CliffordK

Cyclist safety should be considered, and intersections create dangerous conditions for cyclists.

If this went to court, I think the cyclist could argue that riding during the pedestrian signal was safer than not riding early.

retswerb

Courts don't decide based on safety, they decide based on law (or their interpretation thereof). I wouldn't see this argument helping much.

mschwett 

a new law in california makes this legal, and it is definitely illegal in the meantime. hopefully other states follow suit!



looking at mass law, unfortunately it looks like the officer in this case was right.

CliffordK

You're probably right. A bunch of laws are written to protect individuals. Yet, the entire legal system uses shockingly little judgement in whether their application of the laws is actually improving safety to the individuals involved.

A jury has some discretion as to the application of the laws, but the system has made themselves so busy prosecuting petty crimes that they don't have time to seat a jury.

Steve B.

NYC changed the green light timing at a lot of intersections so that the walk sign triggers 7 seconds before the green for cars. Lets the pedestrians get well into the intersection when the cars get to go, hopefully they see that there are pedestrians in the crosswalk. Such and easy change to implement,

njkayaker

The OP was in a bike lane.

Daniel4

I think the OP was describing a scattered intersection when he stated "for all crossings."

In Toronto, we have one major intersection at Yonge St and Bloor that is a scattered intersection. At one phase, red lights are on for all car traffic going n-s and e-w while pedestrians can cross even diagonally from nw to se.

If on my bike I want to utilize this phase, I get off my bike and walk it. Once I was lazy and remained on my bike as I used my foot to push off the road. I was a little too fast and almost ran into someone.

So from then on whenever I want to use the walk signal, I get off and walk the bike. If I want to stay on and ride, I wait for the green light.

79pmooney

Oregon traffic code is on-line and anybody can access it. But that is the state. Local laws may apply and may or may not be available on-line.

There are traffic laws I break fairly often quite intentionally. And I may come before a judge someday. Running lights at dangerous intersections when no cars are coming. One intersection I take a left at from the left only lane. There is a bike symbol to trigger the light that usually but not always works (with my steel and ti bikes). Parked over that symbol I've had trucks going through on their green miss me by 24". I would much, much rather be 20 yards beyond the intersection and risking a traffic stop than be on that symbol at that moment. And I'd tell a judge that he may have to impose whatever penalty on me but I chose the course that gave me the best chance of living (in line with operating my bike as a vehicle, not getting off and walking). I could also point out to a judge I've been hit by cars in intersections while operating completely legally but never when I was illegally in an empty intersection.

njkayaker

Local jurisdictions don't make laws about red lights or crosswalks. Think about the mayhem that would result from local differences for basic laws.

The important thing is to be clear about what the law actually says. That way, you aren't fooling yourself if you choose to break a law.

The "impression" the OP had about the law was wrong. If he was clear about the actual law, he probably wouldn't have chosen to break it right in front of a cop.

The best practice is probably to avoid getting in front of a judge in the first place (being somewhat "pessimistic" about what the law allows might be helpful for that). After the fact (being in front of a judge), any argument you think will work is fair game. The problem is that there are people (not you) who think the goofy arguments they plan to trot out before a judge is what the law says (which means they are fooling themselves).

indyfabz

When you are in a hole, you should not keep digging. Try thinking harder before posting to avoid the type of situation you are in now.

Troul 

holes are only bad, if its spun to appear as such.

Carry on.

livedarklions

Gotta say, if you think legal requirements in MA that cyclists obey the rules of the road while cycling on roads requires that that you need to pedal at 45+ mph, I've got some pretty bad news for you as regards to about 49 other states, give or take one or two. And no, MA isn't an Idaho stop state yet.

indyfabz

And you keep digging. Your wheelchair analogy was dumb, to put it generously.

Troul 

i try to limit my sugar intake, sugar coatings included.
I'll be sure to pass along my report card to my peers after the grades come in.

Troul 

hey, if you cant maintain 45 mph in a 45 MPH zone, that's a ticket. Black & white. Pedaling or motoring.

njkayaker

How do you manage to keep coming up with such nonsense?

It's a maximum speed limit. In the few places (pretty-much only highways) where there is an actual minimum required speed, it's less than the maximum speed limit.

Cyclists routinely ride on roads where they can't go as fast as the maximum speed limit. And here you are saying they all get tickets.

roadcrankr

I found Troul's blurb about the wheelchair a little funny.
Tongue-in-cheek, at first. He could've left it as that.
I guess his reputation precedes him around these parts.

Over the past ten years, law enforcement handed me two tickets for failing to fully stop at a four-way.
I plan to make a run for it next time! lol

scott967

Getting back to OP's issue, my state law seems a little vague about bike in a ped cross-walk. The default is that bikes can use sidewalks max 10 mph but doesn't address the crosswalk, except that it does say bike must obey no u-turn sign except can use a crosswalk if they walk the bike. I admit to sometimes making a left turn with a red light facing me, and jumping on the cross street crosswalk and then sidewalk rather than wait for a green arrow (which often I don't get unless a car shows up to trip the sensor). But don't really recommend as cars on the cross street making a right (across the crosswalk) aren't really looking for a bike to suddenly appear there. Also note in my state "crosswalk" can be marked or unmarked, in which case it is more or less extension of sidewalk at an intersection (and also sidewalk is not required to be paved in any way).

scott s.
.

Hondo Gravel

Here if you have 11 items in the 10 items or less line at the grocery store you get a citation. So yes you ran a red light.

Chistophe516

There isn't anything saying you need to dismount, in the linked MGL code, or any associated MGL code. Also, It is not up to the discretion of the officer.

livedarklions

OP wasn't riding in the crosswalk, but was crossing it in the bike lane.

livedarklions

Wrong. What the officer was claiming is that riding a bicycle is operating a bicycle while walking it is not. The statute says that if you're operating on a road, you are "subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth" which require obedience to the red light. And yes, the cop has complete discretion on what he does or doesn't issue warnings for.

livedarklions

On every road I ride, there's posted speed limits, not minimums. I've never seen an unrestricted road in MA that has a posted minimum speed. As far as I know, every other state that has a law that says bicyclists are subject to traffic laws always has an "except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application" type provision. A 45 mph minimum would obviously be such a "no application" provision Obviously, the legislatures have anticipated this " black and white" absurdity

First the wheelchairs now the minimum speed requirements, all you're demonstrating here is that you like to argue from ignorance of the actual laws.

Troul 

Can't help but to read the posted signs MPH min/max limitations. Wouldn't want to be ticketed for impeding traffic.

You say argue, I say communicate.

njkayaker

???

Minimum speed signs are not common at all and likely next-to-nonexistent on roads that are legal to bicycle on. (They appear to be signs on highways.)

In Michigan, the "impeding traffic" law only applies to motor vehicles (which doesn't include bicycles). This is generally the case in other states too. Bicyclists "holding up traffic" could possibly be subject to the "keep right" law (that most states have). But not the "impeding traffic" las.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulati...y%20with%20law.

====================
The problem is that you are wrong.