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.