| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket.
And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Andy |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/11/2019 7:07 PM, AK wrote:
I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. I agree, and I'm probably over-diligent about obeying traffic lights. At one intersection about two blocks from my house, I turn right where there's a "No Turn on Red" sign. But even though I know the sign was put there to protect kids walking home from school at 3 - 4 PM, I sit dutifully even at 8 PM, even though nobody would ever object to me proceeding. Not even my friend the police chief. OTOH, I happen to live directly across from a stop sign at a T intersection. I've sat in the house and counted multiple times. Consistently, 50% of the motorists fail to do a legal stop. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable to ticket those motorists first. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 6:07:18 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Andy Yes, but running red lights is worse. I like the "Idaho Stop" (since 1982 in Idaho and adopted in Delaware in 2017), which allows treating a stop sign like a yield sign and a red light like a stop sign. Personally, while I will roll through a stop sign if the way is clear, I will remain stopped at a red light if a car is also waiting. Often, while I'm stopped, I will be passed by another cyclist. BTW, in Illinois (at least) it is legal for a bicycle or motorcycle to proceed through a red light if there is no cross-traffic *and* 120 seconds have elapsed. This is only true in cities with a population less than two million, for some strange reason. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote:
I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:25:31 +1000, James
wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. True. But then the people who lament about "bicycle safety" don't make announcements something like "Well, mate, we had 700 bicycle deaths last year but of course 400 of them were running stop lights, riding the wrong way on one-way roads and other violations of the traffic code". -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Andy And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Andy And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. -- JS |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:21:46 -0700 (PDT), AK
wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Andy And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. There is a poem that rather emphasizes that point. Here lies the body of Henry Gray He died defending his right of way. His way was right, his will was strong, But he's just as dead as if he was wrong. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 1:21 AM, AK wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Andy And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Good for you so we can pass you because we take the lane. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote:
I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. The troll alert is beginning to sound... And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert! (Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?) Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:06:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote: I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. WTF? Seems like an easy question. There is no "hook" to be let off of when a cyclist blows a light and gets hit by a car. Since when is a motorist guilty for proceeding through a green light? Not that I agree with Andy's sentiment, but cyclists -- including me -- blow signs and lights at their own risk. If I get hit by a car, that's on me. And yes, I've now defended two cases where the motorist sued for emotional distress, although both involved pedestrians and suicide by truck. That seems to be popular these days -- park by the side of the road and step in front of a giant truck. Not my first choice for offing myself. One guy got cut in half, which makes for a messy clean-up, and I hate making a mess. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 11:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:06:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote: I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. WTF? Seems like an easy question. There is no "hook" to be let off of when a cyclist blows a light and gets hit by a car. Since when is a motorist guilty for proceeding through a green light? Not that I agree with Andy's sentiment, but cyclists -- including me -- blow signs and lights at their own risk. If I get hit by a car, that's on me. I'm not excusing running lights or stop signs. Yes, that's on the cyclist - or on the motorists who do it much, much more frequently. But it bothers me when people wring hands about "trauma" to the most over-privileged group of road users. Motorists routinely traumatize each other as well as non-motorists. But that "trauma" seems to come up only in hypothetical bicycling cases like the one AK presents. And yes, I've now defended two cases where the motorist sued for emotional distress, although both involved pedestrians and suicide by truck. That seems to be popular these days -- park by the side of the road and step in front of a giant truck. Not my first choice for offing myself. One guy got cut in half, which makes for a messy clean-up, and I hate making a mess. Agreed. If you're going to suicide, don't involve others. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:49:05 +1000, James
wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. -- JS I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Andy And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. James, are you saying that in a bicycle/auto collision the car comes off worse? Or if the bicycle has the right of way in a collision the bicycle won't get damaged more than the auto? -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:50:23 +0200, Sepp Ruf
wrote: James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Hmm... I habitually ride on highways that do not have a reserved bicycle lane and where the majority of the traffic is traveling at speeds greater then 100 kph. Are you suggesting that I ride squarely in the "car lane"? Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. Ah, you are saying that when a car and bicycle contest the way that the bicycle comes off best? If so than there are a whole lot of folks who have had horrible bad luck as in every bicycle crash recounted on this site, over the years, the bicycle has always come off the worst. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:06:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote: I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. The troll alert is beginning to sound... And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert! (Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?) Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence. I see Frank. You are arguing that when a bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs that the bicycle does not come off worse? -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 13/4/19 7:34 am, John B. wrote:
James, are you saying that in a bicycle/auto collision the car comes off worse? No. Or if the bicycle has the right of way in a collision the bicycle won't get damaged more than the auto? No. -- JS |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 5:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:50:23 +0200, Sepp Ruf wrote: James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Hmm... I habitually ride on highways that do not have a reserved bicycle lane and where the majority of the traffic is traveling at speeds greater then 100 kph. Are you suggesting that I ride squarely in the "car lane"? Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. Ah, you are saying that when a car and bicycle contest the way that the bicycle comes off best? If so than there are a whole lot of folks who have had horrible bad luck as in every bicycle crash recounted on this site, over the years, the bicycle has always come off the worst. One of our customers, a very fit woman in her 50s, was hit in an intersection, rolled through the windshield and instinctively punched the driver square in his face. She was fine but for bruises. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:59:11 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/12/2019 5:01 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:50:23 +0200, Sepp Ruf wrote: James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Hmm... I habitually ride on highways that do not have a reserved bicycle lane and where the majority of the traffic is traveling at speeds greater then 100 kph. Are you suggesting that I ride squarely in the "car lane"? Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. Ah, you are saying that when a car and bicycle contest the way that the bicycle comes off best? If so than there are a whole lot of folks who have had horrible bad luck as in every bicycle crash recounted on this site, over the years, the bicycle has always come off the worst. One of our customers, a very fit woman in her 50s, was hit in an intersection, rolled through the windshield and instinctively punched the driver square in his face. She was fine but for bruises. It also proves the superiority of the tempered window glass in autos that shatters into small, dull pieces rather than large sharp edges :-) -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. We all disregard traffic laws sometimes. We often disregard laws that we don't even know we're disregarding. Motorists have been disregarding traffic laws since there were cars. https://gizmodo.com/on-this-day-in-1...ned-1579044541 Every small infraction does not lead one down the path to grand-theft, rape and murder. Some infractions are bad from a moral or/or safety standpoint -- and others not so much. https://tinyurl.com/yy3ot6g2 (Jeffrey City, Wyoming -- I probably rode my bike through that stop sign). What I love are motorists who think I'm disregarding the law when I'm not. Cars will honk when I take a left turn through a red light onto a one-way street. Cars will sit at the light when there is no traffic -- simply because they don't know the traffic law. The maroons should read the paper. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...devils_in.html Cars will go ballistic if I get out of the bike lane to pass another bike or avoid hazards. All legal. Most people rant about others breaking the traffic law and don't even know the law. Now, when I really DO break the law on my bike and get honked at or cited, well that's on me. If I hurt someone in the process, then I bear moral and legal blame. So, I try not to ride in a way that will place anyone, including me, in danger. But when I hit a stop sign with no traffic, I'm not putting my foot down. So far, it has not led me down the slippery slope to Felonyville. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT), AK
wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Andy And ****es off car drivers who see that and believe that bicyclists get special privileges on the roads with impunity from the law. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:59:11 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
One of our customers, a very fit woman in her 50s, was hit in an intersection, rolled through the windshield and instinctively punched the driver square in his face. She was fine but for bruises. Did she get arrested for assault and battery? |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:50:23 +0200, Sepp Ruf wrote: James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Hmm... I habitually ride on highways that do not have a reserved bicycle lane and where the majority of the traffic is traveling at speeds greater then 100 kph. Are you suggesting that I ride squarely in the "car lane"? Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. Ah, you are saying that when a car and bicycle contest the way that the bicycle comes off best? If so than there are a whole lot of folks who have had horrible bad luck as in every bicycle crash recounted on this site, over the years, the bicycle has always come off the worst. -- cheers, John B. I think the ones complaining about my post are the biggest violators. I guess their guilt brings out the worst.? :-) The world is becoming a relativist society. For many, there are no absolute moral standards. Pastor Andy :-) |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at one's convenience? We all disregard traffic laws sometimes. We often disregard laws that we don't even know we're disregarding. Motorists have been disregarding traffic laws since there were cars. https://gizmodo.com/on-this-day-in-1...ned-1579044541 Does the fact that someone disregards a law mean that the law is meaningless? If so then why was the law enacted? Every small infraction does not lead one down the path to grand-theft, rape and murder. Some infractions are bad from a moral or/or safety standpoint -- and others not so much. https://tinyurl.com/yy3ot6g2 (Jeffrey City, Wyoming -- I probably rode my bike through that stop sign). No but a small infarction - running a red light or stop sign, which seems to be considered a small infraction, could result in someone's death. What I love are motorists who think I'm disregarding the law when I'm not. Cars will honk when I take a left turn through a red light onto a one-way street. Cars will sit at the light when there is no traffic -- simply because they don't know the traffic law. The maroons should read the paper. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...devils_in.html Cars will go ballistic if I get out of the bike lane to pass another bike or avoid hazards. All legal. Most people rant about others breaking the traffic law and don't even know the law. Well in Thailand there are even signs posted that say, "Turn Left On Red" :-) Now, when I really DO break the law on my bike and get honked at or cited, well that's on me. If I hurt someone in the process, then I bear moral and legal blame. So, I try not to ride in a way that will place anyone, including me, in danger. But when I hit a stop sign with no traffic, I'm not putting my foot down. So far, it has not led me down the slippery slope to Felonyville. -- Jay Beattie. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 6:58:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. My buddy bicycling buddy whilst bicycling one night slowed way down at a red light, looked and saw no other vehicles moving on either road and then proceeded through the red light. Unfortunately for him there was a "letter of the Law police officer sitting in a cruiser and that officer gave my buddy a ticket. Cheers |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:06:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote: I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. The troll alert is beginning to sound... And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert! (Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?) Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence. I see Frank. You are arguing that when a bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs that the bicycle does not come off worse? No, I'm saying that Andy's post was generally anti-cyclist, and the final "it doesn't matter" sounds like he's hinting that cyclists should abandon their right of way. That's bull****. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 6:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
One of our customers, a very fit woman in her 50s, was hit in an intersection, rolled through the windshield and instinctively punched the driver square in his face.Â* She was fine but for bruises. Excellent! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 10:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:50:23 +0200, Sepp Ruf wrote: James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:25:43 PM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 9:07 am, AK wrote: I was looking up whether a cyclist can get a ticket. And found this https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...391955121.html I see a lot of cyclists running stop signs. That sets a bad example. Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, so researchers did some researching. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...an-drivers-do/ Bad examples aside, it is also worth remembering that someone on a bicycle who disobeys a red light really only puts themselves at risk. I'm yet to read of a car v bike crash where the car driver suffers injuries other than perhaps psychological. However when a motorist disobeys a red light they endanger all other road users and themselves. There is a distinct difference in the level of risk. I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Read again what I wrote. Yeah, but why doesn't anybody ever think of the children or the dog in the back? There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. A former life insurance CEO, trained mathematician, just got killed by a drunk motorist, wife badly injured, obediently waiting at a stoplight with their pedelecs. They should have kept moving. Great against muggers, too. http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--hit-by-drunk--w%C3%BCstenrot-board-heinen-dies-after-a-traffic-accident-.SyxCy3XcYE.html And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. "Daddy, look, another clueless gutter bunny!" I have seen some who ride close to the car lane and have been clipped by a cars side mirror. Ride squarely in the "car lane" if the "bike" lane is unsafely narrow or blocked. Hmm... I habitually ride on highways that do not have a reserved bicycle lane and where the majority of the traffic is traveling at speeds greater then 100 kph. Are you suggesting that I ride squarely in the "car lane"? Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Oh dear. You probably won't be very popular with a number of people who chat on this news group with opinions like that. AK scientist had already triggered some troll alert lamps. Ah, you are saying that when a car and bicycle contest the way that the bicycle comes off best? If so than there are a whole lot of folks who have had horrible bad luck as in every bicycle crash recounted on this site, over the years, the bicycle has always come off the worst. -- cheers, John B. I think the ones complaining about my post are the biggest violators. Wrong, at least in my case. Your prejudice is showing. The world is becoming a relativist society. For many, there are no absolute moral standards. Pastor Andy :-) I would question the morality of a person who tries to scare bicyclists into gutter riding, i.e. not even using the full width of a bike lane. "Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes" is nonsense, and most people who say such things are domineering motorists with "get out of my way" mentalities. That's the opposite of charity. Anyone who has done any serious study of competent bicycling knows the dangers of gutter riding. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at one's convenience? John, you're sounding so naive! Laws are passed in a messy process involving a variable mix of good intentions, rational analysis, political considerations, under-table bribes, laziness, unrealistic optimism and more. There's no shortage of laws that are mistakes. When laws are passed, they may or may not make it into the attention or knowledge of the public or the police forces. People operating vehicles on public roads almost always have imperfect knowledge of the laws. Most generally do what seems reasonable and safe to them at a given time, with the usual bell curve spread on that interpretation. Cops observing road users generally approach their job the same way. As one example, if they see a vehicle operator - bicyclist or motorist - roll through a stop sign at 1 mph while clearly checking for traffic and seeing none, a cop will almost never nail them for a violation of the stop sign. They exercise reasonable judgment. Ditto for going 27 in a 25 zone, for not turning on headlights the moment the sun has set, or whatever. This is the real world as it is, at least in every place I've lived or visited. It's a waste of mental energy to either pretend or wish for 100% strict obedience to every law. Or to wish for all laws to be 100% justifiable. (FWIW, in a 100% perfect fantasyland, I think most Stop signs would actually be Yield signs, at _least_ for bicyclists. Look up "Idaho Stop.") ... a small infarction - running a red light or stop sign, which seems to be considered a small infraction, could result in someone's death. Quit playing "worst case scenario." In 99.9% of the cases, an innocent highway user's death (that is, someone who violated no law) is caused by a motorist, not a bicyclist or pedestrian. If you can find a case of a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and causing the death of a motorist, please post it here. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
For your reference, records indicate that
John B. wrote: But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? Analyze the *intent* of the law and determine if the infraction violates that vs. simply the letter of the law. Cars roll through stop signs all the time, and it generally isn’t a problem because the surrounding traffic (if any) isn’t usually dangerous, and generally *expects* cars to behave that way. I honestly have no idea why people in cars then lose their minds when they see a cyclist behave the same way. Stop lights and/or blowing through intersections is another matter but, as others have noted, the main danger there is to the cyclist themselves. If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Maybe it is, but maybe it isn’t. Courts exist because the law itself isn’t a one-size-fits-all system. Death for petty theft seems like an excessive punishment, but neither does it make sense to equally apply rules for 2 ton trucks that can travel at 75+mph to human powered vehicles that carry significantly less kinetic energy. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. Again, maybe? Large businesses are often wasteful and/or laws might exist that prevent them from reasonably handling unused resources. Are a few half-used office supplies vanishing really going to force a company into bankruptcy? Is it really theft to dumpster dive a restaurant that throws away perfectly good food? In the grand scheme of things, aggressive cyclists are pretty damn low on the list of things that can ruin someone’s day. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:44:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at one's convenience? John, you're sounding so naive! Laws are passed in a messy process involving a variable mix of good intentions, rational analysis, political considerations, under-table bribes, laziness, unrealistic optimism and more. There's no shortage of laws that are mistakes. When laws are passed, they may or may not make it into the attention or knowledge of the public or the police forces. People operating vehicles on public roads almost always have imperfect knowledge of the laws. Most generally do what seems reasonable and safe to them at a given time, with the usual bell curve spread on that interpretation. Cops observing road users generally approach their job the same way. As one example, if they see a vehicle operator - bicyclist or motorist - roll through a stop sign at 1 mph while clearly checking for traffic and seeing none, a cop will almost never nail them for a violation of the stop sign. They exercise reasonable judgment. Ditto for going 27 in a 25 zone, for not turning on headlights the moment the sun has set, or whatever. This is the real world as it is, at least in every place I've lived or visited. It's a waste of mental energy to either pretend or wish for 100% strict obedience to every law. Or to wish for all laws to be 100% justifiable. (FWIW, in a 100% perfect fantasyland, I think most Stop signs would actually be Yield signs, at _least_ for bicyclists. Look up "Idaho Stop.") ... a small infarction - running a red light or stop sign, which seems to be considered a small infraction, could result in someone's death. Quit playing "worst case scenario." In 99.9% of the cases, an innocent highway user's death (that is, someone who violated no law) is caused by a motorist, not a bicyclist or pedestrian. If you can find a case of a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and causing the death of a motorist, please post it here. I'm sure you can find an example somewhere. There is an example of everything. Minor violations can be consequential, and everyone should play by the rules to avoid injury -- but when there is no one on the road, it really doesn't matter. With cars, pedestrians and other bicycles around, you do need to play by the rules -- which means everyone needs to know the rules. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:44:16 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(FWIW, in a 100% perfect fantasyland, I think most Stop signs would actually be Yield signs, at _least_ for bicyclists. Look up "Idaho Stop.") - Frank Krygowski I believe John B. has said he lives in Singapore. I have heard Singapore is sort of a rich, capitalist euphoria, and an evil hard nose dictatorship all in one. Any and all disobedience of any law is punished by a public flogging and whipping and sentence of not less than 1 year in prison doing hard labor. Singaporians are obedient to the letter of the law. So how everyone else in the world except Singapore obeys the law may be very foreign to John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:10:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/12/2019 6:05 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:06:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote: I think you are forgetting some things. If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized? Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off the hook" excuse for guilty motorists. There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. The troll alert is beginning to sound... And while I am at it.... Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes. Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert! (Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?) Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc. Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence. I see Frank. You are arguing that when a bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs that the bicycle does not come off worse? No, I'm saying that Andy's post was generally anti-cyclist, and the final "it doesn't matter" sounds like he's hinting that cyclists should abandon their right of way. That's bull****. Was it "anti-cyclist" or simply the reality that when a motor vehicle and a bicycle collide that invariably the bicycle and rider suffer injuries while the motor vehicle gets, perhaps, a dent in the fender. I doubt that laying in the hospital all broken in bits after being hit by a motor vehicle that the knowledge that you had the right of way is going to sooth your pain significantly. Which I suggest was the point of Andy's post. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at one's convenience? John, you're sounding so naive! Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to prevent crimes or to make society safer. You description of laws being passed by "involving a variable mix of good intentions, rational analysis, political considerations, under-table bribes, laziness, unrealistic optimism and more" is simply a description of the democratic system. Or perhaps one might say where everyone gets to make their comment. To the extent that the originators of the so called democratic system, the Athenians, were wise enough to realize that in times of emergency the system worked poorly, and that a " strategos" essentially a military leader, who in the personage of Pericles became perhaps the most prominent could be elected. But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid. For example: In the study of accidents in Los Angeles County conducted by the California Highway Patrol in 2012 it was found that there were 5,090 collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles, in 453 collisions fault could not be determined. In 1,878 cases the motor vehicle was determined to be at fault and in 2,759 of the collisions the bicycle was found to have been at fault. That is, some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic. Note that these failings on the part of both the motor vehicles and the bicycles may well have been simply a failure to obey a law that the operator considered as silly, or perhaps the determination to defend one's right of way at all costs. One can only speculate on the Bicycle Adherents who spend their time advocating bicycle lanes, safety helmets and blindly bright lights to improve the safety of cycling rather than emphasizing the fact that obeying the law will reduce accidents to a far greater extent than all the attachments one can hang on a bicycle. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:44:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote: On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote: There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs. Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution. Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars. But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft. No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at one's convenience? John, you're sounding so naive! Laws are passed in a messy process involving a variable mix of good intentions, rational analysis, political considerations, under-table bribes, laziness, unrealistic optimism and more. There's no shortage of laws that are mistakes. When laws are passed, they may or may not make it into the attention or knowledge of the public or the police forces. People operating vehicles on public roads almost always have imperfect knowledge of the laws. Most generally do what seems reasonable and safe to them at a given time, with the usual bell curve spread on that interpretation. Cops observing road users generally approach their job the same way. As one example, if they see a vehicle operator - bicyclist or motorist - roll through a stop sign at 1 mph while clearly checking for traffic and seeing none, a cop will almost never nail them for a violation of the stop sign. They exercise reasonable judgment. Ditto for going 27 in a 25 zone, for not turning on headlights the moment the sun has set, or whatever. This is the real world as it is, at least in every place I've lived or visited. It's a waste of mental energy to either pretend or wish for 100% strict obedience to every law. Or to wish for all laws to be 100% justifiable. (FWIW, in a 100% perfect fantasyland, I think most Stop signs would actually be Yield signs, at _least_ for bicyclists. Look up "Idaho Stop.") ... a small infarction - running a red light or stop sign, which seems to be considered a small infraction, could result in someone's death. Quit playing "worst case scenario." In 99.9% of the cases, an innocent highway user's death (that is, someone who violated no law) is caused by a motorist, not a bicyclist or pedestrian. If you can find a case of a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and causing the death of a motorist, please post it here. I'm sure you can find an example somewhere. There is an example of everything. Minor violations can be consequential, and everyone should play by the rules to avoid injury -- but when there is no one on the road, it really doesn't matter. With cars, pedestrians and other bicycles around, you do need to play by the rules -- which means everyone needs to know the rules. :-) When there is no one but you (alone on a desert island) you can do any damned thing that you want to :-) -- Jay Beattie. -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:29:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:44:16 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: (FWIW, in a 100% perfect fantasyland, I think most Stop signs would actually be Yield signs, at _least_ for bicyclists. Look up "Idaho Stop.") - Frank Krygowski I believe John B. has said he lives in Singapore. I have heard Singapore is sort of a rich, capitalist euphoria, and an evil hard nose dictatorship all in one. Any and all disobedience of any law is punished by a public flogging and whipping and sentence of not less than 1 year in prison doing hard labor. Singaporians are obedient to the letter of the law. So how everyone else in the world except Singapore obeys the law may be very foreign to John B. Since I retired I live in Thailand but when I was still employed the company had a Singapore Office which came under my department and I visited the country, probably twice or three times a month, for 20, or so years. Singapore has had a democratic government since it became a sovereign nation, in 1965. The People's Acton Party (PAP) has had a majority in the government since independence based on parliamentary elections ( at any time par aliment is dissolved or at 5 year interval ). In addition Presidential elections are held every 6 years. Yes Singapore has very strict laws and punishments can be as severe as "caning" or hanging. On the other hand, Singapore has a "narcotics problem" that is the lowest in the world, a murder rate of 0.32/100,000 (U.S. - 5.35) and over all the lowest crime rate in the world. As for obeying the law, as I have said I live in Thailand. The word "thai" means free and pretty well describes the general attitude of the people - free to do about any damned thing that they want to :-) The traffic is chaotic and road deaths are in the neighborhood of 36/100,000 (population) , In comparison the U.S. is 10.9/100,000. From reading the news, it appears that nearly all of the accidents in which someone dies are due to disobeying traffic laws. On the other hand I enjoy living here :-) -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:50:41 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote: For your reference, records indicate that John B. wrote: But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can selectively disregard the law? Analyze the *intent* of the law and determine if the infraction violates that vs. simply the letter of the law. Cars roll through stop signs all the time, and it generally isn’t a problem because the surrounding traffic (if any) isn’t usually dangerous, and generally *expects* cars to behave that way. I honestly have no idea why people in cars then lose their minds when they see a cyclist behave the same way. Stop lights and/or blowing through intersections is another matter but, as others have noted, the main danger there is to the cyclist themselves. If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I certainly know people that believe that is justified. Maybe it is, but maybe it isn’t. Courts exist because the law itself isn’t a one-size-fits-all system. Death for petty theft seems like an excessive punishment, but neither does it make sense to equally apply rules for 2 ton trucks that can travel at 75+mph to human powered vehicles that carry significantly less kinetic energy. Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid theft by employees. Again, maybe? Large businesses are often wasteful and/or laws might exist that prevent them from reasonably handling unused resources. Are a few half-used office supplies vanishing really going to force a company into bankruptcy? No, nor does forgetting to take a company pencil out of your pocket when you go home at night. But, on the other hand https://www.incorp.com/help-center/b...nd-fraud-part1 has it that "Estimates range from $20 billion to $50 billion, making it one of the most costly and widespread challenges faced in today's business world." -- cheers, John B. |
Cyclists triggering red light cameras
For your reference, records indicate that
John B. wrote: No, nor does forgetting to take a company pencil out of your pocket when you go home at night. But, on the other hand https://www.incorp.com/help-center/b...nd-fraud-part1 has it that "Estimates range from $20 billion to $50 billion, making it one of the most costly and widespread challenges faced in today's business world." My point remains that an obsession with petty criminals is misguided. Nobody should pat themselves on the back for honking at a cyclist that safely rolls a STOP sign (or a car doing the same, for that matter), just like they shouldn’t act like stopping Patty the pencil thief is a major bust. Companies lose money in all sorts of ways. Proper triage will identify them and assign an objective priority. It’s always interesting how *executive* theft is seldom addressed as the huge issue it is. Nor is apparently the HR process ever called into question when it comes to hiring all these terribly criminal employees. I’m not sure why any of this belongs in the tech group, but most traffic control technologies barely account for motorcycles, never mind bicycles. So, again, for cycling, let’s focus on the absolutely minimal ridership there is (in the US, at least), the absolutely minimal damage that they can do to others, and the inequity of laws when it comes to the rules of the road. Anyone making a serious fuss about scofflaw cyclists is an idiot. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com