3 ms·

> This new law means that when an intersection is clear and they already have the right of way, bicyclists ages 15 and older may now treat stop signs as yield s

> This new law means that when an intersection is clear and they already have the right of way, bicyclists ages 15 and older may now treat stop signs as yield signs and treat stop lights as stop signs. Can someone explain? This, to me, says that bikes can enter a road with ongoing traffic. Yes, it says "when an intersection is clear", which could mean anything ore, more than likely, used irresponsibly. And treating red lights like stop signs also makes no sense. It all sounds like a formula for carnage. I lack context, which is why I am asking for an explanation. What problem is this solving? Were cyclists getting killed waiting at stop signs and red lights? If so, the law now allows them to potential ride right in front of moving vehicles? Is that better? How?

KennyBlanken 5y ago
You're not "asking for an explanation." You haven't made the slightest effort to educate yourself on the basic facts of the matter, are still dismissing everything based on pure personal incredulity, and constructing wild strawman arguments.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Not only is your pitiful interpretation of what I wrote wrong, it is precisely how you destroy any potential for constructive conversation, understanding and learning. Brilliant.
milkytron 5y ago
> Can someone explain? This, to me, says that bikes can enter a road with ongoing traffic. Yes, it says "when an intersection is clear", which could mean anything ore, more than likely, used irresponsibly. And treating red lights like stop signs also makes no sense. It all sounds like a formula for carnage. By clear, they probably mean clear of existing or oncoming traffic. Basically, no one is around, which happens a lot. Cyclists aren't trying to get killed, in fact quite the opposite. Allowing them to assess the situation and continue without stopping means they can spend less time in the intersection, which is a dangerous place to be. They still have judgement they need to use. > What problem is this solving? Were cyclists getting killed waiting at stop signs and red lights? If so, the law now allows them to potential ride right in front of moving vehicles? Is that better? How? Yes they were and are being killed in intersections. They are still not permitted to simply ride in front of moving vehicles, they have to treat stops and red lights as yields, similar to yields when driving. Blame can still be placed on the person that was supposed to yield if they cause a crash. I think you need to actually read up on the law and the reasons for its existence, because it sounds like you're coming at this from a worst case scenario where there aren't rules. There are still rules and parties can still be at fault. This isn't some "anything goes and we'll see what happens" type of law, not at all.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

You're not "asking for an explanation." You haven't made the slightest effort to educate yourself on the basic facts of the matter, are still dismissing everything based on pure personal incredulity, and constructing wild strawman arguments.

robomartin 5y ago
Not only is your pitiful interpretation of what I wrote wrong, it is precisely how you destroy any potential for constructive conversation, understanding and learning. Brilliant.

milkytron 5y ago

> Can someone explain? This, to me, says that bikes can enter a road with ongoing traffic. Yes, it says "when an intersection is clear", which could mean anything ore, more than likely, used irresponsibly. And treating red lights like stop signs also makes no sense. It all sounds like a formula for carnage. By clear, they probably mean clear of existing or oncoming traffic. Basically, no one is around, which happens a lot. Cyclists aren't trying to get killed, in fact quite the opposite. Allowing them to assess the situation and continue without stopping means they can spend less time in the intersection, which is a dangerous place to be. They still have judgement they need to use. > What problem is this solving? Were cyclists getting killed waiting at stop signs and red lights? If so, the law now allows them to potential ride right in front of moving vehicles? Is that better? How? Yes they were and are being killed in intersections. They are still not permitted to simply ride in front of moving vehicles, they have to treat stops and red lights as yields, similar to yields when driving. Blame can still be placed on the person that was supposed to yield if they cause a crash. I think you need to actually read up on the law and the reasons for its existence, because it sounds like you're coming at this from a worst case scenario where there aren't rules. There are still rules and parties can still be at fault. This isn't some "anything goes and we'll see what happens" type of law, not at all.