New Nevada Law re Red Lights

[NevadaWolf]

Just saw a tweet for this site: http://safeonred.com

Here's the text-

When motorcycle and bicycle riders are stopped at a traffic signal, they may be unable to trigger a green light to proceed.
[Beginning October 1st], if cyclists have waited for two traffic light cycles, they can legally move through the intersection on red, but only after safely yielding to pedestrians and other traffic.

The actual law:
NRS 484B.307, section 2, subsection 6, paragraph d

(d) After complying with the requirement to stop, a person driving a motorcycle, moped or trimobile or riding a bicycle or an electric bicycle may proceed straight through or turn right or left if:
(1) The person waits for two complete cycles of the lights or lighted arrows of the applicable official traffic-control device and the signal does not change because of a malfunction or because the signal failed to detect the presence of the motorcycle, moped, trimobile, bicycle or electric bicycle;
(2) No other device at the place prohibits either or both such turns, if applicable; and
(3) The person yields the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection.

[Falcor]

Every state should allow this, it just makes sense.

[xSean13]

Already been a law here in TN for a while. I utilized it last night!

[NevadaWolf]

Heard its been law in several places but not here. I'v always run it after waiting two signals figuring I'd argue how long was I supposed to wait just sitting there like an idiot?

Glad to see it official now.

[nightrider]

I utilize it, unofficially I think all the time, especially for left hand turns...
Sometimes I get off try to hit the button, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.
My other alternative is to just turn right and then pull a nice tight single lane u-turn, it looks good.

[alex.s]

does it matter if its law? just don't do it in front of a cop

[NevadaWolf]

Originally Posted by alex.s

does it matter if its law? just don't do it in front of a cop

And how ya supposed to tell if it's a cop down the street approaching you from behind or far enough up the road for a safe turn? Especially if it's one of those cars that have zero external indications it's a cop?

It's nice to know I can do it if necessary regardless if there's a cop around or not.

[Lychee]

Several cops on the local forum in california have stated they let the "3 light cycle, run it" slide. Make sense to have it in stone.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by NevadaWolf

And how ya supposed to tell if it's a cop down the street approaching you from behind or far enough up the road for a safe turn? Especially if it's one of those cars that have zero external indications it's a cop?

It's nice to know I can do it if necessary regardless if there's a cop around or not.

your eyes?

[NevadaWolf]

Originally Posted by alex.s

your eyes?

Headlights look like headlights at night. Gray suburbans looks like all other gray suburbans. As I said, we have cops with no markings, lights, or antennas on the exterior of the vehicle.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Several cops on the local forum in california have stated they let the "3 light cycle, run it" slide. Make sense to have it in stone.

I talked with a sergeant in the Arlington, TX police department about this very subject a few years ago (many lights in that blighted town fail to recognize motorcycles) and what she said was that if she saw me proceed through a stuck light, even if she'd sat there and watched me sit at it for half an hour, she'd write me a ticket for sure. Told me that if I had a problem with the light I should call their maintenance department. Which I have, hundreds of times, to no avail. I avoid riding in that scathole city whenever possible.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I talked with a sergeant in the Arlington, TX police department about this very subject a few years ago (many lights in that blighted town fail to recognize motorcycles) and what she said was that if she saw me proceed through a stuck light, even if she'd sat there and watched me sit at it for half an hour, she'd write me a ticket for sure. Told me that if I had a problem with the light I should call their maintenance department. Which I have, hundreds of times, to no avail. I avoid riding in that scathole city whenever possible.

That is just plain being a sh*tty person. Sometimes the world does not work in such absolutes.

[Panda]

With some lights it's impossible to know if you waited two cycles because the light never turns green for you in the first place.

[Jiggles]

2 traffic cycles? lol, more like 10 seconds

[tfkrocks]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I talked with a sergeant in the Arlington, TX police department about this very subject a few years ago (many lights in that blighted town fail to recognize motorcycles) and what she said was that if she saw me proceed through a stuck light, even if she'd sat there and watched me sit at it for half an hour, she'd write me a ticket for sure. Told me that if I had a problem with the light I should call their maintenance department. Which I have, hundreds of times, to no avail. I avoid riding in that scathole city whenever possible.

So by this person's logic, if you were driving late at night and there's literally no one around, you should wait there all ****ing night for a car to come trigger the light. Yeah that sounds reasonable.

Oh or you should just stop there and call maintenance? That sure doesn't help you right then and there. No common sense at all. Should've asked what that person would do if they were in that situation.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Panda

With some lights it's impossible to know if you waited two cycles because the light never turns green for you in the first place.

That's where the law is flawed. It should be simply that a rider can treat the light like a stop sign after waiting for 60 seconds if the light is already known to him to be a problematic light. Or 120 seconds if he isn't familiar with the light. Some of these laws require a biker to wait numerous cycles which can equate to 20 minutes for some lights. And if the light never cycles at all, the wait is forever.

Also, I think they need to have something in the law requiring that when significant maintenance is done to the light for other reasons, that they install motorcycle "M" boxes. This is a blue box that is 12" square with a blue "M" in it. The box would have extra sensors pads that enable the light to trip when anything as small as a bicycle tire or aluminum rim Ninja tire is rolled into it.



Florida doesn't have anything like this law yet, but we're working on it.

[csmith12]

M boxes?!?!?!? Naw, a little common sense on both the riders and the 5.0 will go a long way here. I would like to see no more new laws or anything else that will cost $$ for stuff that will only address part of the problem.

Why can't it be this simple; Rider on a bike at a light yea.... rider waited a reasonable amount of time for the cycles yea, rider proceeded safely. Nothing to see or do here...

[NevadaWolf]

It's the reasonable part that is up for interpretation. As Jiggles pointed out, his would be 10 seconds.

I like the two cycle idea for timed lights, one cycle to realize something may be wrong, second cycle to confirm it definitely doesn't know you are there, and go.

Untimed lights, esp at night, are where the NV fails. That's where there should be a time limit. Wait for a minute or two or something safe to ensure the light has not seen you and proceed with all the other legal BS to cover flat out running it.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by csmith12

M boxes?!?!?!? Naw, a little common sense on both the riders and the 5.0 will go a long way here. I would like to see no more new laws or anything else that will cost $$ for stuff that will only address part of the problem.

Why can't it be this simple; Rider on a bike at a light yea.... rider waited a reasonable amount of time for the cycles yea, rider proceeded safely. Nothing to see or do here...

I noticed that when I was up in Leesburg for the Leesburg bikefest a while back that every single light worked properly with the bike. That's proof that they can make it work when they want to bad enough. Around here, there are several lights that don't work properly with the Ninja.

By requiring M-boxes to be installed only when major repairs are done (they cut new lines anyway), the cost is minimal and creates a hotspot for the motorcycle tire to be in which makes the circuitry simpler - rather than circuitry that can detect a bike anywhere in the lane.

As far as common sense and cops - some have it and some don't - and some don't like bikers - so I don't think its a good idea to just leave it up to the cops to decide if it was "reasonable" for you to run a red light or not. Here in FL, they have to be directly behind you in order to say that the light was red when you went through. Anything else means that the light was "probably" red and not admissible in court. So its unlikely the cops would bother anybody, but not impossible. I'm not sure how it would work with those new red light cameras though.

[csmith12]

Maybe your right D, maybe it's a bit regional. From the cops point of view, it's the same deal as riding faster than the flow of traffic. In the end, if the traffic is flowing at the speed limit and your busting it by 5-9+mph, then it's discretionary if you get pulled over/ticketed. I see it for what it truly is, you performed a safe action or you didn't.

EDIT: Props to NV for a step in the right direction.

[ChickenRun]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

... I'm not sure how it would work with those new red light cameras though.

The cameras don't get us either. I've run a bunch of lights because it didn't sense me, and the camera never flashed. I think the tolls are the same way but you have to ride the ass of the car in front of you.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by csmith12

In the end, if the traffic is flowing at the speed limit and your busting it by 5-9+mph, then it's discretionary if you get pulled over/ticketed.

I pretty much always go faster than traffic. That way they see me. The trick is to not go excessively faster than traffic or else people pulling out wont see you. Usually, I pick the fastest car and follow him. That way they act like a shield for police radar and people pulling out will see them (or crash into them) first.

Originally Posted by ChickenRun

The cameras don't get us either. I've run a bunch of lights because it didn't sense me, and the camera never flashed. I think the tolls are the same way but you have to ride the ass of the car in front of you.

That makes sense because the light tells the camera when you are in the lane or not.

But you shouldn't do that with the tolls. The car in front gets charged for two extra axles - as if he's pulling a tandem trailer. That's another law that FL should change. Charge by the wheel and not the axle. Most cars have 4 axles anyway - one for each wheel. I think cars made in the 1940's and 50's actually had two axles, but most modern cars have 4. Pickup trucks will have 3.

[rasta]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I talked with a sergeant in the Arlington, TX police department about this very subject a few years ago (many lights in that blighted town fail to recognize motorcycles) and what she said was that if she saw me proceed through a stuck light, even if she'd sat there and watched me sit at it for half an hour, she'd write me a ticket for sure. Told me that if I had a problem with the light I should call their maintenance department. Which I have, hundreds of times, to no avail. I avoid riding in that scathole city whenever possible.

Don't live in Texas, problem solved

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

enable the light to trip when anything as small as a bicycle tire

Keep dreaming. If I stop at a light with my road bike, there's <10 lbs on the front wheel. It would be awesome if they made something like that, but that would be way too sensitive (and hard to calibrate so it didn't trigger the light randomly) and too expensive to ever be feasible.

An M box that triggers with ~100 lbs (for motorcycles) might be feasible. But it still sounds expensive.



I say if you stop at a light that's red and there's no one coming towards you from any direction for 60 seconds or more, just run it. No one will ever know, and it's not a big deal. +1 to Chris's idea about more common sense from both the average rider and the fuzz.

[Jiggles]

60 seconds? Yall are too damn patient

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Keep dreaming. If I stop at a light with my road bike, there's <10 lbs on the front wheel. It would be awesome if they made something like that, but that would be way too sensitive (and hard to calibrate so it didn't trigger the light randomly) and too expensive to ever be feasible.

An M box that triggers with ~100 lbs (for motorcycles) might be feasible. But it still sounds expensive.

Huh? My assumption was that everyone here knows how the light sensors work. They are just metal detectors and have nothing to do with weight. The grooves in the road have wire loops that make the metal detector. The purpose of the M-box is to have a specific area where the lines are more numerous and concentrated. So to add an M-box to a light, they just have to cut a few extra grooves. The only bicycles that wouldn't have a chance would be exotic ones with non-metalic (carbon fiber, etc) rims. But that problem would be solved for those people if they wear steel toed boots and just put their foot down on that box.

So the additional cost is negligible. If they are already cutting grooves, a few more won't cost that much. That, plus maybe an ounce of road paint.

[csmith12]

Sorry.... feel free to ignore this post.

[begin rant]
The cost to retrofit older existing intersections would be astronomical compared to the benefits gained. Everyone knows it takes at least 3 guys, 2 trucks, a couple dozen tools and 3 days to do anything to an intersection. lol Not counting all the other people, time, services that would be engaged to route traffic around the workers. And I am sure there would be at least 4 city counsel meetings, a mountain of state paperwork to get approval, 2 arguements about who's budget its coming out of and a town hall to get gauge public interest. In which you know there would be no less than 2-3 soccer moms types that would show up saying "Think of the children". Also, if we put it in place, it must be maintaned, nothing lasts forever. In the end, the cost to manage such work would cost more than the work + materials itself and for what? So 1% (if that) of traffic can proceed without breaking the law. hahahahahahha

Besides, it part of a larger ecosystem. Cities, states and insurance companies make phat bank off the general public breaking ridiculous laws that shouldn't be there to begin with. And the worst part is... we pay for it all too, all in the name of "safety".

Seems some have lost the purpose of traffic lights, other road signage and speed limits. They have become money making tools for local services instead of managing traffic flow and assisting people to get from one place to another easily, quickly and most importantly safely. Jiggles is a good example here. Even if he only waited 5 seconds, if it was safe to proceed, improved the flow of traffic and didn't break any other laws... I still see no big deal.

Car or bike, sitting at light for 5 mins alone with no-one coming is just silly. To get a ticket for moving along about your business because of a traffic light just don't make sense.

Common sense isn't so common anymore.
[end rant]

[n4mwd]

I don't personally have a problem running them. The problem is that I'm being forced to break the law.

I wouldn't be for retrofitting intersections just because, what I'm saying is that when these intersections are built new, or dug up for other reasons, then at that time, the M-boxes can be added for little to no cost because they are already having to cut the regular lines.

[choneofakind]

If your goal with this magical M box is to sense motorcycles, yes. But it still seems like a ton of hooplah for a relatively small result. Seems much easier to just use common sense and either 1) make a right turn 2) use neutral, get off, and push the pedestrian button 3) run it if there's no one around.

If you're going to add bicycles into the intended target for these super sensitive triggers, I think that's a waste of time and money. Look at 1) how many cyclists use the roads compared to how many cars there are and 2) how little metal there is on a bike. I really don't think you're going to be able to make a hair trigger for a traffic light that will sense a 2100g (or in many times, much less) aluminum rim without it being finicky and causing many false triggers while still keeping public costs in check. I don't think they're feasible for that task. This comes from someone who pedals more miles than he rides in a year.

and did you really just suggest that a cyclist who's serious enough to have a bike with carbon frame and carbon wheelset ride in steel-toe boots???? You realize how ridiculous that is right????

EDIT: looks like Chris and I are on the same page.

[choneofakind]

I should also say, I think OH is pushing a law that defines a 'safe' passing distance for a car going around a bicyclist, but it also allows bicycles to treat a red light as a stop sign if it hasn't changed for them.

http://www.bikecleveland.org/2013/02...t-passing-law/

It also includes an expanded definition of “Malfunctioning Signals” to allow cyclists to treat a signal with a faulty detector as a stop sign

That seems so much easier/cheaper than making M boxes. Just run it if it doesn't sense you.

[csmith12]

Now, what I would totally pay for is. Some kind of tech that would change the light in a similar way that an ambulance uses. Something that, "if I choose to use" may be zip tied or clamped to the bike that will trigger the light similar to the crosswalk button for peds.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

If your goal with this magical M box is to sense motorcycles, yes. But it still seems like a ton of hooplah for a relatively small result. Seems much easier to just use common sense and either 1) make a right turn 2) use neutral, get off, and push the pedestrian button 3) run it if there's no one around.

If you're going to add bicycles into the intended target for these super sensitive triggers, I think that's a waste of time and money. Look at 1) how many cyclists use the roads compared to how many cars there are and 2) how little metal there is on a bike. I really don't think you're going to be able to make a hair trigger for a traffic light that will sense a 2100g (or in many times, much less) aluminum rim without it being finicky and causing many false triggers while still keeping public costs in check. I don't think they're feasible for that task. This comes from someone who pedals more miles than he rides in a year..

Its not about how much it weighs, its about how much metal there is. Metal detectors work - they aren't magic. The use of M-boxes would decrease false triggers because the lines there now have to sense a bike anywhere in the lane. The M-box means the electrical sensitivity can be cranked down while simultaneously increasing reliability.

Total cost per M-box? -- maybe $5 at most. I'll sponsor a few personally if that is what it takes.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Now, what I would totally pay for is. Some kind of tech that would change the light in a similar way that an ambulance uses. Something that, "if I choose to use" may be zip tied or clamped to the bike that will trigger the light similar to the crosswalk button for peds.

I asked the light department here about that already. They do exist, but they are illegal. They are some kind of infrared transmitter like a TV remote control. He told me that they are phasing them out in favor of a GPS tracking system that turns all the lights green for emergency vehicles along their path. The lights around here are all networked together.

[choneofakind]

okay, so $5 (I'd still have to see numbers before I believe that it will be that inexpensive) per intersection, times how many intersections across the nation? That's not cheap, especially when you consider that motorcycles make up somewhere south of 10% of the total traffic if I had to guess.

Still seems like more drama than it's worth.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I asked the light department here about that already. They do exist, but they are illegal. They are some kind of infrared transmitter like a TV remote control. He told me that they are phasing them out in favor of a GPS tracking system that turns all the lights green for emergency vehicles along their path. The lights around here are all networked together.

I can see that. I should have left the emergency services part out, no need to interfere with that. Just something that would trigger the crosswalk button then maybe. Problem with that is not all intersections have the button.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

That seems so much easier/cheaper than making M boxes. Just run it if it doesn't sense you.

That wasn't the right link.

The thing about running the light is that its not always clear the other way and larger intersections are more difficult to determine when its safe to go. For example, traffic traveling 55 mph through a blind intersection. So there is a safety issue. A few months ago, a local biker ran a red and got himself splattered - so there is the safety issue.

I can think of three examples of the red light issue.

1) You get to the red light and there is absolutely nobody else in sight from any direction.

2) Cars are going through the light perpendicular to the road you are on, but nobody else is where you are.

3) You are first at a left turn, but a benevolent cager is staying 50 feet behind you to give you more space - not realizing that he is off the sensor wires and the light wont change.

Anyhow, changing the law to allow treating it as a stop sign is a step in the right direction, but not a solution.

[NevadaWolf]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

I should also say, I think OH is pushing a law that defines a 'safe' passing distance for a car going around a bicyclist, but it also allows bicycles to treat a red light as a stop sign if it hasn't changed for them.

Nevada has that law already and within a day of it becoming effective a cop discovered a problem, especially for older roads.

Cyclist was safely on the side of a two lane, double yellow road. Cop, in his personal vehicle, came up behind the cyclist. Due to the 3 foot buffer, there was no safe space within the narrow lane to pass. Due to the double yellow, there was no legal way to pass. Cop was stuck behind the cyclist doing 10mph in the 25 (35?) mph zone.

Which law do you break?

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by NevadaWolf

Nevada has that law already and within a day of it becoming effective a cop discovered a problem, especially for older roads.

Cyclist was safely on the side of a two lane, double yellow road. Cop, in his personal vehicle, came up behind the cyclist. Due to the 3 foot buffer, there was no safe space within the narrow lane to pass. Due to the double yellow, there was no legal way to pass. Cop was stuck behind the cyclist doing 10mph in the 25 (35?) mph zone.

Which law do you break?

omg....

[NevadaWolf]

Originally Posted by csmith12

omg....

three little letters not conveying tone...

If the tone is "just cross the double yellow" well, yeah, but it's still breaking the law. I, and the article, wasn't asking what you would do (ie run a non functioning red light), I was asking what law do you break?

[csmith12]

The double yellow of course.

The omg part comes from the 3 foot buffer law. Since when do you need a law to tell you pass someone safely? But let's not go there....

Carry on.