Jim from Boston

Most of the mistakes made in transfusions are made by who don't adhere to the rules, no matter how safe the violator thinks he is. In cycling, the one making a mistake is may well be the most seriously harmed victim, but others, like a car driver, will also be injured. My point is that observance of traffic laws may well be a superior attitude to the convenience of running a red light, even though I myself do not adhere to it for the most part. I do think that advancing to the front of the line of traffic is a safer position.

High Roller

Thanks for the analogy, Jim.

The apparent inability of some posters to grasp the basic concept of freedom and responsibility only strengthens my case. This same mentality on Wall Street just wrecked the global economy. Anyone remember that? This same mentality provides a license to the 300 pound road heifer in her SUV to weave within inches of your handlebars while she yaks on her cell phone. Anyone experience that? This does not bode well for the future.

Of course, the real reason we old-timers stop at controlled intersections is because we need the rest.

apricissimus 

I actually consider myself to be a very conservative rider. But to someone who does not know why I do what I do, I may appear to be one of the reckless scofflaw types. Safety (for myself and others) must be paramount, obviously. Second to that is to be courteous to others. If I can achieve both of those things, pretty much anything else is fair game. One doesn't need to act like a car, follow all the rules designed for motor traffic, in order to be a safe and courteous rider.

Widsith

There often are lines cut in the pavement (making a large box shape) that show where the wire loop for the sensor is buried. These wires detect metal objects and should be sensitive enough to detect bike wheels. Usually, placing your bike directly over one of the sensor wires will trip the sensor. My practice is to ride directly on top of the rightmost wire to the front of the box. Then, I stop with the bike lined up directly over the wire and the front wheel turned slightly to the left across the corner of the box so that I'm crossing two of the wires at once. This works to trip the sensors at all the intersections in the area where I live. However, I've heard that in some places the sensors still may not be sensitive enough to detect a bike even when you do this.

Unfortunately, if the road has been repaved since the sensor was installed, then the cuts in the old pavement will be hidden and you won't be able to see the "box." By observing where the cuts are made at other intersections in your area, you can get a pretty good idea where the wires are buried at the intersections where they're hidden, and at least make a good guess at where you need to stop to trip the sensor. If it doesn't work and you're sure that the light isn't going to change for you, you have no choice but to go on through the red when it's safe to do so.

I-Like-To-Bike

Speak for yourself, Jack. This old timer still has eyes and can evaluate traffic conditions; and a brain capable of thinking and an attitude that permits it to be used.

njkayaker

I think that lights with green arrows are much less common than the standard 3 color lights overall in the US. I suspect that, even in your locality, these lights would turn out to be the most common type if a true count were made.

Yes, in the case you describe (a green arrow for the opposing traffic), you'd have to watch for left turners too.

Some people were suggesting that going straight through a red light is supported by the right-on-red rule. I'm saying that right-on-red is very different because it's easy and safe (relatively) to do compared to left turns and through traffic (on a red). That is, right-on-red doesn't support going through red lights.

High Roller

Fully concur with all of this. For some of the intersections where the sensor cut has been paved over, I know from trial and error exactly where the sweet spot is. But there are some intersections I can never seem to trip. I will stop and go at these, at least in the early morning hours when there is no other traffic around. But at that point, I am following "defective signal" law, not the ill-advised "Idaho stop law".

High Roller

Well said. I guess it's the attitude part that is the crux of the problem and where we'll have to agree to disagree.

njkayaker

One of the standards of safety procedures is to have a rule and always follow it.

This avoids the problem of people making the common mistake (maybe, due to rushing or carelessness) in determining whether or not a rule should be followed.

Looking at it from another direction always following a rule is simple and easy to understand. Having to evaluate whether or not to apply a rule is much more complicated.

One reason that stopping is safer is that it serializes the actions needed: 1) stop, 2) look and evaluate, 3) go if it's safe. Rolling through the stop requires doing all of these things nearly at the same time. Stopping also adds the time needed (hopefully, it's enough) to do the evaluation. Indeed, once people stop, they are more likely to take sufficient care to evaluate the situation.

What is implicit in the "Idaho stop" law is that cyclists will not be careless and take sufficient time to evaluate the situation.

Sir-bikes-alot

Here in America, the land of the free, we're allowed to participate in dangerous activities as long as they don't affect others. I can ride my bike off a roof. I might die doing it or it might be fun. I'm not harming anyone. This is why it makes sense for bikes to abide by slightly different rules than cars and why cops generally look the other way. They do this with pedestrians too. In NYC and other big cities I've visited everybody crosses on red if it's clear. A cyclist (or pedestrian) choosing to run a light is only endangering himself and that is his right. In a car it's totally different, you're holding a loaded gun, ready to kill someone at any moment by making a misjudgement. That said, I usually stop at stop signs and light, but I hate it when people bring up stuff like "how can you expect cars to respect the law if you break it". It doesn't make sense to me.

apricissimus 

This assumes that rules designed for cars apply equally well to bikes. They do not.

degnaw

You'd have to watch for left turners at every intersection, because you don't know if the opposite side has a green arrow or not. Often, the left turn signal only exists or is given on one side, especially if left turn traffic is low or not present in your direction.

If you read my original post (on the last page, i think) that you responded to, you'll see that I was talking only about going straight at the top of a T intersection, which is easier and safer than a right on red at a regular intersection.

njkayaker

Of course you have to watch for left-turners! But you have to watch for more than just those left-turners. That is, it's not "two directions" like you said, it's "three directions" (plus people from behind).

Regardless of the details, right-on-red is reasonable because that task is relatively easy and safe to execute. It's different than turning left or straight through. Statisically, left turns (legal ones) are much more likely to cause collisions. This means right-on-red can't be used to justify left-hand turns (which some people were doing).

And, the number of four-way intersections is much larger than the number of T-intersections. That is, T-intersections are exceptions to the general case.

I was describing the general case. I did not exhaustively list all possible exceptions. You are indicating that an exception disproves the general case (which is false).

njkayaker

This is a general principle that applies to any safety rule. It says nothing about what those rules should be.

I have in no-way indicated that the rules for bicyclists must be the same as for cars. I've mentioned in multiple posts in this thread that there are differences between cyclists and cars and why certain of those differences might make the "Idaho stop" reasonable.

From the same post you quoted:

I was merely making a comment as to why it makes sense to always stop at traffic control devices even if it appears to be safe not to. People aren't stupid or under the thumb of the "man" for always stopping (like some people suggested).

I think this rule is correct for cars. I'm not sure if it is correct for cyclists.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are making an assumption that an intelligent/rational cyclist needs to stop in order to take sufficient care to look and evaluate if an intersection is without traffic conflicts. That assumption doesn't hold water in numerous cycling traffic situations.

If your assumption were true a "safe cyclist" should stop at every intersection or potential conflict point, no matter what the traffic signal/sign indicated, in order to "evaluate the situation."

njkayaker

SEE FOLLOWING. I am making no such assumption.

I did not say that this implicit basis of the law was wrong.


Heck, this "assumption" (not mine) doesn't "hold water" for cars in "numerous traffic situations". And it's the exceptions that kill you!


One reason it makes sense to always stop (on a car or a bicycle) is that it tends to "fail safe" (or "fail safer").

If you stop, you slow things down so that there is enough time to evaluate the situation and recover if you make a mistake in judgment. This is true whether you are in a car or on a bicycle. But, because bicycles are slower (among other differences), it's possible (but unproven) that careful cyclists can manage to do the evaluation without stopping.

Another reason it makes sense to stop is that it communicates to the cross-traffic (with the right of way) that you intend to yield. Note that this "signal" is made regardless of whether or not the cross-traffic exists or whether or not you happen to see it.

The "Idaho stop" law is interesting because it makes things less safe for some other trade-off (convenience?). I'd guess that some effort was made in establishing the law that the trade-off was a reasonable one! (It would seem fairly clear that people thought the decrease in safety was slight.) To point out the obvious, nothing is 100% safe.


It seems obvious (absent any data that proves otherwise), that if every cyclist (not just the "safe" ones) stopped at every stop-sign/red-light there would be fewer collisions.

If you are talking about also stopping when the cyclist has the right of way (eg, at a green light), keep in mind that this increases (drastically) the risk of being rear ended.

One of the interesting things about driving (and cycling) is that it is the exceptions that kill you. The point of stopping isn't to handle the usual normal ("safe") situations. It's to handle the exceptions where there's a car coming too fast or you're distracted or ....

"Safe cyclists" make mistakes too.

Bob T

This is exactly why I do not cross intersections against a red light, even though the law here allows me to do so after stopping and yielding to other traffic. The likelihood of an error turning out to be fatal are much greater when crossing an intersection against a red light versus with a green light. To say that there is no difference in safety between the two is equivalent to claiming infallibility.

BarracksSi

Hypothetically speaking --

Come to a red light. Look both ways, and across every single lane of pavement, there's nobody coming for three hundred yards.

Is it unsafe to cross?

degnaw

this is the statement I was responding to when I mentioned the 'two directions' thing:

Both this statement, and my reply, both account for this statement of yours (regarding your above post):

What I basically said is that you must yield to two different directions, even assuming nobody is breaking the law.

I have never talked about turning left or going straight at regular intersections in this thread, so I'm not quite sure where this came from.

This is my original post:

If this post implies that it's safe to go straight or turn left on red at a X intersection, please let me know how.

Widsith

Here's another question: If it's not unsafe, does that make it right?

Personally, I think "right or wrong" is a more important consideration than "safe or unsafe."

BarracksSi

See sig:

BarracksSi

Answer my question first.

"Please tell my lawyer to have "I am right!" inscribed on my tombstone when I am found as a greasy green spot on the roadway. My teeth will be the only thing left at the end of the trail of blood and entrails. - Anonymous"

That was sent to me via PM during another discussion on what's "right" versus what's "safe". I didn't want to put the sender's name on it because I didn't want to attach his name to such a volatile statement.

To me, safety trumps everything. What if I proceed on green but still get hit? Just because I was "right" only means that my family might successfully sue the driver or the city or whoever else an injury settlement lawyer may feel like chasing. However, at the end of the day, I'm still injured, debilitated, or dead, even if I was legally "right".

What good does that do, then? What the hell point does that prove? If I'm laying on the pavement bleeding from an artery in my leg, will I really feel less pain by saying, "I had the green light..."?

If I survived such a calamity, the only bit of worthwhile "Advocacy" advice I can think of spreading would be the old standby: Look both ways before crossing the street. Nothing else would help as much as that single sentence.

njkayaker

You didn't talk about it but "it came" from this (following) in this thread, which did talk about going straight. My original comment was in reply to that. You are taking my comment out of context.

For various reasons, right-on-red isn't the same as going straight. The major reason it isn't the same because it's easier to execute safely because a person has one primary direction of focus. I should have added the "primary" at the beginning but I didn't expect to have to explain "defensive driving" too in a short post!

As far as I can tell, in NJ, there is no right-on-red if the opposing lane has a green-left-turn arrow (or it's uncommon). And, I suspect, the vast majority of right-on-red intersections, in the US overall, don't have opposing green arrows. Your green-arrow scenario is likely a rare exception (except, maybe, in your small neighborhood).

It doesn't imply that. Nor have I ever said that it did.

Your original post is, though, wrong. You have to pay attention to three directions at a four-way to be safe because traffic coming from the right is a risk too.

Widsith

I wasn't talking about being "legally right." I was talking about being morally and ethically right, which to me trumps safety and includes being obedient to the law. I wouldn't run a red light in my car, even if it's 2:00 am on a deserted road with no other cars around for miles, because it's illegal. Being on a bike doesn't relieve me of my moral responsibility to obey the same laws.

I believe the first consideration should be to determine what is right, and then to do it safely if possible.

Mitchxout

Is it safe to say you don't ever question authority?