merider1

You won't win this - and I don't mean here on the forum - but in court (unless lucky and the cop doesn't show up or the judge is a cyclist him/herself and wants to cut you a break). Example - I'm on the freeway doing 80 and five cars pass me doing 100. Doesn't matter! If the cop pulls me over, I can whine all I want about those breaking the law by speeding at 100 when I am only going 80 (like the old man on the sidewalk sans a helmet that the cop ignores while writing you a ticket), but the officer is in fact in his right to stop me for breaking the law. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you admit you broke the law and entered the intersection while red. That cop isn't some big bad wolf. Too bad, so sad, that others who were breaking the law got away. If you had gotten away with it, you wouldn't be here now whining about it! But to try and make this an argument about cyclists being held to the same standards or not if not 100% equal, etc. won't fly. We SHOULD be held to the standards of "following the same laws as motor vehicles are expected to follow" if we expect to demand a right to be on the roads with other moving vehicles, IMO.

ClanLee

I've got a situation that's a bit unusual... on my Sunday morning rides (beginning at 6:30AM), there is an intersection I always get stopped on. It's a lighted intersection that won't trip unless there is a car waiting at the line. I've waited at times up to 5 minutes for the light to change (the first time) and nothing happens. So my options are to walk to the crosswalk and push the crosswalk button or run the light. Now, since it's very early in the morning, there are hardly any cars around... what is the correct thing to do? Run the light, making sure that there are no cars or should I walk my bike to the big crosswalk button?

Is there a law that states that cyclist can run a light, provided that the about conditions exists?

Extort

This is two separate things so...

If the bicyclist in inside the crosswalk and walking their bike across the intersection they are a pedestrian. If the sign shows 'Don't Walk' then they can be ticketed for jaywalking.

Riding your bike at walking speed in the street is legal. In fact, you can even take the entire lane of traffic to do that provided that you are not holding up more than 5 vehicles that are following you and there is a safe and legal turnout so that you can let them pass. Cde 21656

lyeinyoureye

Well, in the case of flying bike parts, that's why I said virtually. I've heard of one death of an elderly pedestrian hit by a cyclist running a red in the past few years. It's relatively rare. And no, if the peds get mowed down by the driver, that's the driver's fault for not checking before they swerve. If they make a decision with incomplete information, and it leads to the death of another, they are at fault. Otoh, if I'm breaking the law by running a red on my bike, and they mow me down, they are not at fault because I was doing something illegal. And, yes, for the sake of argument, if I was boxed in, and couldn't swerve/brake safely around a bicyclist doing something illegal, they're road kill. And if I'm running a red and get mowed down by a driver, it was my fault I got dun killed.

Yes, but then it comes down to statistics and physics. KE goes like .5MV^2. Which can do more damage? A 150kg cyclist/bike traveling at 15mph, or a 2000kg car going 40mph? While cyclists do occasionally injure or kill peds, it's very very rare AFAIK. I'd guess that winning the lottery has better odds of happening to the cyclist/ped.

merider1

Look for vehicles and cops and, if clear, go. But if you are caught, know that you broke the law. Basically, you can pull into the pedestrian walk way and walk - not ride, which is another offense - to the other side. I usually risk it and ride after checking both ways which is dangerous and illegal. I've been lucky to not have been caught by a cop.

merider1

Okay, I couldn't follow all of that. But, I can tell you that the above is false. It is NOT the driver's fault if they swerve to miss a cyclist who is illegally in the intersection. You, as the cyclist, will be charged and held responsible for both the driver and anyone they hit. Promise you that...

Extort

Sure is, Code 21800, Section D, Subparagraph (i) for inoperable traffic lights.
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.

lyeinyoureye

Maybe in civil court, but AFAIK, as quite literally the smallest vehicle on the road, we are not required to get a license because we represent very, very limited liability. I'ma call you on this, have any links from the CA vehicle code? I could be wrong, but I've never seen anything other than me as a driver being liable for hitting anything on the road, except what shouldn't be there. Which would only happen as as result of a ped/vehicle breaking the law. I can't run over a bus stop full of people and claim some person jumped out in front of me so I had to swerve blindly. Taking action w/o info in a vehicle as dangerous as a car amounts to gross negligence imo, and can be manslaughter iirc.

Extort

I totally agree with you on these statements! In fact, I am gonna sue the bicyclist (or their estate) for damages to my car!

merider1

I don't have anything to back this up, perhaps this will encourage you to do research (as I'm positive I'm correct on this). In the meantime, I will propose that if you are walking down the street and you decide to take off running on the sidewalk and then jump out into the street and a driver swerves to avoid you, hits a light and is injured for life, then YOU will be held responsible because YOU, as a pedestrian, shouldn't be out in the street where there are motorists. This is one of many examples. Whether I can quote actual law or not, doesn't negate reality. A cyclist that causes an accident by entering an intersection against the light is held to the same laws as a motorist is.

urbanknight

Do you know how many times cops hear that from people? I get it from my students all the time. Just because someone else is breaking the rules and gets away with it doesn't mean you will.

ME: Legally, the driver who swerved is responsible for what they hit. Morally, however, is another issue. I do believe there is a citation for "causing an accident", but amazingly enough, if you swerve to miss a dumb$hit who ran a red light and hit something else instead, you are at fault with what you hit. I almost hate to say it, but the moral of that story is to hit the dumb$hit.

lyeinyoureye

As positive as you may be. I know that if I break the law and kill someone behaving in a legal fashion, I can be held liable. I don't see how this changes one bit whether I'm avoiding someone else or not. If I swerve because of someone breaking the law and take someone who isn't breaking the law out, how can I pawn off my negligence on the individual violating the law? They were negligent, and then I was negligent. We may both be held liable, but as a driver, if I hit someone who isn't violating the law, I'm liable 4 shore 100% AFAIK.

SunFlower

What city did you get the ticket in ? Are you sure it was LAPD ? Honestly...a red light ticket on a bike doesnt sound like something LAPD would ticket for unless there were other circumstances. However, LA is a city that spends money like there is no tommorow so maybe they need some extra revenue sources, lol.

markw

It was on a bicycle, those don't go on your driving record. I'd personally would never present a CA DL to law enforcement if pulled over on a bike either.

efficiency

It does not matter if it's rare. Running a red light causes a danger to other people, and a danger to yourself, so it's illegal. It's one of the more dangerous traffic laws to violate.

I have no problem with the high fine for red light running. I'm surprised other states let people get off so easy.

Here's the question: do you ever think that bike/ped accidents are rare because the population of cyclists is really small compared to that of motorists?

markw

They got anything to link the incident to you? Social, or anything like that? Or just a name/address?

lyeinyoureye

As a cyclist the only danger it causes is to myself, and possibly peds, although like I said that's rare. Also, as a cyclist I don't need to get a license because I am limited in the amount of damage I can cause.

While cyclists are relatively rare compared to drivers, the number of ped deaths due to drivers, and due to cyclists indicates a much larger disparity imo. Roughly 5,000 peds are killed each year by drivers, otoh, I can only think of one ped death caused by a cyclist in the past couple years. "Seventy-two percent of all pedestrian fatalities in 2003 occurred in urban areas", where there is likely to be a higher ratio of cyclists to drivers. This would seem to imply that in an urban area, if bikes are as dangerous to peds as cars, there are ~4,000-12,000 drivers for every cyclist, however based on admittedly anecdotal experience, this is nowhere near accurate. So, I think all things considered, the number of ped deaths due to cyclists compared to ped deaths due to drivers represents the extreme difference in destructive potential of an automobile compared to a bicycle for the most part, and the difference in the numbers of cyclist compared to drivers to a lesser extent.

Mo'Phat

topbanana:

I feel ya. You've got people here arguing about flying bike parts, you did the crime...pay the price, etc. I have a signal by my house that crosses a 4 lane highway. I've never been able to get that signal to change for me...ever. The sensors don't pick up my bike, and I've tried stopping on the magnets, waving my arms, jumping up and down, and doing a naked watusi...all to no avail. I'll normally wait a cycle or two, but after a couple of minutes, I will say, "**** it."

I have run that red countless times. I freely admit it. I'll probably do it again this afternoon. Here's the thing, though: I won't run it if there's a dang cop behind me. Also, if I run it, and I get caught, I know the penalty. I know it's close to $400, and I accept that.

CA is odd when it comes to fines. If you violate the carpool lane rules (OH NOES!!), it's $285. $285!! for not having someone riding shotgun. A victimless crime, and yet you're out nearly $300.



It's simple: you ran the red, got caught, and you have two choices: Pay your fine, or go to court and argue your case.

There could be a case that, if bicycles are to be considered equal to cars at intersections, then bicycles need to be able to trigger the light sensors so the lights will change for them.

DScott

Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.

I take responsibility for my own safety out there, and do what I think is best (and occasionally, most convenient). Rarely do I do it when riding with others, though. But, sometimes that means I will run lights, fail to follow the road signs, and do all manner of illegal things while on the road. The other day I got yelled at by a cop for riding against the flow of traffic and rolling through a stop sign. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

We all do it.

But I will always do what I think is the safest and most prudent thing in any given situation. Alot of the time, that means obeying the law. If I don't, and I get caught, then I pay the price.

It's just the cost of doing business on the road. Most of all, be safe. You owe it to yourself and to everybody else, who have to clean up the mess if we screw up.

efficiency

This difference in destructive potential does not give you the right to run a red light. Neither does rarity. And since when do you have the right to endanger yourself on the roadway? Besides that, you might cause some damage to a car if you run a red light and a car hits you. You don't have a right to do this either.

What's so hard about waiting a few minutes?

merider1

They may be responsible as far as paying for damages, but it can be argued later that the person who broke the law and caused the accident be held accountable. My friend was rear-ended a few years ago when she was changing a cd, and the car that rear-ended her was then rear-ended by another car. When all was said and done, SHE ended up responsible for the accident (no, it isn't always the rear-enders fault in CA like we all blissfully believe, by the way). My friend, ever so honest and feeling guilty, told the investigating cop the truth that she was, in fact, fiddling with her CD player and had thrown on her brakes (now, if she had said she had done so to avoid a dog or pedestrian, she would have gotten off). The COP made the decision to cite her as responsible and when her insurance company later came back to her, BOTH drivers' insurers were asking for $$ for the damages and ultimately her insurance company paid. It isn't black and white in these situations with the interpretation by the law officials and insurers. In her case, no one was injured, but you add an injury or death, and I can promise you, if YOU caused someone else to lose control of their vehicle (whether in a car or on a bike) and that car strikes and kills someone, the family members will not only come after the car that swerved. They will most likely come after the person (whether motorist or cyclist) who illegally ran the redlight if it is stated in the police report (i.e. the person who caused the incident gets caught).

But I'm with you, Brian, it is more of a moral issue. Who wants to be responsible for a death due to their foolish impatience at a stop light?

curiouskid55

Do they grow a lot of cry babies in Pennsylvania?

Nachoman

I have to say that the main reason I don't run red lights, no matter how safe it may be under the circumstances, is for fear of being ticketed. I commute to work by bicycle frequently. If I wanted to I could run ten red lights a day.

urbanknight

I thought that WAS the case. Someone told me that if I call the traffic and lighting department and tell them that the light won't trip, they can adjust the sensativity of it. Anybody know if that's true or not?

efficiency

It is true that you can notify the city of non-functioning sensors for bicycles. It might take awhile for them to respond though. I haven't found very many that I've had a problem with. There is a bit of a trick to get the light sensor to trip though. You generally should be just to the inside of the sensor outline, not right in the middle.