Proposed new CA bicycle law

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

I think this is dumb. Traffic is traffic. You have to regulate the flow of it. And how then do you assign fault when someone gets into an accident? How is a driver supposed to anticipate bike riders who might fly through intersections without following the normal rules of who gets to go first?

Dumb. I don't see it holding up. It will just take one lawsuit.

The cops already have the discretion of assigning the blame. I don't see that changing. If a rider gets ran over because he runs the sign it's on them. I do think it's stupid to have to put a foot down as I can track stand at a light for as long as I need and my wheel doesn't turn.The current law of foot down is just as stupid as blowing the sign/light at full speed.

[Mr5150]

This thread reminds me why I only mountain bike. Road biking is too dangerous.

Blowing though stop signs (four way) on a bike makes sense if there are no cars at the intersection. Not so in traffic.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

This thread reminds me why I only mountain bike. Road biking is too dangerous.

Blowing though stop signs (four way) on a bike makes sense if there are no cars at the intersection. Not so in traffic.

I'd strictly Mt Bike too but I also commute whenever possible and any trails are too far away for me to use routinely. I didn't drive at all for 2 years when gas was $5.00 a gallon. But yes, road biking is extremely dangerous because most Cities aren't bike friendly.

[T. Damon]

I think it makes complete sense.

The comments railing against it as if it is the craziest idea in the world come from first, those who actually haven't read the bill and second, from that unique to the U.S. subset of folks who have nothing better to do in their their lives than to shake their fist angrily at bicyclists whenever they have to share the road with them including those who had the right of way at clear stop sign go through it safely and without incident and not come to a COMPLETE AND TOTAL STOP just as EVERY SINGLE CAR ALWAYS does at exactly the same situation- yeah, right... (I freely admit that I, as a motorist or a bicyclist do not always come to a complete stop in such situations, I slow down to almost nothing and make damn sure I never violate anyone's right of way and make my way safely through)

These are the same people who, ironically, would get angrily impatient at the overly cautious bicyclist that comes to a complete and total stop at that exact situation as they, the motorist, are are also arriving at the otherwise clear intersection just after the bicyclist, and fume as he/she releases out of their clips, leans over on a foot for a second or two, and then pushes off a bit and (sometimes clumsily) attempts to get back in the clips and s l o w l y makes their way through the intersection. Causing a completely unnecessary (but legal) delay for everyone.

All the bill says is that the intersection is treated like a yield, which the right of way is a clearly defined legal concept. If the bicyclist doesn't have the right of way then they can't go through as such. Frankly there are far too many stop signs that should be yields for all of us on the road, it is unfortunate that many people operating various vehicles are unfamiliar at best and completely clueless at worst to the concept. But that shouldn't all come down to bicyclists.

One thing for sure is that bicyclists rarely pose a true physical danger to others on the road, regardless of the rule breaking one might witness them making.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

I think it makes complete sense.

The comments railing against it as if it is the craziest idea in the world come from first, those who actually haven't read the bill and second, from that unique to the U.S. subset of folks who have nothing better to do in their their lives than to shake their fist angrily at bicyclists whenever they have to share the road with them including those who had the right of way at clear stop sign go through it safely and without incident and not come to a COMPLETE AND TOTAL STOP just as EVERY SINGLE CAR ALWAYS does at exactly the same situation- yeah, right... (I freely admit that I, as a motorist or a bicyclist do not always come to a complete stop in such situations, I slow down to almost nothing and make damn sure I never violate anyone's right of way and make my way safely through)

These are the same people who, ironically, would get angrily impatient at the overly cautious bicyclist that comes to a complete and total stop at that exact situation as they, the motorist, are are also arriving at the otherwise clear intersection just after the bicyclist, and fume as he/she releases out of their clips, leans over on a foot for a second or two, and then pushes off a bit and (sometimes clumsily) attempts to get back in the clips and s l o w l y makes their way through the intersection. Causing a completely unnecessary (but legal) delay for everyone.

All the bill says is that the intersection is treated like a yield, which the right of way is a clearly defined legal concept. If the bicyclist doesn't have the right of way then they can't go through as such. Frankly there are far too many stop signs that should be yields for all of us on the road, it is unfortunate that many people operating various vehicles are unfamiliar at best and completely clueless at worst to the concept. But that shouldn't all come down to bicyclists.

One thing for sure is that bicyclists rarely pose a true physical danger to others on the road, regardless of the rule breaking one might witness them making.

True, after all slowly driving past a red light to turn right or a stop sign is called a "CA stop" for a reason.