Comments about ‘House committee pumps the brakes on bike bill’

There are many intersections with lights which simply don't give a cyclist time to get up to speed before the light turns red again. I witnessed such an incident at an intersection in the industrial center west of the airport. A cyclist slowed for the red, then proceeded through while the light turned green, but technically the cyclist ran a red light. A highway patrol officer witnessed this and berated the cyclist (but did not issue a ticket). The cyclist tried to explain to the officer that the light simply did not give a cyclist sufficient time to go through legally. The officer said he understood but emphasized that the cyclist had violated traffic law.

Bicycles should not be governed by the same rules as autos, or at least not to the same degree.

I too think that bikes should not be treated the same as cars. I was recently riding down fifteenth east and didnt come to a complete stop through four stops signs but i didnt slow down traffic or cause any problem. A cop witnessed all of these and followed me to my house and issued me a ticket for failing to obey traffic laws. Because i didnt get off of my bike i know have to pay a fine which is completely unreasonable. If I'm not holding up traffic then I should be able to travel through red light or at least a four way stop sign.

This is about as stupid a law to consider as telling people they can walk across traffic. Cyclist should obey traffic lights and pedestrian laws. A cyclist stupid enough to drive through rows of cars hidden from drivers and run a red light or cut of people making right turns, they deserve a stay in the hospital.

This kind of law is contradictory and unwise. If cyclist believe they should be exempted from rules and laws then they are also exempt from filing injury claims from vehicles. I'm glad the officer cared enough about this cyclists life to follow and ticket him for his stupidity.

Making cyclist obey traffic laws is for their own protection and the emotional terror it causes to drivers who are hit by cyclist.

I can't believe the legislators are even considering such a bill. If they do approve such stupidity, then it should exempt drivers from the responsibility of the cyclists actions.

I know it is unreasonable to wait, up to ten minutes, sometimes, for a light to turn green, when there is no traffic around

To "The death of cyclists", I think there is a big misunderstanding about what this type of law would allow. This does not give cyclists the freedom to blow through stop signs when other traffic is present.

Many times cyclists try to stay on side streets, where there may be more stop signs. coming to a complete stop and getting back up to speed requires a lot of energy. This law would still require cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. They would still have to slow down and look for other traffic, and stop if other traffic is present. If a cyclist runs a stop sign and is hit when they don't have a right of way, they would still be liable.

Believe me, most cyclists do not want to be killed, so it's not like they are just going to start flying through red lights. It basically just decriminalized a behavior that it already happening.

Seems like a pretty good idea, but I really can't see why it shouldn't be extended to motorcyclists and perhaps all vehicles as well. There are many, many occasions where stop signs and lights could be safely negotiated under these proposed rules.

Let's face it, a stop sign at an abandoned intersection late at night is not a safety device, it's a revenue/traffic stop generator for cities!

As stated in the article, we have this law here in Idaho. Personally, I think it's great; I don't know why anyone would oppose it. I've seen the application of this law again and again in my own cycling travels, and I've never, ever seen an accident or injury result from it.

Now, that isn't to say I haven't seen cyclists engage in dangerous behavior; I have. Cyclists who don't wear helmets or who ride at night without lights or reflectors should be fined. Cyclists who are unaware of their surroundings or who ride with headphones and music in their ears are endangering themselves and the motorists around them. Safe cycling is, of necessity, a joint effort between motorists and cyclists.

If we give this right to cyclists, then as a motorist, I demand the same right. I think a better idea is to ban all unmotorized vehicles on city streets. We'd all be much safer.

It doesn't matter who is right in the eyes of the law, a cyclist who is hit can sue a motorist who had the legal right-of-way in civil court and risk nothing. I'm fine with giving some leeway to cyclists, but I have had many near-collisions with cyclists who ignore the current law.

I understand the frustration with traffic lights that don't sense the presence of riders, I have the same problem on my motorcycle. The solution is the same as many other states, improved sensors for the front of each lane that are more sensitive.

This is a Pandora's Box of liability and safety. I'm not usually one to legislate personal safety, but this is putting the financial future of all motorists at risk. Personal injury clams can quickly exceed the state-mandated minimums which were set up for vehicle to vehicle collisions. This leaves motorists vulnerable to loosing their savings, retirement or property to a well-represented cyclist who ran a Stop Sign. This is unfair to motorists.

Find another way to get people out of their cars, maybe bring back some discontinued bus routes.

I'd be happy to see cyclists go through red lights when there is no traffic. I've driven behind cyclists that have been stopped at red lights, and it's much safer and faster for everyone if they can make it through the intersection when there are no cars in that space anyway.

And to "So So," I agree we should ban all unmotorized vehicles on city streets as long as we do it on alternating days of banning all motorized vehicles also.

Tim Redmond, so should all road-users be permitted to go through red lights when they think it's safe? Traffic signals establish the right of way for everyone, even pedestrians aren't allowed to cross on a red signal.

This law may "decriminalize" a common behavior, but there are many common behaviors that we are not decriminalizing. If we apply the logic behind this bill to other behaviors we should also raise the speed limit and legalize marijuana. I know I'd like to do 75-80mph on my motorcycle without a ticket and "relax" after a hard ride. The logic behind this bill is no different.

If the problem is traffic lights then let's look at fixing traffic lights so that cyclists have the protection of a green signal for the entire time they are in the intersection instead of forcing them to run the red to "be safe." That logic just doesn't add up.

If the goal is to make cycling safer then we need to do something that accomplishes this goal without increasing liability to motorists and the danger to cyclists.

I think that if there is a type of transportation on the road then they should be held to the same standards. I see too many cyclists doing whatever they want and that is not okay because of the danger factor to them. I also think that if someone is going to be on the roads that they should be tested just like a driver is, it is only fair. and Drivers should be better taught how to deal with cyclist on the road.

So So ... does that include pedestrians at crosswalks?

Too funny. I have to say, after visiting Manhattan last year, I think they ought to ban private motor vehicle travel on the island (with the exception of taxi cabs). Walking isn't safe in that city.

The concept seems sound enough. If there is no traffic, then let the cyclists go ahead and pass through the red light as they cannot set off the sensors. However, the wording of the bill leaves WAY too much up in the air. It would cause a lawsuit field day with cyclists. Either clearly define what cyclists can do and make it clear that they will be crossing a red light AT THEIR OWN RISK or throw it out.

Bumper stickers should read;"Share the Road, share the Responsibility". You take the road, take a test, get a permit to ride on the road, carry insurance in case you hit a car,and be eligible for traffic tickets like cars. True cars and bikes are not the same.Even more reason for reasonable laws. I am an angry motorist whose insurance company paid the foolish bicyclist who ran into my bumper, skinned his elbow and insisted on paramedics and getting as much bank as he could from my insurance company. No, I was not cited, and not my fault. I have since learned that the cyclist have great lobbyist, and they do not have to follow the law. D not give them any more power!

I like the idea of giving them tests. I, too, have nearly been involved in accidents with bikes because I have expected them to operate by the same laws as motorists when they are on a road occupied by motor vehicles. It used to be that bikes had to use sidewalks and followed rules of pedestrians. Then they were required to ride on the side of the road going toward traffic. Then the law changed to have them operate as a motor vehicle. Well, then follow the rules. They can easily miss a car coming if they are in a hurry and they will get hit. Whose fault is it then???? There are many bicycle lanes on our streets now and they are streets paid for with our taxes from gasoline and other car taxes. If they want to ride with cars, then they need to operate as cars. As far as not making it through an interesection, how do they think pedestrians feel? We used to have to walk our bikes across intersections. We are not helping them nor cars if we pass this law.

I have been driving around town since I came to visit some of my family here in SLC. I have seen bikeriders with total disreguard for obeying stop signs and red lights. Causing me to lock my brakes to avoid an accident. I've almost been runover while walking on a sidewalk. I say make bike riders have Insurance and obey all the laws. This law is nuts without the bike rider being held liable if they cause an accident, not the diver of an auto. Come wake up no special treatment for bike riders.

Yes, upon initial thought, I think the law seems reasonable. I have been at many traffic lights waiting and waiting. However, the area is full of many reckless people and even if the cyclist darts out in the middle of traffic, it would still be the fault of the car operator, though he or she may have been acting according to the law. I don't like the rule. If bikes are to be respected as vehicles on the road, we need to play under the same rules. If this law passes--there will be a huge uproar from both the cycling community and the anti-cycling communities when the first cyclist is killed crossing the intersection on a red light when he was determined it was safe. As a cyclist, would I be tempted to run a red light? Sure, just the same as I would be in a car, but the fact of the matter is, if I or any other cyclist gets hit by a car going through the intersection, it's going to change my life forever, not to mention the life of the driver. I really hope this law does not pass.