Stuck at the red light?

[Mario]

See this easy trick for a bike, small car, cycle, etc toTrigger Green Traffic Lights using a magnet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GAacxGiV4A&feature=related

and with a TV remote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZL_QlxBqQs&NR=1

[Plantains]

Both of those are 100% illegal. Just so you're all aware.

Actually to add, both of those are able to be written up as felonies.

[Mario]

Good to know!

[Meest]

Both of those are 100% illegal. Just so you're all aware.

Actually to add, both of those are able to be written up as felonies.

I understand the universal remote being illegal, but how is the magnet thing illegal? Just wondering as every one of my bikes and neighbors bikes we had rigged up with magnets when we were 8 or so years old because I read about that somewhere at that age.

[Plantains]

Because tripping a traffic light by external means is reserved for Emergency Vehicle use ONLY. If you notice here in GFK, when an emergency vehicle is rolling, all the lights trip to green in that direction and it is abrupt, as in not a long yellow (which is why you shouldn't try to "make" lights. However, the traffic light doesn't know its an emergency vehicle, so it simply goes by whatever is putting out the "bigger" signal. If you happen to be sitting there on ur bike and ur signal is "bigger" than theirs, the light will throw red for them and wreak havoc.

Kids in the hood back home used to try this alot to slow the cops down. We would see them practicing on our ambulances though.

[Meest]

The magnet trick I tried didn't abruptly change it on any of the lights we used it on (wash and 24th before the underpass and 17th and wash) It just actually tripped the light when there wasn't actual traffic flowing the opposite direction. The light still had the usual yellow grace period along with an amount of wait between the change.

I don't see how its illegal to increase the magnetic field of your mode of transportation. Nor do I see it doing anything other than saying "HEY! There's something over the sensor! Detect me!"

[Sal Atticum]

In Boston they have specific spots in the road for cyclists to stand that the lights will detect them.  Not quite sure how it works in that case.

[Plantains]

BEEK. In B-lo, the "cyclist" (which are really "small vehicle sensors") are the same electromagnet principle, its just put on an angle and there are two of them closer together.

MEEST. I agree with you except all of my criminal justicing has taught me this. You need not prove what you were doing was right, you need to prove what you were doing wasn't wrong as well. If you somehow utilized a magnetic device that induced a current that was stronger than the trip switch and:
A. was strong enough to confuse the system that when an emergency vehicle was approaching its device wasn't recognized and yours was.
or
B. You caused an accident in general and these said magnets were found on your vehicle.

I believe I could easily cite and win a case against you under article 1212 of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic code which states:
   
 § 1212. Reckless driving. Reckless driving shall mean driving or using
  any  motor  vehicle,  motorcycle  or  any other vehicle propelled by any
  power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in
  a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper  use  of
  the  public  highway,  or  unreasonably  endangers  users  of the public
  highway. Reckless driving is prohibited.  Every  person  violating  this
  provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Supplemented with this from Article 10.00 of the NYS Penal Code:

    14. "Vehicle" means a "motor vehicle", "trailer" or "semi-trailer," as
  defined in the vehicle and traffic law, any snowmobile as defined in the
  parks and recreation law, any  aircraft,  or  any  vessel  equipped  for
  propulsion by mechanical means or by sail.

Take note the ambiguity provided in this law. What can be defined as unreasonable? The answer that we (my CJ class and the Lawyer/Police Officer professor) came to conclude that for our purposes it could generally be interpreted as a majority/minority argument, meaning would more than 50% of the population have this device or magnet affixed to their vehicle? Again though, laws (at least in NY but I believe its safe to say in this country) are left to be very open to interpretation (which I think is great as it gives it more flexibility) but it does leave an interesting debate.

I could also argue for Article 240.20 section 5 of the NYS penal code:

  § 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
    A  person  is  guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
  public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a  risk
  thereof:
    1.  He  engages  in  fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
  behavior; or
    2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
    3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
  obscene gesture; or
    4. Without lawful  authority,  he  disturbs  any  lawful  assembly  or
  meeting of persons; or
    5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
    6.  He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
  comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
    7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
  which serves no legitimate purpose.
    Disorderly conduct is a violation.

As well as:

  § 240.45 Criminal nuisance in the second degree.
    A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when:
    1.  By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the
  circumstances,  he  knowingly  or  recklessly  creates  or  maintains  a
  condition  which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number
  of persons; or
    2. He knowingly conducts or maintains any premises,  place  or  resort
  where persons gather for purposes of engaging in unlawful conduct.
    Criminal nuisance in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.

And lastly in case I didn't make my point, I think this one will cover it all.

    § 1115. Interference  with  official traffic-control devices, railroad
  signs or signals and other highway appurtenances. (a)  No  person  shall
  without  lawful  authority  attempt to or in fact alter, deface, injure,
  knock down, cover, remove, or  otherwise  interfere  with  any  official
  traffic-control   device   or  any  railroad  sign  or  signal,  or  any
  inscription, shield, or insignia thereon, or any other part thereof; any
  bridge or similar structure; any  monument,  lamppost,  telephone  pole,
  fence,  walk,  curb,  tree,  rock cut or other appurtenance on a highway
  right of way.
    (b) For the purposes of this section, to 'deface' shall  include,  but
  not  be limited to, to damage, destroy, disfigure, erase, ruin, distort,
  spoil or otherwise change the external appearance of an  object  by  the
  use of chalk, crayon, paint, stain, ink or other similar material.

In all of these examples, the best I've got you for is a Class B misdemeanor, which is only 3 months in jail (plus fines... its NYS) but if there was a traffic accident, there are PLENTY more charges that could be filed.

All of this info is available at my apt. OR Here: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

For the record, I'm not trying to be a dick.

[Plantains]

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about:



Found here: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm

It looks like the thing on the right from the surface.

[Meest]

That last thing with the traffic signal interference is so vague that technically only the one line could even be used against (which is one line to many i agree) as I'm not damaging any sign or anything. I am altering my motor vehicle (granted I won't get into laws about that BS). Not the signal itself. I would even beg to differ, as I'm not interfering with it, I'm not changing the way it detects vehicles am i? I am still using the same mode of detection as it was before. So even there there is a point to make about me not violating anything at all. The vehicles traveling the oposite direction still have the same ability as I do to trip said traffic sensor. There for I have not modified or changed anything about said traffic signal. I have not interfered, because the opposing traffic still has the ability to trip the light.

[Flutterbye]

Sanders Beek and I stood on top of the sensors in Iowa and it registered our 'small vehicle' and tripped the light

[Plantains]

That last thing with the traffic signal interference is so vague that technically only the one line could even be used against (which is one line to many i agree) as I'm not damaging any sign or anything. I am altering my motor vehicle (granted I won't get into laws about that BS). Not the signal itself. I would even beg to differ, as I'm not interfering with it, I'm not changing the way it detects vehicles am i? I am still using the same mode of detection as it was before. So even there there is a point to make about me not violating anything at all. The vehicles traveling the oposite direction still have the same ability as I do to trip said traffic sensor. There for I have not modified or changed anything about said traffic signal. I have not interfered, because the opposing traffic still has the ability to trip the light.

The vagueness is what makes you guilty. Article 1115 A. is that one line, and it easily could encompass you as you are interfering with a signal device.

You make a good point in saying you haven't interfered because opposing traffic has the ability to trip the light, but you have interfered by modifying your vehicle to make it trip the light more easily.

I think my point is that aside from using a MIRT type of device, magnets MAY be ok to use, but if you happen to get involved in an accident... lets say some guy runs the red light and hits you on your bicycle. CLEARLY his fault, but if they find out that you had magnets on your bicycle for the intent of activating the traffic signal, then the tables could be turned.

This is similar to the idea of me driving in ND with NYS plates and an expired NYS inspection (which Im not FTR) but even though it is illegal to operate a vehicle in NYS without a state inspection, in ND it is quite legal. However if I'm involved in an accident, and my NYS plates are on my car and my inspection is expired (because no one in ND will issue a NYS inspection) then technically my car was on the road in an un-roadworthy condition and thus illegally. His fault or not, I get in trouble and it becomes 100% my fault.

[Meest]

From the accidents I've been in in ND, The officer doesn't assign Fault. That's up to civil court.

At least that just happened today with my girlfriends dad. he was rear ended at a red light. No fault was cited.

[Plantains]

On the police report?

[Meest]

No one was sited at fault no. Nothing on the police report. Just that so and so rear ended her father.

When i was involved in an accident on the interstate no one was assigned with fault either. I hit a car that stopped on the interstate because of a white out (Baser) We were both given tickets for care required and went on our way... Now my work insurance and their insurance went at it and concluded I was at fault for hitting an idiot stopped in the right lane of the interstate. The police didn't decide that to my knowledge, but that was back in 2005.