Originally Posted by spectastic

thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I stopped, and looked both ways before proceeding, like I always do. If there's cross traffic at all, I always let them go first. even if it's at a stop sign, and the car is waiting for me, I would beckon them to go, because they were there first, and that's the right thing to do.

the lights downtown are synchronized, on a timer (I'm 90% positive) such that they turn red/green as you go in certain directions, like a wave (as messengers would put it). so no sensor.

thanks for the suggestion on the rolling stop. It makes perfect sense, and could serve as a potential defense.

Friend of mine dealt with this court before. They don't dismiss the tickets, or so he was told, by the prosecutor.

Here's the breakdown. I will show up to contest the $250 ticket. I may get an offer to have the ticket reduced by the prosecutor. If I pay the fine, the ticket is dismissed. If I contest, it's a judge or a jury, where guilty would mean conviction and driving record.

Here's my defense so far:

- I came to a rolling stop, looked both ways, and proceeded through the intersection safely. I'm a safe rider who yields pedistrians and cars, putting safety first
- it's completely unreasonable to compare a bicycle (0.5 hp) to a car (200 hp), even if that's what the law dictates. the law does not always correlate with right/wrong
- in many cases, it's safer for the cyclist to run the light, in order to put distance on the cars, whose drivers may be distracted on the phone (funny how people like this get to keep their license, while guys like me get punished). also, because of my slower acceleration, I reduce congestion by getting a head start on the cars, and allowing them more road to pass me later on, whereas if I were to go with the light, I'm holding up traffic and getting honked at by impatient c*nts behind me.
- places like Idaho, colorado, and potentially more in the future, are introducing rolling stop for bicycles, because it makes sense. (counter argument would be that it keeps getting vetoed, but my counter to that would be that law makers are idealists who don't ride bicycles to work)
- the courthouse has no interest in my safety, even though it says it does. rather, it's mostly interested in taking my money and showing their higher-ups how busy they are (they made my friend take a defensive driving class, which was a worthless POS and waste of time)


this argument would be presented to a jury, where hopefully the people I select will have some spine. what do you think?