View Single Post
Old 04-29-24, 04:18 PM
  #18  
urbanknight
Over the hill
 
urbanknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 24,426

Bikes: Giant Defy, Giant Revolt

Liked 1,265 Times in 718 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve B.
We all are aware that the typical traffic laws enacted are generally appropriate for motorized vehicles, but not necessarily for cyclists. Thus some states are changing their traffic laws for cyclists to allow a slow and look for a stop sign and a stop and look, then proceed for a red light. I am frequently at a light where I can tell the sensor isn’t triggering the light for me to proceed as I am not a 3,000 metal vehicle. Is the law then appropriate for a cyclist ?. No.

I am frequently running red lights in a bike. Am I concerned with what a driver seeing me do this thinks ?, hell no. For every motorist getting their panties in a wad over me running a red light on a bike, they need to stop and look at their own behavior of speeding, failing to us a turn signal, cell phone use while driving, running red lights, etc…..I’m doing what I need to do to safely ride my bike in traffic.
My point is people think they are making sure it's clear and safe when they get into an accident. Do you think anyone who has an accident (motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian) says "Yeah, I knew I was going to get hit, but I decided to go anyway"? No, they almost always say the same thing: "I didn't see (whatever danger that ended up hitting them) coming".

I don't know about NY, but CA has laws allowing anyone to proceed with caution if a light is not sensing them or otherwise malfunctioning.

Allowing cyclists to slow and then proceed is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that people's definitions of "safe" can vary.
__________________
It's like riding a bicycle
urbanknight is offline