Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
bikingroseville
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want to share photos of your group with the world? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Non-Triggering Lights and the Law   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #77 of 888 |
Re: Non-Triggering Lights and the Law

> Well, I am not a lawyer, but I guess that depends on how they define
> "inoperative". Because it doesn't say "shall ONLY apply" in the last
> sentence of (d)(1). So if you define inoperative as "traffic signals
that
> don't work with bikes" I think we're in the clear! =)

Yes, I think you are right. I am glad I am not a lawyer. Who came up
with all that twisted language???

Although, I guess they
> might argue that the traffic light was not "inoperative" because we
could
> have pressed the pedestrian crossing button.

This would be a violation of the following section:
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the
rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver
of a vehicle...

Using a ped crossing is not having the same rights (unless I see cars
start doing it, but so far I haven't...)

>
> Saw the article in the Press-Tribune today when it was delivered.
Nice.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bjhaake" <bjhaake@y...>
> To: <bikingroseville@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:54 PM
> Subject: [bikingroseville] Non-Triggering Lights and the Law
>
>
> > Someone told me once that you could proceed over a red light if it is
> > not workign and you waited three minutes. I never found this in the
> > traffic law, but I did pass it on to a few people (by saying I have
> > never been able to officially confirm it...).
> >
> > I did now find this in section 21800 in the CVC. The first one
> > unfortunately doesn't really apply b/c of the mentioning of failing
> > batteries. But at least closer than the three minute approach...
> >
> >
> > (d) (1) The driver of any vehicle approaching an intersection which
> > has official traffic control signals that are inoperative shall stop
> > at the intersection, and may proceed with caution when it is safe to
> > do so. This subparagraph shall apply to traffic control signals that
> > become inoperative because of battery failure.
> >
> > (2) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at
> > the same time, and the official traffic control signals for the
> > intersection are inoperative, the driver of the vehicle on the left
> > shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate
> > right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway
> > shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting
> > continuing highway.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






Thu Nov 3, 2005 6:32 am

bjhaake
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #77 of 888 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Someone told me once that you could proceed over a red light if it is not workign and you waited three minutes. I never found this in the traffic law, but I...
bjhaake
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2005
1:54 am

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I guess that depends on how they define "inoperative". Because it doesn't say "shall ONLY apply" in the last sentence of (d)(1)....
Mike Pontillo
mspontillo
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2005
2:39 am

... that ... Yes, I think you are right. I am glad I am not a lawyer. Who came up with all that twisted language??? Although, I guess they ... could ... This...
bjhaake
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2005
6:32 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help