You are not logged in.
I was on the shoulder on highway 620 at a three way stop -- a T if you will. I rode across the top of the T, on the shoulder, and recieved a ticket for running a red light.
My question is, what are the laws here? I was on the shoulder, not on the road. I did not cross traffic.
Should I fight this one?
Jeff
Offline
The relevant part would seem to be this --
(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
But there's no stop line on the shoulder, and there's no crosswalk either. So do you have to stop? Got me.
Should you fight it? Got me -- I guess it could go either way.
This was on 620? Was it the city of Lakeway that cited you? Austin has a defensive driving type program for cyclists that can get rid of a ticket, but if it wasn't APD that cited you I doubt it would apply.
I imagine you could simply call up (or visit) the prosecutor and talk about it. He might decide he has no case and drop it. He might decide to cut you a break. He might decide to be a hardass and keep trying to prosecute you, at which point you could decide to try and fight it in a trial, or you could just pay the ticket.
Offline
It does not make any sense that you would have to stop, but then this is the law we are talking about, and they often don't care if it makes any sense.
Offline
Hmm, I know I've done the same maneuver on 360.
Because there's no exemption or specific law for T-intersections, and since state law specifies traffic lights apply to pedestrians if there are no separate pedestrian signals present, I don't think you could argue that traffic lights don't apply to shoulder traffic here. Clearly this is a low-risk situation (a turning car/truck could still swing wide and hit you in the shoulder) but I'm not sure you have any legal standing to fight it.
But if you do fight it, please keep us updated :)
Offline
Because there's no exemption or specific law for T-intersections
That's true, but it's not clear if the law as written applies, and there is a legal principle -- the Rule of Lenity -- that if there's ambiguity in the law, it should be resolved in favor of the defendant in a criminal trial. (Of course, this is only one of several legal principles, and they're not hard and fast rules -- so a judge or DA could certainly go either way with it.)
and since state law specifies traffic lights apply to pedestrians if there are no separate pedestrian signals present
Which law says this, exactly? Certainly, the law I quoted above (the one that covers traffic lights) does not say this.
And people on bicycles are generally not treated as pedestrians by the traffic code.
While what you've said may sound like a good idea, I don't think there is actually a law that says that.
Offline
Which law says this, exactly? Certainly, the law I quoted above (the one that covers traffic lights) does not say this.
I was referring to this one:
Sec. 552.001. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS. (a) A traffic control signal displaying green, red, and yellow lights or lighted arrows applies to a pedestrian as provided by this section unless the pedestrian is otherwise directed by a special pedestrian control signal.
(b) A pedestrian facing a green signal may proceed across a roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk unless the sole green signal is a turn arrow.
(c) A pedestrian facing a steady red signal alone or a steady yellow signal may not enter a roadway.
however I didn't read it very carefully. It only refers to entering/crossing a roadway, which you certainly don't do at the top of a T-intersection. So it's not really applicable here. My mistake!
Last edited by owlman (2012-10-31 11:03:50)
Offline
So the traffic law cited is txtrc544007(d). I am having a hell of a time finding a place where I can get the detail.
Offline
Found it. Here is the relevant part. One issue is, is a bike a 'vehicle'
(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop
line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall
remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After
stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely,
and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent
crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the
operator may:
(1) turn right; or
(2) turn left, if the intersecting streets are both
one-way streets and a left turn is permissible.
(e) An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal
is warned by that signal that:
(1) movement authorized by a green signal is being
terminated; or
(2) a red signal is to be given.
(f) The Texas Transportation Commission, a municipal
authority, or the commissioners court of a county may prohibit
within the entity's jurisdiction a turn by an operator of a vehicle
facing a steady red signal by posting notice at the intersection
that the turn is prohibited.
(g) This section applies to an official traffic-control
signal placed and maintained at a place other than an intersection,
except for a provision that by its nature cannot apply. A required
stop shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating
where the stop shall be made. In the absence of such a sign or
marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.
(h) The obligations imposed by this section apply to an
operator of a streetcar in the same manner they apply to the
operator of a vehicle.
(i) An operator of a vehicle facing a traffic-control signal
that does not display an indication in any of the signal heads shall
stop as provided by Section 544.010 as if the intersection had a
stop sign.
Offline
yes, a bike is a vehicle.
Offline
yes, a bike is a vehicle.
Despite that's what I see, think and believe, apparently that is not so in the eyes of the lawmakers. I distinctly remember seeing that in the City of Austin a bicycle was not allowed to park in the space reserved for "vehicle" parking.
Offline
damicoaustin wrote:yes, a bike is a vehicle.
Despite that's what I see, think and believe, apparently that is not so in the eyes of the lawmakers. I distinctly remember seeing that in the City of Austin a bicycle was not allowed to park in the space reserved for "vehicle" parking.
A bike can certainly be both a vehicle and not a vehicle at the same time in the eyes of the law -- just different parts of the law.
However, as far as the Texas state traffic code goes --
541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
...
(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.
...
(23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. The term does not include:
(A) a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or
(B) manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, Occupations Code.
(Note that this is the "traffic code" subtitle, where most of the traffic law resides.)
So, this says a bicycle is a device, but the definition of vehicle given would also include a bicycle. John Forrester is convinced that the more specific definition is what applies, so in Texas a bicycle is a device rather than a vehicle. I'm not convinced, but I can't dismiss the argument out of hand. As for which is correct, that would have to depend on how a judge, DA and/or jury interprets it.
But if you're looking for some real absurdity, check this stuff out --
PENAL CODE
TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
...
(3) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 32.34(a).
...
Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.PENAL CODE
TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 32. FRAUD
Sec. 32.34. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. (a) In this section:
(2) "Motor vehicle" means a device in, on, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
... so according to the DWI law, a bicycle is a motor vehicle. How's that for screwed up?
Offline
Any update, Jeff? Did you fight it?
Offline
I would always make a stop. Then, if it's clear I won't be riding near any traffic that is turning, I may go.
I wouldn't advise blowing through it full speed.
Offline
[ Generated in 0.017 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 581.64 KiB (Peak: 597.13 KiB) ]