dragoscscc

Hello,

Long time rider, however most of the time I stick to the bike paths and such. Recently rode in the city and was surprised by how many riders ran red lights. Slowed down, looked both ways and if clear kept on going. Is there some new law going on that I don't know about? Completely illegal? Illegal but generally accepted? One of them yelled at me to go through the light... "It's legal, stop and yield, look it up..." or something along those lines.

Not trying to start a big argument for/against, just trying to get more info. Apparently been under a rock for some time.

Cleveland OH, BTW.

Thanks

D

DrkAngel

Not legal! (in New York State anyhow. Stop! ... look ... then go (right-on-red only). )

Generally expected by most motorists!
Most, but not all!

Then there are the AHs that will insist on taking their right of way, especially, if you don't stop!

556x45

I've never heard of anything like that in CA. Granted I am kinda new, but I'm roughly 90% sure you can't run reds here.

Looigi

Don't know about OH, but Idaho law for bicycles is to treat stop signs like yield signs and red lights like stop signs. In both cases, you don't have the right of way and need to yield to cross traffic. This is what I do when riding in Idaho, among other places.

ngateguy

It is illegal in Ohio to run red lights, not to mention just flat out rude and stupid. There are many riders who think that just because they are on a bike and saving the environment means they do not have to obey the law. The only exception I make when it comes to red lights is ones that are triggered. If I cannot trigger the light than I treat it as a stop sign and come to a complete stop and wait for traffic to clear before I proceed.

achoo

It's arrogance.

"The law doesn't apply to ME!"

Now you get to watch how many posters try to justify that.

dpeters11

Technically, treating a red light as a stop sign if it isn't being triggered is a violation of Ohio law. There is a bill currently in the legislature to make this legal, as well as require a three foot passing distance. However, there is at least one major opponent on the committee.

Brandonub

I think you'd have a tough time finding someone that said, "I'm on a bike and saving the environment, so I don't have to obey the law". It's more along the lines of "this law is poorly crafted, violating it is best for me in this situation, and nearly harmless to others". Outright running red lights seems like a bad idea, but coming to a stop and then proceeding if there's no cross traffic seems reasonable enough.

gcottay

Would it also be reasonable enough for motor vehicle operators to use the same practice? If not, why not?

genec

Would they actually come to a complete stop and actually look past the hood of their cars? Or merely pull the same stunts as a Right on Red...

BTW this practice is legal and done regularly for flashing red traffic lights, so it is not as if there isn't some precedent.

Brandonub

No, it would generally not be reasonable for motor vehicles to operate using the same principle at intersections. The primarily reason for this is potential and likely damage to others being massively greater if a driver is mistaken than a cyclist. This is not the only reason though - it is also worth noting that cyclists have a better vantage point from which to determine if traffic is coming, greater agility to potentially recover from a mistake, are generally more engaged in their means of travel and attentive to the circumstance rather than on "autopilot", and consume much less space, allowing for quicker intersection clearance.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be particularly apoplectic about a motorist exercising the same discretion in a lightly trafficked area, if they were actually making a full stop and behaving alertly. Following laws is generally a sound idea, and if you break them and bad things happen you should be held responsible, but I don't find it crucial that people treat laws as sacrosanct.

achoo

You're new here, aren't you? It's usually "I'm on a bike so I don't have to obey the law." or some rationalized variation thereof.

I do wonder how many cyclists who can't wait for a light to turn green and go through red lights turn around make fun of drivers who are too impatient to wait behind a cyclist.

achoo

Doesn't really matter.

Ever wonder why riding in traffic is safer and easier than riding on a MUP?

Predictability.

So why do bicyclists get to act unpredictably? Too impatient to wait?

dpeters11

The problem is that we want the same road rights as a car (minus certain roads), and that includes following the laws. We should stop at a stop light, until it's green, or otherwise legal to turn left or right on red. This also means not rolling through a stop sign. Stop, look, continue.

Brandonub

Can you find me someone saying that? As near as I can tell, the sentiment is (usually), "I don't think it's crucial that people strictly adhere to all laws, and this is one that I choose not to adhere to". Personally, I've been known to travel at 5 MPH over the speed limit while driving, do rolling stops at stop signs, and jaywalk. This isn't, "yay, I'm on a bike, I can break laws", it's, "I will use my discretion and if something bad happens while I'm breaking a law, I'll accept responsibility". I know not everyone alive holds that view, and that's fine, but I greatly doubt that many people are consistent in the insistence that all laws must be followed.

You really don't see any relevance to weighting relative risk factors of these actions?

Brandonub

Blithe dismissals absent any real reply don't really matter.

No, I don't wonder about this at all. I've ridden both and am thus intimately familiar with why.

Who, exactly, is going to be victimized by the unpredictability of a cyclist going through a red light where no cross traffic is present, aside from your sensibilities?

Brandonub

Yes, I'd like both the same rights as a car and the same general leeway and discretion that's granted to cars under many circumstances. There are numerous actions that are technically illegal, but rarely ticketed or even commented on because they're accepted as normal, discretionary parts of driving.

Rootman

I for one use a mix of rules.

If I'm the only one there and I know it's a light that I might have trouble tripping then I slow to a crawl and go through. If there is any traffic at all I stop.

There are a few lights that if I am FIRST in line to go straight and there are cars behind me and I know that all I am waiting for is the left turn arrows to shift to all green AND there is no oncoming traffic wanting to make a left turn in front of me, I will sometimes jump the light to get ahead of the traffic to avoid the potential bottleneck right after the intersection. Quite often the oppsing lane after the intersection is turned into a left turn lane and opens to 2 lanes shortly afterward. I know where these situations are and I use them to clear the intersection before cars crowd behind me.

When I'm out in the country at a stop sign and have clear line of site both directions and am confident I am clear I slow to a crawl and roll through. In the city i typically stop, lights AND signs. There are a few 4 way stops that I know I am making a right turn so I just slow at an ALL WAY stop and then make the turn IF no other cars are there. And occasionally there is a stop sign in back streets that are just there to slow traffic down in long stretches for children's sake, I slow down and coast through them. Of course if I see a cop I make sure and stop and put both feet down. The police around here CAN enforce it but seldom do, I don't want to find out if the cop is just in a bad mood and wants to take it out on someone.

By all means if your city enforces it on bikers then DO IT, it's not worth the points or fines to get ahead.

achoo

What'd I say about rationalizations?

Oh, yeah:

Q.E.D.

achoo

By doing that, you perpetuate the image of cyclists as unpredictable scofflaws and thus make way too many drivers less predictable around cyclists - even the ones that aren't aggressive. What'd I say about arrogance?

I predict posters will try to rationalize breaking the law, you do just that.

Why can't you wait a few seconds?

That's the same damn refrain cyclists use on impatient drivers.

Brandonub

Well, if you can't muster any kind of genuine argument, you can always just go with insults, that's a sure way to "win" any discussion.

This is nonsensical; no one reasonably adjudges drivers as "unpredictable scofflaws" when they travel 5 MPH over the speed limit, and no one should judge cyclists as such if they observe one safely crossing an intersection following a light.

You predicted that people will argue that you're wrong and I did so. Wow, your powers of prognostication verge on omniscience!

There's no real reason to if there's no traffic around, a light may or may not trigger from a bike (I don't know the schedules for all lights), and if there does happen to be a car behind me, it's actually in their best interest that I clear the intersection and ride AFRAP on the other side so they can proceed with their day.

You're still not bothering to consider proportionality of risk to others?

achoo

I didn't predict posters would argue with me.

I predicted posters would try to rationalize breaking the law, and you did just that.

"Proportionality of risk" is a rationalization.

Brandonub

OK, great, let's say that's true for a moment. Why is it incorrect?

Chaco

That may be so, but that rationalization is a guiding principal of probably half of all jurisprudence and regulation. Speed limits are set with that in mind. Stop signs are placed with that in mind. Prescription pharmaceuticals with known side effects are placed on the market with that in mind.

If we did away with the concept of proportionality of risk, society would grind to a halt.

MMACH 5

Some of us stop. Some of us don't.

We'll both argue that we're right. And we'll both use belittling tactics to make our points.
This will go on for a long while.

To answer the OP's question, it's only legal to not stop in Idaho.