Comment by bathtub365
Comment by bathtub365 20 hours ago
Yep, including not being allowed to run red lights. It would also be great if they had license plates so you could easily report dangerous behaviour.
Comment by bathtub365 20 hours ago
Yep, including not being allowed to run red lights. It would also be great if they had license plates so you could easily report dangerous behaviour.
>Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.
IIUC, cars are pretty much universally permitted to go through red lights at least 1/3 of the time -- right on red is legal (AFAIK) in all 50 states. In many states, left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street is also legal.
That's true, but there are additional special rules that apply to cyclists, and sometimes motorcyclists, allowing them to go straight at a red light under specific circumstances.
Depends on the state. Some are specifically "if there's a vehicle detection sensor and it doesn't detect your bike after 90 seconds", others are just "cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign".
Riding a bike without a helmet is permitted in most states, too. Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
That's a new and moved goalpost far from the original discussion, but sure.
Is there a specific state's laws that you think describe a circumstances when a bike may proceed through a red light, but it is unsafe to do so?
If so, how does that unsafety compare to your opinion on cars turning right on red?
Let me be more direct: because it’s legal for cyclists to run red lights, you think they should? I hope you can see what I am getting at now.
You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement.
You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is indeed a double standard and is inherently unfair.
Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything.
I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights.
Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bike lanes where you're from? Since bicycles and cars are fundamentally different vehicles, they should have different sets of laws applied to them. To try to apply the same set of rules would be inherently unfair. You're welcome to try to argue that that's actually fair, but you've currently backed up your stance with nothing but fake leading questions and baseless claims.
"The law prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"
> It would also be great if they had license plates
Lol, like hell it would. The supposed "danger" is not worth more legislation and overreach.
Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.