Ticketed for riding through Walk signal
Likes For Milton Keynes:
07-29-23, 10:13 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
Yes, unless there's a uniqueness for bikes explicitly in the law, this is the basis of it. More on an interesting application of that later...
Depends on where in Somerville - specifically it is not allowed in any of the seven business districts - the ones that have "square" in their names.
Presumably, if it is a sidewalk legal to ride on and you entered the crosswalk from the sidewalk.
Question is, from a position instead stuck at the light on the road, can you get to the crosswalk you want to use without jumping the curb to the sidewalk (going to look a bit dodgy to officer friendly) or first technically violating the light in road user mode? We could in theory extend the discussion to if cutting into the sidewalk further up the block because you see the light will be red is technically (il)legal to do using a private driveway, commercial driveway...
That sign sounds like a slightly odd if not entirely incorrect interpretation by a locality. If it said "privileged" then it would be correct.
Massachusetts is indeed one of the majority of states which do not grant right of way over road traffic at crosswalks to bicycle users the way they do to pedestrians (and yes, pedestrians include dismounted cyclists)
This is probably on the whole wise because cyclists all too often don't move in the way uncontrolled crosswalks are designed to be used.
Essentially every state prohibits a person from walking or running into a crosswalk when a vehicle is too close to stop - but such appearing out of nowhere is all too characteristic of bike usage, especially when vegetation is allowed to grow out of control as it is at too many rail trail crossings.
However, if there's a proper signalized crossing where the signal is legally binding on drivers (the light for the road goes from green through an appropriate yellow to solid red) then a person on a bike should be able to use that with almost the same confidence as a pedestrian.
Unfortunately, Mass DOT has recently gotten into the habit of building improper signalized crossings, which go red only very briefly, then switch to a blinking red and have a sign authorizing drivers to proceed "if clear". Since the signal facing the trail is at this point still at least in its blinking phase (and possibly even its fully authorizing one) many follow-on users misinterpret that as a suggestion to hammer through before the end of the cycle - when in reality, what it means is that cars are going to be starting to move again because the person they were aware of is likely already across. Worse, in unactivated mode the things are off entirely rather than green, so drivers tend to dismiss them as derelict. And when they do activate, they have such an absurdly long yellow that drivers who do note them stop and insistently wait for you to cross, even though the signal still says not to - but given how absurdly short the solid red phase is, if traffic is stopping you're probably better off getting across before it starts up again.
And then there are the white flashing ones. I can't find any mention in traffic law of such things having any independent meaning at all - they exist to call attention to the possible presence of someone, but do not create new independent facts of traffic law. So in a state where cyclists do not get the right of way at crossing, a light that starts flashing when any trail user approaches creates what is technically a bit of a standoff.
Only that's not so clearcut either. Remember the early argument that on the road you follow the road rules?
Well, one of the minor, shorter crossings of the Charles River towards Boston has one of these bike signals to deconflict those coming off the sidewalk of the bridge and heading to a bike lane on southbound street that follows, from those coming across the bridge in the right lane who might like to turn right onto the ramp for Storrow Drive.
But if you road ride across the bridge (which is probably the smart thing to do), then because you're on the road and hopefully either occupying the entire right lane to the exclusion of anyone who might turn right (or at least aware of that possibility) then I believe you're obligated to follow the ordinary traffic light and not the "bike" light. And I'd say that's true if even towards the far side of the intersection you decide to take aim for the mixed merits of subsequent bike lane rather than continue on the road. But it could be an interesting argument with the Boston PD. On a practical level, if you're in the right lane, you can't just stay there waiting for the bike light while the car light is green... That signal might be bike shaped, but in truth it governs users of the pedestrian sidewalk (IIRC its in addition to one person shaped)
Does that mean I could have, after yielding to the pedestrians, crossed without dismounting in the 'zebra stripe' crosswalk rather than in the bike lane and been within my rights?
Question is, from a position instead stuck at the light on the road, can you get to the crosswalk you want to use without jumping the curb to the sidewalk (going to look a bit dodgy to officer friendly) or first technically violating the light in road user mode? We could in theory extend the discussion to if cutting into the sidewalk further up the block because you see the light will be red is technically (il)legal to do using a private driveway, commercial driveway...
Massachusetts is indeed one of the majority of states which do not grant right of way over road traffic at crosswalks to bicycle users the way they do to pedestrians (and yes, pedestrians include dismounted cyclists)
This is probably on the whole wise because cyclists all too often don't move in the way uncontrolled crosswalks are designed to be used.
Essentially every state prohibits a person from walking or running into a crosswalk when a vehicle is too close to stop - but such appearing out of nowhere is all too characteristic of bike usage, especially when vegetation is allowed to grow out of control as it is at too many rail trail crossings.
However, if there's a proper signalized crossing where the signal is legally binding on drivers (the light for the road goes from green through an appropriate yellow to solid red) then a person on a bike should be able to use that with almost the same confidence as a pedestrian.
Unfortunately, Mass DOT has recently gotten into the habit of building improper signalized crossings, which go red only very briefly, then switch to a blinking red and have a sign authorizing drivers to proceed "if clear". Since the signal facing the trail is at this point still at least in its blinking phase (and possibly even its fully authorizing one) many follow-on users misinterpret that as a suggestion to hammer through before the end of the cycle - when in reality, what it means is that cars are going to be starting to move again because the person they were aware of is likely already across. Worse, in unactivated mode the things are off entirely rather than green, so drivers tend to dismiss them as derelict. And when they do activate, they have such an absurdly long yellow that drivers who do note them stop and insistently wait for you to cross, even though the signal still says not to - but given how absurdly short the solid red phase is, if traffic is stopping you're probably better off getting across before it starts up again.
And then there are the white flashing ones. I can't find any mention in traffic law of such things having any independent meaning at all - they exist to call attention to the possible presence of someone, but do not create new independent facts of traffic law. So in a state where cyclists do not get the right of way at crossing, a light that starts flashing when any trail user approaches creates what is technically a bit of a standoff.
I find it ironic that you would think that a "walk" sign means "ride". I know of a few places in MA where there's actually a separate signal for bicycles, there's actually a red, yellow or green picture of a bicycle on the lights. That's what "black or white" actually looks like (albeit in color).
Well, one of the minor, shorter crossings of the Charles River towards Boston has one of these bike signals to deconflict those coming off the sidewalk of the bridge and heading to a bike lane on southbound street that follows, from those coming across the bridge in the right lane who might like to turn right onto the ramp for Storrow Drive.
But if you road ride across the bridge (which is probably the smart thing to do), then because you're on the road and hopefully either occupying the entire right lane to the exclusion of anyone who might turn right (or at least aware of that possibility) then I believe you're obligated to follow the ordinary traffic light and not the "bike" light. And I'd say that's true if even towards the far side of the intersection you decide to take aim for the mixed merits of subsequent bike lane rather than continue on the road. But it could be an interesting argument with the Boston PD. On a practical level, if you're in the right lane, you can't just stay there waiting for the bike light while the car light is green... That signal might be bike shaped, but in truth it governs users of the pedestrian sidewalk (IIRC its in addition to one person shaped)
Last edited by UniChris; 07-29-23 at 10:55 PM.
