mr_bill

There, was that so hard?

BTW, UVC 11-310 was amended in 1975 to strike "motor".

Why? Because, TONS.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

I don't get it. Why would the TONS of mass characteristic of motor vehicles be the reason to exclude motor from that law?

mr_bill

[emphasis mine above] Oh, you mean TONS has nothing to do with this provision? Got it.

It's an accident of history that SOME state's codes have "motor" while some state's codes do not.

FWIW, there are *NOT* "very good reasons" to include "motor" in that provision.

Which is why it was deleted from the UVC in 1975. There are even notes from the 1975 revision SPECIFICALLY POINTING OUT THAT IT OUGHT TO APPLY TO bicyclists.

The fact that "motor" remains in SOME state's codes is an accident of when that section of the state code was last revised.
(It's also an accident of history that SOME states have "to the speed" and SOME states have "for the speed".)



BTW, again, where, anywhere, is there a law that says only MOTOR vehicles have to stop for a red light. (Other than the Idaho right turn on red after stop is a just a yield for bicycles.)

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

Do you have a citation for those notes?


I don't know. But as long as we're asking questions at random for no apparent reason, where is there a law that says only broccoli can be used for roofing material?

mr_bill

"TLA (1979)."

It's unfortunate that TLA is a TLA, but that's what the NCUTLO *explicitly* asked for when citing. Go figure.


-mr. bill

njkayaker

You can't just wish-away the word "motor".

If you want a "motor vehicle" law to also apply to non-motor vehicles, you have to change the law.

It's not an "accident" that "motor" is or isn't included in a law.

njkayaker

Most traffic laws apply to both classes of vehicles. There isn't really a good reason for this law to be an exception.

Don't be silly. It's not a "random" question.

Ninety5rpm

I think there is. Being tailgated by someone driving a 3,000 pound motor vehicle at 50 mph is an inherent threat; being tailgated by a 175 lbs cyclist on a 20 lbs bike at 20 mph... not so much. Nothing in comparison.

More to the point, a motorist in a vehicle being tailgated (drafted) by a cyclist is not threatened at all. And cyclists drafting each other are typically engaged in an activity of elevated risk to which all parties consent to taking on that risk.

There are very good reasons to ban motorists from tailgating. The reasons to prohibit cyclists from doing so pale in comparison.

Okay, but I don't get the point. No, there is no law that only MOTOR vehicle have to stop at a red light, but so what?
There is a law, at least in some states, that only a motor vehicle cannot tailgate.

njkayaker

But that applies to nearly every traffic law. Why is this one law a special exception?

The laws are not just about being "threatened".

Keep in mind that letting cyclists tailgate encourages them to cross intersections illegally.

The general practice is to have one law (disregarding this difference).

Cyclists don't really "threaten" anybody going through red lights either. (We aren't talking about '"running" reds.)

Yes. Does that means both are right?

njkayaker

Except it's legal for law enforcement and illegal for citizens.

Ninety5rpm

I disagree with your first sentence. Most traffic laws are about making traffic work efficiently. Drive on the right (or left in UK, etc.), yield to person on your right, green means go, etc. But yes, there are safety laws that are more applicable to motor vehicles than to bicyclists. There is something to be said to except bicyclists from speeding laws too, for example.

While the laws are not just about being "threatened", that's what the law against tailgating is about.

And, yes, there is a lot to be said in favor of the Idaho red light law.

Note that the law against tailgating should not apply to autonomous vehicles either, because they won't be susceptible to rear ending the vehicle in front of them.

Ninety5rpm

That's not relevant to the question of whether it should be legal or illegal.

That's like arguing marijuana should be illegal because it's against the law in a debate about whether it should be legalized.

njkayaker

That's part of what is about.

You aren't applying this principle to the "cyclists can tailgate" behavior.

One can argue that one tailgating law makes "traffic work (more) efficiently". Part of what traffic laws due is make things more predictable. While I, driving in a car, might not be "threatened" by a cyclist tailgating, I don't want it to happen.

Sure, it's relevant.

People in this very thread are using "tailgating is OK for cyclists" to justify actual/real illegal behavior (the point I was making).

mr_bill

Actually, the thread was started about people on bicycles running red lights.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

Only if you're willing to play semantics by shifting the meaning of "efficiently".

Why do you want cyclists tailgating to not happen?

Well, I haven't seen anyone do that but I agree it would be lame to do so.

njkayaker

No, it's not "semantics". It's a common complaint that "too many laws" makes it hard to comply with them.

A large peloton that can't stop when they are legally required to is an example of tailgating not working.

A large peloton isn't an example of efficient use of the roadways (it's a selfish use of the roadways).

You did it.

njkayaker

And it's also about people justifying that behavior because it's OK for cyclists to tailgate.

If tailgating forces riders to run red lights, then it isn't OK.

Ninety5rpm

It's using "efficiently" with a different meaning - that's why it's semantics.


Oh. I see. You're saying I'm using "tailgating is OK" to justify peloton running of red lights. Fair enough.

Have you ever seen a signaled intersection with one of the directions serving a trolley? What happens is this: the light is red, so you stop. A trolley from the cross direction starts crossing. While it's crossing the light for its direction goes from green to yellow to red. But it keeps going, even though you now have the green. You know what happens? You wait a few more seconds for all of the trolley cars to go by, and then you proceed.

Now, never mind the physical constraints that make it impossible for the trolley to unhitch cars mid-train and stop that back part of the train when the light goes yellow. My question is this: is this inefficient? Is the answer to this question any different if you replace the trolley train with a train of cyclists in a peloton? Why?

njkayaker

It looks like you need to be clear about what you mean.

The physical constraints matter. People are arguing that it's "impossible" for a peloton to stop.

And it's illegal (and likely not to ever become legal to do).

The "efficiency" argument is irrelevant: "it's more efficient" doesn't stand as an excuse to break the law.

I still have no idea why people think pelotons are so privileged.

The efficiency argument goes away if people don't ride in pelotons (which they have no particular right to ride in).

Ninety5rpm

I thought I was, given the examples I gave (drive on the right, red means stop). It doesn't matter if we drive on the right and left, but it's very inefficient if we don't all pick the same side. Much of traffic law is making arbitrary decisions like that.

It's not impossible for the peloton to stop. But once the front goes through legally and safely entering on green or yellow, it's often unsafe for anyone in the middle to unilaterally decide to stop. It's also inconsequential to others, practically speaking, as inconsequential as them waiting a few more seconds for all the trolley cars to go by.

One can argue that it would be unsafe to stop in that situation, and therefore it's unjust for the law to require him to stop, and so it's not illegal. This argument is yet to be tested in court, but that's just a testament to how inconsequential this behavior is. Thousands of red lights are run by the latter portions of pelotons every day, and yet tickets are so rare there has never been an opportunity to test this argument.

If you believe the efficiency argument is irrelevant, then maybe you should stop making it.

Ninety5rpm

It's really just about attitude. If people would simply accept a fast/tight group of cyclists as a unit, like a long truck or trolley, then they wouldn't be bothered by having to wait a few extra seconds for them to go by. In fact, I think most people are like that anyway. The aholes who get all bent out of shape by having to wait those few seconds are relatively rare. Many people nod their heads or wave back when we wave to them.

When I'm in my car and I have to wait a few seconds for some group of cyclists to go by, it's a non-event. But if some ahole has to wait, OMG, it's a travesty of justice!

njkayaker

"Impossible" was supposed to be understood as an exaggeration.

It's not "impossible" to separate trolley cars either.

This is the general problem with tailgating.

It's "inconsequential" for cars to sneak through a changing light too.

Tailgating is a choice.

You are cherry picking what to identify what is "efficient".

Your efficiency argument doesn't work.

In any case, it doesn't serve to excuse illegal behavior.

No. Even if it's not illegal to cycle-tailgate, you are still required to not put yourself in a position where you can't stop.

The "unjust" thing is silly. Riding too close (in a peloton) isn't a right. It's a choice.

Tickets happen (don't try it in Nyack). Most speeders don't get tickets. That doesn't make speeding legal either.

Ninety5rpm

Yes it is inconsequential for cars to sneak through a changing light, and it's not illegal (as long as they enter before it changed to red). What is illegal is for cars to enter on a red light, and that is, often, consequential.

If the latter part of a peloton entering on red is consequential, the consequences are extremely rare, because I've never heard of any consequences (besides impatient aholes honking), despite the fact that thousands of red lights like that are run daily.

But there are consequences for cars running red lights - consequences that are manifested daily all over the country.

To compare the two is ridiculous.

Ninety5rpm

What law requires that?

njkayaker

It's illegal for cyclists too.

What law allows you to run into things?

You don't think there's some general "in control of your vehicle" or "careless driving" law that would apply?