed! But, hey at least I didn't get a ticket :-)

In WI, in addition to the "defective signal" thing, it's legal for a pedestrian to cross against a red light when the traffic clears. It's also legal for a cyclist to cross in a pedestrian crosswalk, as long as s/he doesn't restrict the right-of-way of any pedestrian, etc. So one trick a lot of cyclists do is pull up to the light, slide over to the crosswalk, wait for clear traffic and cross. You might be able to claim that that was your intent, but you just didn't get over far enough to be in the crosswalk.

In WI, in addition to the "defective signal" thing, it's legal for a pedestrian to cross against a red light when the traffic clears. It's also legal for a cyclist to cross in a pedestrian crosswalk, as long as s/he doesn't restrict the right-of-way of any pedestrian, etc. So one trick a lot of cyclists do is pull up to the light, slide over to the crosswalk, wait for clear traffic and cross. You might be able to claim that that was your intent, but you just didn't get over far enough to be in the crosswalk.
im banking first on the possibility that the patrolman will not show up to court, and, secondarily, the feasibility that the fine will be greatly reduced. i was quite far on the right, actually. this particular street had no bike lanes, so i generally stay a bit far right--not too much so that cars will ignore my presence, but just enough so that they can easily pass me. also, with the absence of the bike lane, by going ahead cross the empty intersection i was helping the fluidity of the traffic in my direction of travel... but ill save it for the judge


What State?
So what if you did not have a license. I find that funny. I never cary a license around with me on my bike. What if you never even had a license?
texas. the thought about lying about my carrying of a license crossed my mind, but i was being honest because i genuinely thought i would get a warning at most... and had nothing as a cause for worry (warrants/drugs/etc). i think that, had they wanted to, they would have gotten my identification one way or another... if not by voluntary submission then by detention... it's like catching one for a non-traffic offense (tagging/etc) w/o a license

firstly, the law is not binary. that is why I mentioned the mitigating circumstances. there are very certain differences between cars and bikes... its ridiculous to equalize bikes to car. would you, then, think it befitting for an issuance of ticket to a biker for moving too slow? (unless you avg 25mph riding somehow)



If we, as cyclists, want to be treated with the same concideration on the road as cars, we have to follow the same rules. You caught caught, it sucks, too bad. If you saw a car doing this in the same situation, would you have been okay with that, or would you be perturbed by the fact that the traffic laws were being disregarded?

never run red lights! it's very very dangerous. even when you are lost and not paying attention to the road because the whole downtown traffic system is all weird! ( i ran one once... but i didn't get caught.. and i was in a car. ) :D

If you wish to use the 'defective light defense' then you need to do a couple things:

1. You need to verify that the intersection is controlled using traffic sensors. Look for magnetic sensing loops cut in the pavement where you were waiting for the light.

2. Verify that the sensor will not detect your bike. Try rolling up to the light in the same direction you were riding sometime when there is not enough traffic for another car to come by and trigger the light. Make sure that the sensor does not trip the light for you.

If your tests show that the light would not trip for you, then you can argue in court that the light is defective for your bike. If you have prior experience with this trafic light, it would be best as you could argue that past experience demonstrated that the light could not detect your bike and so, based on that experience, you did not wait on the light and proceeded at the first safe opportunity.

If the light does not use sensors, then you would be best to try to take a defensive driving class so the ticket does not go on your 'driving' record. Hopefully, your state allows this. Otherwise, you may be able to ask the judge for 'deferred adjudication' where you pay the fine and get put on probation for a period of time. If you don't get another ticket, then the conviction is erased and does not count against you.

Of course, this is not legal advice. It's only what I would try to do. You should probably talk to a lawyer if you wish to pursue a defense.

If we, as cyclists, want to be treated with the same concideration on the road as cars, we have to follow the same rules. You caught caught, it sucks, too bad. If you saw a car doing this in the same situation, would you have been okay with that, or would you be perturbed by the fact that the traffic laws were being disregarded?

youre assuming that everybody follows your suit. i do not want to be treated with the exact same consideration as a car... similarly i do not treat commercial trucks as cars, either--they accelerate slower, turn wider, take up more space, etc. red lights laws are to protect the subject, and, more importantly, others. i did not reasonably subject myself to harm, and i especially did not subject others to harm (well, i guess 531 steel is pretty tough). you live in your oversimplified world and ill live in mine :)

I had a traffic violation about 6 months ago for rolling through a 3-way stop. While I wasn't really in any danger, they still ticketed me. But I lucked out and the court decided to only send a letter to my parents (who I had already told, so no big deal). But the important thing is that I learned my lesson, when faced with a potential $100 ticket to save all of 3 seconds, I'll be sure to stop.

all im saying is that, considering the circumstances, the issuance of the ticket (rather than a warning) was unreasonable.
Yeah, every city, state, etc has them...they are called quotas. Look at the date this occured. Someone had a quota to fill. And you happened to be in sight and violate the law. I dusted a red tonight in front of a CPD Cruiser...nothing. Maybe I got lucky, maybe they were sleeping. Who knows. But look at it one way: your ticket just might go to pay to fill a pothole somewhere...or maybe not.

Yeah, every city, state, etc has them...they are called quotas. Look at the date this occured. Someone had a quota to fill. And you happened to be in sight and violate the law. I dusted a red tonight in front of a CPD Cruiser...nothing. Maybe I got lucky, maybe they were sleeping. Who knows. But look at it one way: your ticket just might go to pay to fill a pothole somewhere...or maybe not.


The quota thing that every one thinks law inforcment officers have to follow is nothing but a big urban myth. There is no so called ticket quota that officers have to follow that says how many tickets they have to write each month. How do I know this? Simple, I asked the police departments in 5 differant cities, 2 of them are in 2 other states. I also asked 3 differant state patrol departments in 3 differant states, & 4 differant county sheriffs departments, 2 of those are in 2 differant states. Everyone had the same answer, it is a big untrue urban myth. And no one knows where or how it even got started. So the fact that redfooj got a ticket had nothing to do with the so-called quota.

im banking first on the possibility that the patrolman will not show up to court, and, secondarily, the feasibility that the fine will be greatly reduced. i was quite far on the right, actually. this particular street had no bike lanes, so i generally stay a bit far right--not too much so that cars will ignore my presence, but just enough so that they can easily pass me. also, with the absence of the bike lane, by going ahead cross the empty intersection i was helping the fluidity of the traffic in my direction of travel... but ill save it for the judge


texas. the thought about lying about my carrying of a license crossed my mind, but i was being honest because i genuinely thought i would get a warning at most... and had nothing as a cause for worry (warrants/drugs/etc). i think that, had they wanted to, they would have gotten my identification one way or another... if not by voluntary submission then by detention... it's like catching one for a non-traffic offense (tagging/etc) w/o a license
Texas huh ok I'll avoid Texas ;)
Seriously I do not wait for red lites sorry. It's not a safty issue when you can clearly see that there is absolutly nothing comming so I go through the red. Law shmaw. btw not only do you have to look to see that there are no cars comming but more importantly that there are no pigs watching :D

Law shmaw.

I hope you'll feel the same way when some speeding drunkard wipes the road with you.

If you wish to use the 'defective light defense' then you need to do a couple things:

1. You need to verify that the intersection is controlled using traffic sensors. Look for magnetic sensing loops cut in the pavement where you were waiting for the light.

2. Verify that the sensor will not detect your bike. Try rolling up to the light in the same direction you were riding sometime when there is not enough traffic for another car to come by and trigger the light. Make sure that the sensor does not trip the light for you.


Serious question: Is a traffic light that just takes an inordinately long time to change (say, 10-20 minutes), simply because it's in Queensland, which seems to be 35 years behind the rest of Australia, considered defective?

I just made a quick trip to the drugstore... It's about 10:30 here in Brooklyn, and as I pulled up to a light that was turing red, a police car pulled alongside me. Remembering this thread, I stopped and sat it out, though I'd normally have slowed, looked, and breezed through at this hour... The cop rolled down his window and asked if I was all right - he'd never seen a bike actually sit through a red light at night before ;)

-chris

The quota thing that every one thinks law inforcment officers have to follow is nothing but a big urban myth. There is no so called ticket quota that officers have to follow that says how many tickets they have to write each month. How do I know this? Simple, I asked the police departments in 5 differant cities, 2 of them are in 2 other states. I also asked 3 differant state patrol departments in 3 differant states, & 4 differant county sheriffs departments, 2 of those are in 2 differant states. Everyone had the same answer, it is a big untrue urban myth. And no one knows where or how it even got started. So the fact that redfooj got a ticket had nothing to do with the so-called quota.


Your info is not correct for everywhere. I have worked for 2 different cities where I am in close contact with the police officers and they DO have a quota. It is not called a quota, that would be wrong to have that...it is called a monthly ticket expectation. OR many "other" names that simply mean "you better write so many tickets or else your evaluation is going to be poor" I don't know how well you knew the officers you talked to, but if you were not in good with them, they would not tell you about the standards that are expected. It is not something that law enforcement wants out to the public. (I guess I just blew that secret) I have many, many close friends that are cops and trust me, most cities have a standard of some sort that must be met for their monthly duty log to be complete. Everyday they fill out a sheet that has every thing they did that day. Stops, tickets, warnings, citizen contacts, building checks on and on. These are all tallied at the end of the month for a comparison of who's pulling their weight and who is slacking.

Quota's are alive and well in the good 'ol US of A and don't think they aren't. ;)

tell me you've never jaywalked, or driven 5mph over on the freeway. :rolleyes:


Yes I have and when I get caught I don't complain I pay the damn ticket. By your own description you admit breaking the law. Explain to me why you should be treated different than anyone else caught running a red light.

I just made a quick trip to the drugstore... It's about 10:30 here in Brooklyn, and as I pulled up to a light that was turing red, a police car pulled alongside me. Remembering this thread, I stopped and sat it out, though I'd normally have slowed, looked, and breezed through at this hour... The cop rolled down his window and asked if I was all right - he'd never seen a bike actually sit through a red light at night before ;)

-chris

Lucky you didn't get a ticket for loitering.

Yes I have and when I get caught I don't complain I pay the damn ticket. By your own description you admit breaking the law. Explain to me why you should be treated different than anyone else caught running a red light.
i dont want to tire out in reiteration... do all theft crimes result in the exact same sentences? not everybody lives in your black-and-white world. i dont know about you, but i plan to take full appellate priviledges and due process afforded to me :). people like you who are so quick to kneel are the ones who put cops in wasteful shiny camaro z28s every year.... but thats another story altogether :)

I think also the difference is that a car blazing through a light at 50mph can cause serious injury or death.
A bike blazing through a light at an astounding 5mph with good visibility of both sides of the EMPTY intersection by the biker is slightly different.

I asked the police departments in 5 differant cities, 2 of them are in 2 other states. I also asked 3 differant state patrol departments in 3 differant states, & 4 differant county sheriffs departments, 2 of those are in 2 differant states. Everyone had the same answer, it is a big untrue urban myth.

I asked OJ if he killed his wife, he said - "no, it's an urban myth". Nuff said. :D

i dont want to tire out in reiteration... do all theft crimes result in the exact same sentences? not everybody lives in your black-and-white world. i dont know about you, but i plan to take full appellate priviledges and due process afforded to me :). people like you who are so quick to kneel are the ones who put cops in wasteful shiny camaro z28s every year.... but thats another story altogether :)


Eccuses excuses, you broke the law knowingly stop your b!tchin and pay your fine. Next time think twice before you put yourself above the law.

You see the way I was brought up an adult excepts responsibility for his/her actions. So did what you do break the law(yes)? If the cop had seen anyone else run that red light would they have ticked them? (yes) Do not use other peoples crimes to excuse yours.

And if you think the fine is unreasonable go to court and find it, but stop whinning about getting a ticket you deserved it!

Don't get to upset over this, you were clearly in the wrong and admitted as much. It is cyclists like you who break the law that give the rest of us a bad name. It pisses me off every time a cyclist complains they got a ticket for breaking the law. You do realize this makes it harder for the rest of us who are trying to advocate for better cyclists rights and conditions on the road don't you? Why in the hell can't some cyclists get a clue on matters like this? I commend the officers for citing you, next time obey the damn law & stop making it harder for us advocates!
i totally disagree... it is one thing to want "equal treatment under the law" but that will NEVER mean that riding a bike is the same as riding a car - or driving a tractor or a semi --- diferent vechicles are different

i agree more with jfmckenna ---
the *reasons* it is illegal for a motor vehicle to run a red light:
1) so as not to endanger others who have the right of way
2) to control traffic and allow for good traffic flow and reduce chances of collisions

ok, under low traffic in the middle of the night #2 is reduced.
now, looking at point 1, the RISK that a car or truck presents to OTHERS in running a red light is very high --- i.e. the driver thinks it is clear and runs the red light but somehow makes a mistake and a vehicle who has the right of way must stop/avoid or have a collision... even worse if a pediatrian is unseen. now if a cyclist makes the same mistake (not seeing cross-trafic) the danger is almost entirely carried by he cylcist HIMSELF!!!

one of the advantages to riding a bicylce is that they are smaller, require less space, less parker AND MOST NOTABLY create a MUCH lower risk for others in society than motor vehicles with CONSIDERABLE more size and mass and higher speeds...

thus, IF it is even illegal for a cyclist to go through a red light when traffic is low and after safely stopping and checking and then cautiously processing (i believe it should be LEGAL), but if it is against the law, the PENALTY should definitely not be anywhere near that of doiong the same in a car --- as doing so in the car IS really something endangering others!!!

[/quote=brokenrobot]I just made a quick trip to the drugstore... It's about 10:30 here in Brooklyn, and as I pulled up to a light that was turing red, a police car pulled alongside me. Remembering this thread, I stopped and sat it out, though I'd normally have slowed, looked, and breezed through at this hour... The cop rolled down his window and asked if I was all right - he'd never seen a bike actually sit through a red light at night before [/quote]
yes, true URBAN areas are really different. although in Munich you are technically required to wait for the lights and can be fined (i think it's €10) the fine for doing the same in a car is MUCH higher - over €100


You see the way I was brought up an adult excepts responsibility for his/her actions. So did what you do break the law(yes)? If the cop had seen anyone else run that red light would they have ticked them? (yes) Do not use other peoples crimes to excuse yours.
well i agree to some extent but not really... i disagree with the "breaking the law on a bike gives cyclists a bad name" and the whole thing about being righteous and NEVER breaking the law... there is almost NO driver on US streets who does not regularly break laws, the speed LIMIT being the most obvious (yes, techically, even 1mph OVER the speed limit is breaking the law)

that being said i do agree with the "taking responsibility", but in that case i think that means responsibility in the event of an accident -- i.e. if a cyclist runs a red light and then is hit by a car then he should not sue (barring unusual cercumstances like someone driving without lights or 100mph) --- but fighting against unreasonable fines that are designed to punish a much more serious crime (running a red light in a motor vehicle and thereby endangering others) is NOT not taking responsibility!


I think also the difference is that a car blazing through a light at 50mph can cause serious injury or death.
A bike blazing through a light at an astounding 5mph with good visibility of both sides of the EMPTY intersection by the biker is slightly different.
exactly

re:
"now if a cyclist makes the same mistake (not seeing cross-trafic) the danger is almost entirely carried by he cylcist HIMSELF!!!"

Not necessarily true, especially at night. There was a recent case in Florida, where a drunk woman on a bike rode into traffic at night. In trying to avoid her, a serious accident resulted with someone in a car getting killed.

re:
"one of the advantages to riding a bicylce is that they are smaller, require less space, less parker AND MOST NOTABLY create a MUCH lower risk for others in society than motor vehicles with CONSIDERABLE more size and mass and higher speeds..."

By this logic, anyone in a small car should be able to get their speeding or red light running fines reduced because their vehicles have less mass. Even though I sympathize with the cyclist who got the ticket, this approach would create a nightmare for the legal system.

IMO, the guy who got the ticket should explain the scenario to the judge, apologize to the court, and hope for the best. Fighting it in court will just waste tax money that could be spent on more important things.

:roflmao: :roflmao:
I asked OJ if he killed his wife, he said - "no, it's an urban myth". Nuff said. :D


:roflmao: :roflmao:

[/quote=brokenrobotthat being said i do agree with the "taking responsibility", but in that case i think that means responsibility in the event of an accident -- i.e. if a cyclist runs a red light and then is hit by a car then he should not sue (barring unusual cercumstances like someone driving without lights or 100mph) --- but fighting against unreasonable fines that are designed to punish a much more serious crime (running a red light in a motor vehicle and thereby endangering others) is NOT not taking responsibility!


exactly

Do you actually believe this or is this a April Fools prank. The red light is there for a reason not to slow down a bike as posted above it can be dangerous to run a red light.

And if you do not think your actions as a cyclist do not effect everybodies overall opinion of bikes your are living in a very unrealistic world

I find it humourous that cyclists want to be treated with respect on the road, that is to be recognised as a "motorised vehicle" by cars and the police, then complain when they are caught for breaking the law. Why should the law discriminate between car and bicycle? You can't have it both ways.

I have to agree. I hate the ticket for you, but we are bound by the same laws and we should suffer the same consequences as cars.

If we, as cyclists, want to be treated with the same concideration on the road as cars, we have to follow the same rules.

And if we have to follow the same rules, the lights should turn green for us (within a reasonable amount of time) just like they do for a car or a truck, and they should stay green long enough for us to get through the intersection. One intersection down the street from my house absolutely WILL NOT turn green unless there is a car waiting or someone presses the crosswalk button. I've sat there for as long as 30 minutes (with no traffic at all) waiting for that light before a car finally came up behind me and triggered the sensors. To make matters worse, I started moving as soon as the light turned green, and it was red by the time I got halfway through the intersection (about 8 to 10 seconds after it turned green). I had to come through that intersection every night for a month, it got to the point where I KNEW the signal was defective, so I just treated it like a stop sign (stop, make sure it's safe to go, then go). A cop saw me one night, I stopped at the AM/PM he was parked at and he was about to write me a ticket until I explained that I can't sit there forever and wait for a light that's never going to change.

I've sat there for as long as 30 minutes (with no traffic at all) waiting for that light before a car finally came up behind me and triggered the sensors.

Can I presume that you are exaggerating slightly here, if you are you are more patient than I . You have even shown me the solution in what you say that is press the crosswalk button. And bikes can change the sensors on almost all of them out there these days all you need to do is learn how to use them. Call your local DOT and I even bet they will tell you how to do it. And if that doesn't work they can adjust them to work.

Now lets go back to the original question and not the ifs ands or buts. You are at a red light and you decide to run it, be an adult and except responsibility for your actions do not whine about getting a ticket if you do.

Everybody seems to be so full of excuses these days that no one really feels responsible when they do something wrong.

I am really not that legalistic, but at 47 years old I guess I grew up in different times and I am tired of hearing people blame others for what they have done wrong or just not taking responsibility for their actions. Like being mad for getting a ticket or blaming fast food restaurants because they are not responsible enough to realize if they live on a diet of that stuff they will get fat. Or I can raid Iraq because the last president lied etc etc etc.

What ever happened to personal responsibility and integrity?

Can I presume that you are exaggerating slightly here, if you are you are more patient than I . You have even shown me the solution in what you say that is press the crosswalk button.

That depends where the place the crosswalk button, and indeed whether that is functional. A non-functional crosswalk button is not beyond the realms of possibility. Personally I'd rather rely on the law that allows me to proceed through a faulty set of traffic lights once I have complied with the spirit of the law and ensured that no crashes will result.


What ever happened to personal responsibility and integrity?

That depends on your definition of personal responsibility and integrity. If I may quote you from a couple of posts ago:


And if you do not think your actions as a cyclist do not effect everybodies overall opinion of bikes your are living in a very unrealistic world

If you're complying with the law because of how you think others will perceive you, this is not an example of personal integrity by any means. Essentially it means that as soon as you set foot in this part of the world, you would start breaking the law left, right and centre simply because that is what would earn you "respect" from the people who live here (I know). In fact, you'd quit cycling outright as Queensland is the place that basically invented bigotry. Tell me, should people have to change their way of life just to suit what a few bigots think? This is hardly a case of personal integrity.

If, on the other hand, you're doing as I do, and complying with the spirit of the law because it is a safer option for both yourself and those around you (i.e. yeilding where you're supposed to, but being realistic if it's 4.30am and there's no traffic to impede on that red light in front of you), then it becomes a case of personal integrity.

What I want to know is this. In view of the above quote -- which situation are you referring to?

And if we have to follow the same rules, the lights should turn green for us (within a reasonable amount of time) just like they do for a car or a truck, and they should stay green long enough for us to get through the intersection.

I agree with you on this too! That's why both cyclists and motorcyclists successfully lobbied, here in Tennessee, for a law that allows us to go through a red light if we have waited a reasonable amount of time and it has not changed.

I agree with you on this too! That's why both cyclists and motorcyclists successfully lobbied, here in Tennessee, for a law that allows us to go through a red light if we have waited a reasonable amount of time and it has not changed.

The faulty signal law applies to cars as well.

That depends where the place the crosswalk button, and indeed whether that is functional. A non-functional crosswalk button is not beyond the realms of possibility. Personally I'd rather rely on the law that allows me to proceed through a faulty set of traffic lights once I have complied with the spirit of the law and ensured that no crashes will result.



That depends on your definition of personal responsibility and integrity. If I may quote you from a couple of posts ago:



If you're complying with the law because of how you think others will perceive you, this is not an example of personal integrity by any means. Essentially it means that as soon as you set foot in this part of the world, you would start breaking the law left, right and centre simply because that is what would earn you "respect" from the people who live here (I know). In fact, you'd quit cycling outright as Queensland is the place that basically invented bigotry. Tell me, should people have to change their way of life just to suit what a few bigots think? This is hardly a case of personal integrity.

If, on the other hand, you're doing as I do, and complying with the spirit of the law because it is a safer option for both yourself and those around you (i.e. yeilding where you're supposed to, but being realistic if it's 4.30am and there's no traffic to impede on that red light in front of you), then it becomes a case of personal integrity.

What I want to know is this. In view of the above quote -- which situation are you referring to?

No Chris there is no question about what I mean by personal responsibility and intergity and all you chose tyo bring up is excetions to the rule and something completly out of context. But we have been down this road before haven't we?

Why do you have to obey the law? Because it's the law.

Why do the 'piggies' give tickets for bikes running red lights? Because running a red light is against the law and it's the 'piggies' job to cite people who break the traffic laws.

Why do bikes have the same rules as cars? Because that way we all act in a predictable manner. If bike have one set of rules, and motorcycles another, and cars another, and tractor trailers another, then how do we keep straight whether a motorcycle following an 18 wheeler is supposed to signal before popping a wheelie in a school zone?

If you don't like the law, that's fine. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences. However, you do not have to wait for a car to come by and trip a traffic light for you. If the light will not sense your bike, you are permitted to proceed when it is safe to do so.

Can I presume that you are exaggerating slightly here, if you are you are more patient than I .
...
Like being mad for getting a ticket or blaming fast food restaurants because they are not responsible enough to realize if they live on a diet of that stuff they will get fat. Or I can raid Iraq because the last president lied etc etc etc.


and the analogous comparison of my considered disregard of the red light to these examples isnt a hyperbolic exaggeration?



Why do you have to obey the law? Because it's the law.

now ask yourself... WHY are there such laws? consider that and its applicability to the situation at hand




Why do bikes have the same rules as cars?
they dont. fact.



Because that way we all act in a predictable manner. If bike have one set of rules, and motorcycles another, and cars another, and tractor trailers another, then how do we keep straight whether a motorcycle following an 18 wheeler is supposed to signal before popping a wheelie in a school zone?
they all do have a different set of rules



If you don't like the law, that's fine. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences. However, you do not have to wait for a car to come by and trip a traffic light for you. If the light will not sense your bike, you are permitted to proceed when it is safe to do so.
at which point in time do you draw the line for whats permissible or not. at the 2 minute minute mark? 2 minutes 17 seconds? some other arbitrary time division? the underlining key is safety, and if i project full visibility to others, and the intersection is completely clear, is it not as safe?

at which point in time do you draw the line for whats permissible or not. at the 2 minute minute mark? 2 minutes 17 seconds? some other arbitrary time division?

One full cycle of the lights should be sufficient to tell whether it's sensed you or not.

One full cycle of the lights should be sufficient to tell whether it's sensed you or not.

Exactly!