Red Light Question

[5555624]

Well, since I’ve never ridden a bike and know nothing about it — so I was told this afternoon — I need to ask about bikes and red lights.

Around 4:30 p.m. this afternoon, at the intersection of N Stafford St and Fairfax Drive, in Ballston, the traffic light on Fairfax Drive turns red. A bike heading west on Fairfax Drive stops for the light, as does the vehicular traffic on Fairfax Drive. A car passes on Stafford going south, right to left in front of the cyclist. A SUV comes the cyclist’s left and make a left, heading west on Fairfax Drive. As soon as the SUV is almost done with its turn, the cyclist starts up and proceeds through the intersection. The traffic light is still red for Fairfax Drive.

I was on the sidewalk, walking — my bike was around the corner — and as the cyclist passes, I comment about his running the red light., He stops and informs me he did stop, but he does not have to wait for it to turn green if no cars are passing through the intersection. This is how EVERY cyclist does it. I said this was not a case of the law that went into effect last year, which said wait for two cycles/minutes. He told me I had no idea what I was talking about and this has always been the law and since I don’t own a bike or have never ridden one, I don’t know what I am talking about. He’s not, as I said, giving cyclists a bad name, because he was doing nothing wrong. (I must be the only person in Arlington who wear a cycling jersey and cycling shoes just for fun.) When I said that cycling in the road means a bike is treated as a vehicle and the cyclist needs to obey the same laws as a driver, I was told I had no idea what I was talking about.

Now, I am familiar with § 46.2-833 B, which now allows bicycle riders, motorcyclists, and moped operators to pass through a red light. The first criteria is that you have to wait two minutes or two cycles. ( I brought this up, but he was (a) clueless about it and (b) said it had nothing to do with anything, because all he had to do was stop.)

Anyway, can someone point me to the law which says cyclists just have to stop and can then proceed, as long no cars are crossing? I won’t have to wait more than a couple of seconds at S Joyce St every morning, because I won’t have to wait for the light, I just have to stop and then proceed.

Topic

[acc]

Glad he didn’t get run over, I think. He’s misinformed.

http://forthunt.patch.com/articles/bikes-can-run-red-lights-under-new-virginia-law-2

My commute from Vienna to GMU takes me across two stoplight regulated intersections that do not perceive my bike. That leaves me with two choices, neither one is much fun. I can dismount, waddle over to the pedestrian walk button, stick my hands through the branches of pine tree, feel around and hit the button OR I can go through the red after swiveling my head like the kid in the Exorcist movie and saying numerous prayers as I cross four lanes of traffic. Yippee. I consider it a tremendous character building exercise.

But no, you can’t whiz through a red light just because you shave your legs with more precision than I do, have completely matching kit from your gloves to your socks and everything in between, a bike that costs more than a week of debauchery in Vegas but weighs less than two bags of groceries, and manage to sound out the complete headline announcing the new law about red lights and cyclists.

[MCL1981]

Ya, he is confusing “common behavior” with that new law. The law clearly requires one to wait two minutes or two cycles.

Now, common behavior is what he actually did. Which is stop, or at least slow down and be prepared to stop. If the intersection happens to be clear of cross traffic, screw the light and go.

Does everyone do it? No.
Do most do it? Yep.
Do I do it? Yep. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone on a bike sit at red light with no cross traffic and watch paint dry while the light timer counts down.

Now, people’s definition of “clear of cross traffic” tends to vary. Some people cut through very small gaps or meander out across one lane while another still has traffic. I hate seeing people do this. The smart ones wait for it to actually be clear of current and approaching cross traffic. Then after looking both ways several times, go. It doesn’t make it any less illegal. But it isn’t dangerous and everybody is doing it!

I’ll tell you what, going through the two pointless red lights leading into Washington Circle is legitimately safer. It puts me in the circle when it is nearly empty. As opposed in the middle of a pack of road raging assholes trying to kill me. This again doesn’t make it legal. But, legitimately safer.

[DaveK]

You encountered the common North American Idiot. Unfortunately sightings are common this time of year and the warm weather is causing an earlier-than-normal bloom.

[mrkenny83]

@5555624 16407 wrote:

Now, I am familiar with § 46.2-833 B, which now allows bicycle riders, motorcyclists, and moped operators to pass through a red light. The first criteria is that you have to wait two minutes or two cycles.

What exactly does “two cycles” mean?

[americancyclo]

I’m surprised that he had time to stop to talk to you if he didn’t have time to wait for the light to change. He sounds pretty clueless when it comes to the law, but I would have done the same thing, as long as the street was clear of oncoming traffic, although I never stop to debate my actions with anyone unless they are threatening me with a ticket.

[jrenaut]

@mrkenny83 16445 wrote:

What exactly does “two cycles” mean?

Wait until two cyclists blow the light illegally, then you can go.

It means that you have to wait for the traffic light to complete two full cycles. I think this is a terrible part of the law – how are you supposed to know what a cycle is? At most intersections it’s probably obvious, but at plenty of the ridiculous ones (18th and Florida NW, for example) it’s not at all clear.

[DaveK]

I sometimes treat red lights as stop signs, but I’m under no illusion about what the law says. If I get stopped because I ran a light, I’m sure I ran the light. Not going to try and give the officer a lecture on a law that doesn’t exist. Not east of Idaho, anyway.

[SpokeGrenadeSR]

^agreed.
i’m of the stance that as long as the lanes are clear of any oncoming traffic, and you’ve assessed that thoroughly, then proceed. i don’t believe bikes deserve to be under the same laws as cars just because we’re on the same pavement; we’re more pedestrian than car and i know a lot of them walk across the street against lights with no second thoughts, and sometimes more dangerously than a cyclist. in my (still appropriately cautious) world, stop signs are yield signs, and stop lights are stop signs.

[MCL1981]

@mrkenny83 16445 wrote:

What exactly does “two cycles” mean?

Two cycles of red to green. This would only apply if you were in a controlled turning lane. The turn lanes have vehicle sensors. If there is no vehicle, the turning lane will never get a green arrow. So if you are in a left turn lane with bicycle, it may not trip the sensor. So you’ll be sitting there watching the main lanes cycling red/green like normal as if you aren’t even there. If you see it cycle through red and green twice, you’re allowed to assume it doesn’t detect you and proceed with caution.

Obviously this doesn’t apply to you if you’re in the straight ahead lanes, since you wouldn’t sitting the, you would be going through on the green.

[JimF22003]

@DaveK 16469 wrote:

I sometimes treat red lights as stop signs, but I’m under no illusion about what the law says. If I get stopped because I ran a light, I’m sure I ran the light. Not going to try and give the officer a lecture on a law that doesn’t exist. Not east of Idaho, anyway.

I visit home in Idaho once or twice a year. Where I live the riding is not spectacular (everything is laid out in mile-long grids.) My favorite thing about riding in Idaho (besides heading for the hills pronto) is rolling stop signs, and stop-signing red lights…

[chris_s]

@MCL1981 16476 wrote:

This would only apply if you were in a controlled turning lane.

Just wanted to point out, there are places where even the “go straight” lane is sensor activated (southbound Commonwealth Ave at the intersection with Mt Vernon Ave in Alexandria for instance)

[MCL1981]

@chris_s 16510 wrote:

Just wanted to point out, there are places where even the “go straight” lane is sensor activated (southbound Commonwealth Ave at the intersection with Mt Vernon Ave in Alexandria for instance)

Yes, that is what the two minute wait part of the law is for. I was only addressing the cycling part of the law.

[Terpfan]

@MCL1981 16476 wrote:

Two cycles of red to green. This would only apply if you were in a controlled turning lane. The turn lanes have vehicle sensors. If there is no vehicle, the turning lane will never get a green arrow. So if you are in a left turn lane with bicycle, it may not trip the sensor. So you’ll be sitting there watching the main lanes cycling red/green like normal as if you aren’t even there. If you see it cycle through red and green twice, you’re allowed to assume it doesn’t detect you and proceed with caution.

Obviously this doesn’t apply to you if you’re in the straight ahead lanes, since you wouldn’t sitting the, you would be going through on the green.

That’s correct. So in essence if you arrive at a red turn arrow and the light is green then it must go red and green again before you can proceed. This is also sometimes an issue for motorcycles too hence why they push for the ability to turn right on red after a timing delay in many state legislatures. However, this tends to be more of a rural than an urban or suburban problem because even weighted sensors around here are still usually programmed to go off every so many cycles whereas on big rural roads they won’t go off without the weight.

[DaveK]

@Terpfan 16573 wrote:

However, this tends to be more of a rural than an urban or suburban problem because even weighted sensors around here are still usually programmed to go off every so many cycles whereas on big rural roads they won’t go off without the weight.

Nothing to do with weight – sensors are of two types in this area, inductance and video. The inductance loops are the black cut lines you see in the asphalt at each intersection. They usually look like rectangles although there are other shapes for the loops depending on the application. There are loops of wire under the pavement that detect the presence of metals in a car or bike that travels over them. This sends a signal to the controller that there is a vehicle waiting. Video detection works on the change in pixels in a given area within the camera’s view.

[MCL1981]

@DaveK 16589 wrote:

Video detection works on the change in pixels in a given area within the camera’s view.

This is those little white camera looking things you see on the wire or arm over the street. Contrary to some misconception, they are NOT recording devices and are NOT “red light cameras” that issue tickets. They’re just traffic sensors.

[Author]

Replies