CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Techniques (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Cyclists triggering red light cameras (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=257322)

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 13th 19 05:44 PM

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

Doc O'Leary[_21_] April 13th 19 05:50 PM

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



JBeattie April 13th 19 06:05 PM

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.

[email protected] April 13th 19 08:29 PM

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.

jOHN b. April 14th 19 02:27 AM

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.


jOHN b. April 14th 19 03:28 AM

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.


jOHN b. April 14th 19 03:30 AM

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.


jOHN b. April 14th 19 04:15 AM

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.


jOHN b. April 14th 19 04:22 AM

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 isnt a problem because the surrounding
traffic (if any) isnt 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 isnt. Courts exist because the law itself
isnt 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.


Doc O'Leary[_21_] April 14th 19 05:09 PM

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 01:31 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com