PA ”Ride on Red“ Law to go into effect Sunday

[NE2]

It seems very unfair to have different laws for motorcyclists/bicyles. If its safe for them to do manuvers on red, it should be save for everyone.

Cyclists do have a better view of other traffic than motorists who don't drive a big black jacked up truck.

[jemacedo9]

I think I can count on one hand the number of times in 20 years where I've been at a signal that seemed malfunctioning.  As a car driver.  I know for sure that this is an issue for motorcyclists/bicyclists. I wish this law was restricted to those forms.  Or...list how long is long enough to wait.  3 minutes?  2 minutes?

It seems very unfair to have different laws for motorcyclists/bicyles. If its safe for them to do manuvers on red, it should be save for everyone. And I agree with the law, there is plenty of time it is safe to make a left or go straight on red, not just turn right. There's a light near me at a T intersection that when I approach it, I always seem to just miss the light, and as I'm coming from a minor road, its set for a 3 minute minimum green on the main road. I'm sure at night, I've already wasted more then an hour sitting at that red light with no cars in sight in any direction... going in those circumstances endangers no one at all after a brief stop to make sure no one else is coming.

The law states that the light must be malfunctioning.  If the light is functionally designed for 3 minutes, and someone doesn't want to wait for that long at night, running the red is still technically illegal.  In that situation, I wonder about the validity of that signal being there, without knowing the intersection.

And this is the issue I have with this law in general, but moreso in opening it up for everyone...who really knows when they pull up to a light if it's malfunctioning?  I see this as a slippery slope to treating lights as stop signs for those in a hurry, then trying to use the law as their justification. 

To be totally honest, I'd rather we went back to having signals switch to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night for most low-volume intersections. I think that would solve most of these issues anyway.

There are already different laws for trucks and buses (speed, left lane), and for motorcycles (lane usage).  I don't think it's a question of fair, it's a question of safety, which is different for different classes of vehicles.

[kalvado]

To be totally honest, I'd rather we went back to having signals switch to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night for most low-volume intersections. I think that would solve most of these issues anyway.

Wouldn't work in all situations.
My real life story:
Winter, 7 PM, HEAVY snow, plows cannot keep up and there is an inch of somewhat-packed snow on the road. Pavement marks are completely invisible. 
Intersection with lots of lanes: I came from the side which has 5 lanes towards intersection (1 right turn, 2 through, 2 left) + 2 oncoming lanes+ wide shoulder (I believe designed as a bus stop pull off). I need to take a left, so I position myself roughly in the road center, to the keft of straight-through traffic and to the right of oncoming traffic. Once again - lane marks were invisible.   

As I realized  after light skipped my turn during  2 cycles, I was somewhere between 2 left turn lanes and none of the loops picked me (or 5 cars behind me). Not very surprizing: lanes effectively become wider in such a weather, and there was effectively only 1 turn lane instead of 2.

I confess - I run red arrow after making sure there was no oncoming traffic when straight-through light was green. What would you do in such a situation? Would you write me a ticket if you were a cop?

[sdmichael]

It seems very unfair to have different laws for motorcyclists/bicyles. If its safe for them to do manuvers on red, it should be save for everyone.

Cyclists do have a better view of other traffic than motorists who don't drive a big black jacked up truck.

Regardless of their "better view", they shouldn't be running lights or stop signs. I have a great view on my motorcycle, should I just run lights because of that?

[Brandon]

It seems very unfair to have different laws for motorcyclists/bicyles. If its safe for them to do manuvers on red, it should be save for everyone.

Cyclists do have a better view of other traffic than motorists who don't drive a big black jacked up truck.

Regardless of their "better view", they shouldn't be running lights or stop signs. I have a great view on my motorcycle, should I just run lights because of that?

Much agreed.  I saw one this morning run a four-way stop sign where there was a lot of of vehicular traffic.  My heart skipped a beat as I thought he was going to get hit by one of them for his foolish stunt.

[kphoger]

meh

[hbelkins]

We get frequent complaints about malfunctioning detection loops. Most of the time, it's because the driver either doesn't pull all the way up to the stop bar, or pulls well past it. But we have had several occasions when the loop or signal box really was messed up.

[jeffandnicole]

To be totally honest, I'd rather we went back to having signals switch to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night for most low-volume intersections. I think that would solve most of these issues anyway.

Wouldn't work in all situations.
My real life story:
Winter, 7 PM, HEAVY snow, plows cannot keep up and there is an inch of somewhat-packed snow on the road. Pavement marks are completely invisible. 
Intersection with lots of lanes: I came from the side which has 5 lanes towards intersection (1 right turn, 2 through, 2 left) + 2 oncoming lanes+ wide shoulder (I believe designed as a bus stop pull off). I need to take a left, so I position myself roughly in the road center, to the keft of straight-through traffic and to the right of oncoming traffic. Once again - lane marks were invisible.   

As I realized  after light skipped my turn during  2 cycles, I was somewhere between 2 left turn lanes and none of the loops picked me (or 5 cars behind me). Not very surprizing: lanes effectively become wider in such a weather, and there was effectively only 1 turn lane instead of 2.

I confess - I run red arrow after making sure there was no oncoming traffic when straight-through light was green. What would you do in such a situation? Would you write me a ticket if you were a cop?

In snowy situations, cops are dealing with accidents and spinouts.  They really can't even keep up with them much of the time.  They simply pull up (especially in a spinout) make sure you're OK and see if you have a tow coming (or will call one for you), and if you're out of the roadway, they'll move on. 

They don't have the time to sit on the rod pulling someone over.  It also creates an unsafe situation...a cop isn't going to want to stand on the side of the road.  And by being on the side of the road, the plows can't do their job efficiently.

Thus, I seriously doubt a cop is going to care.

[jemacedo9]

To be totally honest, I'd rather we went back to having signals switch to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night for most low-volume intersections. I think that would solve most of these issues anyway.

Wouldn't work in all situations.
My real life story:
Winter, 7 PM, HEAVY snow, plows cannot keep up and there is an inch of somewhat-packed snow on the road. Pavement marks are completely invisible. 
Intersection with lots of lanes: I came from the side which has 5 lanes towards intersection (1 right turn, 2 through, 2 left) + 2 oncoming lanes+ wide shoulder (I believe designed as a bus stop pull off). I need to take a left, so I position myself roughly in the road center, to the keft of straight-through traffic and to the right of oncoming traffic. Once again - lane marks were invisible.   

As I realized  after light skipped my turn during  2 cycles, I was somewhere between 2 left turn lanes and none of the loops picked me (or 5 cars behind me). Not very surprizing: lanes effectively become wider in such a weather, and there was effectively only 1 turn lane instead of 2.

I confess - I run red arrow after making sure there was no oncoming traffic when straight-through light was green. What would you do in such a situation? Would you write me a ticket if you were a cop?

Nothing works in all situations. 

Yours is a good scenario.  Which is more prevalent...scenarios where there is a malfunction or other issue, or the number of times this law going to be misapplied/taken advantage of?  There's no way to get a definitive answer. 

If I were a cop, I would probably write you a ticket, assuming I didn't see the fact that you sat through two cycles. (IF I was writing tickets in a snowstorm).  But even with the law, I would still possibly write you a ticket, stating that the light was functional but operator error. 

Is this law really intended to give someone a leg to stand on in court after-the-fact, and not to prevent tickets in the first place?  And does that imply that before this law, you couldn't get a ticket thrown out if could prove that the light wasn't functional?  Because it seems to me that the only way this works is if cops are notified which lights' sensors are not functional, and I can't see that happening.

[jeffandnicole]

To be totally honest, I'd rather we went back to having signals switch to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night for most low-volume intersections. I think that would solve most of these issues anyway.

Wouldn't work in all situations.
My real life story:
Winter, 7 PM, HEAVY snow, plows cannot keep up and there is an inch of somewhat-packed snow on the road. Pavement marks are completely invisible. 
Intersection with lots of lanes: I came from the side which has 5 lanes towards intersection (1 right turn, 2 through, 2 left) + 2 oncoming lanes+ wide shoulder (I believe designed as a bus stop pull off). I need to take a left, so I position myself roughly in the road center, to the keft of straight-through traffic and to the right of oncoming traffic. Once again - lane marks were invisible.   

As I realized  after light skipped my turn during  2 cycles, I was somewhere between 2 left turn lanes and none of the loops picked me (or 5 cars behind me). Not very surprizing: lanes effectively become wider in such a weather, and there was effectively only 1 turn lane instead of 2.

I confess - I run red arrow after making sure there was no oncoming traffic when straight-through light was green. What would you do in such a situation? Would you write me a ticket if you were a cop?

Nothing works in all situations. 

Yours is a good scenario.  Which is more prevalent...scenarios where there is a malfunction or other issue, or the number of times this law going to be misapplied/taken advantage of?  There's no way to get a definitive answer. 

If I were a cop, I would probably write you a ticket, assuming I didn't see the fact that you sat through two cycles. (IF I was writing tickets in a snowstorm).  But even with the law, I would still possibly write you a ticket, stating that the light was functional but operator error. 

Is this law really intended to give someone a leg to stand on in court after-the-fact, and not to prevent tickets in the first place?  And does that imply that before this law, you couldn't get a ticket thrown out if could prove that the light wasn't functional?  Because it seems to me that the only way this works is if cops are notified which lights' sensors are not functional, and I can't see that happening.

So if a car isn't on the correct spot on a snowcovered road in a driving snowstorm, how does the driver change things?  If you are a cop and behind this vehicle, then you are preventing the vehicle from backing up and correcting himself.  Also, you, as a cop, are in the wrong position yourself. 

And as a cop, you probably wouldn't be just sitting behind this person.  You would have more important things to do in a snowstorm.

[kalvado]

Thus, I seriously doubt a cop is going to care.

That still leaves the question of right-or-wrong open. You know, I don't typically run red lights not because of tickets, but because it is wrong. Even if it is 1 AM and I am the only car on the road. (it is more difficult to apply that argument to speed limit, bet red light is a red light).
A DOT spokesperson in local newspaper said, in somewhat similar situation, that turning against red arrow is wrong, and car should go straight ahead once through lanes are cleared. Quite an unsafe move, if you ask me, with limited visibility and mirrors&side windows covered with snow..

[paulthemapguy]

"Some" red lights, the article says. Which ones, exactly? Who determines if a signal is being "unresponsive" or not? Seems like there's way too much ambiguity here.

My thoughts exactly.  If they're so worried about people getting stuck at lights at late hours, they can switch to a flashing red/flashing yellow mode overnight like some places do.

[jemacedo9]

So if a car isn't on the correct spot on a snowcovered road in a driving snowstorm, how does the driver change things?  If you are a cop and behind this vehicle, then you are preventing the vehicle from backing up and correcting himself.  Also, you, as a cop, are in the wrong position yourself. 

And as a cop, you probably wouldn't be just sitting behind this person.  You would have more important things to do in a snowstorm.

I did say "IF a cop was writing a ticket in a snow storm..."  so I agree there.

But I don't know how you fix the situation, except to run the light and hope there isn't a cop around.  But my main point is...I don't know how the law is going to get you out of getting a ticket in the first place.  Maybe in the snowstorm example, the cop may concede that under the circumstances, running the light was unavoidable.  But in a non-snowstorm example, you're now asking the cop to judge onsite whether a light was malfunctioning or not.  And maybe some cops may be more lenient than in the past...but just maybe.

The law to me seems more towards having a stronger leg to stand on in court...which is a good thing, though if you could prove malfunction before this law, would the court still enforce a red light ticket?

[jeffandnicole]

So if a car isn't on the correct spot on a snowcovered road in a driving snowstorm, how does the driver change things?  If you are a cop and behind this vehicle, then you are preventing the vehicle from backing up and correcting himself.  Also, you, as a cop, are in the wrong position yourself. 

And as a cop, you probably wouldn't be just sitting behind this person.  You would have more important things to do in a snowstorm.

I did say "IF a cop was writing a ticket in a snow storm..."  so I agree there.

But I don't know how you fix the situation, except to run the light and hope there isn't a cop around.  But my main point is...I don't know how the law is going to get you out of getting a ticket in the first place.  Maybe in the snowstorm example, the cop may concede that under the circumstances, running the light was unavoidable.  But in a non-snowstorm example, you're now asking the cop to judge onsite whether a light was malfunctioning or not.  And maybe some cops may be more lenient than in the past...but just maybe.

The law to me seems more towards having a stronger leg to stand on in court...which is a good thing, though if you could prove malfunction before this law, would the court still enforce a red light ticket?

If the light was malfunctioning, it's generally not a one time instance and there would be a record of the light getting fixed. But, it would be up to the defendant to hunt down those records and to present them in court.

[kalvado]

So if a car isn't on the correct spot on a snowcovered road in a driving snowstorm, how does the driver change things?  If you are a cop and behind this vehicle, then you are preventing the vehicle from backing up and correcting himself.  Also, you, as a cop, are in the wrong position yourself. 

And as a cop, you probably wouldn't be just sitting behind this person.  You would have more important things to do in a snowstorm.

I did say "IF a cop was writing a ticket in a snow storm..."  so I agree there.

But I don't know how you fix the situation, except to run the light and hope there isn't a cop around.  But my main point is...I don't know how the law is going to get you out of getting a ticket in the first place.  Maybe in the snowstorm example, the cop may concede that under the circumstances, running the light was unavoidable.  But in a non-snowstorm example, you're now asking the cop to judge onsite whether a light was malfunctioning or not.  And maybe some cops may be more lenient than in the past...but just maybe.

The law to me seems more towards having a stronger leg to stand on in court...which is a good thing, though if you could prove malfunction before this law, would the court still enforce a red light ticket?

If the light was malfunctioning, it's generally not a one time instance and there would be a record of the light getting fixed. But, it would be up to the defendant to hunt down those records and to present them in court.

This still doesn't affect "good or bad" aspect of it.
And dashcam could be used these days to prove the problem with much smaller effort. 

[jeffandnicole]

So if a car isn't on the correct spot on a snowcovered road in a driving snowstorm, how does the driver change things?  If you are a cop and behind this vehicle, then you are preventing the vehicle from backing up and correcting himself.  Also, you, as a cop, are in the wrong position yourself. 

And as a cop, you probably wouldn't be just sitting behind this person.  You would have more important things to do in a snowstorm.

I did say "IF a cop was writing a ticket in a snow storm..."  so I agree there.

But I don't know how you fix the situation, except to run the light and hope there isn't a cop around.  But my main point is...I don't know how the law is going to get you out of getting a ticket in the first place.  Maybe in the snowstorm example, the cop may concede that under the circumstances, running the light was unavoidable.  But in a non-snowstorm example, you're now asking the cop to judge onsite whether a light was malfunctioning or not.  And maybe some cops may be more lenient than in the past...but just maybe.

The law to me seems more towards having a stronger leg to stand on in court...which is a good thing, though if you could prove malfunction before this law, would the court still enforce a red light ticket?

If the light was malfunctioning, it's generally not a one time instance and there would be a record of the light getting fixed. But, it would be up to the defendant to hunt down those records and to present them in court.

This still doesn't affect "good or bad" aspect of it.
And dashcam could be used these days to prove the problem with much smaller effort. 

You would need a court where viewing a video is permitted, and a judge who will be willing to view the entire video.  I'm not sure if a judge is going to take your phone and sit there for a few minutes to determine if the light malfunctioned. 

Anyway, the question presented was if there was a cop in the area on a snow-covered roadway.  Everyone keeps adding numerous variables to this, all of which needs to be looked at on their own merit. 

As for the good or bad aspect of it, you've been given a few people's opinion on it.  Obviously, it must really have made you think about it.  Personally, I wouldn't even remember the situation 8 or 9 months later (or years later).  When I'm plowing roads, it's reasonably common to see people "breaking the law", because snow and ice can really screw with the traffic light sensors.  As long as they're out of my way, I could care less what they do.  Heck, some people slide right thru the intersection because they didn't prepare properly for the red light.  I've never seen someone pulled over for a probable traffic violation on a snow-covered roadway.

[kalvado]

Anyway, the question presented was if there was a cop in the area on a snow-covered roadway.  Everyone keeps adding numerous variables to this, all of which needs to be looked at on their own merit. 

As for the good or bad aspect of it, you've been given a few people's opinion on it.  Obviously, it must really have made you think about it.  Personally, I wouldn't even remember the situation 8 or 9 months later (or years later).

Honestly speaking, it just happened to stick somewhere in a back of my mind. And it was very relevant, so I brought it up. BTW, since we had no winter this season, this happened at least 18 month ago, maybe more.  Memory plays funny tricks....
I still believe that running red light in a cautious manner, as I did, was the least of all possible evils. It was more about bringing up a situation where NY law and common sense doesn't quite align. Just for the sake of discussion 

[jeffandnicole]

Anyway, the question presented was if there was a cop in the area on a snow-covered roadway.  Everyone keeps adding numerous variables to this, all of which needs to be looked at on their own merit. 

As for the good or bad aspect of it, you've been given a few people's opinion on it.  Obviously, it must really have made you think about it.  Personally, I wouldn't even remember the situation 8 or 9 months later (or years later).

Honestly speaking, it just happened to stick somewhere in a back of my mind. And it was very relevant, so I brought it up. BTW, since we had no winter this season, this happened at least 18 month ago, maybe more.  Memory plays funny tricks....
I still believe that running red light in a cautious manner, as I did, was the least of all possible evils. It was more about bringing up a situation where NY law and common sense doesn't quite align. Just for the sake of discussion 

The two often don't make sense many places.  Here's a good example: You're waiting to pull out from a driveway near a traffic signal, and there's a line of traffic.  Someone waves you in.  You just committed a turning violation.  That person had no authorization to allow you to cut into traffic, and you're supposed to wait until traffic has cleared.

Or, you come upon a bicyclist.  The only way to get around him is by crossing the solid double line.  You can stay behind the cyclist, but now you're driving too slow for the conditions of the roadway.  You can pass him, but you're not supposed to cross a solid line.

Or, let's say there's a box in the middle of the roadway.  The box ain't going to move.  Do you sit there forever, park the car, get out and move the box, or drive around it.  (This is a trick question, by the way.  The real thing to do is call 911 under the "See Something, Say Something" guidelines and have the bomb squad called out!!!)

[sdmichael]

The two often don't make sense many places.  Here's a good example: You're waiting to pull out from a driveway near a traffic signal, and there's a line of traffic.  Someone waves you in.  You just committed a turning violation.  That person had no authorization to allow you to cut into traffic, and you're supposed to wait until traffic has cleared.

Actually, you still shouldn't wave someone out regardless. I was severely injured as a direct result of someone doing that. They waved someone else out in front of me and I collided with them. You should ALWAYS wait until it is safe, not when someone else deems it so.

[Mr_Northside]

Or, you come upon a bicyclist.  The only way to get around him is by crossing the solid double line.  You can stay behind the cyclist, but now you're driving too slow for the conditions of the roadway.  You can pass him, but you're not supposed to cross a solid line.

I can't speak for states other than Pennsylvania, but when they passed the "4-ft. Law" (where you have to maintain 4 feet of distance from a bicyclist), it permits the crossing of a double-yellow line to do so, as long as it's safe (obviously, no on-coming traffic).

[Brandon]

The two often don't make sense many places.  Here's a good example: You're waiting to pull out from a driveway near a traffic signal, and there's a line of traffic.  Someone waves you in.  You just committed a turning violation.  That person had no authorization to allow you to cut into traffic, and you're supposed to wait until traffic has cleared.

Actually, you still shouldn't wave someone out regardless. I was severely injured as a direct result of someone doing that. They waved someone else out in front of me and I collided with them. You should ALWAYS wait until it is safe, not when someone else deems it so.

Most agreed.  I got hit once because two people in two different vehicles waved a lady in another vehicle out.  She pulled out without looking, and I hit her.  Fortunately it was slow enough that it did not trigger the airbags, but it did rip off her front bumper cover.  Of course, being as this was in Chicago, she started claiming that I was speeding (in a left turn lane pulling up to a red signal).  The cop came, listen to the stories, and told her, "Lady, you know you're supposed to look first?".  Her jaw hit the pavement at that point.

[jjakucyk]

Or, you come upon a bicyclist.  The only way to get around him is by crossing the solid double line.  You can stay behind the cyclist, but now you're driving too slow for the conditions of the roadway.  You can pass him, but you're not supposed to cross a solid line.

I can't speak for states other than Pennsylvania, but when they passed the "4-ft. Law" (where you have to maintain 4 feet of distance from a bicyclist), it permits the crossing of a double-yellow line to do so, as long as it's safe (obviously, no on-coming traffic).

In most states there is no such thing as "too slow for the roadway."  The laws generally read along the lines of:

I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
II. A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

In such a situation, the cyclist is not impeding traffic but establishing traffic, as they are operating within the capabilities of their vehicle.  The "as far right as practicable" language also means if a roadway is not wide enough to allow safe passing, or if they plan to make a left turn, or because of other visibility issues or pavement deterioration, then they are within their right to ride in the middle of the lane or change lanes.  The same is true for mopeds limited to 30mph, or tractors, construction equipment, buggies, etc.  Simply being delayed is not considered impeding, and you're in no way obligated to pass just because you could be going faster. 

The laws that allow passing even on a double-yellow are much more rare, and not as consistent.  In Ohio you can pass if safe (obviously) only if the vehicle you're passing is going less than *half* the speed limit.  So crossing the line to pass a cyclist going 20 mph when the speed limit is 30 mph is still illegal. 

[jeffandnicole]

Or, you come upon a bicyclist.  The only way to get around him is by crossing the solid double line.  You can stay behind the cyclist, but now you're driving too slow for the conditions of the roadway.  You can pass him, but you're not supposed to cross a solid line.

I can't speak for states other than Pennsylvania, but when they passed the "4-ft. Law" (where you have to maintain 4 feet of distance from a bicyclist), it permits the crossing of a double-yellow line to do so, as long as it's safe (obviously, no on-coming traffic).

In most states there is no such thing as "too slow for the roadway."  The laws generally read along the lines of:

I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
II. A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

In such a situation, the cyclist is not impeding traffic but establishing traffic, as they are operating within the capabilities of their vehicle. 

So you mean to tell me that a grandma going 20 mph, or someone driving an old beater pickup that can't get over 15, can so do because they are establishing traffic and thus not impeding traffic?

Your "I." is clearly the same thing that I wrote.

[jjakucyk]

Or, you come upon a bicyclist.  The only way to get around him is by crossing the solid double line.  You can stay behind the cyclist, but now you're driving too slow for the conditions of the roadway.  You can pass him, but you're not supposed to cross a solid line.

I can't speak for states other than Pennsylvania, but when they passed the "4-ft. Law" (where you have to maintain 4 feet of distance from a bicyclist), it permits the crossing of a double-yellow line to do so, as long as it's safe (obviously, no on-coming traffic).

In most states there is no such thing as "too slow for the roadway."  The laws generally read along the lines of:

I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
II. A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

In such a situation, the cyclist is not impeding traffic but establishing traffic, as they are operating within the capabilities of their vehicle. 

So you mean to tell me that a grandma going 20 mph, or someone driving an old beater pickup that can't get over 15, can so do because they are establishing traffic and thus not impeding traffic?

Your "I." is clearly the same thing that I wrote.

If it's possible for people to pass grandma safely then it's not impeding.  Grandma's or the beater pickup's speed isn't impeding crowded city streets, but would be on a high-speed divided highway.  "Normal and reasonable movement" is established by what vehicles operating in that location and time are capable of.  If there's nothing but late model automobiles on the road and it's dry and sunny, then someone driving half the speed limit and maneuvering with deliberate intent to prevent others from passing is impeding.  If there's a large group of cyclists out riding, even if way below the speed limit, then they aren't impeding traffic they ARE traffic. 

Also the definitions above are referring to *unlawful* impeding.  There's lots of things that impede traffic legally but are still part of the "normal and reasonable movement of traffic" such as loading/unloading school buses, garbage and mail trucks, stop lights, construction work, pedestrians crossing at crosswalks, congestion, bad weather, etc.  So back to my original point, if it's legal for a vehicle to use a particular roadway (bicycles, buggies, and sometimes motorcycles are prohibited from interstate highways for instance) then as long as they're operating within their capabilities and in a lawful manner (not weaving side-to-side or stopping in the middle of the road for no reason), they are not legally impeding traffic.  Even in states that require slower vehicles to give way after a certain backup forms behind them, they are only obligated to do so when it is safe. 

[MikeCL]

"Some" red lights, the article says. Which ones, exactly? Who determines if a signal is being "unresponsive" or not? Seems like there's way too much ambiguity here.

I've seen some lights get stuck.. I was waiting in one of the turning lanes and I was just about screaming at the lady to press the walk button to at least signal the light that someone wants to cross.. she seemed almost like she was not and by that time 3 min had passed.. she finally did press it and the light finally cycled for us..

Curious but what causes it to get stuck like that? If I was closer I would have went out myself to press the cross button.