Advocacy & Safety - More anecdotal evidence re: running red lights

I had an angry conversation with a driver this morning after he gave me an angry honk on my commute. I'll say up front that the guy was an idiot but one of his responses provides another piece of anecdotal evidence in the discussion of running red lights and how it affects drivers' attitudes towards us. Let me also say that personally I've always been in the camp that says we shouldn't because it allows us to have the moral authority in our arguments with drivers; that may have influenced what I took away from this conversation.

Here's the story.

I chased the driver down after he honked at me for no good reason. He was pulling into my company's campus anyway so it wasn't a big deal for me to follow him and catch up. Once I got his attention and he rolled down his window (this conversation took place traveling along the campus driveway which is 2 lanes each direction), he immediately said, "You can't take the whole lane like that!"

Me: "Have you ever read the NC DMV laws?"
Him: "You're not allowed to take the lane!"
Me: "Have you ever read the law? As a matter of fact it does say I can."
Him: "On a 45 mph road? You can just hold up traffic!"
Me: "Yes--and I wasn't holding up traffic. I have a copy of the law right here." patting my trunk bag (and yes I do keep a copy there) [note: the road in question was 3 lanes, a right-turn-only and two straight-thru lanes, one of which turns into a right-turn-only 1/4 mile beyond our campus; I take that entire lane to prepare for my merge to the left lane beyond the campus]
Him: "What about running red lights then? Is it OK if you just do that?!"
Me: "No. I never do."
Him: "I'm not saying you do, but lots of cyclists do."
Me: "No, it's NOT ok when cyclists do that--and it's why I hate it when they do. Next time, don't honk!" and I rode away.

Everyone knows two wrongs don't make a right...but a lot of people (especially when driving) act like two wrongs do make a right. Clearly this guy (and again, he's an idiot...but there are a lot of idiots out there) thinks so--"it's OK if I honk at cyclists because some cyclists run red lights." I don't like to make assumptions...but I think it might be safe to assume he's not alone in this attitude.

Many drivers just have an irrational hate of cyclists, period, like you have seen, they just don't believe that bikes should be able to ride on the road. They will hate cyclists no matter what. Even if all cyclists stopped at every light, do you think it would change that idiot's hatred and bad opinuion of cyclists? Of course not, he'd find some other excuse, like, some cyclists don't ride a straight line, anything to justify his opinion that bicyclists don't belong on the road.

Its clear from your interaction that running reds is not a major reason that drivers hate cycl;ists. When you first confronted him, he said bikes can't take the lane. Only when you showed him the statute which said you can did he come up with the "Well, bikes run red lights." comment. Running red lights wasn't on his mind, its just the first thing he though of to justify his position when you proved him wrong.

good job keeping the argument logical and civilized. I have yet to encounter any incident like that, although I do frequently hear things yelled at me after I take left hand turn from a very busy 2-lane road and need to take the lane on an uphill before turning (the turn is at the very top of the hill, of course).

Good idea about carrying a copy of the DMV laws - I think I will do that myself.

Does the law allow him to honk? =)

I'm calling BS. I've never met a driver who at the same time: honked at me, was willing to stop and talk, kept the discussion civil, kept the discussion rational, willingly turned the conversation away from "you have no right to be in the road", didn't call me a ******.

In my experience you can have at most three of these at a time but all six!! Unheard of, the bicycling equivalent of a unicorn or mermaid.

I'm calling BS. I've never met a driver who at the same time: honked at me, was willing to stop and talk, kept the discussion civil, kept the discussion rational, willingly turned the conversation away from "you have no right to be in the road", didn't call me a ******.

In my experience you can have at most three of these at a time but all six!! Unheard of, the bicycling equivalent of a unicorn or mermaid.

Now that you mention it, I think I did hit the jackpot with this guy. Seriously, I'm not making up any of this story. But it was "only" 5--this "conversation" was held entirely on the road as we moved down the campus driveway. ;)

Does the law allow him to honk? =)

Screaming, honking the horn and flashing headlights. -> sure sign of an aggressive driver.

I'm calling BS. I've never met a driver who at the same time: honked at me, was willing to stop and talk, kept the discussion civil, kept the discussion rational, willingly turned the conversation away from "you have no right to be in the road", didn't call me a ******.

In my experience you can have at most three of these at a time but all six!! Unheard of, the bicycling equivalent of a unicorn or mermaid.

I'll call your BS... I have run into situations like this... Where no yelling or cussing took place, but the responses were still irrational.

The most memorable situation was while I took an LAB road 2 class. (even Helmet Head witnessed this) and I was making a legal left; I was honked at and I confronted the motorist. His response was similar to the OP's situation... the motorist told me I should be riding "like other cyclists" indicating "curb huggers." I asked how then I should make a left turn. His irrational response: "I donno, you figure it out." :rolleyes:

Yeah these encounters happen... the cyclist has to take the upper hand and not let anger become part of the situation.

BTW the truth is that it doesn't happen often... usually encounters like this end with the motorist quickly driving off with a dismissive remark or "sign."

The most memorable situation was while I took an LAB road 2 class...

Oh man, the main reason I took the LAB course was that I was having confrontations with drivers almost every day, and said so when I introduced myself to the class.

Sure enough, on the road ride, I got honked and yelled at twice. In both cases, they singled ME out from the 4-5 riders in the line. Got great laughs from the group. (One was a "get in the bike lane" as we were making a left hand turn).

BTW the truth is that it doesn't happen often... usually encounters like this end with the motorist quickly driving off with a dismissive remark or "sign."

Not all of Itsjustb's six criteria, but the drive off with a sigh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UVCKzKJ74A

Why do you call the guy an idiot? Because he didn't know about bike laws? How many people do? He pulled over and listened to you without calling you an A** hole or something (neither did you so cudos to you too). To me he sounds like a regular guy who doesn't understand bike safety.

Not all of Itsjustb's six criteria, but the drive off with a sigh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UVCKzKJ74A

No Al, I said "sign," not a sigh... ;)

But yeah, very typical encounter... not enough time to explain why you are indeed "doing the right thing" and the motorist then goes off thinking their same old thoughts as to why cyclists are jerks. (IE his "get on the sidewalk comment... ) :rolleyes:

Very classic and very typical encounter.

I wonder what HH would think/do in such a situation. Probably ignore the motorist and the honk... which of course leaves the motorist still thinking in the "wrong" way. :mad:

Also I love your real world encounters, over the "training video" in the other thread...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=398092

I wonder how Dan et. al. would handle this sort of "typical encounter." I doubt a "training video" of something like this will ever be posted. :D

No Al, I said "sign," not a sigh... ;)

But yeah, very typical encounter... not enough time to explain why you are indeed "doing the right thing" and the motorist then goes off thinking their same old thoughts as to why cyclists are jerks. (IE his "get on the sidewalk comment... ) :rolleyes:

Very classic and very typical encounter.

I wonder what HH would think/do in such a situation. Probably ignore the motorist and the honk... which of course leaves the motorist still thinking in the "wrong" way. :mad:

Also I love your real world encounters, over the "training video" in the other thread...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=398092

I wonder how Dan et. al. would handle this sort of "typical encounter." I doubt a "training video" of something like this will ever be posted. :D

Well you know how us VCer are. Someone gives us a 'sign' and we see the positive. ;)

Anyway, what do you mean 'love [my] real world encounters' which real world encounters have I posted recently over on the training video thread that you are thinking of?

edit: I just noticed Genec posted this in the 'training thread' so I suggest that conversation in this thread focus on the original topic, not this side bar.

Al

I had a rational conversation with the driver of a large truck last year. I was riding about right tire track when he honked from behind and then passed me safely. I pulled into the left turn lane at the next light and he was already there, stopped on my right. I wasn't concerned about it, and wasn't planning on saying anything. Then I heard him tell me "You should ride on the shoulder, it's safer" I explained that the shoulder was only a couple of hundred feet long (true) so it was not useful to me. His response was that it's still safer for those couple of hundred feet.

We went back and forth a couple times on the rules of the road and proper lane positioning. His last comment was something about getting myself killed and how he knew best because he was a professional. No minds were changed, but I was impressed that we both stayed calm the whole time.

actually, in many jurisdictions, it is illegal to honk your horn, unless it is an emergency situation. A couple stories came out last year up here in seattle where a driver got a warning because he honked at a car in front of him that didn't notice the green light.

Here ya go:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003791064_bumper16m.html

The other day Mark Cruz, of Renton, was waiting to turn left at a green light in downtown Seattle. The car in front of him was sitting under the light, turn signal blinking, but had not budged even though all oncoming traffic had passed. Cruz honked his horn to urge the driver to move. "Then I was pulled over by a Seattle police officer on a motorcycle. He let me off on a warning for honking at the car in front of me.
"Dumbfounded, I said, 'Of course I was.' What am I supposed to do when someone just sits there at a green light?
"He then told me that use of your horn is only for emergencies."

Well you know how us VCer are. Someone gives us a 'sign' and we see the positive. ;)

Anyway, what do you mean 'love [my] real world encounters' which real world encounters have I posted recently over on the training video thread that you are thinking of?

Al

Oh, unlike the training videos, your videos show real life encounters that include motorists "not on their best behavior."

The reality is that we cyclists may not be perfect and motorists may not be perfect... but we all can work to share the road with minimal conflict.

I think there's more than one problem raised by running red lights, but one of the problems is that it blurs the line between legal and illegal behavior. Everybody knows that running red lights is illegal, and everybody has seen cyclists do it on a daily basis. Personally, I'm surprised when I see a cyclist observing the law.

Many people, maybe most people, think that perfectly legal behavior, like taking the lane, or even riding on the roadway, is also illegal.

When cyclists do something that is obviously illegal, like running red lights, it makes it easier for motorists to conclude that behavior which seems illegal, like taking the lane, actually is illegal.

When cyclists do something that is obviously illegal, like running red lights, it makes it easier for motorists to conclude that behavior which seems illegal, like taking the lane, actually is illegal.

That makes sense. It must be because cycling is pretty rare around here, but I honestly can't remember seeing a cyclist run a red light and have never had someone use the "red light running gripe" against me.

According to a study done by the city of New York, NYC drivers run 1.23 million red lights per day:

http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/red_light_report.pdf

I don't see anyone arguing that motorized vehicles should be banned because of them.

Of course the flip side to this is that sometimes cyclists have to run red lights... as the lights are not set up to trigger for the cyclist.

Now of course the motorists may not understand this, but just happen to see you running what appears to be a solid red light... and take it in a negative way... "those darn cyclists."

I know recently I was very close to going on a left stale red, when a car pulled up behind me... knowing he could trigger the light, I motioned him forward... only to have the motorist then try to drive past me... DOH!

the drivers are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality.

Of course the flip side to this is that sometimes cyclists have to run red lights... as the lights are not set up to trigger for the cyclist.

Now of course the motorists may not understand this, but just happen to see you running what appears to be a solid red light... and take it in a negative way... "those darn cyclists."

I know recently I was very close to going on a left stale red, when a car pulled up behind me... knowing he could trigger the light, I motioned him forward... only to have the motorist then try to drive past me... DOH!

That is when it's handy to be riding an old steel bike. :D

Why do you call the guy an idiot? Because he didn't know about bike laws? How many people do? He pulled over and listened to you without calling you an A** hole or something (neither did you so cudos to you too). To me he sounds like a regular guy who doesn't understand bike safety.

it sounds like the guy started off combative when confronted and plainly made up "laws" based on no fact. he tried to bully the cyclist by honking and then tried to get the upper hand by making a blanket statement about other cyclists he's seen.

i'd say that's an idiot.

I put forward an argument I've used before on this subject.

It seems to me that cyclists and drivers tend to RLJ in different ways: drivers mostly go thro' immediately after it has changed because they're amber gambling, whereas riders tend to check if it's "safe" to ignore the red, i.e. it doesn't matter what part of the red phase is at, only that there is a big enough gap in the traffic to get thro' safely.

This means that cyclists RLJ more obviously than drivers. Their law-breaking is therefore more visible and is therefore more easily noticed by other road users, from drivers to pedestrians. Drivers, on the other hand will, I suspect, tend to justify their RLJing on the grounds that they just misjudged their closeness to the line when it changed to amber. How many of us, when driving, have done the same thing? I'll put my hand up (even do it on the bike occasionally) - will you?

Now I know that in London, which is probalby the UK capital for RLJers, the number of collisions between RLJing cyclists and other traffic is very, very small, simply because no rider in his/her right mind will take a deliberate risk in order to get across the junction.

I'll even accept that a sizeable proportion of cycling RLJers are being honest when they say that they find it safer to do so - note: being honest, not correct. Many, however, do break the law for the same reason that drivers do, i.e. they don't want to stop/be held up. We are, after all, subject to the same weaknesses as other road users, even tho' we are probably somewhat more alert (self-defence).

I'll even agree that even if we all abided by the law in this respect, many drivers would still find other reasons to object to our presence on the road - this seems more prevalent in countries with a more anglo-saxon culture, for some reason. However, removing one of the most frequently quoted law-breaking characteristics would reduce the number of grounds that they would be able to quote for disliking us.

The OP would then have not needed to address this particular issue in his rather civilised discussion with the driver, but would have been able to concentrate on his right to be where he was. I know that, as a campaigner (ret'd), I would have been able to spend more time on the real issues about safety and facilities when meeting with councillors and officials, rather than dealing with the same red herrings about traffic lights and pavement (sidewalk) riding.

It is the sheer frequency and obviousness of RLJing that creates the problems we have in this respect. If it was as rare as drivers doing the same thing - i.e. not amber gambling, but doing it at any time during the red phase - it would remove one of the most (if not the most) common criticisms of our behaviour.

It would only take a relatively small change in our riding in these areas to begin a change in the prevailing driving culture, since the most frequent criticisms would largely disappear.

You would still have the apparently large no. of US drivers who think that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, but you would have more time to address our real safety isssues, namely, that of driver behaviour.

Under that heading, you would also need to campaign long and hard to improve driver education and knowledge and the standard required to pass your driving tests. Not to mention introducing cyle training as part of the school curriculum, as, I believe, driver ed. often is.

That is when it's handy to be riding an old steel bike. :D

You should see the old steel bike I ride... if that sucker won't trigger a light, chances are a VW won't either.

Side story: The stop lights near my home didn't trigger for the 7 years I have lived there... I have submitted requests to the street division to get the loops adjusted... and they respond with "task completed." But the reality is, the loops still have not detected me on either my commuter (lots of steel) nor my cruiser (I think it was built from an old Buick... ).

Well I submitted my customary annual request, and this year (just a month ago) they finally adjusted them right. :D

I was quite surprised the other day to have the lights change for me early in the morning (when I was the only "metal" around). I couldn't resist and I rode out and right back to see if I could trigger them again... success!!!

I no longer have to run the lights in my own neighborhood... :D

You should see the old steel bike I ride... if that sucker won't trigger a light, chances are a VW won't either.

Side story: The stop lights near my home didn't trigger for the 7 years I have lived there... I have submitted requests to the street division to get the loops adjusted... and they respond with "task completed." But the reality is, the loops still have not detected me on either my commuter (lots of steel) nor my cruiser (I think it was built from an old Buick... ).

Well I submitted my customary annual request, and this year (just a month ago) they finally adjusted them right. :D

I was quite surprised the other day to have the lights change for me early in the morning (when I was the only "metal" around). I couldn't resist and I rode out and right back to see if I could trigger them again... success!!!

I no longer have to run the lights in my own neighborhood... :D

You get an attaboy for persistance. Good work.:D

I don't think it's a hatred of cyclists but rather a belief that a 45mph speed limit means a God-given, unalienable right to drive at least that speed no matter what.

I don't think it's a hatred of cyclists but rather a belief that a 45mph speed limit means a God-given, unalienable right to drive at least that speed no matter what.

I tend to agree... drivers do not see "speed LIMIT" but "drive at this speed" when they look at those signs.

I think there's more than one problem raised by running red lights, but one of the problems is that it blurs the line between legal and illegal behavior. Everybody knows that running red lights is illegal, and everybody has seen cyclists do it on a daily basis. Personally, I'm surprised when I see a cyclist observing the law.

Many people, maybe most people, think that perfectly legal behavior, like taking the lane, or even riding on the roadway, is also illegal.

When cyclists do something that is obviously illegal, like running red lights, it makes it easier for motorists to conclude that behavior which seems illegal, like taking the lane, actually is illegal.

Blue Order, this was precisely the point of my OP. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.


Why do you call the guy an idiot? Because he didn't know about bike laws? How many people do? He pulled over and listened to you without calling you an A** hole or something (neither did you so cudos to you too). To me he sounds like a regular guy who doesn't understand bike safety.

To clarify: I call him an idiot not because he didn't know the laws--you're right, most people don't seem to--but because when confronted with someone who clearly did, he changed his justification for his behavior. As I write this I realize that again you're right--that doesn't make him an idiot, that probably makes him normal. Certainly I've been guilty of it on occasion too. :rolleyes: Damn...there goes my good karma for the day!

""I'm not saying you do, but lots of cyclists do."

"Then honk at them, not me."

You're right, it's not idiocy, it's plain old fashioned bigotry.

As I write this I realize that again you're right--that doesn't make him an idiot, that probably makes him normal.

It could be that idiocy is normal.

To clarify: I call him an idiot not because he didn't know the laws--you're right, most people don't seem to--but because when confronted with someone who clearly did, he changed his justification for his behavior. As I write this I realize that again you're right--that doesn't make him an idiot, that probably makes him normal. Certainly I've been guilty of it on occasion too. :rolleyes: Damn...there goes my good karma for the day!

People hate to be wrong. I had few encounters with motorists who kept telling me they knew the law and that my behavior was illegal (merging to make a left turn). :rolleyes:

Why do you call the guy an idiot? Because he didn't know about bike laws? How many people do?

I'd call the guy an idiot....

Look, driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge, not a right. Driving is an activity that is licensed by the state. As a licensed activity, it requires certain responsibilities on the part of the driver, including knowledge of, and adherence to, all applicable laws governing the roadways. How difficult is it for a driver to refamiliarize him/herself on the applicable laws from time to time?

The fact that this driver, and many many others, have clearly ignored this responsibility to know the laws is not an excuse, it's a national embarassment. Drivers should be required to take periodic continuing education classes and pass periodic tests - real tests, not the pulse/drool checks that are administered currently.

As long as we keep excusing negligent driving in this country with a wink and a nod, we'll continue to see myriad negligent drivers out there...

Why do you call the guy an idiot? Because he didn't know about bike laws? How many people do?

I'd call the guy an idiot....

Look, driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge, not a right. Driving is an activity that is licensed by the state. As a licensed activity, it requires certain responsibilities on the part of the driver, including knowledge of, and adherence to, all applicable laws governing the roadways. How difficult is it for a driver to refamiliarize him/herself on the applicable laws from time to time?

The fact that this driver, and many many others, have clearly ignored this responsibility to know the laws is not an excuse, it's a national embarassment. Drivers should be required to take periodic continuing education classes and pass periodic tests - real tests, not the pulse/drool checks that are administered currently.

As long as we keep excusing negligent driving in this country with a wink and a nod, we'll continue to see myriad negligent drivers out there...

I'd love to agree with you, in fact I do agree with most of what you said... the problem is that drivers are not held to be responsible for knowing about laws regarding cyclists... as I don't believe a single state tests motorists regarding those laws. Since motorists don't see any questions regarding cyclists on their driving tests... they assume cyclists don't matter.