PDA

View Full Version : illegal or not?



Sean
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:06 PM
Riding to work today, I saw a guy turn left at an intersection as soon as the light changed to green. Meaning, as soon as it turned green, the guy turned left before the on coming cars, on the opposite side of traffic, even made it in the intersection. In a way, it could be considered "cutting them off", but really the oncoming traffic wasn't effected because of the bikes acceleration. So while it seems like a good way to get T-boned on a bike, is it in fact illegal? Opinions? Facts?

Foolds
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:08 PM
Illegal failure to yeild right of way. Also dumb if some one wanted to jump the light

SumoWeezle
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:18 PM
:imwithstupid:

puckstr
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:18 PM
risky move. it will catch up with the rider eventually

Pharmgirl
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:23 PM
This is a "Pittsburgh left". It is common practice to do it in Pgh as the drivers in the other lane commonly let the first person turning left go across when the light turns green. When I moved here I had to consciously remember not attempt this, as it is not the norm that I was used to.

Of course, this person could've just been an asshole in a hurry. Much more likely.

Horsman
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:24 PM
Riding to work today, I saw a guy turn left at an intersection as soon as the light changed to green. Meaning, as soon as it turned green, the guy turned left before the on coming cars, on the opposite side of traffic, even made it in the intersection. In a way, it could be considered "cutting them off", but really the oncoming traffic wasn't effected because of the bikes acceleration. So while it seems like a good way to get T-boned on a bike, is it in fact illegal? Opinions? Facts?
OMG - that happened to me yesterday... Actually I wanted to tag him with my FJ to show the ass what my Brushguard can do to his car... If I hit him - would it be my fault????
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/4Horsman/grille1.jpg

PROFLYER
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:30 PM
Not illegal, dumb, but not illegal. If you get HIT, you've failed to yield but other then that it's all fair game. Def. wouldn't try it with an open lane green light PLUS what if someone ran the red!?

~Barn~
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:31 PM
I like it. The gene pool needs chlorination from time-to-time.

Sean
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:38 PM
Illegal failure to yeild right of way.

Not illegal, dumb, but not illegal.
:dunno: Where are our resident LEO's?

Horsman
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 01:40 PM
I like it. The gene pool needs chlorination from time-to-time.

LOL...:spit:
A major distinction between the 'Pittsburgh Left' and the 'New York Left" - drivers in Pittsburgh more than likely perpetuate (and tolerate) this driving infraction because it is a necessary part of "making do" with what little in adequate driving Pittsburgh drivers truly have; in contrast, New York drivers make similar left turns (gunning through intersections at the beginning of green to beat the lead car in oncoming traffic) because they weren't beat enough as kids (i.e. snot-nosed punks) - definitely would like to know what the LEO's of Colorado have to say about it...

BeoBe
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 02:02 PM
Not illegal, dumb, but not illegal. If you get HIT, you've failed to yield but other then that it's all fair game. Def. wouldn't try it with an open lane green light PLUS what if someone ran the red!?


This is not illegal if you pull it off, in other words an officer will not pull you over just say that your a moron. But if you do make that turn and get tagged you do risk getting up to careless driving. Its no different then if you are sitting at a stop sign and you are getting blinded by the sun, if you pull out and a car hits you then you are at fault for carelessly making a turn when you are unable to see oncoming traffic.

But yes if this guy would have got tagged then he would have been the one getting the citation.

Unless you know for sure if something is illegal or not, and i mean without a doubt.. dont go around screaming your opinions.. opinions are just that, not facts.. If you do this and you get hit its not fair game, you will get a nasty charge on your license that doesn't go away

MetaLord 9
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 02:12 PM
Yes, very dumb, regardless of legality. I've seen a few folks do that before and their cavalier attitude towards their own personal safety and that of others makes me more interested in the parts on the bike than the part doing the riding.

JustSomeDude
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 02:31 PM
I do it all the time, simply because the lights in Denver seem to have been timed by a mildly, well make that severely, retarded individual. It seems like the intent is to have vehicles stop at almost every light, instead of creating continuous flow of traffic. I just don't get it.

Coming from the northeast, where reducing congestion and traffic flow is a well applied science, the move to Denver made me feel like I was relegated to the short-bus. I make due by jumping lights, making ultra-late turns (as the light turns from red), etc. Otherwise, what could be a 5 minute 2-mile trip is forced into a 20 minute endeavor, even in light traffic.

Denver traffic engineers need to wake-up and realize that not EVERY SINGLE street need be a functional thoroughfare. It is impractical due to the 45/90 degree intersecting grids, and results in less than ideal traffic flow in and around downtown. Instead, they should focus on creating primary arteries, and either limit flow on side streets, or cut off some of the less practical ones entirely.

:scream1:

[END RANT]

Sean
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 03:13 PM
You just contradicted the majority on CSC and admitted doing something unsafe/illegal. How dare you! Run for the hills, hell is about to break lose!!!! :shocked:


j/k :lol:

CaneZach
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 03:43 PM
It is NOT illegal. It is incredibly stupid for the reasons already mentioned, but not necessarily illegal. Since, in the scenario you described, the guy didn't cause anyone to have to brake or stop or slow to avoid his dumb ass, he hasn't technically violated their right of way. If, however, he wasn't as fast on the throttle or not fast enough to make it through the intersection, then he could get pulled over for a litay of charges including the ROW and impeding the normal flow of traffic.

Horsman, if you hit him, it would've been entirely his fault... as long as you didn't say you were trying to teach the asshat a lesson.

Mother Goose
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 03:54 PM
I think it's dumb to do this, especially if it's a car doing it, which has happened to me MANY times downtown.

There is a spot in downtown Highlands where I'll purposely wait and wave the person, wanting to turn left, to go ahead since he/she is holding up traffic in the oncoming lane.

dapper
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 04:35 PM
I do it all the time, simply because the lights in Denver seem to have been timed by a mildly, well make that severely, retarded individual. It seems like the intent is to have vehicles stop at almost every light, instead of creating continuous flow of traffic. I just don't get it.Timed for the masses who are in need of a mother to tell them what to do.
However, all bets are off during winter with snow on the ground. I guess the people driving through red lights during snowie periods grew a pair. :lol: (Running red lights isn't for thy)

This is not illegal if you pull it off, in other words an officer will not pull you over just say that your a moron.
Exactly!

Hail...I did something similar to this after I turned 16 and would have received a 100%, however the DMV instructor told me the action I took was acceptable considering the other person didn't move after the traffic control device indicated for them to go. 5 pt deduction for this move is required. (I still aced the driver test...bitches!)

If a checker is not busy, I chose not to wait in the long freaking line at a customer returns location. The checker can do a silly return, after they call the dept for approval. (Shush, nobody's suppose to know this...for it might be against the rules!) :lol:

A month ago, a individual was stopped in the left turn lane at an intersection and wanted to go straight. Two cars pulled behind this smart 'parked' driver with their turn indicators flashing. These two cars were WAY to close to drive around the smart 'parked' driver in the incorrect lane. As I approached the scene without a vitamin A deficiency. I took the lane to the right, (where the smart 'parked' driver was suppose to be) and turned left with the left indicator flashing.
Honking, waving or giving a solute does nothing for the self-righteous, self-absorbed smart 'parked' drivers out there. If any honking, waving or the solute occured, a LEO might call this action 'road-rage'. Some really smart people were given the though that a flashing of the head lights means road-rage, vs flash-to-pass.:rolleyes:

I find it's much easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

Would we want to put our life on hold for someone who doesn't have a hold on their life? :)

Horsman
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 04:52 PM
Horsman, if you hit him, it would've been entirely his fault... as long as you didn't say you were trying to teach the asshat a lesson.

Mumm is da werd!!!! I just think it is very dangerous for anyone on the receiving of the Pittsburgh Left especially during a snow storm - just shocked it isn't illegal. It is really scary for our riders to try and navigate that type of situation too. I would hate to see some rider get hurt because of some asshats impatient actions...

dapper
Thu Jul 23rd, 2009, 05:04 PM
Mumm is da werd!!!! I just think it is very dangerous for anyone on the receiving of the Pittsburgh Left especially during a snow storm - just shocked it isn't illegal. It is really scary for our riders to try and navigate that type of situation too. I would hate to see some rider get hurt because of some asshats impatient actions...
This is a unique subject because sooo many intersections are build with their own quirks. Using 12' per lane with 4 lanes headed in all directions with a 12' median between the directions is a large intersection.

Cal stop isn't allowed by most LEO, however it's nearly a standard practice by some tax payers.

Some judges make examples out of gamblers on the road, such as 1 yr in jail. :shocked:

johnlax33
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 08:43 AM
It's 100% illegal. It falls under failure to yield right of way and or reckless driving. You don't have to hit someone or something to get cited. You can probably get away with this in Denver because they don't care but expect a 4 point ticket anywhere else in Colorado.

Ricky
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 09:11 AM
If you've got the space, then do it. I see nothing wrong with it. I've done it before, but there's gotta be enough room for it. Only safe to do it when it's, well, safe. Just like passing on double yellow.

Failure to yield comes only when you have impeded the traffic you are supposed to yield to. If you don't, then it's not illegal.

Sean
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 09:37 AM
It's 100% illegal. It falls under failure to yield right of way and or reckless driving. You don't have to hit someone or something to get cited. You can probably get away with this in Denver because they don't care but expect a 4 point ticket anywhere else in Colorado.Not to question you; but are you stating a fact (that can be proven), experience or belief? Just asking.

CaneZach
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 12:51 PM
Actually, as I said before, it is NOT illegal. It is incredibly stupid and selfish, but not illegal, given the context of the scenario. Think of it this way:

A car or bike is at a light and they are waiting to turn left. They wait for all traffic to clear, but there is still a car coming, but it is far enough away for the turning driver to complete their turn before the oncoming driver reaches the intersection. Such a turn would be completely LEGAL. In the instance given, there is no difference between the two, except that oncoming traffic is at a stop as opposed to rolling. As long as the oncoming drivers are not encumbered by your presence and their path of travel is not impeded, there is no violation of right of way.

bodhizafa
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 01:11 PM
LOL...:spit:
A major distinction between the 'Pittsburgh Left' and the 'New York Left" - drivers in Pittsburgh more than likely perpetuate (and tolerate) this driving infraction because it is a necessary part of "making do" with what little in adequate driving Pittsburgh drivers truly have; in contrast, New York drivers make similar left turns (gunning through intersections at the beginning of green to beat the lead car in oncoming traffic) because they weren't beat enough as kids (i.e. snot-nosed punks) - definitely would like to know what the LEO's of Colorado have to say about it...


Would have been a "Boston Left" if the light was still red.:)

Tipys
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Whats funny is I know someone who has been pulled over for doing this.

Jim_Vess
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Whats funny is I know someone who has been pulled over for doing this.

Did he get a ticket and if so, what for? Felony stupid? :crazy:

Tipys
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Did he get a ticket and if so, what for? Felony stupid? :crazy:

i dont think he got a ticket. But he was having a bad day and thought he was at a different light. (one block from where he was with a turn arrow)

Horsman
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 09:41 PM
Would have been a "Boston Left" if the light was still red.:)
LOL - I am from Baltimore.. and they just run it during the "red light" too - must be a B-thang!!! and fuck everyone up and then there is some random shootings and bunch of rear endings. then everyone comes outside to see what has happened "What's Happenin!!! Waz Up" and then they start fighting and then it becomes a "Block War!!!! God, I miss B-more.. LOL:drink:I Never needed cable or Netflicks!!!

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/judge_dredd.jpg

MAZIN
Fri Jul 24th, 2009, 11:15 PM
OMG - that happened to me yesterday... Actually I wanted to tag him with my FJ to show the ass what my Brushguard can do to his car... If I hit him - would it be my fault????
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/4Horsman/grille1.jpg

Nice fj man, got a 07 blue and a 08 blk, nothin related to the thread just wanted to shoot that out......continue----

Horsman
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Nice fj man, got a 07 blue and a 08 blk, nothin related to the thread just wanted to shoot that out......continue----
Gotta Love the FJs!!! Glad you got one too - they are torque monsters... they are awesome!!! :yes:. Let me know if you find the TRD black Special Editions Rims (they are really rare!!!) Sorry:oops: ...continue...

Tipys
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Gotta Love the FJs!!! Glad you got one too - they are torque monsters... they are awesome!!! :yes:. Let me know if you find the TRD black Special Editions Rims (they are really rare!!!) Sorry:oops: ...continue...


LOL i have scratched like 3 sets of those. I hate those wheels damn near impossible not to scratch. And you wonder why they are rare.















Plus FJ's are gay anyway:slappers:

gtn
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 05:45 AM
I like it. The gene pool needs chlorination from time-to-time.

But that method works only if the person has no kids yet.

dapper
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 10:19 AM
But that method works only if the person has no kids yet.
The apple won't fall too far from the tree. :)

THoward
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 06:28 PM
42-4-702. Vehicle turning left.

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2346, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

This is copied from the Colorado Revised Statutes. He's lucky he didn't get hit,the way cars cut off bikes. In some states it is legal, actually it is common practice in most states back east.

Terry

CaneZach
Sat Jul 25th, 2009, 07:33 PM
In the context of the scenario given, the driver made it through the intersection without violating anyone's right of way, therefore not a violation of CRS (Colorado Revised Statutes).

ScottieFlan
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 11:21 AM
I was on Wadsworth heading north toward 6th Ave about a year ago... There were three lanes and a right turn lane and traffic was backed up, so myself and the cars on each side of me stopped to let this chick (going south) turn left into a parking lot. Well, some ass clown in a WRX was flying down the turn lane to blow threw the intersection and cut everyone off. He t-boned her at probably 55 mph and it was possibly the loudest noise I have ever heard, then she spun in circles and missed me (on my brand new R1) by no more than 10 feet.

Needless to say, I furious for this guys selfish/carelessness so I stopped and gave my name and number to the girl. The next week I was getting 5 calls a day from her insurance company and her dad who was an attorney. She received the citation because the WRX never made it through the intersection, even though it was very clear he wasn't going to make the turn in the first place.

I don't know the verdict on the incident because I got tired of talking to everyone about what I saw and therefore stopped answering unknown calls. After seeing that happen right in front of me, I'd never do this on a bike, especially if there are any open oncoming lanes, even a turn lane. I've been in Cali for 7 months and I have yet to see an intersection without a red/yellow/green arrow. Yeah, you're NEVER even allowed to turn left if there is NO oncoming traffic at all - so annoying. Happy to be headed back to Golden in 9 days.

-This ends my 1st post on cosportbikeclub

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 11:41 AM
In the context of the scenario given, the driver made it through the intersection without violating anyone's right of way, therefore not a violation of CRS (Colorado Revised Statutes).


I think a judge would disagree with that. You prevented them from going at the green light. By "jumping out first" you are not yielding the right of way.


Just to quote it again.


42-4-702. Vehicle turning left. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2742-4-702%27%5D)

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.



It could also fit under this statute.



42-4-1402. Careless driving - penalty. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/2/68a07/69c49/69c4b/6ac98/6acb9?f=hitlist&q=careless&x=Advanced&opt=&skc=800000030006ACBA&c=curr&gh=1&2.0#LPHit1)


(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways and all other attendant circumstances, is guilty of careless driving. A person convicted of careless driving of a bicycle or motorized bicycle shall not be subject to the provisions of section 42-2-127 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-2-127&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-2-127).

(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, but, if the person's actions are the proximate cause of bodily injury or death to another, such person commits a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense.

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2392, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 42-4-1204 and the former section 42-4-1402 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-4-1402&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-4-1402) was relocated to section 42-4-1602 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-4-1602&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-4-1602).

Cross references: For provision that the operation of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians pursuant to this section apply upon streets and highways and elsewhere throughout the state, see § 42-4-103 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-4-103&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-4-103) (2)(b).

This section is applicable and may be enforced in connection with acts of careless driving committed on private property used as a shopping center parking lot. Clark v. Bunnell, 172 Colo. 32, 470 P.2d 42 (1970); People v. Millican, 172 Colo. 561, 474 P.2d 789 (1970); People v. Erb, 173 Colo. 15, 475 P.2d 330 (1970).

One who commits reckless driving necessarily has been guilty of careless driving, for the greater degree of negligence includes the lesser. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

Both reckless and careless driving offenses consist of two elements: (1) The act of driving a motor vehicle; and (2) the state of mind in "disregard" of or "without due regard" for safety. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

In both reckless and careless driving statutes, the essence of the mental element is disregard of safety in driving. In both it is the absence of care which renders the driving criminal. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

The two offenses differ only in that the degree of negligence required is far more culpable in reckless driving than in careless driving, although it falls short of intentional wrongdoing. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

The actions of a defendant convicted of criminally negligent homicide may be the same as a person convicted under this section. The enactment by the general assembly of a specific criminal statute does not preclude prosecution under a general criminal statute unless a legislative intent to limit prosecution to the specific statute is shown. Here no such intent is found. People v. Tow, 992 P.2d 665 (Colo. App. 1999).http://www.michie.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.michie.com/images/spacer.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doPrevDoc('doc', 'document-frame.htm'))http://www.michie.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.michie.com/images/spacer.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doNextDoc('doc', 'document-frame.htm'))

Tipys
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:01 PM
I think a judge would disagree with that. You prevented them from going at the green light. By "jumping out first" you are not yielding the right of way.


Just to quote it again.




It could also fit under this statute.


The same could go for the guy that is holding up a lane of traffic because he didnt go right when it turned green.


Either way they would need to prove that he prevented them from going. Not just hearsay

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:16 PM
The same could go for the guy that is holding up a lane of traffic because he didnt go right when it turned green.


Either way they would need to prove that he prevented them from going. Not just hearsay


Actually, no. The same can't be said. You don't have the "right of way" when you are behind a stopped car at a light. He has no legal requirement to yield to traffic behind him.

There is no "delayed" start from a light law. There is (as quoted TWICE above) a law about not yeilding the right of way for a left turn.

You are ALWAYS required to yield to traffic when making a left. It does not matter that you can gun it across the intersection. It is YOUR action that is preventing them from going SAFELY!. Which makes it illegal, by not "yielding the right of way".

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:30 PM
A few more supporting C.R.S segments.


42-4-604. Traffic control signal legend. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2742-4-604%27%5D)
(I) Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits such turn; but vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection and to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
(II) Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:35 PM
More:


State legal definition of "Right of way".
(edited out all other definitions for context)

42-1-102. Definitions. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/2/68a07/68a29/68a2b/68a49/68a4f?f=hitlist&q=traffic%20signals&x=Advanced&opt=&skc=8000000300068A50&c=curr&gh=1&2.0#LPHit1)(82) "Right-of-way" means the right of one vehicle operator or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle operator or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed, and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other.

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:38 PM
How about this one?


42-4-903. Turning movements and required signals. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2742-4-903%27%5D)

(1) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in section 42-4-901 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-4-901&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-4-901), or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in sections 42-4-608 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-4-608&sid=5ae26baf.54ec967d.0.0#JD_42-4-608) and 42-4-609.

MetaLord 9
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:39 PM
as long as you're not running away with this or anything... :lol:

Xtremjeepn
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Just figured I would post all the relative legal information. (just kept finding other relative stuff after each post, and I left the obvious "reckless" out since the "careless" post included it)


Here is the link to a searchable Colorado Revised Statues site.

"Title 42" is what you want for vehicles and traffic.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=


Understanding what the laws "really" are can help you not get those "bullshit" tickets.

OUTLAWD
Wed Aug 5th, 2009, 03:54 PM
I do it all the time, simply because the lights in Denver seem to have been timed by a mildly, well make that severely, retarded individual. It seems like the intent is to have vehicles stop at almost every light, instead of creating continuous flow of traffic. I just don't get it.

Coming from the northeast, where reducing congestion and traffic flow is a well applied science, the move to Denver made me feel like I was relegated to the short-bus. I make due by jumping lights, making ultra-late turns (as the light turns from red), etc. Otherwise, what could be a 5 minute 2-mile trip is forced into a 20 minute endeavor, even in light traffic.

Denver traffic engineers need to wake-up and realize that not EVERY SINGLE street need be a functional thoroughfare. It is impractical due to the 45/90 degree intersecting grids, and results in less than ideal traffic flow in and around downtown. Instead, they should focus on creating primary arteries, and either limit flow on side streets, or cut off some of the less practical ones entirely.

:scream1:

[END RANT]


Thank you...I recent moved here from NJ and agree with you 100%, and I pull some of the same "risky" maneuvers.

Between the traffic flow, or lack thereof, and fucktard drivers that park in the fast lane, it takes FOREVER to get anywhere in this state.