While the former may sometimes be unlawful, the latter definitely is always.
No, no it's not. Many states have provisions for exactly that, when a traffic light does not respond to a motorcycle (or even bicycle!) Read some of the other comments in this thread for examples of states that have such provisions before you make such claims.:)
Also, in addition to my other response, what if the light that won't turn green for me is a left-turn arrow? Do you really suggest making three rights instead of one left? Zoolander, is that you?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Many, or even most lights are timed, but I can assure you not all lights are timed.
You want an example? Thompson Dr. & Geist Ave., Fairbanks, AK. Not timed. I once ran into this issue there and decided to actually time it out to see if it was. This was about 2AM, so there was no traffic going in ANY direction, and the light defaulted to green on Geist (I was coming from Thompson.) I watched my watch and waited for over ten minutes without any change. And no, I had nothing better to do that night.
Although I admit, I never actually waited for it to turn green. I ran the red after more than ten minutes. If I had, I may very well have been sitting there for a half hour.
Now, if you want to argue that I should have waited 15 minutes instead of 10, I argue that such a timer is useless and is effectively no better than no timer at all, and the light is essentially not timed.
Maybe in your state, all lights are timed. Or maybe you're just confusing "should be timed" with "are timed." I honestly don't know. But the fact remains, not all sensored lights are also timed.:)
Someone else suggested this, and I'll just tell you the same thing I told them...I've seen people get pulled over for that behavior, and similar. Something about "avoiding traffic lights" or some BS. A similar one they can pull you over on is when you come to an intersection, you want to make a right, but there is traffic blocking (because they want to go straight in that lane) and the light is red. Person pulls into the gas station on that corner, exits on the other side of the lot, and thereby makes a right-hand turn without going through the intersection. Boom, cop pulls you over.
It all depends on the cop, of course, and the particular laws of the state you are in, but in many states, I believe they can pull you over for doing what you described. And it's arguably less safe, because you are making more turns through potentially more traffic. I only run the red when the opposing traffic is totally clear and even if I decided to fall over dead in the middle of the intersection, nobody would be forced to run me over. I make sure I have time to walk through the intersection before I run the red. Otherwise, if the traffic is so thick I can't get through, it's more likely a car will pull in behind me and trigger the sensor before I get a chance to run the red.
This just in: Alabama feels threatened, drafts legislation to declare the square root of two as "the baby jesus." Overwhelming approval from all constituencies.
The long version: Whether or not it works, I think it's silly to require motorists to make modifications to their vehicles on the level of hacks--or, more appropriately, kludges--in order to make the DOT's stuff work properly. The engine on my bike is plenty big enough to trip a reasonably calibrated sensor, and I can't imagine what type of magnet I would have to put on there to trip the sensor more effectively than it already does. On top of that, I don't want the chassis of my bike magnetized. What a royal pain in the ass that would be!
Also, I already have a work-around: just run the red. It hasn't failed me yet. But then, they don't have any of those cameras around where I live...
Someone else in this very discussion recommended killing the bike and starting it again, as the starter generates a stronger EM field that can be detected more easily. I'll have to give that a try next time I'm trying to get a green in opposition to heavy traffic.
Also, it helps when riding with friends if the friend pulls up right next to you and you both sit on the sensor. I don't recommend riding side-by-side, (instead ride staggered in the lane) but at intersections, adopt a side-by-side formation, and then on the green just fall back into the same positions as before. This seems to work fairly well.
Thats not the camera. Were it a cop there that saw you go through the red light he'd be equally unfair.
Did you happen to read my OP on the topic of motorcycles running reds?
If a cop saw me sit there for 5 minutes waiting for a light, at which point I ran the red, I do not believe he would issue me a ticket. I've been in exactly that position, and got no trouble from the police. On the other hand, the camera would simply take the picture, and a citation would be automatically issued, by mail.
And even if the cop didn't witness me sitting there for five minutes, and only saw me run the red, I get the chance to say, "Did you know I sat there for five minutes with no green?" In all likelihood (again, I say this having been there) he would say, "Ah, I see, have a nice day." With the camera, you get no such "reasoning" step and you are forced to either accept it or spend a day in court.
The short of it is that whether or not you can reasonably be charged, the camera will cause a citation to be issued, in which case your only option is to fight it in court, costing you time and therefore money.
There is a sensing technology problem in the vehicle sensors, yes. But there is also a technological/process problem in the automatic issuance of citations via camera: the camera does not consider context, whereas a human would. Being "reasonably" charged does not enter into a camera's logic.
You still have to spend a day in court to do so, as well as whatever time you spend trying to get the city to cough up said records...subpoena or not, my cynical nature tells me they'll resist: "We don't have those records," "We have those records but don't have the ability to get them for you," "blah blah blah pseudo technical excuse blah blah..."
Apparently there are a number of states that have provisions for motorcycles running reds on account of poorly calibrated sensors, or just shoddy equipment (some states require that the sensors pick up bicycles, even.)
Additionally, pulling maneuvers like the one you described can get you pulled over for avoiding stoplights. A similar situation would be, say, a gas station on an intersection with a street light. You want to make a right, but there's traffic blocking and the light is red. You pull into the station, go through their lot, and come out the other side on the street you wanted. I've seen people get pulled over for that.
Anyhow, read some of the other responses to the OP about running reds on a motorcycle. There are cases where it's not illegal, rather than it being illegal "no matter what the circumstances."
I saw this primarily in Fairbanks, AK. We have far fewer motorcycles there than in the lower 48, as we call you folks, and certainly fewer bicyclists. As such, it's less of a priority to make sure everything's working properly for those particular minorities. I can certainly see it getting much more visibility in, say, California or Florida, though.
This was in Fairbanks, AK where about 50% of the lights would work properly for motorcycles all the time, and the other 50% would either never work, or would sometimes work. During any given day, one could easily encounter dozens and dozens of lights which may or may not work.
Long story short, it'd be difficult to keep track of which ones worked and which didn't,and aside from that, I'm too cynical to believe anyone would actually fix them inside of 5 years.
Because of this, the local police don't generally harass you about it as long as you're not abusing the situation. A traffic camera, however, has no such human insight...
That's nice. I just came from Alaska to Iowa. I don't know the actual laws in both places, but my riding instructor in AK seemed to believe that while there was no law like you described in SC, the police wouldn't harass you about it as long as you weren't abusing the situation. In general, about 50% of the lights in Fairbanks, AK work properly all the time for motorcycles, and the rest are hit and miss (it might work one day, and then not the next, or it just won't work at all.)
This is more about running reds, I believe, than speeding.
And on that note, I drive a motorcycle, and quite often a motorcycle does not generate enough of an EM field to be noticed by the sensors. Pull up to an intersection that is slow in your direction and you can wait all day if you like and never get a green. The common solution here is to simply wait for traffic to slow, and then run the red when there's a break. This particular problem happens even more often when waiting for left-turn arrows.
Do you suggest I should just wait half an hour for a car to coincidentally be going my way, or just accept my ticket for running the red light, simply because a camera saw me do it? I would say that would be a pretty fair ticket. The "picture as proof" fails to consider context. The above is simply one example where context makes a world of difference. There are other situations as well.
Furthermore, I should not have to spend a day in court because an automated system is incapable of properly considering the entire situation, so don't tell me "well then you can just get it thrown out of court." That still costs me time (and therefore money.)
Additionally, on the topic of context and your (2): suppose someone took a picture of me shooting someone in the chest with a gun. Wow! You've got proof I committed murder! Maybe I should go to jail? Nevermind the fact that a similar picture from just a few seconds before would depict the other person coming at me with a knife, intent on killing me for the few dollars in my wallet. We don't have that picture, so clearly it is irrelevant.
Wtf? A picture of a moment in time is not the entire story; don't treat it as if it is.
It's quite clear that these issues will never cease. This is simply the result of the Universe preventing a causality paradox. If the LHC were turned on (Let there be light!) then existence as we know it shall cease to exist.
I think most everyone should be bothered by the situation you described: that's just a healthy human reaction.
But there's a difference between fear of death, and acceptance of the inevitable. Me falling into the grand canyon is not inevitable (I hope) but me dying eventually for some reason is.
Or it's as simple as those that are afraid of mortality tend to cling to the idea of an afterlife. Rather than a causation here, I would guess we more likely have a correlation. The sort of people who are afraid of death will of course do everything in their power to avoid it. Additionally, the sort of people afraid of death will also be more willing to accept the idea of an afterlife.
We're so quick to tag any "link between video games and violence found" as correlationisnotcausation, but then we get an article positing a correlation between fear of death and religious faith, and we all start hopping on the bandwagon for "oh they don't believe their own lies" or "haha, shaken faith!" but really, I'm guessing it's more likely that the one doesn't actually cause the other, but they're instead both caused by some third factor (railing against mortality.)
Thanks. Your clarification actually caused me to rtfa. I figured if the summary was actually accurate, there was no point in the article, as it was likely just a bunch of slop. And while it may still have been a bunch of marketing slop after all, at least it was interesting.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sweet, a link in a summary to the summary itself. Just what I've always wanted!
fwiw (probably not much in your case) I don't believe AK has such provisions. :(
While the former may sometimes be unlawful, the latter definitely is always.
No, no it's not. Many states have provisions for exactly that, when a traffic light does not respond to a motorcycle (or even bicycle!) Read some of the other comments in this thread for examples of states that have such provisions before you make such claims. :)
You almost replied to the right comment...
Also, in addition to my other response, what if the light that won't turn green for me is a left-turn arrow? Do you really suggest making three rights instead of one left? Zoolander, is that you?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Many, or even most lights are timed, but I can assure you not all lights are timed.
You want an example? Thompson Dr. & Geist Ave., Fairbanks, AK. Not timed. I once ran into this issue there and decided to actually time it out to see if it was. This was about 2AM, so there was no traffic going in ANY direction, and the light defaulted to green on Geist (I was coming from Thompson.) I watched my watch and waited for over ten minutes without any change. And no, I had nothing better to do that night.
Although I admit, I never actually waited for it to turn green. I ran the red after more than ten minutes. If I had, I may very well have been sitting there for a half hour.
Now, if you want to argue that I should have waited 15 minutes instead of 10, I argue that such a timer is useless and is effectively no better than no timer at all, and the light is essentially not timed.
Maybe in your state, all lights are timed. Or maybe you're just confusing "should be timed" with "are timed." I honestly don't know. But the fact remains, not all sensored lights are also timed. :)
Someone else suggested this, and I'll just tell you the same thing I told them...I've seen people get pulled over for that behavior, and similar. Something about "avoiding traffic lights" or some BS. A similar one they can pull you over on is when you come to an intersection, you want to make a right, but there is traffic blocking (because they want to go straight in that lane) and the light is red. Person pulls into the gas station on that corner, exits on the other side of the lot, and thereby makes a right-hand turn without going through the intersection. Boom, cop pulls you over.
It all depends on the cop, of course, and the particular laws of the state you are in, but in many states, I believe they can pull you over for doing what you described. And it's arguably less safe, because you are making more turns through potentially more traffic. I only run the red when the opposing traffic is totally clear and even if I decided to fall over dead in the middle of the intersection, nobody would be forced to run me over. I make sure I have time to walk through the intersection before I run the red. Otherwise, if the traffic is so thick I can't get through, it's more likely a car will pull in behind me and trigger the sensor before I get a chance to run the red.
This just in: Alabama feels threatened, drafts legislation to declare the square root of two as "the baby jesus." Overwhelming approval from all constituencies.
In short: I think that is dumb. :)
The long version:
Whether or not it works, I think it's silly to require motorists to make modifications to their vehicles on the level of hacks--or, more appropriately, kludges--in order to make the DOT's stuff work properly. The engine on my bike is plenty big enough to trip a reasonably calibrated sensor, and I can't imagine what type of magnet I would have to put on there to trip the sensor more effectively than it already does. On top of that, I don't want the chassis of my bike magnetized. What a royal pain in the ass that would be!
Also, I already have a work-around: just run the red. It hasn't failed me yet. But then, they don't have any of those cameras around where I live...
Someone else in this very discussion recommended killing the bike and starting it again, as the starter generates a stronger EM field that can be detected more easily. I'll have to give that a try next time I'm trying to get a green in opposition to heavy traffic.
Also, it helps when riding with friends if the friend pulls up right next to you and you both sit on the sensor. I don't recommend riding side-by-side, (instead ride staggered in the lane) but at intersections, adopt a side-by-side formation, and then on the green just fall back into the same positions as before. This seems to work fairly well.
Thats not the camera. Were it a cop there that saw you go through the red light he'd be equally unfair.
Did you happen to read my OP on the topic of motorcycles running reds?
If a cop saw me sit there for 5 minutes waiting for a light, at which point I ran the red, I do not believe he would issue me a ticket. I've been in exactly that position, and got no trouble from the police. On the other hand, the camera would simply take the picture, and a citation would be automatically issued, by mail.
And even if the cop didn't witness me sitting there for five minutes, and only saw me run the red, I get the chance to say, "Did you know I sat there for five minutes with no green?" In all likelihood (again, I say this having been there) he would say, "Ah, I see, have a nice day." With the camera, you get no such "reasoning" step and you are forced to either accept it or spend a day in court.
The short of it is that whether or not you can reasonably be charged, the camera will cause a citation to be issued, in which case your only option is to fight it in court, costing you time and therefore money.
There is a sensing technology problem in the vehicle sensors, yes. But there is also a technological/process problem in the automatic issuance of citations via camera: the camera does not consider context, whereas a human would. Being "reasonably" charged does not enter into a camera's logic.
if(car_ran_red()) { issue_ticket(); }
Do you understand the difference here?
You still have to spend a day in court to do so, as well as whatever time you spend trying to get the city to cough up said records...subpoena or not, my cynical nature tells me they'll resist: "We don't have those records," "We have those records but don't have the ability to get them for you," "blah blah blah pseudo technical excuse blah blah..."
Apparently there are a number of states that have provisions for motorcycles running reds on account of poorly calibrated sensors, or just shoddy equipment (some states require that the sensors pick up bicycles, even.)
Additionally, pulling maneuvers like the one you described can get you pulled over for avoiding stoplights. A similar situation would be, say, a gas station on an intersection with a street light. You want to make a right, but there's traffic blocking and the light is red. You pull into the station, go through their lot, and come out the other side on the street you wanted. I've seen people get pulled over for that.
Anyhow, read some of the other responses to the OP about running reds on a motorcycle. There are cases where it's not illegal, rather than it being illegal "no matter what the circumstances."
I saw this primarily in Fairbanks, AK. We have far fewer motorcycles there than in the lower 48, as we call you folks, and certainly fewer bicyclists. As such, it's less of a priority to make sure everything's working properly for those particular minorities. I can certainly see it getting much more visibility in, say, California or Florida, though.
This was in Fairbanks, AK where about 50% of the lights would work properly for motorcycles all the time, and the other 50% would either never work, or would sometimes work. During any given day, one could easily encounter dozens and dozens of lights which may or may not work.
Long story short, it'd be difficult to keep track of which ones worked and which didn't,and aside from that, I'm too cynical to believe anyone would actually fix them inside of 5 years.
Because of this, the local police don't generally harass you about it as long as you're not abusing the situation. A traffic camera, however, has no such human insight...
That's nice. I just came from Alaska to Iowa. I don't know the actual laws in both places, but my riding instructor in AK seemed to believe that while there was no law like you described in SC, the police wouldn't harass you about it as long as you weren't abusing the situation. In general, about 50% of the lights in Fairbanks, AK work properly all the time for motorcycles, and the rest are hit and miss (it might work one day, and then not the next, or it just won't work at all.)
I would say that would be a pretty fair ticket.
Of course, I meant to say unfair. Whoops.
This is more about running reds, I believe, than speeding.
And on that note, I drive a motorcycle, and quite often a motorcycle does not generate enough of an EM field to be noticed by the sensors. Pull up to an intersection that is slow in your direction and you can wait all day if you like and never get a green. The common solution here is to simply wait for traffic to slow, and then run the red when there's a break. This particular problem happens even more often when waiting for left-turn arrows.
Do you suggest I should just wait half an hour for a car to coincidentally be going my way, or just accept my ticket for running the red light, simply because a camera saw me do it? I would say that would be a pretty fair ticket. The "picture as proof" fails to consider context. The above is simply one example where context makes a world of difference. There are other situations as well.
Furthermore, I should not have to spend a day in court because an automated system is incapable of properly considering the entire situation, so don't tell me "well then you can just get it thrown out of court." That still costs me time (and therefore money.)
Additionally, on the topic of context and your (2): suppose someone took a picture of me shooting someone in the chest with a gun. Wow! You've got proof I committed murder! Maybe I should go to jail? Nevermind the fact that a similar picture from just a few seconds before would depict the other person coming at me with a knife, intent on killing me for the few dollars in my wallet. We don't have that picture, so clearly it is irrelevant.
Wtf? A picture of a moment in time is not the entire story; don't treat it as if it is.
It's quite clear that these issues will never cease. This is simply the result of the Universe preventing a causality paradox. If the LHC were turned on (Let there be light!) then existence as we know it shall cease to exist.
Oh yeah, I went there.
I think most everyone should be bothered by the situation you described: that's just a healthy human reaction.
But there's a difference between fear of death, and acceptance of the inevitable. Me falling into the grand canyon is not inevitable (I hope) but me dying eventually for some reason is.
Or it's as simple as those that are afraid of mortality tend to cling to the idea of an afterlife. Rather than a causation here, I would guess we more likely have a correlation. The sort of people who are afraid of death will of course do everything in their power to avoid it. Additionally, the sort of people afraid of death will also be more willing to accept the idea of an afterlife.
We're so quick to tag any "link between video games and violence found" as correlationisnotcausation, but then we get an article positing a correlation between fear of death and religious faith, and we all start hopping on the bandwagon for "oh they don't believe their own lies" or "haha, shaken faith!" but really, I'm guessing it's more likely that the one doesn't actually cause the other, but they're instead both caused by some third factor (railing against mortality.)
Thanks. Your clarification actually caused me to rtfa. I figured if the summary was actually accurate, there was no point in the article, as it was likely just a bunch of slop. And while it may still have been a bunch of marketing slop after all, at least it was interesting. :)
Do you really think these things have been happening for 60 years, and are caused by a giant man made weather balloon?
Yes. That you would argue otherwise simply reveals your LIEBRAL nature.
Be careful what you wish for...
Talk about comeuppance.
Fixed that for you.
You acted like a douche, and then had to deal with the results. OMG!