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 15th 19 08:55 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2019 1:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 20:14:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/15/2019 9:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.

Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] 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.

Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling
at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are
caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a
crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it
has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles
per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no
punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If
every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there
would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a
little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's
never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old
guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."

Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor¬* vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.


I don't know.
I suspect the issue of fidelity to The Law is larger and
more complex than it first appears.


Certainly it is and there are many laws that are no longer valid
either because the problem has gone away (selling guns to Indians) or
no longer considered a crime (Massachusetts colonial law providing a
penalty for not attending Church on Sunday). In fact some years ago
the State of Maine had a project in the Legislature to review every
State Law to determine which were valid "today" and revoke those that
were no longer applicable.



The Supremes upheld order #9066 in the various related cases
/Korematsu/ , /Hirabayashi/ and /Yasui/ (a man I knew
personally).¬* Well argued /coram nobis/ petitions were
rejected.¬* So that's where we are now.


Was that concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066,
which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World
War II regardless of their citizenship ? If so it was decided in 1944,
if the Wiki is correct.

Legally owned firearms are a niggling portion of firearms
involved in crime.¬* Yet the bulk of charges for felon in
possession or use of a stolen firearm and related wrondoing
are dropped in the first round of negotiations, often
swapped for a misdemeanor charge. Cue the chorus of 'more
gun laws' as if that would help.


Someone or another wrote, "We cannot¬* penalize¬* all Moslem for
terrorism because such a tiny minority of Moslems are terrorists but
we can penalize all Gun Owners for mass shootings although only a tiny
minority are mass murderers.

Dallas' newly elected DA says prosecuting crime doesn't
always draw his interest and besides you just can't expect
law-abiding behavior from Those People:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas...incarceration/


I suspect¬* that the above was in actuality an attempt to reduce the
cost of the Texas, or the Dallas, prison system and had nothing to do
with enforcing the law. Legalize drugs, abolish the requirement for
bail and so on. I suspect that Texas law provides for being " release
on your own recognizance".

I could go on but The Law in practice is neither logically
consistent with itself nor sensible to the citizenry in
enough areas as to obviate any simple aphorism.

I suggest that the law is logical in the specific cases where the
judgment is made. In the case of the "Executive Order 9066" judgment
you mention above, in 1942 when the order was issued the U.S. was
truly afraid of the possibility of an attack on the N. American
continent, and in fact attacks did occur. There was evidence of Japan
spies in Hawaii. Mexico and probably other countries, according to a
book written by an individual who was a career Navel Intelligence
Officer. The fact that Navel Intelligence was not aware of¬* any U.S.
citizens of Japanese origin or decent in the U.S. was not proof none
were there.

I was very small at the time but I do remember that people, at least
in my home town talked about a Japanese invasion of California, and
less face reality, the Japanese... and the Italian...¬* the Irish...
and the Poles... and just about everyone else with a "funny name" was
thought of as sort of 2nd class citizen. My father's youngest sister
married a bloke named "Le Blanc" and my grandmother didn't talk to
here own daughter for a considerable number of years.

After all, the Japanese did "attack" the N. American continent. A
Japanese Submarine shelled Ellwood Oil Field on 23 Feb
1942, on June 21, 1942 a Japanese submarine shelled Ft. Fort Stevens,
in September 1942 a Japanese airplane, launched from a submarine
bombed¬*¬* Brookings, Oregon,¬* the bombs actually fell on a nearby
wooded area. 1944, the Japanese military constructed and launched over
9,000 high-altitude balloons, each loaded with nearly 50 pounds of
anti-personnel and incendiary explosives. From 1944 to 1945, balloon
bombs were spotted in more than 15 states, some as far east as
Michigan and Iowa. A pregnant woman and five children were the only
kill,¬* in an explosion after coming across one of the downed balloons.

I'm going on and on but given the sentiment that existed in the U.S.,
at the time, the Japanese Interment made perfect sense to, probably,
the bulk of the American People.

¬* I suspect that the egregious examples are not different from
traffic law except by degree, that is, "as far right as
practicable" may be interpreted differently at different
times by different people in different situations. [Glad I
ride in jurisdictions where punishments do not include caning].

--
cheers,

John B.


All that's true but not to the point. Once our foundation of individual
liberty becomes subsumed by 'group rights' (leading directly to group
punishment) you get a natural born American citizen, newly admitted to
the Oregon bar, in solitary confinement in the Multnomah county jail for
the duration. I can't square that with the Constitution as written.

Maybe a simpler law like 'tax the rich' ? What could go wrong?

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/JOELOUIS.JPG

Law is messy because society is messy and simple rules turn out not to
be so simple /in extremis/ .


Regarding Joe Louis, the take in Wikipedia is somewhat less horrifying,
although it certainly doesn't absolve the law:

---------------------

A combination of [Joe Louis's] largesse and government intervention
eventually put Louis in severe financial straits. His entrusting of his
finances to former manager Mike Jacobs haunted him. After the $500,000
IRS tax bill was assessed, with interest accumulating every year, the
need for cash precipitated Louis's post-retirement comeback.[62][82]
Even though his comeback earned him significant purses, the incremental
tax rate in place at the time (90%) meant that these boxing proceeds did
not even keep pace with interest on Louis's tax debt. As a result, by
the end of the 1950s, he owed over $1 million in taxes and interest.[82]
In 1953, when Louis's mother died, the IRS appropriated the $667 she had
willed to Louis.[62] To bring in money, Louis engaged in numerous
activities outside the ring. He appeared on various quiz shows,[82] and
an old Army buddy, Ash Resnick, gave Louis a job greeting tourists to
the Caesars Palace hotel in Las Vegas, where Resnick was an
executive.[82] For income, Louis even became a professional wrestler. He
made his professional wrestling debut on March 16, 1956 in Washington,
D.C. at the Uline Arena, defeating Cowboy Rocky Lee. After defeating Lee
in a few matches, Louis discovered he had a heart ailment and retired
from wrestling competition. However, he continued as a wrestling referee
until 1972.[62][83]

Louis remained a popular celebrity in his twilight years. His friends
included former rival Max Schmeling‚ÄĒwho provided Louis with financial
assistance during his retirement[84]‚ÄĒand mobster Frank Lucas, who,
disgusted with the government's treatment of Louis, once paid off a
$50,000 tax lien held against him.[85] These payments, along with an
eventual agreement in the early 1960s by the IRS to limit its
collections to an amount based on Louis's current income,[62] allowed
Louis to live comfortably toward the end of his life.[79]

---------------------

But yes, law is messy and society is messy. It makes sense to keep
fine-tuning the law.

At present, ISTM that tax laws are heavily biased in favor of wealthy
families and large, profitable corporations, and against those earning
low wages. I think that needs very serious fine tuning.

The latest Ohio example: We are finally raising our gasoline tax,
getting it closer in line with all the surrounding states - but still
not equal. Nobody can realistically say that more road funding was not
necessary.

But a gas tax is regressive. The gas tax or its increase takes a far
greater percentage of the income of someone driving to a $15 per hour
job than it takes from a CEO pulling in $15 million.

How is that just?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 09:13 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 2:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 20:14:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Legally owned firearms are a niggling portion of firearms
involved in crime. Yet the bulk of charges for felon in
possession or use of a stolen firearm and related wrondoing
are dropped in the first round of negotiations, often
swapped for a misdemeanor charge. Cue the chorus of 'more
gun laws' as if that would help.


Someone or another wrote, "We cannot penalize all Moslem for
terrorism because such a tiny minority of Moslems are terrorists but
we can penalize all Gun Owners for mass shootings although only a tiny
minority are mass murderers.


I'm not impressed by the whining of the NRA crowd. The "penalties"
proposed most often for gun owners are no greater than the "penalties"
we routinely impose on motorists.

Motorists are required to pass a written test on relevant laws before
they get a learner's permit. They are required to learn the proper and
safe use of the car, preferably from a competent teacher. They are
required to pass a practical test on the operation of the vehicle. They
then submit enough documents to prove who they are, they get
photographed and registered, and they're then allowed to drive.

But the law still imposes restrictions on what and how they drive. They
are not allowed to drive a military tank on public roads, even though it
might increase their personal safety to do so. I don't think they're
allowed to modify their vehicles to more efficiently harm others. (Think
James Bond style retractable tire-slashing spikes.) If someone offends
them or threatens them, they're not allowed to immediately run them
over... and so on.

I don't see the parallels regarding gun ownership to be any different.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 09:18 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 10:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
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.


Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.


Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] 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.


Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."


Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.


John, you're pointedly ignoring what I wrote in order to use a straw man
argument.

I'm saying going through an empty street's stop sign at 3 mph is not a
big problem. Neither is turning on headlights five minutes after the law
demands. Neither is going 2 mph over the speed limit.

When you tell me the number of bike fatalities that are caused by those
actions, you have a case.

Meanwhile, nobody here is advocating wrong-way riding, no lights at
night, etc. If you want to argue against those, you'll need to find
someone else to argue with.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 09:23 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/14/2019 11:49 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 04:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

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.



Was the cruiser hiding beind a billboard? Camouflaged as a parked and
empty private car?


Interesting question. I suppose spotting a patrol car might be a
reasonable criterion for "Did you check well enough?"


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 09:32 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 9:44 AM, John B. wrote:

You use the word "obsession" as though it meant "obsession with only
major criminals" . So O.K.. we will be obsessed with only major
criminals... who decides who and what is major. The news has it that
Carlos Ghosn is charged with at least $8.8 million in fraud. Can we
say that anything less is inconsequential? Or do we use the term
"everyone knows" to decide what to condemn?

Someone who "rolls a stop" is committing a minor sin, unless it
doesn't turn out to have been safe and someone is badly injured or
dies as a result.

Please note that it isn't usually determined to have been unsafe un
till after the accident happens.


Doc was talking about "SAFELY rolling a stop sign." It's certain that
bicyclists have been ticketed for precisely that.

But if we define "rolling stop" as proceeding if it seems safe after
slowing to a slow speed instead of a perfect stop: Do you have an
incident where that behavior led to some serious injury of another party?

FWIW, I've had several friends topple off their bikes as a result of
stopping then re-starting, when they would not have fallen if they'd not
stopped. Heck, I did it once myself (although not on a public road).


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 09:33 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 5:22 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

In Germany, we distinguish between "law" and "regulations".

Philosophiocally speaking, the law is what ensures a peaceful society,
regulation is what ensures a smooth-running society.


I like that distinction.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 15th 19 10:02 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 10:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:56:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
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.


When that's said to enforce "Bicyclists should ride in the gutter" as
Andy did, then yes, it is then anti-cyclist.


Your logic that some how we can ignore the fact that riding in the
gutter, or even getting off and walking is somehow a worse fate than
being hit by a car seems a bit strange.


I think I've taken four different cycling classes over the years. I know
I've read many dozens of books and articles on traffic cycling
techniques. I've written quite a few myself, too, but I suppose those
don't count.

In any case, the writers and instructors in all of those agree that it
is safer to ride where one is visible and has room to avoid hazards,
instead of riding in the gutter.

I recommend you read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It comes in editions
for both drive-on-right and drive-on-left countries. (I helped with the
American edition.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[email protected] April 15th 19 10:27 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 6:16:36 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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


I'm two houses down from a stop sign and half of the cars don't even slow down. And even though the signs going into the residential area clearly says no trucks we have trucks morning, noon and evening.

Sir Ridesalot April 15th 19 10:30 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2019 11:49 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 04:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

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.



Was the cruiser hiding beind a billboard? Camouflaged as a parked and
empty private car?


Interesting question. I suppose spotting a patrol car might be a
reasonable criterion for "Did you check well enough?"


--
- Frank Krygowski


The cop was a fair distance back on a road that crosses the road my buddy was on. The cop car was parked and hidden by a berm that was at 90 degrees to the route my buddy was riding.

Cheers

[email protected] April 15th 19 10:31 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 10:45:19 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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


I probably only stop at less than half of stop signs. Of course most of my routes are familiar and I know what the traffic patterns are and I have a very good view of traffic.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

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