Running a red light on a bike at a photo-enforced intersection

For those who may not know: Some municipalities in the States are installing
automated cameras at select intersections. The cameras take pictures of
vehicles who have run the red light, and mail a ticket to the registered
owner of the motor vehicle, based on the license plate.

Do red-light-running-bikes have anything to be concerned about? I suppose it
would vary by jurisdiction. Obviously, there is no license plate, so bikes
would seem to be immune.

These automated camera are real money makers for the governments who own
them, which is the main reason they have become popular. They pay for
themselves in short order. Safety has little to do with it, but that is not
how the politicians spin it.

J.

"Jay" wrote: (clip) These automated camera are real money makers for the
governments who own
them, which is the main reason they have become popular. They pay for
themselves in short order. Safety has little to do with it, but that is
not how the politicians spin it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is rare that something beneficial also *produces* revenue, but I think we
have it here. Are you claiming that there is no risk involved when cars run
red lights? How would you feel about someone running a light and
broadsiding you on your bike, with the explanation, "I didn't see him"? Or,
"those bikes don't belong on the street."

I think that cyclists that run lights when they don't have a clear shot are
nuts. Darwin's law probably keeps their numbers from becoming significant.
I'm not commenting at all about the *advisability* of cyclists running
lights.

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Jay" wrote: (clip) These automated camera are real money makers for the
governments who own
them, which is the main reason they have become popular. They pay for
themselves in short order. Safety has little to do with it, but that is
not how the politicians spin it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is rare that something beneficial also *produces* revenue, but I think
we have it here. (verbose sermon clipped)


I ride to work at 5am. I can see for .25 miles in each direction (left and
right) at the intersection in question.

The risk to all parties involved approaches zero.

J.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:44:44 -0600, "Jay" wrote:


I ride to work at 5am. I can see for .25 miles in each direction (left and
right) at the intersection in question.

The risk to all parties involved approaches zero.

J.


I also run 'em on an early morning commute. I'll also do the old
right-uturn-right maneuver in certain situations.

My checkbook is $75 lighter because one of those cameras got me doing
a rolling right turn on red--another situation where I was endangering
no one. But the video didn't lie--I didn't stop so it cost me.

I'd like to blow through one (assuming no cross traffic) just to see
if I'd set off the camera.

On Feb 26, 8:11*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:44:44 -0600, "Jay" wrote:
I ride to work at 5am. I can see for .25 miles in each direction (left and
right) at the intersection in question.

The risk to all parties involved approaches zero.

J.

I also run 'em on an early morning commute. *I'll also do the old
right-uturn-right maneuver in certain situations. *

My checkbook is $75 lighter because one of those cameras got me doing
a rolling right turn on red--another situation where I was endangering
no one. *But the video didn't lie--I didn't stop so it cost me.

I'd like to blow through one (assuming no cross traffic) just to see
if I'd set off the camera.

what happens when you roll through reds is that it becomes habit
forming. your mind becomes less attuned to reacting to seeing a red
light. You will find yourself rolling through a red by force of habit
when you should've stopped. It can also influence how you drive. My
basic rule is to always stop, either for a sign or a red light- if I
stop and look and it's ok to go then I go- and if that happens to be
while the light is still red, so what ? I just don't do that if a cops
around because that would be asking him to stop you.

"Jay" wrote: (verbose sermon clipped)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Verbose? Sermon? What about your original post?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I ride to work at 5am. I can see for .25 miles in each direction (left and
right) at the intersection in question.

The risk to all parties involved approaches zero.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you notice that I specifically excluded commenting on the practice of
running lights?

wrote: (clip) My checkbook is $75 lighter because one of
those cameras got me doing
a rolling right turn on red(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm puzzled how the video was able to identify you.

In article ,
"Jay" writes:

Do red-light-running-bikes have anything to be concerned about? I suppose it
would vary by jurisdiction. Obviously, there is no license plate, so bikes
would seem to be immune.

I can think of one way to find out.

But another point: maybe the presence of these devices
indicates the absence of real traffic cops. Or maybe not.

These automated camera are real money makers for the governments who own
them, which is the main reason they have become popular. They pay for
themselves in short order. Safety has little to do with it, but that is not
how the politicians spin it.

I suspect auto insurance companies like these
doohickeys more than politicians do. And that's
not a bad thing; fewer collisions -- lower auto
insurance rates. I'd bet private auto insurance
companies bring a strong political lobby to bear,
though.

Greater Vancouver has red light cameras, and the
implementation isn't based upon any sort of entrapment
as there is signage at all the intersections so equipped,
and the cameras themselves are readily discernable by
anyone who doesn't have their head up their (|).
Anyone who does have their head up their (|) shouldn't be
driving, and certainly shouldn't be running red lights
anyways.

I dunno how it is in other places, but most red light
running drivers here seem to be the last guys in strings
of left-turners.

I don't believe red light cameras are aimed (figuratively
or literally) at cyclists. The folks who implement them
hardly know cyclists exist. It's a car-centricity thing.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Feb 26, 9:51*pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:
wrote: *(clip) My checkbook is $75 lighter because one of

those cameras got me doing a rolling right turn on red(clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm puzzled how the video was able to identify you.

maybe they showed the video to the public and asked who was that
masked avenger ? then he volunteered to help incriminate the
individual and proceeded to do so by identifying himself as the
brazzen offender to which the court found him guilty and thus imposed
a fine of $75 for which he attended a local pawn shop and pawned some
valuable items possibly heirlooms in order to raise the necessary
funds to pay the fine which he then did by riding through the same
camera'd red light intersection again. when subsequently it arose that
they discovered another incriminating infraction and inquired if it
was indeed he who violated the law once again he responded and said

In article ,
"Leo Lichtman" writes in part:

I think that cyclists that run lights when they don't have a clear shot are
nuts. Darwin's law probably keeps their numbers from becoming significant.
I'm not commenting at all about the *advisability* of cyclists running
lights.

I don't think there are that many. Cyclists that run lights
when they don't have a clear shot, that is. Some drivers who
are critical of cyclists, like to generally characterize
cyclists as such, but I think they greatly overstate their case.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of drivers who get
clobbered while trying to get over uncontrolled level RR
crossings in vain attempts to beat oncoming trains greatly
surpasses the number of cyclists who get clobbered while
running red lights. Unfortunately, so-called "Social Darwinism"
apparently hasn't dwindled the number of those drivers.
And I opine riders are more attuned to our vulnerability
when dealing with automobile cross traffic, than car drivers
are when dealing with trains.

Nobody in their right mind wants to get clobbered.

I guess I'm conjecturing cyclists are better at assessing
risk than non-cycling drivers, 'cuz a bike isn't much more
than a metal spider-web.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca