Advocacy & Safety - Should cyclists run red lights?

Interesting from WSJ. Just passing it along.

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/10/22/should-cyclists-run-red-lights/

I run 'em if it's a long light and there's a bike lane. If no bike lane I line up in the queue with the cars and wait.

Then again, if a cop busted me for running the light I would figger I got what was coming to me

I run them only if I feel comfortable doing so and the light is ridiculous like a 1 minute light on some Podunk side street. Most of the time I wait it out.

I run red lights. I split lanes, too, but it's all about keeping myself out of traffic when it starts moving again. If it's risky or questionable, I wait it out.

I would advocate traffic signals that send bikes through before cars.

I dislike red light runners. I usually catch up to them and have to pass them again. (and there's already not enough room with parked cars and streetcar tracks for the majority of my trips.)

I actually saw a pair of OCP guys chatting, riding pretty damn slow (under 25km/h) running red lights. One guy nearly gets nailed because he was running the red light. He still did even after the close call.
I caught up to them way too often.
Obviously my stance on this is: If you're going to run them, at least make sure you're not going to get passed immediately after you do it because you just look like an ass to everyone around you.

For me, it really depends.

I never blow right through red lights or stop signs, but I don't sit there if I don't see anyone coming for a while. Put me and a typical DC pedestrian at the same intersection, and we'll probably both choose to proceed at the same time.

The fourth comment on that WSJ page mentions Idaho and its recently-applied rule for bikes, saying that cyclists should treat stop signs as if they were yield signs, and stoplights as stop signs (of course, meaning the legal actions that people should use for "yield" and "stop"). The comment poster linked to this article:
http://bikehugger.com/2007/05/thats_it_im_moving_to_idaho.htm

I wait out most of them, but there are some times when it just makes no sense, or when it's plainly safer to scoot through. I feel silly, for instance, waiting at the light for a "T" intersection that has no road on the right. There are also those times when there is no cross-traffic in sight for a half mile, no traffic right around you, but a platoon of traffic coming from the opposite direction that will ensure that you can't make a turn when the light goes green. If the objective is not getting hurt, I'll take the action that favors that outcome. But I don't often run lights just for the sake of convenience. That's not worth the effect it has on motorists who see it.

I dislike red light runners. I usually catch up to them and have to pass them again. (and there's already not enough room with parked cars and streetcar tracks for the majority of my trips.)

I actually saw a pair of OCP guys chatting, riding pretty damn slow (under 25km/h) running red lights. One guy nearly gets nailed because he was running the red light. He still did even after the close call.
I caught up to them way too often.
Obviously my stance on this is: If you're going to run them, at least make sure you're not going to get passed immediately after you do it because you just look like an ass to everyone around you.

If you have to pass a red light runner repeatedly, doesn't that mean the bike rider is making as good time on average as the motorists?

I know that's a major reason I run red lights...

I run them, T-intersections and minor intersections, if there is no traffic. I don't do it on major intersections.

No I don't. I like being alive too much.

I don't run lights but I will run the same stop signs on my bike that I do in my car (which is to say, the ones that should be yield signs but for some idiotic reason are stop signs instead). I feel that the the time and sanity saved in doing so offsets the risk of getting a ticket. If I get a ticket for it, I consider it the tax I pay for not dealing with the stop sign.

I do NOT run stop signs where there is a chance of pedestrians being put at risk or those at major intersections. I do occasionally take advantage of my ability to use either the sidewalk or street to bypass certain lights that are risky to deal with on a bike.

I obey the laws.. it just seems like a lot of animosity exist towards riders because cyclist often break traffic laws..

I do not run red lights unless there is no way to trip the light and there is no traffic.

I like to be predictable. I always stop unless no cars are around to trip the sensors for the lights.

I do not run red lights unless there is no way to trip the light and there is no traffic.

Same for me. Had this happen today too, so I had to run the light, I wasn't going to wait for a car to come up and trip the light. But this is the only time I run them.

I obey the laws.. it just seems like a lot of animosity exist towards riders because cyclist often break traffic laws..

+1

I am traffic, and I obey traffic laws. Also, I try to be on the drivers' good side; in a bike vs. car situation, the car wins more times than not.

http://www.biketrans.com/info.html --> That's what every city needs.

WSJ page mentions Idaho and its recently-applied rule for bikes, saying that cyclists should treat stop signs as if they were yield signs, and stoplights as stop signs

Yep. And I do.

I do not run red lights unless there is no way to trip the light and there is no traffic.

Likewise. I don't see why we cyclists have any more right to be impatient than if we were driving cars.

I have yet to find a reason to run a red light locally, since all of our light sensors and ped buttons, that I have personally used, are in good working order. Winter is my favorite time, it's when I bring out my heavily ladened commuter, which trips the light sensors easier than my summer lightweight.

I treat them like yield signs.

"No I don't. I like being alive too much."

Being alive is over-rated. Most people who've tried it quit after a while. :p

Seldom. At minor intersections when I am quite certain they are clear, and after stopping. Never on an arterial.

I find that it's usually easier just to time the lights, because it involves less work.

One more vote for always, except for a long light not sensing I'm there and it's safe to go. Trying to make up for the animosity caused by other cyclists who blatantly run them.

One more vote for always, except for a long light not sensing I'm there and it's safe to go. Trying to make up for the animosity caused by other cyclists who blatantly run them.
+1

If a light cycles three times, and never gives me a green, I'm gone.

The way i see it all these traffic controls are not designed for bicyclists. Most cars take the interstate or other major highways with fewer controls. Bicyclists can't really do that and prefer quiet residential/secondary streets with huge excesses of stop signs/lights. Such routes were not designed for efficient long distance travel. Therefore cyclists have the necessity to adapt and decide how best to manage them.

Heck yes. Isn't it the law in at least one state (Idaho, IIRC) that stop signs may be treated by cyclists as yield signs and red lights like stop signs?

Edit: heh, it IS Idaho -- mentioned in the comments in the linked WSJ blog.

I feel silly, for instance, waiting at the light for a "T" intersection that has no road on the right.
Why do you feel silly? Are you worried what drivers of motor vehicles might think of you? ;)
I resisted for quite a while but now I never run a red light, no matter how much traffic is or isn't around, because I am not going to be the one giving cyclists a bad name.

I do not run lights. If we expect auto drivers to respect our rights, we should obey the law.

Should cyclists run red lights? Yes. Cyclists should run red lights at the back, and white lights at the front. :p

I dislike red light runners. I usually catch up to them and have to pass them again. (and there's already not enough room with parked cars and streetcar tracks for the majority of my trips.)

I actually saw a pair of OCP guys chatting, riding pretty damn slow (under 25km/h) running red lights. One guy nearly gets nailed because he was running the red light. He still did even after the close call.
I caught up to them way too often.
Obviously my stance on this is: If you're going to run them, at least make sure you're not going to get passed immediately after you do it because you just look like an ass to everyone around you.
So you need to be a speed demon to run red lights?

Yes -- at busy intersections -- on their carbon fiber bikes -- in their spandex panties -- without looking for traffic.

I need to quit reading this board.

It makes me so mad to hear the same people *****ing about motorists not respecting them telling everyone why its okay to run red lights.

I think as a whole we cyclists deserve every beer bottle thats thrown our way.

So you need to be a speed demon to run red lights?

not necessarily a speed demon, but speed demon if need be.

Just keep a brisk pace. If you can see that another cyclist is constantly passing you, even though you're running reds, then obviously the guy waiting on reds isn't going fast enough to catch the green. And you running reds isn't helping his/her sanity nor are you winning the respect of motorists who must pass you 20~50m from where you just ran that red.

It's like filtering. Why on earth would you filter to the front of the pack when you know the cars behind you won't get stuck in traffic? Filtering only makes sense when you know the traffic behind you can't keep up with you. No point playing leap frog multiple times with the same guy in traffic. After all, it doesn't matter who hits who when passing, cyclist will lose.

Short answer: Nobody should run red lights, but we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes safety considerations override what should happen.

Given that cyclists aren't the only ones who run red lights, nor even responsible for the majority of red-light running offences, I've often wondered why such a fuss is made over this. If the police don't care enough to enforce the law, and the magistrates don't care enough to apply the penalties written in law, and the majority of motorists don't care enough to comply with the law themselves, why should we care?

I think as a whole we cyclists deserve every beer bottle thats thrown our way.

Speak for yourself.

Most (not ALL) of the lights in my area won't ever cycle or have insanely long cycle times if there is no car around to trip them. Thus, I wait it out for a couple of cycles to be sure and then run it if I have to. Other than that, I stop at all lights just like cars do. During the day, I travel on roads with enough traffic that it's not an issue. At night it tends to be a little more difficult as there's less traffic on the side roads I use.

Short answer: Nobody should run red lights, but we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes safety considerations override what should happen.

Given that cyclists aren't the only ones who run red lights, nor even responsible for the majority of red-light running offences, I've often wondered why such a fuss is made over this. If the police don't care enough to enforce the law, and the magistrates don't care enough to apply the penalties written in law, and the majority of motorists don't care enough to comply with the law themselves, why should we care?

Yeah! and if our actions make motorists' get mad and aggressive towards cyclists, why should the police care?
who cares?

Yeah! and if our actions make motorists' get mad and aggressive towards cyclists, why should the police care?
who cares?

The point is, those actions don't get motorists any more aggressive toward cyclists than they already were.

As I've said before, if you're really worried about aggression from motorists, start lobbying for increased policing of traffic legislation and general behaviour on the roads. That would put a stop to both abusive drivers and red light running cyclists. However, most people would rather sit behind a keyboard and post emotional but irrelevant arguments in an attempt to get people wound up than actually do anything about the problem.

I stop at them.

nor even responsible for the majority of red-light running offences,

I don't see anyone other than cyclists doing it around here. I think it really gives motorists the impression that cyclists feel they are above the law. This seemingly smug attitude seems to make motorists resent cyclists, and feel like cyclists who get hit "got what was coming to them"

Am I wrong?

Should cyclists run red lights??

the answer is: Cyclists should be SAFE. we're guests on the road and the laws, in actuality, don't apply to us.

I run em if it's safe.

The point is, those actions don't get motorists any more aggressive toward cyclists than they already were.

I'm not sure you are correct about this assumption. I think seeing a cyclist run red lights does in fact make motorists who sit at red lights mad and some of them act out.

If the cyclists' who run the lights, were the only cyclists who had to deal with the motorists who act out, I'd say let the two groups go at it. Unfortunatly cyclists who stop at red lights bear the brunt of this anger too.

I don't see anyone other than cyclists doing it around here.

On the other hand, I see everybody but motorists doing it around here.

I said earlier that I never blow through intersections without either stopping or slowing way, way down and looking in both directions several times each. I'll stop for stoplights and, usually, fudge stop signs. Either way, I'll unclip at least one foot to make it more obvious to anybody watching that I'm not just pedaling straight though.

For me, it's largely a matter of whether I can see far enough down the cross street. I don't proceed until I know it's safe, being able to see blank pavement on both sides in both directions for a few hundred feet.

I think there's a lack of clarity in the phrase "run a light", though. I think we all agree that it's crazy to go through a red light without looking or slowing down, especially when the road is known to be busy or have fast traffic. What we're disagreeing on, obviously, is whether it's OK to proceed against a red when there isn't any cross traffic.

That's where Idaho's example makes sense to me.

Bottom line: cyclists who blow through red lights only put themselves at danger. Motorists who run reds put others in clear danger.

I do not run red lights unless there is no way to trip the light and there is no traffic.
I actually did this yesterday when there was two cars to the left of me both waiting to cross FM 121. That light just WILL NOT TURN!! It is horrible it and it's twin on the other side won't seem to trigger except for multiple SUVs. We all waited 2-3 light cycles and then when it was safe I went and then both cars shortly followed, and they didn't have a green light.
I run this light nearly daily now and there are a couple others I now will wait a minute or two to see if a car will come before going. I'd love never to run a red light but I'd spend more time waiting for lights then riding my bike, and I have a long enough commute already. When a car is coming on a cross street they just see a bike running a light. THey don't know it won't turn for me or that I actually stopped and tried to make it turn.

Depends on what time of day it is. I commute at 5:30 in the morning when there is nobody out. I won't blast thur the light but I will slow down to make sure their isn't that stray car comming. I've pulled up to a light with a car is sitting there and no other cars in any direction and they just sit there. WHY WAIT? I will always stop during the afternoon commute. NO reason to get ***** slapped by a car to save 5 min.

Not all traffic lights are equal. City lights are every block and yea, bikers can keep up with the cars from light to light. The streets are more congested with peds and cyclists - things other than cars that drivers have become accustomed to seeing and expect them. I have no experience biking in a city environment but I can see some logic is treating lights differently there.

Suburban Sprawl traffic lights are much further apart. It's rare and heavily congested when bikers can keep up with cars from light to light. Cars are traveling at much higher speeds and generally not expecting pedestrian or biking traffic. It's a much better idea to act like a car in such environments since drivers will generally be surprised by anything else. So I don't run suburban traffic lights except for the rare occasions where I'm unable to get the light to cycle for me.

And the suggestion to give bikes a few seconds headstart at traffic lights sounds like a great way to kill cyclists in suburban sprawl traffic. This not only exposes the cyclist to the speeder shooting the light - the one who will be watching for other cars not cyclists - it also exposes the cyclist to the impatient driver two or three cars deep at the light. The one speeding away and planning to zip around the lead cars at the first opening - the opening now occupied by the cyclist.

I would advocate traffic signals that send bikes through before cars.

My philosophy about running red lights is that I would rather go through an intersection devoid of cars against the light than go through one with the light that has traffic in it. If I can see that it's clear in all directions I move on out.

On a semi-related note, there was a book published a few years ago, I think the title was "The Secret Life of Dogs". It was written by a woman who followed her alpha dog on his nightly forays. One of the things I remember was that she noticed he always crossed streets mid-block instead of near intersections. Her theory was that the dog realized it was easier to cross when cars could only be coming from one or two directions than from two or four directions. (Who knows what the dog actually though. Maybe he liked the smell of the parked cars in mid-block better.) I view crossing an empty intersection against the light a similar safety move. Better to cross when you know there are no cars than when you will have to "interact" with large, potentially wayward, missiles.

Skip Montanaro

Not all traffic lights are equal. City lights are every block and yea, bikers can keep up with the cars from light to light. The streets are more congested with peds and cyclists - things other than cars that drivers have become accustomed to seeing and expect them. I have no experience biking in a city environment but I can see some logic is treating lights differently there.

That's been more of my experience -- being in a congested city environment. It's sometimes easy to beat cars even when stopping at all lights & signs (which is what I have to do during rush hour; single-lane cross streets become "arterials" at those times ;) ).

I like to think that the drivers I'm passing are more forgiving because I've got the safety gear (helmet, lights, etc) and I still stop and look when I come to intersections. I haven't had anyone yell at me yet (but I'm sure someone will), so maybe they're more envious than angry.

I'd feel more nervous in a suburban environment with its faster traffic, bigger intersections, and fewer shoulders & sidewalks.

Suburbs were built around cars, while old cities like DC were built around horse-drawn carriages and pedestrians. It only makes sense that cars feel congested in DC while nobody feels comfortable walking or biking out in the 'burbs.

I never blow right through red lights or stop signs, but I don't sit there if I don't see anyone coming for a while.[/url]

+1

I try to ALWAYS stop at the light for longer than I want to if there are any cars stopped anywhere in the intersection. I consider it public relations. Drivers are angry enough in Massachusetts. Why not impress them a bit with my respect for vehicular law (and maybe make one of them per month wonder, "Hmm... do bikes follow the same laws as cars...?" Maybe that driver will be a tad more aware the next biker they see.) Then, if all is clear, I go -- it's ridiculous to wait more than a minute if it's 100% safe to go.