Pickup truck/SUV owners intentionally blocking electric charging spaces in parking lots

[Klayfish]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement


Maybe not so much for bicyclists, but the bicyclists are the ones who got it started.

We're going off the deep end I suppose, , but there may have been a movement for better roads started by cyclists before the automobile became available to the masses. However, there is no question that our current road system is due to automobiles, not bikes. Even the same article you quoted states "At the turn of the twentieth century, interest in the bicycle began to wane in the face of increasing interest in automobiles. Subsequently, other groups took the lead in the road lobby. As the automobile was developed and gained momentum, organizations developed such cross-county projects as the coast-to-coast east–west Lincoln Highway in 1913, headed by auto parts and auto racing magnate Carl G. Fisher, and later his north–south Dixie Highway in 1915, which extended from Canada to Miami, Florida. "

When cars became more accessible to people 120 years ago, the road system was nearly non-existent. It exploded as cars got cheap and the average person could afford one.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have to ask why? Only because it's law? I agree, we all should be obeying the law, but there is no reason where I lived out in the middle of nowhere for me to completely come to a dead stop at a stop sign if I can see half a mile in every direction.

I drive a 4 lane divided highway to work which goes down to undivided and eventually to a stop light with a left turning lane. At 6 am when I am on my way to work, I routinely stop, but then go through the red light to turn left because I could sit there for 15 minutes waiting for cross traffic to come and trip the light, therefore giving me the green arrow when it cycles back to the highway. I can see 2 miles down the road and see there isn't a car in sight. I can see 3 miles up the hill behind me and see there isn't a car in sight. I can also see both ways on the cross road and see there isn't a single car sitting there at the red light. I stop, assess the situation at 5:30 or 6 am, and make my left turn. Obviously I don't do this with other traffic on the road, but I am not going to just sit there twiddling my thumbs waiting for other traffic to arrive so they will trip the light cycle.

Because it's the safe thing to do. It's also better for the vast majority of the people to do things consistently-getting into the habit of it. Part of it is also the rules. The rules are there to protect people. In my area cyclists are afforded the same rights as vehicles when out on the road (with certain restrictions to things like safety equipment, how many riders side by side, not clinging to vehicles, etc) and with that comes responsibilities. You do you but I hope your area police pull you over just like they would a motorist for failure to obey traffic signals (assuming your area is the same as I would assume most are where traffic signals still should be obeyed).

I would probably suggest if this weight sensor issue is as big as you say where you're waiting for that long that you speak to your city regarding revising light sequence intervals. Somehow in my area I don't routinely see cyclists ignore traffic signals or stop signs like you say you do. Granted I do see at times cyclists go right to the curb area at red lights right next to a vehicle and that always makes me nervous as sight lines a vehicle has a hard time seeing a cyclist if they were turning right.

 

[piccolopat]

I certainly can not pull into something that looks like this (a general picture I just picked off the web just to show big gravel) like a tractor can....

Also on the diesel pump thing... I don't drive a diesel vehicle. I pull up to the open pump available to fill my car. I do not nor have I ever thought that there is only 1 pump with diesel. I don't pull up to the station and inspect all the pumps to see which one has a diesel pump because most assume all the pumps have diesel because they don't ever need to use it.


And now for this...


All the lame excuses in the world simply do not justify the fact that a cyclist actually has by rights of the Constitution of the US and the freedom of movement has more right to the road than motor vehicle drivers because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. We have equal rights to the freedom of travel, it's just that you chose the method that is a privilege.

Yes, cyclists who ride side by side is a problem. I don't think that is allowed by law in PA. Riding in an area with any kind of congestion we ride single file, but out on the country roads as I pay attention to my mirror for cars coming up behind me, we do ride side by side and when a car comes, we move single file. You can even hear me holler out, "Skinny up! Car back!" We announce vehicular hazards and do what we need to do to impede said vehicles as little as possible.

Another reason for riding in the lane for me is western PA. There is no such thing as flat where I am. It is up and down and up and down constant. You can not on a bicycle allow the ability for a car to pass you on a crest of a hill because they will and when an oncoming car appears, they are going to swerve back and take you out vs head on into another car every time. As I reach the crests of the hill, I am riding in the left tire track and also can see over the crest way before a driver can and will signal to a car behind me if it is clear or not and move over. If not clear, I will stay out there until I see the traffic is cleared, or I've crested and know the following vehicle can now see.


In town I do ride directly in the road. Speed limits are 25 mph. I can easily do 25 mph in my town no problem. If I wasn't, I would ride on the side of the road (as far right as practical.) I had a situation riding through town on a 2 lane one way road the car behind me just had to pass me. He pulled along side of me but when he realized that downhill I was doing 45 mph on a 25 mph street, he backed off and pulled behind me. Many people in cars think that a bicycle in front of them is impeding them no matter what the situation is. At 45 mph on a 25 mph street, I am definitely not impeding traffic.

The reason you take the lane at lights is because once the light turn green and the 1st car accelerates faster than you, as you are crossing the intersection, the 2nd car is making a right turn, can't notice you because you are on the side blending into the background, and get run over by the car turning right. Especially if there is a right turn lane, I will move out behind the cars in the lane and properly wait for the light to turn green so that I and the rest of traffic can go. I go through the intersection and back over to the right to allow the rest of traffic to pass me.

Aren't bicyclists supposed to follow the same traffic rules as cars? If so, they should follow the speed limit (not going above or 15 mph less than the posted limit) and stop at red lights and stop signs. In our area, the biggest problem seems to be with groups of bicyclists that don't ride single file and that impede the flow of traffic when they are going too slow uphill.

 

[bcla]

Aren't bicyclists supposed to follow the same traffic rules as cars? If so, they should follow the speed limit (not going above or 15 mph less than the posted limit) and stop at red lights and stop signs. In our area, the biggest problem seems to be with groups of bicyclists that don't ride single file and that impede the flow of traffic when they are going too slow uphill.

I have different feelings on this. I certainly wouldn't advocate blowing through stop signs and lights. There's no legal requirement that someone on a bicycle match the speed of prevailing traffic. However, at least in my state unless there's a hazard or one is making a turn, there's a requirement to ride as far right as practical (or far left on a one-way street). But yeah - it absolutely grinds on me when there's blatant ignoring of traffic laws.

 

[mrodgers]

Note, I stated about red lights and stop signs for me (riding or driving) that there isn't a car anywhere in sight and no possibility of any safety issue anywhere.

This topic (we've gone far beyond off-topic now for this particular thread) is prevalent on cycling forums talked about all the time. It is difficult to distinguish when someone says "runs a red light" or "blows a stop sign" whether they mean a slowing down and proceeding cautiously or blatantly blowing through at full speed.

When I talk about running stops, I'm talking about doing it cautiously as in with my example in the car going to work at the stop light, NO car is anywhere within sight on the outskirts of a small town where there is NO traffic at this time. Stopping and then going at a stop light or rolling slowly without coming to a complete stop at a sign is different than blowing through at full speed.

When I ride, I ride with full attention to what is around me. I use to ride a main 55 mph road that has a lot of groups of traffic in spurts. I rode on the shoulder as it was nice and wide, paved, and relatively clean. I did this when no cars were around. I ride in the middle of the lane until a car is coming as that is the best place to be seen is. A car comes and this particular road, I pulled over onto the shoulder and continued on until that line of cars passed, then back out on the smooth blacktop. Other secondary roads that don't have markings, as I said there is very little flat, I move over when a car comes, unless I am reaching the crest of a hill where a car can not pass me, but 99% of the time by my estimate, will attempt to pass should I keep to the far right.

Taking the lane on a bicycle is for the cyclist's safety. If there isn't room for a car to pass safely, cyclists will take the lane. For a cyclists safety, they will pull in behind cars at intersections in the lane because cars will squeeze by at intersections, you are far less visible, and the potential for someone in a car behind you to turn right into a cyclist is great. Others who blow through stop signs and red lights, there are plenty who advocate this and they are justifying doing this on busy roads as opposed to not a single car in sight for miles as I've described my experience, and they justify it stating they are doing it for safety.

Hey, I also speed, and often speed quite excessively. I would much rather though be out on the road with me doing 20 mph above the limit with my undivided attention on the act of driving with no radio, no cell phone, and no other distractions than be on the road with someone doing exactly the speed limit veering in and out of the lane while they are updating their status on Facebook with the selfie they just took behind the wheel. I don't know why the text in this part is small, LOL. Hit a wrong button somewhere....

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Note, I stated about red lights and stop signs for me (riding or driving) that there isn't a car anywhere in sight and no possibility of any safety issue anywhere.

This topic (we've gone far beyond off-topic now for this particular thread) is prevalent on cycling forums talked about all the time. It is difficult to distinguish when someone says "runs a red light" or "blows a stop sign" whether they mean a slowing down and proceeding cautiously or blatantly blowing through at full speed.

When I talk about running stops, I'm talking about doing it cautiously as in with my example in the car going to work at the stop light, NO car is anywhere within sight on the outskirts of a small town where there is NO traffic at this time. Stopping and then going at a stop light or rolling slowly without coming to a complete stop at a sign is different than blowing through at full speed.

When I ride, I ride with full attention to what is around me. I use to ride a main 55 mph road that has a lot of groups of traffic in spurts. I rode on the shoulder as it was nice and wide, paved, and relatively clean. I did this when no cars were around. I ride in the middle of the lane until a car is coming as that is the best place to be seen is. A car comes and this particular road, I pulled over onto the shoulder and continued on until that line of cars passed, then back out on the smooth blacktop. Other secondary roads that don't have markings, as I said there is very little flat, I move over when a car comes, unless I am reaching the crest of a hill where a car can not pass me, but 99% of the time by my estimate, will attempt to pass should I keep to the far right.

Taking the lane on a bicycle is for the cyclist's safety. If there isn't room for a car to pass safely, cyclists will take the lane. For a cyclists safety, they will pull in behind cars at intersections in the lane because cars will squeeze by at intersections, you are far less visible, and the potential for someone in a car behind you to turn right into a cyclist is great. Others who blow through stop signs and red lights, there are plenty who advocate this and they are justifying doing this on busy roads as opposed to not a single car in sight for miles as I've described my experience, and they justify it stating they are doing it for safety.

Hey, I also speed, and often speed quite excessively. I would much rather though be out on the road with me doing 20 mph above the limit with my undivided attention on the act of driving with no radio, no cell phone, and no other distractions than be on the road with someone doing exactly the speed limit veering in and out of the lane while they are updating their status on Facebook with the selfie they just took behind the wheel. I don't know why the text in this part is small, LOL. Hit a wrong button somewhere....

I think the difference between how I feel and how you feel is you're justifying your behavior as a cyclist while I'm saying that cyclist, motorist, whoever all have responsibilities. I don't really care that no one is in sight. I wouldn't be for a car to do it and I'm not for a cyclist to do it. Certaintly doesn't matter to a police officer if they pull me over for not stopping a full what 3 seconds at a stop sign regardless if there is traffic there for not. Don't see why someone can justify it because they are a cyclist.

Now if you're saying you do this in a motor vehicle as well honestly? I can understand that. Because at that point it's not that you're a cyclist or a motorist. It's because you're choosing to do it. My answer would still be the same in that you should obey traffic signs and signals but at least it's not under the viewpoint of a cyclist but rather an individual person.

 

[GreatLakes]

As a cyclist and tourer, I can tell you.

First is the misconception that roads were built for cars. They were actually paved for bicycles first.

I prefer the notion that roads weren't built for cars, they were built for transportation. The history around initial roads being for bikes is both true and irrelevant in 2019. The more accurate modern view would be roads were built for transportation and that transportation could be cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, or anything else permitted. By default bicycles are allowed on all roads unless explicitly forbidden. That is why you see no bicycles (among other modes of transportation) allowed on highway signs.

Why can't you stop on gravel?

The cyclists that we have in our community come from other areas to ride "out in the country". They experience gravel and it doesn't seem to be an issue. They pull over on driveways, beginnings of bridges, etc. where there is gravel that size and bigger.

It depends on your tires. Mountain bikes have no trouble on that gravel. Road bike tires would not survive.

Aren't bicyclists supposed to follow the same traffic rules as cars? If so, they should follow the speed limit (not going above or 15 mph less than the posted limit) and stop at red lights and stop signs. In our area, the biggest problem seems to be with groups of bicyclists that don't ride single file and that impede the flow of traffic when they are going too slow uphill.

Yes and no. Bicycles are supposed to follow the same traffic rules as cars unless explicitly exempted. Most traffic codes explicitly or implicitly allow for a bicycle and other forms of transportation to travel below posted minimum speeds. Some jurisdictions also have specific exemptions for stop signs, traffic lights, and other traffic control devices. If there is an explicit exemption the cyclist should follow that exemption, absent one they should follow the same rules as cars and good cyclists do. Riding single file is not the law in most places that I've experience.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I certainly can not pull into something that looks like this (a general picture I just picked off the web just to show big gravel) like a tractor can....

Also on the diesel pump thing... I don't drive a diesel vehicle. I pull up to the open pump available to fill my car. I do not nor have I ever thought that there is only 1 pump with diesel. I don't pull up to the station and inspect all the pumps to see which one has a diesel pump because most assume all the pumps have diesel because they don't ever need to use it.


And now for this...


All the lame excuses in the world simply do not justify the fact that a cyclist actually has by rights of the Constitution of the US and the freedom of movement has more right to the road than motor vehicle drivers because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. We have equal rights to the freedom of travel, it's just that you chose the method that is a privilege.

Yes, cyclists who ride side by side is a problem. I don't think that is allowed by law in PA. Riding in an area with any kind of congestion we ride single file, but out on the country roads as I pay attention to my mirror for cars coming up behind me, we do ride side by side and when a car comes, we move single file. You can even hear me holler out, "Skinny up! Car back!" We announce vehicular hazards and do what we need to do to impede said vehicles as little as possible.

Another reason for riding in the lane for me is western PA. There is no such thing as flat where I am. It is up and down and up and down constant. You can not on a bicycle allow the ability for a car to pass you on a crest of a hill because they will and when an oncoming car appears, they are going to swerve back and take you out vs head on into another car every time. As I reach the crests of the hill, I am riding in the left tire track and also can see over the crest way before a driver can and will signal to a car behind me if it is clear or not and move over. If not clear, I will stay out there until I see the traffic is cleared, or I've crested and know the following vehicle can now see.


In town I do ride directly in the road. Speed limits are 25 mph. I can easily do 25 mph in my town no problem. If I wasn't, I would ride on the side of the road (as far right as practical.) I had a situation riding through town on a 2 lane one way road the car behind me just had to pass me. He pulled along side of me but when he realized that downhill I was doing 45 mph on a 25 mph street, he backed off and pulled behind me. Many people in cars think that a bicycle in front of them is impeding them no matter what the situation is. At 45 mph on a 25 mph street, I am definitely not impeding traffic.

The reason you take the lane at lights is because once the light turn green and the 1st car accelerates faster than you, as you are crossing the intersection, the 2nd car is making a right turn, can't notice you because you are on the side blending into the background, and get run over by the car turning right. Especially if there is a right turn lane, I will move out behind the cars in the lane and properly wait for the light to turn green so that I and the rest of traffic can go. I go through the intersection and back over to the right to allow the rest of traffic to pass me.

As you claim to actually ride in the manner we’ve stressed cyclists should, I’m not really sure why you chose to respond.

 

[ChrisFL]

So bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws, however you don't need a license to ride a bicycle, so how would they know traffic laws separately?

I'm not trying to start anything, just asking the logical question

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws, however you don't need a license to ride a bicycle, so how would they know traffic laws separately?

I'm not trying to start anything, just asking the logical question

That's not really a logical question moreso meaning about the not needing a DL TBH and no offense meant truly. I would think it's very illogical to just go without having any idea of what you're supposed to be doing.

You shouldn't just go out on a bicycle without first knowing the rules and regulations of where you live.

Even as simple as requirement or no requirement of a helmet is something you should know. If you're out on the roads I sure hope you have an understanding of what you should be doing otherwise you're a huge danger to yourself and others.

 

[bcla]

So bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws, however you don't need a license to ride a bicycle, so how would they know traffic laws separately?

I'm not trying to start anything, just asking the logical question

No different than a pedestrian being held to traffic laws that don't allow jaywalking. But I remember when I was in school a police officer would come to school and discuss various traffic laws that applied to bicycles. We were given pamphlets about requirements to follow all traffic laws, including stopping at stop signs/lights, and hand signaling before stopping/turning.

You know what's really bizarre? There are municipal ordinances around here where bicycles are required to have a state license, or else there's a fine. But it's only a few cities that require it, and even then they almost never do. I had a bike that I decided to get licensed, and I freaked out when the police officer (who said this was his first time issuing one) started hammering the license number into my steel bike frame with a hammer and a die. If it were a carbon fiber frame he would have destroyed it. The biggest one is probably the city of Berkeley, and they don't even offer bicycling licensing. They refer everyone to UC Police. I think they only affix a sticker.

 

[GreatLakes]

So bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws, however you don't need a license to ride a bicycle, so how would they know traffic laws separately?

I'm not trying to start anything, just asking the logical question

Anyone can find just about every traffic ordinence available with a simple google search.

Considering most people can't remember simple high school math a few years out of school I suspect few really retain their driving school knowledge and just know common sense traffic laws everyone knows that doesn't live inder a rock.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Since this has become a cycling thread, I have a question for the serious cyclists here. Here's the scenario: 2 lanes (each direction) are stopped at a red light. There's a cyclist to the right of the right lane, also stopped. Is it legal for the first person in the right lane to turn right on red (after stop), in front of the cyclist? Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the cyclist wants to proceed forward, either while the light is red, or when it turns green.

 

[GreatLakes]

Since this has become a cycling thread, I have a question for the serious cyclists here. Here's the scenario: 2 lanes (each direction) are stopped at a red light. There's a cyclist to the right of the right lane, also stopped. Is it legal for the first person in the right lane to turn right on red (after stop), in front of the cyclist? Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the cyclist wants to proceed forward, either while the light is red, or when it turns green.

Most serious cyclists wouldn't be far to the right in that scenario. If they are first in the line they would be left of center in case the car behind them wants to turn right on red (if it is legal of course). If they were not first in line they would be in their spot (2nd, 3rd, 5th, etc) in the center of the lane until they were through the intersection. You don't want to be far to the right at an intersection because it increases the likeliness of someone turning into you.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded. In the vast majority of situations where there are traffic device exceptions for cyclists it is for when either no cars are present or when they can't trigger a traffic device. In this scenario, there being other cars around, it is rare that either of those scenarios would exist.

 

[mrodgers]

Since this has become a cycling thread, I have a question for the serious cyclists here. Here's the scenario: 2 lanes (each direction) are stopped at a red light. There's a cyclist to the right of the right lane, also stopped. Is it legal for the first person in the right lane to turn right on red (after stop), in front of the cyclist? Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the cyclist wants to proceed forward, either while the light is red, or when it turns green.

Legally, I'll have to bring this up on Bikeforums. That's a very interesting question. Legally, the cyclists is not on the roadway if they have filtered up on the side of traffic. They would 90% of the time be on the shoulder, which is not the roadway. General road rules pretty much everywhere in the US state that bicycles are to ride as far right as practical and that means to the left of the fog line on the roadway. You're not suppose to be riding on the shoulder as most drivers think you should be. As has been mentioned negatively and also I have mentioned that I do is, the cyclist should be taking their place in line at a stop.

So the cyclist is assumed wanting to go straight through the light (could be turning right and not signaling) "while the light is red". In that situation, as this tangent discussion has discussed, it would not be legal for the cyclist to go through the red light to go forward. That is 100% on the cyclist if he should go through the red and you performed a legal right on red.

I just posted the question to the Safety and Advocacy section of the forum. I hope I remember I did that and remember to check and to come back here, LOL. I am involved in so many forums from different hobbies it's ridiculous, haha, and often I'll forget to come back to check on a thread.

 

[bcla]

Since this has become a cycling thread, I have a question for the serious cyclists here. Here's the scenario: 2 lanes (each direction) are stopped at a red light. There's a cyclist to the right of the right lane, also stopped. Is it legal for the first person in the right lane to turn right on red (after stop), in front of the cyclist? Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the cyclist wants to proceed forward, either while the light is red, or when it turns green.

As long as it's legal to make a right turn on a red it's legal. The key is that one still needs to be cautious about cyclists who break traffic laws. It's kind of sad, but I ALWAYS assume that someone riding a bike through a four way stop isn't going to actually stop. It's rare that one stops, possible that one slows down but is technically still violating traffic laws, and quite often that one doesn't slow down or even look.

Whenever you're making a right turn on a red you need to be cognizant about how far along the light is, as well as bicycles/motorcycles passing on the right as well as pedestrians crossing the street. I've seen pedestrians step off the sidewalk without looking as soon as it turned green, even though I made a legal turn from a red light and theoretically had right of way (even against pedestrians) until I was past the intersection.

 

[bcla]

Legally, I'll have to bring this up on Bikeforums. That's a very interesting question. Legally, the cyclists is not on the roadway if they have filtered up on the side of traffic. They would 90% of the time be on the shoulder, which is not the roadway. General road rules pretty much everywhere in the US state that bicycles are to ride as far right as practical and that means to the left of the fog line on the roadway. You're not suppose to be riding on the shoulder as most drivers think you should be. As has been mentioned negatively and also I have mentioned that I do is, the cyclist should be taking their place in line at a stop.

So the cyclist is assumed wanting to go straight through the light (could be turning right and not signaling) "while the light is red". In that situation, as this tangent discussion has discussed, it would not be legal for the cyclist to go through the red light to go forward. That is 100% on the cyclist if he should go through the red and you performed a legal right on red.

I just posted the question to the Safety and Advocacy section of the forum. I hope I remember I did that and remember to check and to come back here, LOL. I am involved in so many forums from different hobbies it's ridiculous, haha, and often I'll forget to come back to check on a thread.

At least in my state it's legal for bicycles to ride on shoulders provided that it's not prohibited by local ordinance. It's not a requirement though, and in my experience shoulders are often littered with all sorts of debris.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21650.
21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any shoulder of a highway, on any sidewalk, on any bicycle path within a highway, or along any crosswalk or bicycle path crossing, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance.
​

I have a love/hate relationship with bicycling and traffic rules. I'm a stickler for stopping at all red lights and stop signs, but I've been in pack rides where stopping would mean having the rider behind me take me out. I don't see that much blatant running of red lights, but certainly blowing through stop signs more often than not. I've also been going straight (no traffic light or stop sign) on my bike, but where a driver cut me off making a right turn rather than waiting for me to pass. I don't give anyone a pass for blatantly bad driving.

 

[LSUmiss]

No different than a pedestrian being held to traffic laws that don't allow jaywalking. But I remember when I was in school a police officer would come to school and discuss various traffic laws that applied to bicycles. We were given pamphlets about requirements to follow all traffic laws, including stopping at stop signs/lights, and hand signaling before stopping/turning.

You know what's really bizarre? There are municipal ordinances around here where bicycles are required to have a state license, or else there's a fine. But it's only a few cities that require it, and even then they almost never do. I had a bike that I decided to get licensed, and I freaked out when the police officer (who said this was his first time issuing one) started hammering the license number into my steel bike frame with a hammer and a die. If it were a carbon fiber frame he would have destroyed it. The biggest one is probably the city of Berkeley, and they don't even offer bicycling licensing. They refer everyone to UC Police. I think they only affix a sticker.

They had that here. It was the city here, though, that required a “permit”. It was on the news b/c somehow a person got fined like $2000. So after the uproar the city council voted to get rid of that requirement.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Most serious cyclists wouldn't be far to the right in that scenario. If they are first in the line they would be left of center in case the car behind them wants to turn right on red (if it is legal of course). If they were not first in line they would be in their spot (2nd, 3rd, 5th, etc) in the center of the lane until they were through the intersection. You don't want to be far to the right at an intersection because it increases the likeliness of someone turning into you.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded. In the vast majority of situations where there are traffic device exceptions for cyclists it is for when either no cars are present or when they can't trigger a traffic device. In this scenario, there being other cars around, it is rare that either of those scenarios would exist.

in this particular scenario, the cyclist came up to the red light after the cars had stopped. It was city driving, so not much of a shoulder/breakdown lane. I wanted to go right on red, and I believe I was signalling (this actually happened a few years ago, but this thread reminded me). Once cross-traffic had cleared, I turned right on red, and the cyclist yelled at me. I thought I was okay, but I just wanted to ask people who know the cycling laws better than I do. Personally, I don't feel that cycling on the road in question is particularly safe (2 lanes in each direction, lots of cars, lots of lights, so it's stop and go, and a lot of people turning into businesses). But, the cyclists have every right to be there, so I try to be extra mindful.

 

[GreatLakes]

in this particular scenario, the cyclist came up to the red light after the cars had stopped. It was city driving, so not much of a shoulder/breakdown lane. I wanted to go right on red, and I believe I was signalling (this actually happened a few years ago, but this thread reminded me). Once cross-traffic had cleared, I turned right on red, and the cyclist yelled at me. I thought I was okay, but I just wanted to ask people who know the cycling laws better than I do. Personally, I don't feel that cycling on the road in question is particularly safe (2 lanes in each direction, lots of cars, lots of lights, so it's stop and go, and a lot of people turning into businesses). But, the cyclists have every right to be there, so I try to be extra mindful.

I don't see anything wrong with what you did. I know cyclists do sometimes pass stopped cars at lights and take their spot next to the first car in line. That is only right if there is a bike lane IMO but I don't think it is strictly forbidden.

Regardless, unless the cyclist was signaling they were turning right on red and you cut them off, which doesn't sound like the scenario, that cyclist overreacted.

On a side note one thing to be careful of in this scenario is not to stare left waiting for traffic to clear and then proceed right without making eye contact with the cyclist so you know they aren't also waiting to go right on red. Also make sure you always use signals around cyclists so they know your intentions. It make it safer for everyone.