Troul 

I guess the light heartedly correspondence is a bit much for some.

The real part of the discussion that I am not in favor of is the fact that a cycling person is expected to dismount & walk the bicycle across the roadway when using a crossing at an intersection with a traffic signal.
couple that with the placement of the button that most intersections have for a person to depress to activate the signal. Those are awfully close to the road & often beyond an arms reach from the paved section, requiring a person to step into the mud/grass/water where debris often collects.

Most roads I ride on are 40+ mph posted. If I were to not ride on those, I'd almost never have a place to ride.

livedarklions

Arguing is a form of communication, and you are definitely arguing by falsely claiming that a bunch of wrong stuff is "black and white". You're actually attempting a reductio ad absurdum by postulating silly applications of the principle that bicycles are vehicles subject to the rules of the road that legislatures have already anticipated and specifically made exceptions. You also tried to liken bicycles to wheelchairs, which no traffic code that I'm aware of does.

I don't normally read the kayaker's posts, but I see he has set you straight on Mich. law and minimum speeds. How many things do you need to get wrong before you admit you actually are wheel spinning?

I'd also like to see an example of a minimum 45 MPH road that allows cycling.

njkayaker

This "expectation" only exists in your head.

It's "light heartedly correspondence" to you but dumb to everybody else.

You are admitting to trolling here.

It can be hard enough for people to understand the actual laws. Your shoveling garbage into discussions makes it worse.

livedarklions

If by "light heartedly", you mean "absurdly false", I think joking about bad readings of the law on a cycling advocacy forum is a bit like joking about bombs at airport security. We really don't have much choice but to believe that you're actually posting your understanding of the law.

I know roughly the area where OP is riding. That is not the expectation at all--no one expects the cyclist to push the button or walk. The expectation is that the cyclist will obey the red traffic light when operating in the road. OP was in a bike lane on the road, and a bike lane is not a crosswalk, ergo the cyclist is required to obey the stop light.

BTW, you're big on claiming something is black or white. 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).

By "40+ MPH", are you referring to minimum speed posting or speed limits? I ride on 55 and 60 mph roads a lot, there's no posted minimum speed. Michigan is among the states that have the "by their nature can have no application" provision, btw, so even if the minimums didn't specify they were for motor vehicles, it's obvious that a requirement of 40 mph minimums on cyclists can have no application.

GhostRider62

Good news that Slumerville is so cleaned up that Cops are bearing down on scofflaw cyclists blowing thru lights.

I try to pretend I am just a regular vehicle and wait my turn although I plan my routes to avoid left turns at busy traffic lighted intersections. Anything inside 495 would be out for me.

Troul 

That's beyond extreme for trying to compare. LOL wow.
that I agree. Use of commonsense in conjunction with applicable traffic laws.
YMMV; location, law enforcement personnel perception & interpretation of the law are some important factors to consider.
I didn't know of that language until now.
When I referred to 40+MPH, it is for the posted signage along the roadsides. When only motorized vehicles are allow, there will be signs put in place that clearly marks such roads. Of course, I would not disobey those posted signs when cycling about.

Again, my butt burn is when a crossing at a traffic signal is expecting a cyclists to dismount & push there bicycle across the road. Drivers in my local area barely will wait for someone to walk across, let alone for someone to dismount & push there bicycle across while clickity clacking in roadie shoes. That's asking to be ran over. With that said, I will face the music if/when I ever am confronted by a LEO & issued a citation.

njkayaker

Repeating this doesn't make it true. It's still nonsense.

Basically, no one does this thing that is "burning your butt" and they manage to still be riding legally. The thing that bothers you so much is all in your head!

What the heck are you talking about? Minimum speed signs are rare and found on highways. You aren't riding on these sorts of roads and these signs don't apply to bicyclists.

Your ignorance is as deep as the hole you keep digging.

Troul 

I stop digging at 6', then I move to another plot.

OMEN!

Thank you all for the replies!


Trying to stay on topic - what Christophe said here is kind of what I was getting at. Surprisingly, I am allowed to ride without dismounting, on the sidewalk (I always believe this to be illegal). 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? Not trying to be a wise-a**, but I feel like I have more questions now. How does this impact when a red light isn't triggered - would I have to press the button and then walk across?


*Edit* I will be going to a bike swap on Sunday in Somerville and will ask around and see if I can get any city-specific answers.

njkayaker

Generally, towns can say that riding bicycles on the sidewalk is illegal. That is, the local towns are allowed to override what the state says about bicycling on sidewalks.

If you are on the sidewalk (and it's legal to ride there), you can enter the crosswalk. It's always (and clearly) legal to walk your bike in the crosswalk (or sidewalk). Whether you are allowed to ride there is going to be ambiguous. That is, even if the law doesn't make it explicit, it doesn't mean the cop isn't going to tell you not to.

Generally speaking, the only way to be a "legitimate" user of a crosswalk is by entering the crosswalk from a sidewalk.

It's not at all clear that, when you are riding in the road, you can ride over to the crosswalk and ride in the crosswalk.

The most reliable/legally-safe options are:

1. Just stay in the bike lane and follow the traffic lights (like you are supposed to).
2. Get off your bike and walk over to the crosswalk and walk your bike across.

Most riders are going to take the first option.

njkayaker

Practically speaking, this isn’t quite true.

The officer will write the ticket based on whatever he thinks the law says and leave it to you to work it out in court.

SurferRosa

I think the cop was insane for pulling over the op, but, then again, I often wish I lived in such a place where cops actually enforced laws.

Chistophe516

While this may seem like a good suggestion. The DMV doesn't actively track the difference in the bicycle laws, one locale to the next.

Before I moved from the MD suburbs of DC in 2019. To a neighboring county of the NC capitol. I had looked into the bike laws in MD. While the State said one thing, and the city to the south agreed w/ the State. The city surrounding the tiny town I lived in, disagreed w/ the State.

livedarklions

I can't believe how much people are obfuscating the obvious. The cop wasn't saying you need to get off and walk the bike to cross. He was just saying that the walk sign applies to people who are walking. If you want that sign to apply to you, you need to get off the bike. Otherwise, you have to wait out the red light because you are operating a bicycle on a way.

Are people really confused by the idea that if they're riding on a road, they're expected to obey traffic signals? OP, you ran a red light in front of a cop and he let you off with a warning that won't even go on your driving record. That's it, end of story.

livedarklions

Well, it would have been if I hadn't qualified it with "a bit like" and explained the exact basis for the comparison. When you post incorrect information on a cycling safety forum, there's always the danger that someone might act on the basis of that disinformation. The comparison is apt, people joke about bombs because they didn't expect to get taken seriously. They think it's innocuous, but it isn't. I honestly don't believe you were joking, but if you were, you don't get to be indignant when your "jokes" get corrected.

livedarklions

MA law has a quirk in that it doesn't specify whether crosswalks are "sidewalks" for purposes of bike riding. The cop wasn't answering that question and it doesn't have a clear answer. There might be a local ordinance, but I'm not that interested. I can tell you that on the Minuteman, there's signage that indicates cyclists are not protected in a crosswalk unless they walk your bike. I know at least one MA MUP indicates that you are supposed to get off the bike to cross the road (I forget which one, but not near Boston) and literally every single cyclist ignores the signage.

irc

The mistake was possibly going through red in front of the cop. I always check first. If any of the boys in blue are in sight I wait.

njkayaker

This, obviously.

The issue was that OP was (somehow) under the “impression” that what he did was legal. He didn’t get that he was going through a red light.

njkayaker

If the DMV happens to contradict the cop, your choice is arguing with the cop (which seems like something one should work to avoid) or just not doing the thing the cop doesn’t want you to do.

curbtender

You can argue but for them to cite you they need to identify the law you broke. Not a Judge Dread world yet, lol. Ever notice if you keep quiet while people vent that they have to listen to themselves?

njkayaker

Of course, but they can easily pick "any" (vaguely applicable) law. So this doesn't really save you from having to argue and go to court..

curbtender

When I dated my wife, court clerk, I would go sit in court before she got off work. It's really not that big of a deal. Best place to get your point across but you better know what you are talking about.

njkayaker

It's not likely the OP would be going to the court for some other reason at the same time his hearing is scheduled.

It depends on how much your time is worth. Most (nearly all) people would likely choose to avoid it.

curbtender

My standard reply when a friend tries to pay me for helping them out is "If you are going to pay me then you cant afford me". It's all for entertainment now days.

Bmach

https://bikesafeboston.com/post/5814...nvisible-zebra