"Just Turn Right"

There’s plenty of hand wringing in my city about traffic lights that don’t detect bicycles. Maybe the hand wringing is more about what to do in the case of a red light that won’t change to green. We’re good people. We don’t want to be scofflaws.

One common answer to this problem is to “just turn right.” Here are my 4 favorite arguments against "just turn right."

1. Red lights that need actuation are almost always lights that govern intersections where a lower traffic volume road is crossing a higher volume road. This type of intersection is just the sort that attracts riders who prefer the relative peace of low traffic roadways. The invitation to “just turn right” is often an invitation to leave a 2,000 vehicle per day road and join a 30,000 vehicle per day road. This is unacceptable.

2. In the circle below is the intersection of Dardanella Road and Marion Road. A rider approaching from the west to cross Marion Road must wait for the light to be actuated. The "just turn right" solution follows the red line, a distance of approximately 5 miles to go a net 50 feet.

3. Below is the intersection of Grange and 12^th Street. A rider approaching from the north to turn left for some Black Sheep Coffee must actuate the light. A "just turn right" solution is not legal because turning right from the left lane is not legal and crossing two lanes of roadway to turn right is not safe.

4. Below is the intersection of 12^th Street and Main Avenue. Main Avenue is one way from north to south. Riders approaching from the east must actuate the light. A “just turn right” solution here is not legal because riding the wrong way on a one-way is not legal.

Speaking of scofflaw. It's written in city ordinance: "Every person driving a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this Code..." I assume working traffic controls are a right that drivers expect.

Car Insurance Milage Based Discounts

Yay! StateFarm finally has mileage based insurance rates discounts! Based on the information on this webpage, the less I drive the greater my discount.  The piece of resistance would be if my car travels only 500 miles a year I could save up to 45% of my premium.

$106 dollars a year. Cool! Unfortunately, my cold harsh reality is I can expect to maybe qualify for a $77 annual discount.

StateFarm receives mileage data from the OnStar service. Assuming my car is OnStar equipped (it is) and I already subscribe (I don't) I'm good to go. Sign me up, right? The least expensive rate for OnStar requires a 3 year commitment costing $166 annually. Woops! I can save $77 a year on insurance by spending $166 a year for OnStar?

Let's say I already shell out $166 a year for OnStar, enjoying all their services and diagnostics and what nots. That would seem to make sense right? I already have OnStar, I already enjoy it. Now I'm getting $77 bucks back for my auto insurance because of it.

Win win win, right?

Not so fast. As I decrease my driving I'm far less likely to need automatic crash response, emergency services, hands-free calling, roadside assistance, remote services and vehicle diagnostics. So the value I get from my OnStar service decreases as I get more I get from my discount.

I have a solution!

StateFarm should get my mileage from the NSA. They likely have that information through my cell phone anyway. I think it's about time the NSA gives me something back!