General Discussion

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

27. The things in your first paragraph are indeed required here.

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:03 PM

May 2013

Bikes are subject to (most of) the same rules about lights as other vehicles. The exceptions are turn signal lights (but you're required to use hand signals) and brake lights (because they basically don't exist for bikes). You can definitely pick up a citation for no lights after dark here in Portland (along with it being a really idiotic thing to do...).

I agree that we might start seeing liability insurance requirements. Not a bad idea...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Proposition: All drivers and all cyclists should follow traffic laws [View all] GiaGiovanni May 2013 OP

cogent argument? datasuspect May 2013 #1

If physics is your argument, then bikes should not be on the road with cars at all GiaGiovanni May 2013 #20

That already happens. Travis_0004 May 2013 #29

The place kicker is more like the pedestrian: he shows up temporarily on the field GiaGiovanni May 2013 #31

Does that include brake lights, turn signals,liability insurance, and road use taxes? oneshooter May 2013 #2

we can only dream zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #8

The law requires none of those for bikes where I live. Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #15

I think that's irresponsible of the state GiaGiovanni May 2013 #26

The things in your first paragraph are indeed required here. Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #27

Bikes are often covered by auto insurance Travis_0004 May 2013 #30

It seems cyclists have no insurance coverage for the accidents they cause GiaGiovanni May 2013 #34

That makes more sense GiaGiovanni May 2013 #33

I think that eventually that will happen GiaGiovanni May 2013 #19

Hybrid/electric cars should have to put a baseball card in their spokes NightWatcher May 2013 #3

I always thought they should have speakers IDemo May 2013 #6

I never thought of that Yo_Mama May 2013 #14

I always make it a point... Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #4

Breezing through stop signs when no one else is there might sound ok, but GiaGiovanni May 2013 #21

Idaho law IDemo May 2013 #5

That's the law, and a good one at that. Gormy Cuss May 2013 #7

Generally thats how it works in Oregon as well bhikkhu May 2013 #11

The stoplight law sounds problematic GiaGiovanni May 2013 #22

It's the law, and a good one at that meow2u3 May 2013 #28

The Idaho law allows cyclists to run the stop sign GiaGiovanni May 2013 #35

If bikes can run stop signs, what's to say there won't be accidents? meow2u3 May 2013 #36

I'm in total agreement GiaGiovanni May 2013 #37

As a pedestrian, I am in total agreement. smirkymonkey May 2013 #42

In California cyclists are liable to the same traffic laws nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #9

I find this to be very true GiaGiovanni May 2013 #23

Only if they do first bhikkhu May 2013 #10

No, cyclists are special ..... oldhippie May 2013 #12

Interesting that you don't mention the single most common violation among drivers Fumesucker May 2013 #13

Only after you prove you NEVER exceed the posted speed limit in your motor vehicle. Ikonoklast May 2013 #16

I have exceeded the speed limit plenty of times, probably nearly every time I drive a car Fumesucker May 2013 #18

Speeders are one main reason cyclists and motorists should be particularly careful GiaGiovanni May 2013 #24

I wasn't "ranting and raving" about anything Fumesucker May 2013 #38

"Rant and rail" was the expression and it did not refer to you GiaGiovanni May 2013 #39

I was the one who mentioned speeders because you certainly didn't in your OP Fumesucker May 2013 #40

It was not a personal comment, but a general one GiaGiovanni May 2013 #41

Why? Criminals won't follow the laws, they're criminals! Robb May 2013 #17

Laws are usually followed by the law-abiding and ignored by criminals GiaGiovanni May 2013 #25

And don't forget... zappaman May 2013 #32