Road rage isn't the issue. In case you're oblivious this is a busy four-way, two-lane intersection, and there were cars coming the other way.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Charles Darwin was a very smart man. I wonder if he would have pedaled around the streets of New Haven for recreation? I know I dont.

@ Res: Why are you using a camera/phone while driving your car while at this dangerous junction? You are as dangerous as anyone on the road......obviously.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Navan must clearly be this type of biker; since can't understand that I would be stopped at a red light.

@Res: You are in your car with the engine running....using your phone is illegal even at a red light bro. You are a law breaker :)

Wrong. Not till Oct 1st.

@Res: I have to correct you. It is illegal to use electronic devices while driving your car. On October 1st electronic distracted driving becomes a moving violation, with increased fines. The penalties are increasing but the laws are already there. Sorry Res, you are a law breaker. The old adage comes to mind, "Those who live in glass houses......". I'm all done with the back and forth now. Have a nice day :)

Untrue.

http://www.dmv.org/ct-connecticut/safety-laws.php

On Oct. 1st using a cell phone eve while stopped at a red light will be enforced, but as of now, it's not. You're wrong.

Furthermore, per the CT general statue, the scope of the law only applies to using the device to communicate with another person, call or text...not other functions.

12 people running a red at the same time... its New Haven, laws dont matter

Mr./Ms. person who reported this:
As the leader of this bike gang, I can tell you that we followed a very safe and careful route 12.5 miles around the city. At this intersection of Chapel and State Street, you will notice that the walk signal had begun to count down, as clearly shown in your photograph. I would suggest that you investigate your own reasons for reporting our amazing adventure, and perhaps pop on a bike and see what it is like to actually bike around on the streets. We had zero incidents during our six hour tour and created quite an example of how to ride safely and respectfully through the paved rights of way.

This seems a little absurd to me. If cyclists were to run a red light, they would be dead or injured. In the photo, traffic seems to have stopped in all directions, meaning that the cyclists were crossing the road while the crosswalk signal was on. I doubt very much that a nebulous group of cyclists was able to run a red light without incident.

Colin, actually I had my camera out because I was so impressed by the group, and thought it was a great idea to represent responsible cycling, as the group was at least the size of a large SUV...and was a great awareness-raising moment, it had much more of an impact than a single rider or pair has ever had on me.

Then you rode through the red light. Is it legal for a car to decide to stop sitting at a light because the walk light is on? No. It's not legal for bikes, either. You're supposed to obey all traffic signals, just like a car.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2314&q=438854

Share the road.

They should have waited for the crosswalk to stop and move as a vehicle of traffic as they are defined in the statutes. I hate when all the Yale Students fly through the lights while the crosswalk is going. I agree that if the car has to wait then so do bikes- especially on prospect near the whale.

BUT I must say though that I am impressed that the large groups of bicyclist I do see obey all the traffic laws and move safely through the streets. Let this be a learning lesson to our Yale Free for Alls.

done

Let's see if Transportation/PD has anything to say.

You are right. They should behave just as cars. Of course, you are probably also the same folks that honk at them to move over for you, rather than changing lanes to pass them, like you would a car.

You'd be wrong about that.

I didn't really buy the "cyclists are arrogant" hype that I have heard in New Haven until now. You post about a car running a red light, and everyone agrees. You do it about a bike, and you get all KINDS of belly-aching and denial.

enough. Pleeeeease

12+ people voted for this, Stop closing it.

Can we just consider this a lesson learned and let it be before this turns into a bitter and resentful forum for criticism, name-calling, and mudslinging? This seems to be an opportunity for education (solo cyclists cross at crosswalk signals all the time and are not posted here), not accusations.

enuf pleeesae

This annoys me to no end. Every morning as I cycle to work I am passed by idiots on bikes who don't bother to follow the basic traffic laws. They run lights, hop on/off the sidewalk when it suits them, and switch lanes with no signaling (and sometimes no backwards glance!). I really hope the NHPD starts to crack down on this behavior. It's really difficult to improve the relationship between cyclists and motorists when so many participants--on both modes of transportation--are hell bent on destroying it.

stop

.

.

Was closed only in order to prevent truthful comments re usual disregard of traffic laws

Changed my mind

Someone is impersonating me. Did not change my mind.. Was my supposed email address the same on both posts?

If so something odd is going on. If not the ID system is messed up

Bicyclists must adhere to the same laws as motorists. It is illegal for bicyclists to pedal through red lights at intersections, whether or not the pedestrian signal phase is engaged.

Thank you DOT. Here's hoping Colin Caplan reads this.

Oh i hear it all Loud and Clear! We will happily adhere to the laws and we appreciate a forum of constructive learning. So..... Res, I invite you to join us on our next adventure on October 6th or the next date to experience our bike tour while we practice a safe, fun and indulgent leisure activity. Are you in?

Sure would like to see this much passion shown in the problem of litter, postings, garbage, and general lack of maintenance.

But Department of Transportation, your own materials say that cycling should consider themselves pedestrians in crosswalks, so long as they yield to pedestrians. I think this needs SERIOUS clarification, as every cyclist I know believes it is DOT law that it is fine to cross when the pedestrian signal is on, so long as they yield. It also makes a lot of sense.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/documents/dbikes/bike_safely.pdf

This issue should be closed because:
CT State Statute says that bicyclists, unless specifically forbade by municipal statute, are allowed on:
Crosswalks
Sidewalks

The Statute continues to say that crosswalks & sidewalks are different, and must be explicitly disallowed--that a prohibition on one does not constitute a prohibition on another.

The New Haven Municipal Ordinance reads quite clearly that bicycles are not allowed on SIDEWALKS: it explicitly refers only to sidewalks and not crosswalks or other pedestrian right of ways.

The State Statute does say that bicyclists in crosswalks/sidewalks must not harm pedestrians.

Bicycles and cars are not identical, and no one really wants that. Bicycles DO have a right to be in the road--as do pedestrians and baby strollers--and there is no specific law requiring them to behave identical to automobiles. There are roughly a dozen laws demonstrating that they are not the same as automobiles, and the law states they have the "rights" of an automobile--not all the responsibilities.

If you don't like it, I suggest you lobby legislative branches, not post ideology on SCF.

The Department of Transportation is clearly wrong on this: I've posted the exact statute with number for them several times, from the State website.

New Haven judges have thrown out contested cases stating that the bicyclist broke no law in the event of a ticket.

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be: while maybe some folks wish that the law worked that way, a judge setting precedent usually over-rules personal opinions.

Riding a bike or driving a car in New Haven is never safe Colin, at least not while the city pours thousands into bike racks near Yale while ignoring extremely dangerous unlicensed drivers that are all over the roads driving as if they are headed to the ER with a dying passenger.

If I was a biker in New Haven on a regular basis I would be running red lights too.

Streever, this isn't about crosswalks or sidewalks. It's about running a red light.

From the DOT:
The same laws that apply to motorists apply to cyclists!
On the Road:
- Obey all traffic control devices

Pretty sure a traffic light is a traffic control device. So red means red, bike or car.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2314&q=438854

The piece of information folks are missing is exactly what Streever refers to: a cyclist may continue across the street while the pedestrian sign is illuminated, so long as they first yield to pedestrians, as per New Haven City ordinance. To quote, "the law states they (bicycles) have the "rights" of an automobile--not all the responsibilities."

Res:
According to the people featured in the photo, the pedestrian crossing light was on, so what they did is--per CT statute--legal.

While someone at ConnDOT may wish that all the laws which apply to cars applied to cyclists, they do not.

I know I said I wouldn't post the CT statute again--I'm really getting tired of doing this for people because it is available via google--but this is the actual law, not marketing language or a slogan:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/documents/dbikes/14-286.pdf

This is literally all you need.
Please read section e1:

(e) As used in this section: (1) "Sidewalk" means any sidewalk laid out as such by any town, city or borough, and any walk which is reserved by custom for the use of pedestrians, or which has been specially prepared for their use. "Sidewalk" does not include crosswalks and does not include footpaths

Let me emphasis that the law states that "Sidewalk" does not include crosswalks

The rest of the statute explicitly states that cyclists MAY use crosswalks and sidewalks, EXCEPT when a municipal ordinance denies that right, but states that the municipal ordinance MUST be consistent with this statute.

As this statute specifically makes clear, crosswalks & sidewalks--in these regards--are not the same thing.

Therefore, the local ordinance in New Haven prohibiting sidewalk riding does not prohibit use of crosswalks, provided that an "audible signal" is made by the cyclists before they overtake a pedestrian. The municipal ordinance clearly defines that "Sidewalks" are not permitted for riders over 12 I believe--or adults accompanying those child riders--but it doesn't mention crosswalks at all. Presumably, when they drafted the law, they were aware of the limitations (they'd have to be), so the people who crafted the law must not have wanted to ban riders from crosswalks.

Now, Res, you may disagree that the ped crossing signal was on, but I can't see how you'd know that from the angle of your photo. When I look at that photo, I see cars at a complete stop on the intersecting road, and one of the riders who crossed has attested that indeed the ped signal was on.

It seems to fit the photo, so I'm accepting that point of view in my spirited defense.

If you have other information proving that the riders were indeed breaking the law, I think that may justify reopening the conversation, but without that I'm not sure what point you are making, except that it annoyed you to see the group of cyclists ride through the intersection.

Why does it annoy you so much? What is their potential to kill and maim someone else? Do you also post pictures of cars running red lights, or do you not think that is as serious as this?

The bicyclists are in ta traffic lane in the street, not in the crosswalk (except perhaps the one in yellow, farthest to the right). The crosswalk exists between the white painted lines to the right of the group of bicycles.

So they are bicycles, in the street, crossing against the red light. Does that make a difference for the CT statutes?

When I first posted this, I was not aware of the municipal laws which apparently trump state laws.

However, this thread has done nothing but instill me with a newfound dislike of cyclists, solely from the hostile attitude of people like Streever and the rest, who either closed the thread maliciously or sounded off without bothering to link to the statute. I've already looked it up, Streever, but maybe you should go back through and read my actual posts, because what you are asking me above is answered in them.

I've heard of cyclists being arrogant and aggravating in New Haven before, and this really drove it home for me. Nice work. Next time try being civil, and I might have some respect for you.

Usually Streever (except on his 2 a/m/ escapade a while back) is a very strong advocate for safe cycling. This time he seems out to confuse or mislead

While it is true , as he says, that bikists need not obey ALL laws re car operation, they must obey all car operating rules unless there is a specific exception for bicycles, (or as in the opposite , localities have p0ut in extra rules for special restriction on their activities--like sidewalks etc.)

As I read the Statutes, and as Streever has said in the past, most car rules also apply to bicycles This time it seems he advocates for little safety and tries falsely to indicate that bikists in general are exempt from the rules for cars.- or do I misread?

I liked the original safety - conscious Streever better

Good job, Rev

Streever:

Let's break this down properly:

Cyclists can ride their bicycle through a crosswalk, as long as they yield to pedestrians and give an audible signal to alert them of their presence.

Cyclists over the age of 12 cannot ride their bicycle on a sidewalk.

ok? I could list the other statutes/ordinances as well but these should suffice. Well, maybe I'll just say one more thing.

Cyclists are breaking the law if they ride their bike through an intersection (in a vehicular travel lane) while the light is red.

Where were the cyclists positioned? It looks to me as if they are in the travel lane. Wait, let me look at the photo again, hold on a sec.........................yup. They are definitely in the travel lane and not in the crosswalk. Perhaps you want to go back and reread the statutes? The ones you are so tired of posting and linking all the time.

The cyclists depicted in this post were crossing the intersection illegally. It is important that all users share the road responsibly.

That doesn't make sense. There is no logical reason why a cyclist cannot cross safely while the pedestrian sign is illuminated after first yielding to pedestrians. To be honest, it often feels much safer to ride then, since DOT paints bike lanes way to the right, for a cyclist not to have to worry about being cut off by an aggressive car turning right when the light turns green (as with the new lane on Elm), and gives cyclists the opportunity to safely continue on their way. I think this issue should be addressed by the City of New Haven, because all over New Haven cyclists constantly and consistently safely travel this way all the time. Why have a rule for the sake of having a rule, when it is common (and safe) practice to do the opposite?

Get a life