|
Originally Posted by squirtdad
(Post 14007746)
I have had moderate success with putting my steel frame right over the sensor wires.......but if the road is resurfaced and I can't see the wires (where they dimond sawed, put wires in and sealed) it it a lot less successful
|
City of Santa Monica has been installing video detectors on the top of traffic lights to detect bicycles. They've painted markings where bikes should stop so they can trigger detection. I've found that these work pretty well. Some streets where the loop detectors previously never picked up bikes (even when positioned at recommended spots for the type of loops) now change signals fairly quickly.
http://www.smmirror.com/#mode=single&view=33719 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/12/02...-santa-monica/ |
Originally Posted by Vlaam4ever
(Post 14006651)
I get your point. But a bike does not carry the same responsibility as a car. The damage you do on a bike has significantly less consequences then a htat of motor vehicle in the same manuever. Hence a cyclist is not required to carry liability insurance. Not arguing that anybody needs to run stop signs or redlights. These should only be argued on a case-by-case basis, as I also have many lights that I stop at, and many stop signs that I treat as yield signs on my regular routes. There is no more justification for the selfcentered argument " I am inconvenienced by the red light, and can make my own judgement if it is safe and break the law" for a bicyliest than there is for a motorcyclist or auto driver. |
For some of my stop signs. I find it quicker and safer to go to ped mode. Hop off, start walking on the cross walk. Esp. with lots of cross traffic.
|
[QUOTE=squirtdad;14007788][QUOTE=Vlaam4ever;14006651]
Originally Posted by AdamDZ
(Post 14006591)
but not all the same responsibilities :rolleyes:
I always have a problem with this argument.... Because it ignores other consequences. Yes if a cyclist makes a wrong decision by running a red they have more exposure than a person in a car does, but it does not end there. You run a red light and make a judgement error. Now a driver either hits you and suffers psychological issues for something is not their fault or trys to avoid you and hits another car or object. There is no more justification for the selfcentered argument " I am inconvenienced by the red light, and can make my own judgement if it is safe and break the law" for a bicyliest than there is for a motorcyclist or auto driver. - I am happy police in my country doesn't fine me for doing so on foot/bike. It is against the law (60$ fine), but they seldom bother to catch and fine such criminals. - At the same time, I'm frustrated to see that some people cross red lights (on foot 99% of the time) without looking and cause cars to brake/turn/crash/run them over. When I cross red lights, nobody has to sweat. - The problem is those people running red lights without looking probably think the same way I do and maybe some day I'll also cause a car to brake/run me over.... But untill then, I still hate waiting at the red lights when I'm sure it is safe to cross, so I cross. |
Originally Posted by Slaninar
(Post 14007843)
- I hate waiting at red lights when it is obviously safe to cross. |
Originally Posted by squirtdad
(Post 14007788)
I always have a problem with this argument.... Because it ignores other consequences. Yes if a cyclist makes a wrong decision by running a red they have more exposure than a person in a car does, but it does not end there. You run a red light and make a judgement error. Now a driver either hits you and suffers psychological issues for something is not their fault or trys to avoid you and hits another car or object. |
College town PD do try to educate Freshmen , with citation's, every year.
|
Wisconsin law reads:
Red Traffic Signal: [346.37(1)(c)4] allows a bicyclist facing a red signal at an intersection, after stopping as required, for not less than 45 seconds, to proceed cautiously through the intersection before the signal turns green if no other vehicles are present at the intersection to actuate the signal and the operator believes the signal is vehicle actuated. The bicyclist shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicular traffic when proceeding through the green signal at the intersection. |
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
(Post 14006267)
Agreed, the laws/rules of the road either apply equally to EVERYONE or they don't apply to anyone at all.
|
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
(Post 14006267)
Agreed, the laws/rules of the road either apply equally to EVERYONE or they don't apply to anyone at all.
|
Originally Posted by AdamDZ
(Post 14006591)
Funny how cyclists demand to have all the same rights as cars, but not all the same responsibilities :rolleyes: [it's not a direct response to the previous post, just a comment]
|
I've seen police on bicycles in Santa Monica, CA write tickets to cars, trucks, pedestrians, whoever. Having met and worked with many of these offices years ago, I can tell you that they consider themselves to be no different than a cop on a motorcycle or in a car. They just recognize their increased mobility as an advantage.
|
Originally Posted by squirtdad
(Post 14005322)
So you are ok with cars doing the same thing?
|
i have no problem being pulled over my a bike cop or oven one in a car as long as there safe about it.
i was going down a 25mph road that had almost no traffic and the dirrection i was going had no stops for about 2 miles. i came to a down hill and was still cranking along got tward the bottom and a cop pulls right in front of me. i stopped about an inch from his door. and he starts saying "do you know why i stopped you?" i responded with "what the f**k is wrong with you? you could have killed or at very least severly injured me" he just staired at me for a minute then said "you were speeding... you were doing 31 in a 25 zone. im aftraid im going to have to issue a ticket" i said "go ahead; its going to get todded and ill see to it you at least get suspended for a while for the stunt you just pulled" he said "ok sure" rolled his eyes and have me a $75 speeding ticked. went to court a month later and sure enough the ticket get tossed and the cop got 2 months suspention for recless indangerment. all i got was the judge telling me to get a bike computer and stay within the speed limit. its fool cops like that i have a problem pulling me over. otherwise if i deserve it then safely pull me over. |
Originally Posted by chefisaac
(Post 14006341)
Under your thoughts it would be ok to kill someone if no one was watching.
|
Originally Posted by elkootcho
(Post 14008457)
Yes, that is exactly my point.
|
Originally Posted by JeremyZ
(Post 14007644)
We don't demand all the same rights. We only want a tiny little bit of the road for ourselves, and not even all roads. I guess there are some folks who try to take the whole lane, but I hope those folks are in the minority.
We are driving ~30 lb. vehicles at low speeds, let's say 20 mph, (8.9 m/s) with an all-up weight of ~250 lbs. (113 kg) We are un-armored. Total kinetic available energy would be 4475 J. A typical car weighs ~3000 lbs,(1362 kg) and on a typical road in my area, is traveling at 50 mph. (22 m/s). Resulting energy imparted would be 338,157 J. The car is capable of causing 76 times as much damage. Not only that, but it is very likely that almost all of the damage would be to ourselves, especially since we are riding surrounded by cars and trucks, and not pedestrians. So we ARE taking responsibility for our actions. We're sticking our necks out, simply by riding bikes among cars and trucks. It's a risk analysis. A bike cop ticketing a cyclist for rolling a red light when it is safe to do so is not serving and protecting, he is hassling. Picking the "low-hanging fruit." I do respect your idea that we should follow rules, but let's not pretend we have the same responsibilities or rights as motorized traffic. On paper, it may be the case or close to it. In reality, it is not even close to true. |
I was pulled over once by Denver bike cops on 16th street east of downtown - supposedly for running a red light. I informed him that I would happily take the ticket but the fact was I entered the intersection on a yellow after a left-turning truck yeilded the 'last one through before red' to me. He looked at me and asked me to ride safely.
That was my good experience with Denver bike cops. All my other experiences point to them being largely uninformed about riding bikes. This last winter I pulled up to two that were just entering downtown around 5:30am -- very dark. I was all lit up (front & rear lights, reflective jacket, etc) and one of the cops also had some lights. The other didn't have any; I asked the first to clarify what the laws were about bikes needing lights at night. She stated the law with a straight face & they biked away. My other experiences with Denver bike cops: seeing them ride side by side in a bike lane impeding traffic; riding on flat tires; riding with items falling out of their unzipped saddle bags; spinning in first gear in the flats at about 150rpm; stopping at lights about 1.5 bike lengths into the intersection; etc. |
Originally Posted by AdamDZ
(Post 14008483)
So by this logic we should also have different laws for motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses because they're different sizes and their weights vary significantly.
|
Originally Posted by weshigh
(Post 14008589)
I'm not arguing for or against, but there are already different laws for different sorts of vehicles. Mopeds under a certain engine size aren't allowed to travel on highways.
|
Silly...
If it happened to me I would tell them I didn't have my wallet and give them a fake name. It's a waste of resorces to have cops ticketing cyclists. |
Originally Posted by PHAN70M RYDEr
(Post 14008720)
If it happened to me I would tell them I didn't have my wallet and give them a fake name.
|
Holly cripes... how far have we fallen in knowing what we are supposed to be doing as cyclists.
Cyclist have the same rights and responsabilities as ANY other vehicle, motor powered or not, on the road. There are some exceptions, but those should be specified in in each state's civil planning. Some states do allow for cyclists to go through a light when there is no crossing traffic present in a minor intersection, but not all states do. Just as some states authorize tandem/side by side riding, but others do not. And as a moving vehicle on the road, law enforcement personnel have every right and duty to stop a cyclist when they are breaking the law or acting in a reckless manner that endangers not only themselves, but others on the road. |
Originally Posted by weshigh
(Post 14008589)
As mentioned above, we often do have different laws based on weight. Buses/Trucks of a certain size are now allowed over some bridges and on some streets. In many cities buses have special lanes dedicated to them, and special stop lights. I'm not arguing for or against, but there are already different laws for different sorts of vehicles. Mopeds under a certain engine size aren't allowed to travel on highways.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:51 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.