Advocacy & Safety - Is it SAFER to sometimes run stop signs/lights?

To the VC:

I hope this will be a discussion about safety, NOT LEGALITY. So let me hopefully anticipate one VC argument. "If you follow all rules, then cars will have a better opinion of cyclists, respect them more, share the road with them, thus leading to an overall, incremental increase in safety, in this the best of all possible worlds." (Apologies to Voltaire) This has been discussed in many other posts and I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into a re-hash of those discussions.

I propose that in many situations, it is safer to run a stop sign or red light than it is to slavishly stop. In situations where you can safely and without in any way interfering with traffic in any direction. Take the two following very common examples.

1. You come to a 4 way intersection with a light. You have the red. You filter up to the front, check traffic and when its clear, you go. Now you are moving before the cars move. One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign.
Once you are moving, you again put distance between you and the traffic behind you, which is safer, you can, as Helmet Head recommends, assume a vehicular posture and take up the whole lane if necessary, which is again safer, and you will be going at closer to the cars speed when they catch up with you, which is also safer.

2. You come to a stop sign at a 4 way intersection and there is traffic in back of you. You look and if its clear, you go without making a full stop. You now have put some distance between you and the car in back of you, which as always safer, and you are travelling at closer to the cars speed when he catches up with you again, which again is safer.

Comments?

What would Pangloss do?

Well, if you want to encourage bad road behavior and perpetuate the bad reputation that this gives cyclists, then do as you suggest.
But when have you ever seen US drivers flooring it away from the lights? They are more likely to run a red than get away quickly on green - I've never understood that.

I sometimes will begin from a light just before it turns green. I know the light patterns on my route and this is a tourist town and find that even a tiny jump ahead of the tourists helps. But I try to keep it somewhat legal and not pass the crosswalk when the light is still red.

At 4 way stops it is a wash. If I roll through I frequently do find myself in harms way by a car I did not see. If I actually stop, the wind noise stops and I can hear the cars and know not to roll through (remember, I am so low I often can't see around parked cars). My compromise is to roll much slower or incrementally. :)

I've sometimes seen my traffic transgressions repeated by the automobiles stacked up at the same intersections, its funny and frightening at the same time.

Like, moving at speed, and pulling thru a stale yellow. Sometimes the light is clearly red when I pull thru, betting on the light lag to let me pass thru, but what is it with the drivers 60 feet in back of me that i hear speed up and clear the obviously red light? Is it because they see a bike doing it and get all pizzy?

Its as if seeing a biker moving independant of the light cycle, they get roadraged and have to duplicate the same illegal behavior in their automobile.

There's one stop here that gives cyclists an advanced light signal. Bikes start out from that intersection, it chaps the hides of some drivers but good!

I had some guy pull a 'jump start' and nearly get nailed yesterday, Horns blaring.

Before I stop for a very ripe yellow light I look behind me. If there is a tractor-trailer hanging two feet off my back wheel I'm going through. This is not a hypothetical scenario.

Almost no vehicles stop for yellowish-red lights, and if I stop, they just might run in the back of me. This applies when I'm driving too.

I think it depends on the speed limit. On streets with a 40+ mph limit then I don't think it's of much use to run the stop. The cars I just got ahead of are most likely going to wind up passing me again. In areas with slower limits or heavy traffic where I can move at roughly the same speed as the motor vehicles then it's often helpful to run the stop and get a little breathing room.

What would Pangloss do?

Whatever is, is right. No?

San Rensho, I will disagree with your post, but please do not take it personally.


I propose that in many situations, it is safer to run a stop sign or red light than it is to slavishly stop. In situations where you can safely and without in any way interfering with traffic in any direction. Take the two following very common examples.

1. You come to a 4 way intersection with a light. You have the red. You filter up to the front, check traffic and when its clear, you go. Now you are moving before the cars move. One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign.
Once you are moving, you again put distance between you and the traffic behind you, which is safer, you can, as Helmet Head recommends, assume a vehicular posture and take up the whole lane if necessary, which is again safer, and you will be going at closer to the cars speed when they catch up with you, which is also safer.
I try to avoid filtering up to the front. I think it encourages drivers to treat me the same way, that is, squeeze in next to me when I'm waiting behind a motorist. I prefer drivers to think of my bicycle as a vehicle that holds a place in the traffic queue. Therefore, I have no choice but to stop, go and flow along with traffic. I believe this is much safer than splitting the lane, unless the lane is very, very wide.




2. You come to a stop sign at a 4 way intersection and there is traffic in back of you. You look and if its clear, you go without making a full stop. You now have put some distance between you and the car in back of you, which as always safer, and you are travelling at closer to the cars speed when he catches up with you again, which again is safer.

I have found that, no matter how fast I am going, even if I'm hammering downhill at close to 40 mph. (which I do not prefer to do,) motorists behind me have to brake to slow to my speed. Considering that I'm usually doing no more than 20 or 25, motorists are hard-pressed to go that slowly, even though 25 is pretty fast to me. No matter what the case, or how fast I ride, motorists are going to catch up to me like I'm standing still. I've given up trying to put any distance between us.

Well, if you want to encourage bad road behavior and perpetuate the bad reputation that this gives cyclists, then do as you suggest.
But when have you ever seen US drivers flooring it away from the lights? They are more likely to run a red than get away quickly on green - I've never understood that.

Here in Miami, and in many other cities I've been in, its a race to the next light/stop. I call it the "hurry up to stop" phenomenon.

Whatever is, is right. No?


Yes indeed, and because it is the best of all possible worlds.....

Never where I ride.

Al

I see where you are going San Ren, and I think it may take a qualifier to be clear: In my environment, the "Speed Limit" is 30 mph. And I constantly say to myself as I check for traffic and run the light, that I don't want to be in the herd of cars as they all out floor it to the next red light or stop sign. I think it is safer to be down the road, at speed, than amongst cars speeding up. How many times have you all been turning out a fast pace, and a car HAS to pass you even if for a moment before slamming on the brakes? I am not sure I would ride the way I do if 45mph plus was allowed.

It seems the OP's idea does not apply for littlebigman his local traffic. It is "illegal" to go faster than 30 in NYC and quite often hard for cars to make more than 15 mph with other traffic. In a city where traffic is not supposed to be traveling much faster than I can, being at speed is much safer and puts me at an advantage when the cars catch up.

I really have a problem with the argument that we as bikers must act in certain ways in order to earn the respect of drivers. Maybe it is the anonymity of a sheer numbers of cars, or maybe it is the way that 90% of cars seem intent on trying to maim me, and do not care what I think of them.

IIt seems the OP's idea does not apply for littlebigman his local traffic. It is "illegal" to go faster than 30 in NYC and quite often hard for cars to make more than 15 mph with other traffic. In a city where traffic is not supposed to be traveling much faster than I can, being at speed is much safer and puts me at an advantage when the cars catch up.

That why I wrote 'never where I ride' since the vast majority of roads I ride on are 45mph posted limit 50mph+ actual.

But when I am on residental streets that are posted 25mph I still don't blow stops/lights since I watch out for pedestrians, there are also a lot fewer cars to think about.

Here are two images from this morning at a 4-way stop where I make a right turn.

I see a pedestrian who will very soon be crossing - (1st image, I'm still moving.) I could have chosen to blow thru (with left check to see if any cars were going) and cleared the kid crossing with no problem but I did the right thing and stopped to let him cross. He gave me a nod of appreciation.

Al

I propose that in many situations, it is safer to run a stop sign or red light than it is to slavishly stop.

That's quite a proposal. You do provide two examples. If one may generalize from each example to "many situations", and the examples do indeed describe situations where running a stop/red is safer than stopping, then I find your proposal to be convincing. Let's check it out.



1. You come to a 4 way intersection with a light. You have the red. You filter up to the front, check traffic and when its clear, you go. Now you are moving before the cars move. One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign.
Once you are moving, you again put distance between you and the traffic behind you, which is safer, you can, as Helmet Head recommends, assume a vehicular posture and take up the whole lane if necessary, which is again safer, and you will be going at closer to the cars speed when they catch up with you, which is also safer.
The argument for safety stems from this key assertion: One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. You do provide some support for it: A slip of the foot, possibly losing balance, [motorists] are flooring the accelerator...

A valiant effort, to be sure. But there are several unstated assumptions here, the main one being that the motorists are significantly likely to be accelerating past the cyclist, close enough to be a hazard if he does lose his balance and falls, before he even gets going. I will grant you that if one rides in a manner that allows such a situation to occur regularly, your "proposal" may indeed be safer for him, especially if he is on the clumsy side. However, for a cyclist to allow this to occur, he would have to be operating from the PnP paradigm, which is based on believing that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right. If, instead, he is using the VC paradigm, then at the time the light turned green, he would be in front of someone, who would have to wait for him to start and get going, just like all vehicle drivers wait for each other, one at a time, when the light turns green.



2. You come to a stop sign at a 4 way intersection and there is traffic in back of you. You look and if its clear, you go without making a full stop. You now have put some distance between you and the car in back of you, which as always safer, and you are travelling at closer to the cars speed when he catches up with you again, which again is safer.
I know a 3 way intersection (theoretically, even safer, less potential conflict) along a popular bike route (s/b Coastal 101 in Leucadia) where cyclists do this all the time. The problem is that it's a bad habit to get into. I've seen more than once where an oncoming motorist who is stopped without his left turn signal on turns left in front of or into the stop-sign-running cyclist who is accustomed to slowing down and blowing through this stop as you describe. That's just one example. Plus, your argument is based on the assumption that "it is always safer" to put distance between you and same-direction traffic stopped behind you. If that's your primary concern, you're more likely to miss the more dangerous threats from cross-traffic. Again, the safety "threat" from the same-direction traffic stopped-but-soon-to-be-accelerating behind you is only there if you are operating from the PnP paradigm, where you are positioned so as to allow them to pass you before you are safely under way. Don't do that, and you'll be safer.

The simple solution is to not filter to the front. I think that solves the problem you refer to, at least in case #1.

...One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign....

You obviously need to work on your bike handling skills.

You obviously need to work on your bike handling skills.

Regardless of your handling skills, I think that starting from a dead stop is the most dangerous time for a cyclist.

Edit: Upon further consideration, I think this is mostly the case if one has filtered to the front, not only because of handling difficulties, but motorists' propensity to right hook.

You obviously need to work on your bike handling skills.
Real productive safety/advocacy advice. :rolleyes: Would you recommend eliminating guard rails, seat belts, median strips and hazardous condition warning signs, and just tell any would be advocate of such devices for the safety of the general driving public that he should just improve his driving skill?

It seems to me the OP has a couple of very bad implicit assumptions.

First that the cyclist sees everything. If this were supportable in general then why not make it legal for cars to run red lights as long as they could see that no cars are coming? Answer, because drivers and cyclists often miss something.

The second is nothing goes wrong when doing it his proposed way, while things can go wrong the normal and legal way. He says one may have trouble stating and fall. OK let's say that happens. Starting when the light turns green at least he can fall to the right and not get run over. If he is running the red then no matter which way he falls if a car is coming, even far down the road, it may get there before he regains his feet. But he fails to consider the consequences of this danger when running the red, the very danger he bases the decision on.

I was going to say he avoids the problem of a right hook. But he does not. If he crosses when there is no cross traffic this is also when a car turning legally against a red light would also go to turn. Actually hi is in more danger of a right hook as when the light turns green a driver will not have to look to his left to check cross traffic, while when turning against the red this is where his major attention is, away from the cyclist.

I can think of one place to run a red, but it is a very specialised situation. On PCH at the Malibu Colony the road is 55 MPH (I think, in fact if not in letter of the law). Most of PCH going south has adequate shoulder. Just south of here is does not. 100 yards later bike path starts. Running the red and sprinting to the bike path turn before cars start is likely safer than playing with cars here. BUT there is good shoulder for 10-15 yards past the light. Going legally with the light and then waiting for it to turn red then making the mad dash is safer still.

Define blowing through a stop sign, or light.

Is it:

A) a full speed just keep pedaling situation?

or

B) is it more along the lines of cruising up to the stop, slowing down enough to stop, but never actually putting one's foot down.

Running a red light can also be defined in different ways...

A) The blatent coming up to the light, which is due to change because it has been triggered by all the cars at the light and then proceeding on, in spite of the red, as you have determinded that the way is clear. Meanwhile all the motorists sit at the light.

B) Waiting at a light for several minutes, or even a cycle of lights in the circuit (but not your specific light) and coming to the understanding that the light does not function for you, therefore treating it like a stopsign.

B) Waiting at a light for several minutes, or even a cycle of lights in the circuit (but not your specific light) and coming to the understanding that the light does not function for you, therefore treating it like a stopsign.
This is not legally running a light. This is what all vehicles for unresponsive lights are permitted to do.

However, many cyclists assume the light is unresponsive, but either don't have the patience to wait or don't know how to best trigger the light.

I think that for the identical intersection and lane position that going on an unresponsive light is fine the first time, a learning experience the 2nd time at which point you should report it, but on the 3rd and subsequent times if you continue to do it after not (edit) reporting it, is not being a good cycling advocate.

Al

The OP is very specific about the situation in which he's suggesting it is safer to run a stop or light, and what he means by that. In particular, he definitely does not mean:



a full speed just keep pedaling situation

This is not legally running a light. This is what all vehicles for unresponsive lights are permitted to do.

However, many cyclists assume the light is unresponsive, but either don't have the patience to wait or don't know how to best trigger the light.

I think that for the identical intersection and lane position that going on an unresponsive light is fine the first time, a learning experience the 2nd time at which point you should report it, but on the 3rd an subsequent times if you continue to do it after reporting it, is not being a good cycling advocate.

Al

Sure treating an unresponsive light like a stop sign is OK in my book too. But your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. 1st time I just treat it like a stopsign, 2nd time I report it, 3rd time I am supposed to do what? Just wait forever? Even if I have reported it, there is no guarantee that the city will adjust it right, or that my CF or Al bike will ever trigger it... so why cannot I continue to treat it like a stopsign?

I have a situation like that near my home... I reported three lights, I got a very quick reply, and two of the three will trigger. The third will not.

Now my route contains several lights... usually there are autos about to trigger them, but if I ride early or on Sunday... should I log each and every light that fails to trigger? Why can't the city just fix all the lights right as they install them... who is to say which lights a cyclist may or may not cross in a city. :mad:

This latter bit is what drives me nuts... I shouldn't have to report a single light as they simply should be installed correctly. Period.

Of course I live in a city that puts bike path crossing signal buttons only on the left side of bike paths, on the perpendicular sidewalk... (requiring one to get off the bike) while at the same time installing horse/rider crosswalk buttons high and within reach for horseriders... The double standard just kills me. :mad:

The OP is very specific about the situation in which he's suggesting it is safer to run a stop or light, and what he means by that. In particular, he definitely does not mean:

But he is calling for leaving the light while red, while motorists are still waiting, and that is just poor form in my mind.

To the VC:
1. You come to a 4 way intersection with a light. You have the red. You filter up to the front, check traffic and when its clear, you go. Now you are moving before the cars move. One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign.
Comments?

I can come up with another reason why you would still want to break the light after filtering.

If the road up ahead looks dangerous where it forms a single file, you're better off breaking the light (providing no car is in the intersection) and getting a head start because you might not be able to blend in with the traffic. I do this all the time with city traffic where parked cars practically require you to take the lane. If the situation requires you to take the lane, you're much better off doing so at speed and this may require you to break the light and get a head start.

Once the traffic catches up, you might have to ride in the door zone (in city streets) for a while or pull over to let the cars go.

Here is my feedback:

#1: Filtering all the way to the front is nor safe nor considerate to vehicles on front. Filtering is only safe when a) sufficient space is available to pass on the right hand side b) only up to the level of the third or fourth car.
So I would eliminate #1.

#2: You can get to a near stop without putting your foot on the ground while scanning all directions. I would say that's safe to do with stop signs and right on red where allowed. I usually "unlock" my right cleat as I do this.

Everything else means running stop/lights, and is not safe. Why? Because it renders the cyclist unpredictable.

Regardless of your handling skills, I think that starting from a dead stop is the most dangerous time for a cyclist(!)?
Edit: Upon further consideration, I think this is mostly the case if one has filtered to the front, not only because of handling difficulties, but motorists' propensity to right hook.

Anyone who can't start safely from a dead stop should notrepeat not be on the road. I've been on two wheels for much longer than I wish to remember but I have never been put at risk while setting off.

There's been the odd occasion when a driver has turned left (UK) in front of me but I've always seen it in time - and that's in spite of the fact that it's traditional in the UK to filter forward inside a line of traffic. And not forbidden in law.

If the standard of driving is lower in the US, then HH's preferred approach of simply keeping in line with other queueing vehicles seems sensible. I know that the vast mojority (sorry, not got my majo working) of riders who do go thro' on red do it with great (natch) care but why on earth bother?

I have always suspected that the "it's safer to go thro' on red" argument mostly disguises the same kind of impatience that we accuse drivers of habitually displaying.

#2: You can get to a near stop without putting your foot on the ground while scanning all directions. I would say that's safe to do with stop signs and right on red where allowed. I usually "unlock" my right cleat as I do this.

Tecnically this is not coming to a full stop as required by law. For practical purposes it is a stop and I do this too, even the unclip part and most often tires stops rotating, if only for a very brief moment.

Al

If the road up ahead looks dangerous where it forms a single file, you're better off breaking the light (providing no car is in the intersection) and getting a head start because you might not be able to blend in with the traffic.
What do you mean by "blend in with the traffic"?



I do this all the time with city traffic where parked cars practically require you to take the lane. If the situation requires you to take the lane, you're much better off doing so at speed and this may require you to break the light and get a head start.
Why better off "at speed"? When the light is red, everyone is stopped, including the guy in the F250 behind you. Now the light turns green, and you get going. He gets going too. If there is room to pull aside to let him pass, you do. If not, you don't. If there's room, and then it narrows, you let him pass, then merge back in, negotiating with traffic as required. What's the problem?

Tecnically this is not coming to a full stop as required by law. For practical purposes it is a stop and I do this too, even the unclip part and most often tires stops rotating, if only for a very brief moment.

Al
I haven't been able to find a law that actually requires putting a foot down. Do you know of one?

But [the OP] is calling for leaving the light while red, while motorists are still waiting, and that is just poor form in my mind.
Yes but he's not arguing it's good form. He's arguing it's safer, in certain situations.
So pointing out it is "poor form" is also beside the point, unless by "poor form" you mean "less safe".

Sure treating an unresponsive light like a stop sign is OK in my book too. But your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. 1st time I just treat it like a stopsign, 2nd time I report it, 3rd time I am supposed to do what? Just wait forever? Even if I have reported it, there is no guarantee that the city will adjust it right, or that my CF or Al bike will ever trigger it... so why cannot I continue to treat it like a stopsign?

I have a situation like that near my home... I reported three lights, I got a very quick reply, and two of the three will trigger. The third will not.

Now my route contains several lights... usually there are autos about to trigger them, but if I ride early or on Sunday... should I log each and every light that fails to trigger? Why can't the city just fix all the lights right as they install them... who is to say which lights a cyclist may or may not cross in a city. :mad:

This latter bit is what drives me nuts... I shouldn't have to report a single light as they simply should be installed correctly. Period.

Of course I live in a city that puts bike path crossing signal buttons only on the left side of bike paths, on the perpendicular sidewalk... (requiring one to get off the bike) while at the same time installing horse/rider crosswalk buttons high and within reach for horseriders... The double standard just kills me. :mad:
I made a very critical typo (left our a 'not' before r'eporting it') which caused all your puzzlement. I corrected my typo in the orgininal. Of course reporting it does not mean its gets fixed. The best part about reporting it and still having to treat is as a stop is that if you are stopped by police not only can you explain that the light is non-responsive, but you have on record that you have previously reported it as such.

To your 2nd point, agreed that you should not have to report every light and that standards should be in place for newly installed light and maintenance. Cycliing advocates should push for these standards to be written into the installation and maitenence procedures (which I have been pushing for here locally)

Al

I haven't been able to find a law that actually requires putting a foot down. Do you know of one?
I haven't either, but have heard grumblings about it on these forums with over zealous police enforcement of cyclist who don't put foot down. The officer may likely have been in error (or the complaing cyclist who may have been moving faster than they realized) which requires fighting in court.

But no wheels moving certainly is a definition of stop, isn't it?

(By the way I never commented on the foot down vs. not as law, only on the 'near stop' language, which implies wheels still moving)

Al

I haven't been able to find a law that actually requires putting a foot down. Do you know of one?

Me neither but the OP refers to safety and not to the law, so I made my points based on safety alone.

I haven't been able to find a law that actually requires putting a foot down. Do you know of one?


No, but that does mean the police don't think one exists... much like the 21202 laws... police tend to interpret these as they are personally biased. Word to the wise though... when I took my various motorcycle training classes, the CHP made a point of saying "foot on the ground." Law or not, this is where they (meaning the boys in blue) will interpret it their way.

And of course the other side of this is that other awaiting motorists understand the foot down as meaning you really are stopped... etc.

However, for a cyclist to allow this to occur, he would have to be operating from the PnP paradigm, which is based on believing that while bikes belong on the road, they should get and stay out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right.
So, do you actually think that if you copy and paste this enough times it will eventually become true?

I see where you are going San Ren, and I think it may take a qualifier to be clear: In my environment, the "Speed Limit" is 30 mph. And I constantly say to myself as I check for traffic and run the light, that I don't want to be in the herd of cars as they all out floor it to the next red light or stop sign. I think it is safer to be down the road, at speed, than amongst cars speeding up. How many times have you all been turning out a fast pace, and a car HAS to pass you even if for a moment before slamming on the brakes? I am not sure I would ride the way I do if 45mph plus was allowed.

It seems the OP's idea does not apply for littlebigman his local traffic. It is "illegal" to go faster than 30 in NYC and quite often hard for cars to make more than 15 mph with other traffic. In a city where traffic is not supposed to be traveling much faster than I can, being at speed is much safer and puts me at an advantage when the cars catch up.

I really have a problem with the argument that we as bikers must act in certain ways in order to earn the respect of drivers. Maybe it is the anonymity of a sheer numbers of cars, or maybe it is the way that 90% of cars seem intent on trying to maim me, and do not care what I think of them.

90%! Really? :eek:

Anyone who can't start safely from a dead stop should notrepeat not be on the road. I've been on two wheels for much longer than I wish to remember but I have never been put at risk while setting off.

The safety issue doesn't come from handling skills, it comes from motorists. I average at least 20 miles a day, and can trackstand, ride no handed etc. Trust me when I say my bike handling skills are not a problem. Starting from a stop after filtering to the front are dangerous because of traffic conditions regardless of riding ability.

San Rensho, I will disagree with your post, but please do not take it personally.


I try to avoid filtering up to the front. I think it encourages drivers to treat me the same way, that is, squeeze in next to me when I'm waiting behind a motorist. I prefer drivers to think of my bicycle as a vehicle that holds a place in the traffic queue. Therefore, I have no choice but to stop, go and flow along with traffic. I believe this is much safer than splitting the lane, unless the lane is very, very wide.




I have found that, no matter how fast I am going, even if I'm hammering downhill at close to 40 mph. (which I do not prefer to do,) motorists behind me have to brake to slow to my speed. Considering that I'm usually doing no more than 20 or 25, motorists are hard-pressed to go that slowly, even though 25 is pretty fast to me. No matter what the case, or how fast I ride, motorists are going to catch up to me like I'm standing still. I've given up trying to put any distance between us.

No offense taken, Little Big Man. Your posts are courteous and well reasoned. We can agree to disagree and discuss our differences in a civil manner. I think we're after the same goal and just have different opinions on how to get there.

So, do you actually think that if you copy and paste this enough times it will eventually become true?
It is true, dude, by definition.
I oughta know, I defined it!

Have ever seen 'roadkill?' 'nuf said!

Stop sign: OK so long as you make SURE that there is no cross traffic to worry about, or traffic from the other direction.

Stop light: NEVER.

On a side note, toe clips (even if used without straps) and clipless pedals solve the problem of slipping off the pedals. Yes, clipless require bike shoes, but so what...just carry your normal shoes in your bag or panniers or whatever.

As for why to never go through a stop light....simple. There is a reason a light is there. Usually due to faster traffic. Add faster traffic with people not expecting cross traffic due to their assumption that people on the cross will stop, a situation presents itself for a possible crash.

Pretty much, don't play with lights...if the light is genuinely broken/unresponsive, then move after you are sure of this and it is clear.

I don't have any evidence, but I do have anecdotes...

In 2004, five cyclists were killed in Washington, DC, in collisions with motor vehicles. None of them were killed running a stop sign or a light. In separate incidents, two of them were killed waiting at red lights by trucks that ran the red lights.

So, advocating to do exactly what the truckers were doing makes it better?

I know you're trying to make a point, but all I see here is a case where a driver's wrongdoing is being twisted into something the cyclist could have avoided.

I hope this will be a discussion about safety, NOT LEGALITY.


If I'm fat-tiring to the Prairie Path, I'm on a paved bike path ON THE LEFT (separated from the street), and have to cross 45 mph US 59, which is two lanes both North and South, left turn lanes both directions, plus lane width shoulders on both sides, i.e. a pretty wide road. There are usually several cars from the opposite direction wanting to turn right, and usually a few going my direction wanting to turn left. Both groups will cross my intended crosswalk path. Given the traffic on 59, it would be highly questionable to fight the light, although I've seen other cyclists do it, both on the path and on the road. I wait, as is my normal mein. But here's the problem: if I go with the walk light, the first approaching right turner sees plenty of time to get around the corner without hindrance, even assuming willingness to yield, so she goes. The second, half way around the corner, sees me approaching but decides to go any way. By now the third turner is getting up some speed, and never even sees me as he mows me down in the crosswalk, and then he's rearended by number four. In short, pedestrians are not expected at this intersection. So, what do I do? Yield my clear right to the way and stop in the middle of the highway, right in the path of the remaining left turners going my direction?

I've recently discovered a solution that is technically illegal, but tons safer, and has an added benefit of possibly boosting motorists' awareness of cyclists. I simply go when the left turn signal in my direction turns yellow, which gets me at least half way across before the straight ahead light turns green. Almost invariably the first right turner waits, the third (who doesn't see me in this scenario either) honks, I get safely across, and all the right turners have an opportunity to participate in a yield to a pedestrian, which may add just a smidge to their bicycle sense.

Crunchie

My definition of pedestrian as used here is anyone proceeding under his own power on the bike path, and includes the neighbor who uses her motorized wheelchair to walk the dog.

Its only unsafe starting up with cars at the red light if you've filtered to the front and squeezed yourself up next to the curb so that when you start going you have little room to manoveur (pressed up to the curb). If there's few cars, stop in line with them. If there's many cars (ie so much congestion the same cars will NOT catch up with you at any other light) I sometimes pass on the left between lanes, then cut back in where somebody has left a gap in front of them. Kinda rude but bah they are using up too much space.

But one scenario when I think its safer to run a red light: night time, fairly deserted traffic wise, and when I stop at a traffic light (no cars coming the other way) there is a creepy male pedestrian that seems to want to talk to me. Then it seems safer (or at least more pleasant!!) to run the light.


To the VC:

I hope this will be a discussion about safety, NOT LEGALITY. So let me hopefully anticipate one VC argument. "If you follow all rules, then cars will have a better opinion of cyclists, respect them more, share the road with them, thus leading to an overall, incremental increase in safety, in this the best of all possible worlds." (Apologies to Voltaire) This has been discussed in many other posts and I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into a re-hash of those discussions.

I propose that in many situations, it is safer to run a stop sign or red light than it is to slavishly stop. In situations where you can safely and without in any way interfering with traffic in any direction. Take the two following very common examples.

1. You come to a 4 way intersection with a light. You have the red. You filter up to the front, check traffic and when its clear, you go. Now you are moving before the cars move. One of the most dangerous times for cyclists is starting from a dead stop. A slip of the foot on the pedal and you have lost momentum, possibly balance, at the same time that cars are flooring the accelerator in the drag race to the next stop light or stop sign.
Once you are moving, you again put distance between you and the traffic behind you, which is safer, you can, as Helmet Head recommends, assume a vehicular posture and take up the whole lane if necessary, which is again safer, and you will be going at closer to the cars speed when they catch up with you, which is also safer.

2. You come to a stop sign at a 4 way intersection and there is traffic in back of you. You look and if its clear, you go without making a full stop. You now have put some distance between you and the car in back of you, which as always safer, and you are travelling at closer to the cars speed when he catches up with you again, which again is safer.

Comments?

I hope this will be a discussion about safety

I propose that in many situations, it is safer to run a stop sign or red light than it is to slavishly stop. In situations where you can safely and without in any way interfering with traffic in any direction.
You know, I used to think that as well. Hey, the light is yellow and I'm pumping my legs and then it just turned red. Hey, even though I'm still behind the intersection, I can muscle my way through with my current momentum.... However - I have seen motorists who time the cross-traffic lights so they are going at the posted speed limit even through their light is red. They have the lights timed so that by the time they hit the crosswalk, the light turns green. Woe to the bicyclist who decided to run that light.

If I'm fat-tiring to the Prairie Path, I'm on a paved bike path ON THE LEFT (separated from the street), and have to cross 45 mph US 59, which is two lanes both North and South, left turn lanes both directions, plus lane width shoulders on both sides, i.e. a pretty wide road. There are usually several cars from the opposite direction wanting to turn right, and usually a few going my direction wanting to turn left. Both groups will cross my intended crosswalk path. Given the traffic on 59, it would be highly questionable to fight the light, although I've seen other cyclists do it, both on the path and on the road. I wait, as is my normal mein. But here's the problem: if I go with the walk light, the first approaching right turner sees plenty of time to get around the corner without hindrance, even assuming willingness to yield, so she goes. The second, half way around the corner, sees me approaching but decides to go any way. By now the third turner is getting up some speed, and never even sees me as he mows me down in the crosswalk, and then he's rearended by number four. In short, pedestrians are not expected at this intersection. So, what do I do? Yield my clear right to the way and stop in the middle of the highway, right in the path of the remaining left turners going my direction?

I've recently discovered a solution that is technically illegal, but tons safer, and has an added benefit of possibly boosting motorists' awareness of cyclists. I simply go when the left turn signal in my direction turns yellow, which gets me at least half way across before the straight ahead light turns green. Almost invariably the first right turner waits, the third (who doesn't see me in this scenario either) honks, I get safely across, and all the right turners have an opportunity to participate in a yield to a pedestrian, which may add just a smidge to their bicycle sense.

Crunchie

My definition of pedestrian as used here is anyone proceeding under his own power on the bike path, and includes the neighbor who uses her motorized wheelchair to walk the dog.

Thank you. Another example of how slavishly adhereing to the law can be more dangerous than breaking it.

Thank you. Another example of how slavishly adhereing to the law can be more dangerous than breaking it.
Wonder how many of our slavish adherents ride in inner city neignborhoods at night where the local gentry are bored and milling about near the intersection. I know what I used to do when riding throughout Philadelphia at any hour. It wasn't to pat myself on the back and give first priority to living by a strict compliance rule book that was ignored by everyone else. Interactions with non-existant motorists are not the prime problem of standing out at an intersection waiting for a light like a good little boy with no other traffic in sight.