Digital_Cowboy

You may say that, but your habit of running red lights/stop signs so as not to delay your trip says that the law doesn't apply to you.

In that situation it is considered a "dead light" and it is not "running" it to proceed through it. Check out the Bicycle Streets Smarts publication, chapter 9:

WAYS TO DEAL WITH TOUGH SITUATIONS

Let's face it - some traffic situations go beyond the normal rules. When the traffic system begins to break down because of overcrowding, poor planning and disrespect for the law, you may have to "bushwhack" your way through the mess.
You can emerge safe and maintain the respect of other road users if you're careful. Here are some situations where you have to take the initiative.

WHEN TRAFFIC LIGHTS DON'T TURN

Always stop and wait for red lights. You not only ensure your safety, but you also increase respect for cyclists as law-abiding road users.
But some traffic lights don't turn green until they receive a signal from a metal detector buried in the pavement. Some of these detectors do not respond to bicycles.
You can recognize the detector by a square or octagonal pattern of thin lines in the pavement, where slots were cut for the detecting wires. The detector is most sensitive if you ride along one of the wires. (Sometimes, the slots for the wires are not visible, as the street has been repaved since they were installed).
If your bicycle doesn't trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red isn't against the law, because the light is defective. If you ever have a crash or get a traffic ticket because a traffic light won't turn green, it's the fault of whoever installed the detector.
Detectors that work for bicycles are available at little or no additional cost. Design guidelines exist for these detectors. If you want to promote better conditions for bicycling, alert your government officials about road conditions of any type that are unsafe for bicycling. Let them know that they are responsible to make the roadways as safe as possible for all types of vehicles, and that accommodation of bicycles is important to you. Getting involved at the local level can be very effective.


The way that I handle that situation as I have been in it. I was at an intersection where I approached it as it turned red for my direction of travel. Twice while I was sitting there the left turn lane got an arrow while the lane I was in did not get a green. The second time that it had cycled I proceeded through the intersection as there was no turning traffic to pose a safety risk. Other times when I have been in that situation I have made a right turn and gone down the street to make a U-turn and approach the intersection again and again make a second right turn and continue on my way. Or I will dismount my bike and walk over to the corner and push the push to walk button (if there is one present) so as to change the light so that I can proceed.


I have also confirmed by showing several local LEO's chapter 9 of the Bicycling Street Smarts guide and they have agreed that if they were to see a cyclist behaving in the manner that it describes that they would not ticket them. As no law has been broken.

Digital_Cowboy

No, this was my question:

"If people's judgement were so good that they can determine for themselves when it is and isn't safe to disobey the law then why do we have laws in the first place?"

YOU were the one who said:

"If there were no cars, the stop signs wouldn't be there. Duh."

Which totally ignored my question about peoples judgement. Given all of the laws that we have it is clear (at least to me) that people in general do NOT exercise good judgement.


How then do you define a habit?

From www.dictionary.com

hab·it

1    [hab-it] Show IPA
noun 1. an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary: the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street.
2. customary practice or use: Daily bathing is an American habit.
3. a particular practice, custom, or usage: the habit of shaking hands.
4. a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality: She has a habit of looking at the bright side of things.
5. addiction, especially to narcotics (often preceded by the ).

Given that I was asking how you can guarantee that for where I was riding your answer doesn't apply.

No, the roads where I ride usually have all sorts of cars parked along them, one of those intersections where I was almost hit by motorists on their cell phones has trees blocking the view to the north of the intersection.

Digital_Cowboy

It's a 15MPH road, that dead ends at the pier structure itself. There is also a valet stand there and there are pedestrians of all ages milling around during the day, and more so around the back of the structure where there is a bar/restaurant and people moving back and forth who are fishing. There is a third one right where the trolley's leave the front of the pier taking people to the parking lots. There are also three lanes on the road going down to the pier. One lane going to the pier one going away from the pier and one in the center for the trolly's and the horse drawn carriages, and to a lesser degree cyclists, skaters, and skateboarders.

I do even when there is no cross traffic because I would rather not get into the bad habit of not stopping and then thinking that I can still blow through even when there is traffic present.

Ah, but if cyclists would get into the habit of obeying the laws it would in fact take at least some of the ammo away from drivers who think that we don't "belong on their roads."

Yes, I have and don't you think that a large cause of that perception is because they witness cyclists time-and-time again getting away with doing things that they themselves cannot do?

There are points that I can agree with most people, it doesn't mean that I am in total agreement or disagreement with them.

I-Like-To-Bike

Because a Security Guard told him so?

Digital_Cowboy

As you have pointed out, sadly there are those who will always feel that it's "their road" and that they and they alone can use it. I am glad that you apparently were not injured, you should have if it was safe to do so get his license and reported him to the police.

Agreed, as well as considerable improvement to drivers education. Unless you were in on the planning of said road, you really can't say what the intent was or wasn't behind all of those stop signs. I admit that on more than a few of the roads that I ride that I find the stop signs at every intersection to be an inconvenience but that doesn't give me the right to run them.

Sadly even though most roads were at one time designed for horses and/or bicycles they have been rebuilt/designed so many times over the decades that they no longer safely accommodate all road users. The only way to fully change drivers opinions is through improved drivers education.

Digital_Cowboy

And sadly given the number of motorists as well as cyclists who break the rules/laws of the road you are not alone in your thought process.

I-Like-To-Bike

What roads designed or built in the U.S. in the last 100 years, were designed for horses and/or bicycles? Grow up and stop believing in your own fantasies.

SBRDude

Exactly! Even if all cyclists joined the monk of the month club, motorists are gonna get religion.

SBRDude

Wrong. It does apply to me. I just rely on the common sense of the police not cite me for frivolous offenses. YMMV.
I have never been ticketed, but in case I do, I'm sure the state of Texas will be very impressed with that website.

SBRDude

Considering that we were discussing where I ride, that doesn't apply.

You can wring your hands all you want about following the letter of the law, but you're mistaken if you think that total adherence to the law increases safety. It does in many cases, but not in all.

There is absolutely nothing unsafe about rolling through a stop sign when no cars can be seen with a clear line of vision (insert whatever other disclaimers you need). If you think rolling through at 7mph is inherently less safe in that situation than stopping with a foot down, I can't help you. Taking it to an absurd level by including cars hidden behind SUVs is a fair point if there are actually cars or bushes to create such a hazard, but if those hazards are removed, as in my neighborhood, then you are forced to come up with even more unlikely scenarios all in an effort to pretend that not stopping in that situation is risky.

If you're really concerned about all kinds of very unlikely but possible dangers, I have no idea how you can even ride a bike. You know, a motorist could have a heart attack and plow right into you. Everyone needs to decide for themselves what risks are acceptable.

You want to stop for everything and anything, go ahead, but please stop telling everyone else what to do unless you can demonstrate that it will increase safety. So far, you have failed miserably in that task because all of your "proof" for increased safety is nothing but your opinion or the opinion.

SBRDude

And even more sadly, you can't show a causal relationship between breaking laws when no one else is around and decreased safety.

Dan The Man

It's not about safety, it's about following the rules. Digital Cowboy thinks that everyone should follow the rules no matter what, end of story. Most other people say that it depends on the situation and you should exercise common sense over written rules if there is a conflict. Argument ensues.

DX-MAN

What you advocate is called situational ethics; and when you try to justify it as being some 'greater good' for yourself or society as a whole, it's also rationalization. Just to be clear.

I'm not going to to use that as a judgment on you, it's your life. If you can accept whatever consequences come from your decisions, then party on. (That's kinda the definition of being an adult....)

I'm teaching my kids: "If you want the benefits from a civilized society, you have to follow its rules." Once they become adults, they'll have the ability to parse those rules for themselves.

As it happens, I tend to agree that there are too many silly laws out there; but I generally stay pretty stealthy in my 'defiance' of those things. Example: the stop sign question. Too many cities/towns put up stop signs where they could (and rightfully SHOULD) use Yields. That's because too many self-important and entitled motorists blatantly ignore yields and pull out into traffic recklessly. They've had to 'dumb down' the law because dumb people refuse to learn it.

Thoughtful and reasonable people routinely parse the law to their point of view; they feel, as mature adults, they should be able to do so. Well, the apparatus in place to enforce the law of the land can choose to look the other way, reasonably correct you, or throw the book at you for those decisions. Throw the dice and take your chances, we all have levels of acceptable risk. (DC's is different than yours, and isn't "wrong".)

Dan The Man

Situational ethics would be adapting your stated ethics to match the desired result in each situation. In other words being unethical or hypocritical. What Digital Cowboy suggests is subverting or matching your ethics to the rule of law where there may be conflict. In other words, ignore your internal compass and do what is legal. What SBR advocates is subverting your legal responsibilities to your ethical choices. In other words, ignore the law if it conflicts with what you think is the right choice.

SBRDude

I agree, but with respect to DC, he believes that only his choices are acceptable with the logic that if people don't blindly adhere to the law, even when safety isn't an issue, that society itself is harmed overall.

Put another way, I don't mind if he stops with his foot down at 4am in the morning at a deserted 4 way stop out in the desert, but he believes that if I don't do the same, that I am harming society. Even if I accept the risk of being ticketed in that situation, he still believes my choice is not valid. So, there is no "throw the dice and take your chances" approach in his paradigm.

Not trying to be picky with you, just trying to make the distinctions clear.

SBRDude

Well put.

RazrSkutr

Let me preface this with a caution: I'm posting drunk ( 2 bottles of very good red wine with dinner prefaced by a nice Corona with lime).

Too often I'm a negative participant on bikeforums (helmet wars etc.), so I just wanted to say that I love you both and if I were a woman I would have both of your babies. (Obviously not at the same time .... And I'm not a woman ... And ... ).

Digital Cowboy: let it go. There's no proof that even if we were hyper-correct model citizens that motorists would view us in any more positive a light. In the hierarchy of rules governing our behavior personal ethics ought to trump laws every time. That's what makes for great Americans and for a great America.

WPeabody 

Had a person on a bike pass me and lecture me about stopping at a stop sign on a rec. trail, because of an intersection with cars approaching. She told me "all bicycles have right of way" jsut before she went across in front of an approaching car.
Never mind that there were signs with yield and stop for cyclists at busy intersections crossing the trail. Seems a lot of motorists stopped when I came to an intersection, when they didn't have to, and I was already stopped.
Told my kids, when they learned to ride bikes in the street, to follow traffic rules even if no one else is doing so, because if they got hit and had to go to court, or because of their accident insurance, they would not be at fault.

The only exception I take is when crossing an intersection after stopping, is getting off the bike and pushing it, even if the sign tells me to. Kind of difficult to do on a trike, especially with loaded panniers. Ha.

Speedo

...and...

... there is the parade of hearses and ambulances to pick up the victims of stop sign running cyclists. Or not apparently.

I'm certainly not a stop sign / red light running advocate, but some times they just aren't causing a problem.


Really, you come to a complete stop? No motion, foot down (or at least foot dab)? If so I'm amazed. I don't know anyone who does that.

No. Consider this. I am a fairly cautious cyclist, but I am certain that on certain roads at certain times I am causing some motorists to seethe with rage by riding in a purely lawful manner. On my commute there are two sections of road that are short, but too narrow to share the lane, in those sections I will briefly take the lane until I'm through the narrows. Some following motorists get it, some honk and ride up very close to me, some stomp on the gas and make risky passes. I'm riding in a perfectly lawful way, Massachusetts is a full use of the lane state, but I am providing ammunition for those who think bicyclists should not be on the road at all. For such people, the very presence of a cyclist on the road is an affront. The effect of scofflaw cyclists in the PR game is in the noise. People will throw that at you, but a little bit of push back on the actual harm done, and the fact that all (okay most with the exception of Saint Digital_Cowboy) road users are rule breakers to some extent and that argument evaporates.

Speedo

SBRDude

Well, good morning to you! Too funny. Just had to quote it to preserve it forever.
I would also say I'm not an "advocate" of running lights and stop signs. I'm more of an advocate of people concentrating on riding safely, efficiently, and making a serious effort not to bother others on the road.

Your example is an excellent one, and quite a common occurrence for many cyclists. I ride to the right as often as possible and will take the lane whenever I feel it's necessary for my own safety. Fortunately, that's not often, but when I do, I always ride as quickly as possible and I think that helps communicate to the motorists behind me that I'm aware of the situation and doing my best to end it as fast as possible.

Conversely, when I'm a motorist, I get annoyed whenever cyclists and pedestrians saunter while slowing traffic just because they are legally allowed to do so.

Also, getting back to the stop sign on my street that I have never stopped at as a cyclist (if the apocalypse comes, blame me), whenever there IS traffic approaching, I will (gasp) forgo my legal right to turn so that I'm not going to slow them down in a moment as I ride through about a mile of winding and hilly roads (I do this by illegally riding around in circles at the end of my street - another gasp). If I mindlessly stuck to the law, my safety might be reduced by knowingly putting a car on my tail when I didn't have to, but more importantly, I would be a jerk for slowing someone down instead of waiting another 10 or 15 seconds.

I'm sure there are countless other examples where common sense, riding safely, and being polite are what many or most people do instead of just sticking to the law. More importantly, these are the situations where cyclists have the opportunity to really be good citizens. But, since these situations are kind of random and hard to define, they don't get the attention of some safety advocates who would rather concentrate on teaching everyone to stop at all stop signs and lights in all situations. Put another way, the real trick to bicycle safety is learning how to ride well with traffic, and that goes FAR beyond knowing the laws.

Digital_Cowboy

Just because it may be "frivolous" to you doesn't mean that it will be "frivolous" to the LEO who stops you. As one of the arguments that the cop who had stopped me years ago as I was coming home from a concert. "I'm sick and tired of cleaning your brains off of the road." To me it sounds as if he doesn't consider the traffic laws to be "frivolous."

In the case of dead lights, it isn't running a light. States are starting to pass "dead light" laws that allow both motorcyclists as well as biclcists to proceed through lights that don't change for them.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually you are the one who has made the blanket statement that anyone who rides as you do would be totally safe in doing so. You've gone so far as to guaranteed that, even though no one not even our law makers can do so, but apparently you have some sort of "crystal ball" that allows you to guarantee that ANYONE who chooses to ride as you do will be safe in doing so.

Digital_Cowboy

DM,

I agree with you that we have way too many silly laws on the books. Which is why as I've said in the past that what we need to do is starting at the city level and working up to the federal level and review ALL of the currently existing laws. And any that are outdated or are unenforceable either need to be amended or repealed so that they are enforceable. After that is done, what needs to be done next is to again starting city level is to compare the laws again going up to the federal level. And any law(s) that are identical/overlapping either need to be repealed or merged.

If we did that, how many laws would be removed? And how much easier would it be to enforce those that would be left?

Agreed, one can't break the laws and then get upset when others do so as well.

Thank you, as you said we all have different levels of risk that we are comfortable. I'm (despite how it might seem to some) am perfectly comfortable with riding in traffic and on some pretty high speed roads. However I would not be comfortable if my g/f's daughter was to ride on some of the same roads that I regularly ride on. Simply because she doesn't have the same level of experience in doing so that I have, or most of us here have.

She needs to build her experience and build the skills needed to ride with/in denser traffic.

Nor, would I expect her to be able to ride the same distance/speeds that I am capable of riding, and again she has to build up to that.

Digital_Cowboy

The problem that I have with yours and people who like you feel that they should be able to substitute their judgement for what the law says is that as has been shown that people as a whole do not use good judgement. Just look at the number of 45MPH roads where the average speed is 55MPH or more, as well as the number of cyclists who I see on a regular basis who whether this is traffic present or not who run red lights causing near misses.

As well as the negative image that it creates of cyclists feeling that the law doesn't apply to them, and that they're "free" to do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. If you don't think that a particular law should be applied to cyclists then I would respectfully suggest that you work with the system to get it changed, but don't break it, or advocate others to break it.

Telling them that you guarantee that if they do so that they'll be safe, or that they don't have to worry about getting ticketed.

SBRDude

If there were no cars around to smash your brains, then it was a frivolous statement for the cop to make. If there were cars around, it's an inapplicable comparison for you to attempt.

Why can't you admit what everyone else can clearly see - if the car is the safety hazard, then one of them must be present to pose the hazard.