Advocacy & Safety - I was driving and lost my cool

I was driving my car and making a left hand turn on a green arrow when a cyclist jumped the red light on the
other side of the road. I almost hit him and I was shocked at the stream of abuse I threw at him. I was angry at him for endangering his and my life and for giving cyclists a bad name. Have you found yourself driving a car and shouting at stupid moves by cyclists, and, let's be honest, done the exact same move the next day riding your bike?

I don't shout at them but I do wonder how long they'll survive their lack of skill and common sense, point out their mistake to any passengers that may be with me and explain that the individual is not really a cyclist and make a note to myself to ride properly and safely.

I can honestly say i have never blown a red light. or jumped a red light. I have mad my right on red either after a complete stop or slowed to > 5mph and ready to stop if traffic warented.


When you say jumped.. the light was still red while you where making a right or the light had just turn green and the cycelist got a better start than you?

I can honestly say i have never blown a red light. or jumped a red light. I have mad my right on red either after a complete stop or slowed to > 5mph and ready to stop if traffic warented.


When you say jumped.. the light was still red while you where making a right or the light had just turn green and the cycelist got a better start than you?

The OP was making a left, the cyclist jumped the light... probably came out from the red, right in front of the OP.

It's a dumb move by a cyclist... and if there is other traffic around... as in this case... a really bad example of cycling.

I can honestly say i have never blown a red light. or jumped a red light. I have mad my right on red either after a complete stop or slowed to > 5mph and ready to stop if traffic warented.


When you say jumped.. the light was still red while you where making a right or the light had just turn green and the cycelist got a better start than you?

I was turning on a green arrow, so the oncoming light was red

The move the cyclist was trying to do is a gutsy move that if you don't do it correctly, resluts in what happened here.

The idea is, if you know that there is going to be a left turn only arrow before your red (and oncoming traffic's red) turns to green, you can go straight through the intersection on a bicycle before any oncoming traffic starts to move. You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red. If executed correctly, you are already in the intersection and crossing the intersection just as the left turn arrow turns on and you get through the intersection and on your way without interfering with oncoming left turning traffic (or anyone else for that matter).

I do it all the time, but it takes good timing and a quick sprint in a low gear to do it right. And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.

The move the cyclist was trying to do is a gutsy move that if you don't do it correctly, resluts in what happened here.

The idea is, if you know that there is going to be a left turn only arrow before your red (and oncoming traffic's red) turns to green, you can go straight through the intersection on a bicycle before any oncoming traffic starts to move. You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red. If executed correctly, you are already in the intersection and crossing the intersection just as the left turn arrow turns on and you get through the intersection and on your way without interfering with oncoming left turning traffic (or anyone else for that matter).

I do it all the time, but it takes good timing and a quick sprint in a low gear to do it right. And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.


Not terribly smart. We have lots of nice semis round here that like to run reds. Also, I get irked with motorists who jump reds to make left turns in front of me when I have the right of way (especially when the second drivers assumes that the it is clear to do the same) and it is pretty hypocritical for me to do virtually the same thing.

AS Sam Rensho describes, riding thru a red on a opposing green arrow is bonifide defensive traffic cycling technique, despite it not following the rules of the law to the letter. perhaps the bicyclists' execution was flawed.

There's a three minute light at an intersection I've ridden thru often for many years. Heavy traffic in three directions, one street is very low traffic and signal intervalled as such. Coming off the very low traffic street, a bike will often miss the small window of opportunity to cross, then wait thru a LONG left turn light opposing, before turning to a 120 second arterial cross flow.

I have ridden thru that intersection after the opposing left turning traffic has cleared the intersection and I know I've got time before cross traffic gets the green. This allows me to ride another half mile or so ahead of traffic 'static' overtaking as the road moves towards a freeway feeder.

Reducing the overtaking traffic quotient by riding the opposing green is the most expedient and safest way to ride the intersection and road beyond I describe.

Nobody's complained, I feel its a smooth, daresay 'vehicular' movement of a bicycle, despite not according to the signalization at that intersection.



'not a real cyclist?' Please. Not a safety ambassador, perhaps, but DEFINETLY a real cyclist.

The move the cyclist was trying to do is a gutsy move that if you don't do it correctly, resluts in what happened here.

The idea is, if you know that there is going to be a left turn only arrow before your red (and oncoming traffic's red) turns to green, you can go straight through the intersection on a bicycle before any oncoming traffic starts to move. You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red. If executed correctly, you are already in the intersection and crossing the intersection just as the left turn arrow turns on and you get through the intersection and on your way without interfering with oncoming left turning traffic (or anyone else for that matter).

I do it all the time, but it takes good timing and a quick sprint in a low gear to do it right. And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.

I can't agree with your tactics, but the incident I described went down like this: I was first in line and stopped on a red light waiting to turn left. I got the green arrow so that I could turn across
the oncoming traffic that was still waiting on red, except for the cyclist with a death wish that is. I don't agree with jumping red lights, but this guy not only jumped a red light, but took no notice that I was turning left and that breaks the rule given by most cyclists that they only run red lights when it's "safe" to do it.

AS Sam Rensho describes, riding thru a red on a opposing green arrow is bonifide defensive traffic cycling technique, despite it not following the rules of the law to the letter. perhaps the bicyclists' execution was flawed.

There's a three minute light at an intersection I've ridden thru often for many years. Heavy traffic in three directions, one street is very low traffic and signal intervalled as such. Coming off the very low traffic street, a bike will often miss the small window of opportunity to cross, then wait thru a LONG left turn light opposing, before turning to a 120 second arterial cross flow.

I have ridden thru that intersection after the opposing left turning traffic has cleared the intersection and I know I've got time before cross traffic gets the green. This allows me to ride another half mile or so ahead of traffic 'static' overtaking as the road moves towards a freeway feeder.

Reducing the overtaking traffic quotient by riding the opposing green is the most expedient and safest way to ride the intersection and road beyond I describe.
Nobody's complained, I feel its a smooth, daresay 'vehicular' movement of a bicycle, despite not according to the signalization at that intersection.



'not a real cyclist?' Please. Not a safety ambassador, perhaps, but DEFINETLY a real cyclist.

And this applies also to running any red light when doing so will not violate any other traffic's right of way. You are much safer up and moving on your bike because of fewer overtakers.

The move the cyclist was trying to do is a gutsy move that if you don't do it correctly, resluts in what happened here.

The idea is, if you know that there is going to be a left turn only arrow before your red (and oncoming traffic's red) turns to green, you can go straight through the intersection on a bicycle before any oncoming traffic starts to move. You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red. If executed correctly, you are already in the intersection and crossing the intersection just as the left turn arrow turns on and you get through the intersection and on your way without interfering with oncoming left turning traffic (or anyone else for that matter).

I do it all the time, but it takes good timing and a quick sprint in a low gear to do it right. And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.

Why do you do it?

A "defensive" cycling move that places all liability for any resulting collision on the cyclist seems to me to have have left the cyclist a bit "undefended."

Why do you do it?

I do it sparingly, but always (when its safe) at a certain fairly lightly travelled intersection where I am going to make a left hand turn one block past the intersection that I go straight on the left turn arrow.

The intersection is at the beginning of a wide 4 lane street with a median, that is posted for 30 mph but after this intersection, the traffic flow is closer to 50 mph. I go straight on the arrow and I have made my left turn before the traffic in back of me has even started to move.

The less traffic that tries to overtake me the safer for me.

You are much safer up and moving on your bike because of fewer overtakers.2.5% of all car-on-bike crashes are of the motorist overtaking the cyclist variety. 5.9% of all car-on-bike crashes are left crosses.

Your math doesn't add up.

A "defensive" cycling move that places all liability for any resulting collision on the cyclist seems to me to have have left the cyclist a bit "undefended."

Best defense is a good offense?

Like I said, its a gutsy move that has to be executed almost perfectly otherwise you will at least get an earful from a rightly pissed off driver, like the OP, and possibly worse.

I don't do it at every intersection because it really takes a lot of concentration. First, you have to make sure that the traffic on the intersecting street has cleared and at the same time, see how quick the left turn car is "on the draw" and then make a split second decision on whether to go. As I said, not for the feint of heart.

Best defense is a good offense? Not when it gets to a jury it isn't.

blue order, sam rensho is not describing collisions, hes' describing the most expedient and safest way to cross that light he's described.

I also describe the safest and most expedient way I cross on a specific opposing green left signal.

I think understanding ones' local traffic dynamics, understanding intersections you ride thru regularily is important for smooth execution of the ' opposing left hand green' intersection crossing.

There's another intersection, if i take the green left arrow for busses only, i move ahead of traffic approaching a serious pinch point. sometimes by disobeying strict traffic signalization a bicyclist can ride safer than if waiting for the green.....

blue order, sam rensho is not describing collisions, hes' describing the most expedient and safest way to cross that light he's described.I know tha he's not describing crashes. I'm saying that it leaves the cyclist completely exposed for all liability if there is a crash, and that is not the "safest" way to cross a light.

i disagree. ' safest' in liability in court after a colission that may never happen, or safer on an everyday, on the ground reality basis?

Bicyclists are completely exposed to actual physical liabilities in a crash independant of legal responsibilities.

i disagree. ' safest' in liability in court after a colission that may never happen, or safer on an everyday, on the ground reality basis?

Bicyclists are completely exposed to actual physical liabilities in a crash independant of legal responsibilities."Safe" is what keeps you safe in a preventative sense, and it is also what keeps you safe if something goes wrong. If the choice is one of physical safety over legal safety, one would want to choose physical safety. Examples: (1) In a life or death emergency "If I don't make this move right now, I'm dead." (2) "There is absolutely no possibility of anything going wrong, and this move measurably increases my physical safety. Therefore legal liability is a moot point."

However, that choice between physical and legal safety is almost always going to be a false choice.

And as San Rensho can affirm, when one party is so completely at fault, there is no case presented to a jury. The party at fault just sucks up whatever losses that were brought upon oneself.

isn't running a red light still running a red light?

I honestly can say I've never freaked out on a bicyclist.I'm serious.When I see bikes I have no problem stopping,waiting for them to turn,or otherwise letting them get to where there going.I 've bicycled on the roads in all kinds of situations for 35+ years.Some years I do only 200 miles some years it's 4000 miles.I hate rude,impatient car drivers with a passion.It doesn't take much to wipe out a bike and it's rider with a car or truck but we all know that.Now that I'm riding bikes with my teenagers I'm even more careful on my bike or in my car.I've never been seriously hurt riding bikes and I've got about 3 or 4 traffic violations from driving cars in 26 years.Lot's of near misses in cars and close calls happen on bikes daily.Remember,most of the responsibility is in your hands for staying safe.Give bikes and motorists a wide berth and try to stay cool.Just my 3 cents.

..... If the choice is one of physical safety over legal safety, one would want to choose physical safety.......However, that choice between physical and legal safety is almost always going to be a false choice.

You state you think physical safety trumps legal safety, and i agree. your second half of the argument excerpted above falls flat in the real world.

when a motorist violates anothers' right of way, legality be dammned, that motorist has to take action. it might mean jumping the curb, coming to a complete stop in a travel lane, skidding off the road, etc....all illegal actions.

To address the OP, however, I no longer get upset at bicyclists or pedestrians breaking the laws... just yesterday driving my car(!! nursing a broken hip, otherwise I'd of been riding!!) I sawa some peds (dad and specially abled kid) at the crosswalk even though I had the green. they looked like they were going to bolt. I slowed down, and they crossed, AGAINST THE LIGHT!

Did i scream and yell out the window for their transgressions?

Heck no! take a chill pill, bro.

Expecting strict legal operation of ANY vehicle on the road, or pedestrian, to allow you unfettered use of the roads is a fools game.

I do it sparingly, but always (when its safe) at a certain fairly lightly travelled intersection where I am going to make a left hand turn one block past the intersection that I go straight on the left turn arrow.

The intersection is at the beginning of a wide 4 lane street with a median, that is posted for 30 mph but after this intersection, the traffic flow is closer to 50 mph. I go straight on the arrow and I have made my left turn before the traffic in back of me has even started to move.

The less traffic that tries to overtake me the safer for me.

Ever try just holding back and letting the first wave of traffic go ahead? That works too... and doesn't violate the law, doesn't set up the image of cyclists as scofflaws, and usually works just fine without the need for perfect timing and intense concentration. Just good timing and moderate concentration.

You state you think physical safety trumps legal safety, and i agree. your second half of the argument excerpted above falls flat in the real world.

when a motorist violates anothers' right of way, legality be dammned, that motorist has to take action. it might mean jumping the curb, coming to a complete stop in a travel lane, skidding off the road, etc....all illegal actions.Yes, emergencies call for emergency measures.

Waiting for the light to change is not an emergency, and framing observing the law as choosing legal safety over physical safety is a false dilemma.

why? Sam Rensho and I both describe scenarios (I describe two) where the more prudent choice, all things being weighed by the bicyclist, that physical safety trumps legal requirements for bicycling.

sometimes I ride further left than is practicable..... ;)

that bus only left I described, that I use to get ahead of a very tedious pinxch point? Ooh, Ohh, I'm NOT a bus, you might say, but use of the bus signal to move ahead of traffic makes that stretch of road following the intersection MUCH safer to traverse as a bicyclist.

I got yelled a once there, by two FURIOUS 'bicyclists' with bikes on their roof as I rolled past them. that tired old 'same roads, same rules' crab. What a couple of losers.

Honestly, I've never read so much self-serving crap in my life.

Red means stop. Green means go. Even - omigod! - if you're on a bicycle.

Didn't any of you graduate from kindergarten?

I'd have layed on the horn for as long as he was in my way and then a couple seconds longer. Not in an angry way, but in the same bemused, calm way I would do the same thing for any other moron infringing on my right of way while driving. And hope they want to make an issue of it. Maybe even do a quick jerk/brake or simply rev the car high with the clutch in just to scare the **** out of them, too.

Did you call them in to the cops for running the red? Otherwise, how will they learn from their mistakes?

Honestly, I've never read so much self-serving crap in my life.

Red means stop. Green means go. Even - omigod! - if you're on a bicycle.

Didn't any of you graduate from kindergarten?
So, you have not read very many of Bek's post before!:D

Honestly, I've never read so much self-serving crap in my life.

Red means stop. Green means go. Even - omigod! - if you're on a bicycle.

Didn't any of you graduate from kindergarten?

yes, i think most of us did. some of us, however, recognize when breaking a traffic law makes traversing a stretch of roadway safer than waiting for the legal right to proceed. Did you do know in at least one state Red means Stop, YIELD, then proceed thru the red if you're on a bike?

I don't know the other side of the OP's story, that of the bicyclist. all i see is an angry man yelling at a bicyclist for an admittedly dangerous, but noneventful traffic infraction.

Maybe, one day, nun will chase miscreant bicyclists down and harass them in his car? I recommend tempering that attitude, expecting 100 percent legal operation by every operator, motorized or HPV, on the roads is a fools' game.

yes, i think most of us did. some of us, however, recognize when breaking a traffic law makes traversing a stretch of roadway safer than waiting for the legal right to proceed. Did you do know in at least one state Red means Stop, YIELD, then proceed thru the red if you're on a bike?

I don't know the other side of the OP's story, that of the bicyclist. all i see is an angry man yelling at a bicyclist for an admittedly dangerous, but noneventful traffic infraction.

Maybe, one day, nun will chase miscreant bicyclists down and harass them in his car? I recommend tempering that attitude, expecting 100 percent legal operation by every operator, motorized or HPV, on the roads is a fools' game.

"Non eventful" as the OP was able to slam on the brakes and forgo smacking into the cyclist that was "traversing a stretch of roadway safer?..." :rolleyes:

This is NOT a safe practice... and even in Idaho, you are still required to ensure that the way is clear... which this cyclist apparently DID NOT DO. Even San Rensho called it a "gutsy move."

I was driving my car and making a left hand turn on a green arrow when a cyclist jumped the red light on the
other side of the road. I almost hit him and I was shocked at the stream of abuse I threw at him. I was angry at him for endangering his and my life and for giving cyclists a bad name. Have you found yourself driving a car and shouting at stupid moves by cyclists, and, let's be honest, done the exact same move the next day riding your bike?
Nun,

Personally, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm a perfect angel.

;)

i guess id agree genec, but there's still only one side of the story. wonder what the cyclists' pov & rationale was?

If executed correctly

It can't be.

And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.




AS Sam Rensho describes, riding thru a red on a opposing green arrow is bonifide defensive traffic cycling technique

Come on guys, get your story straight. Is it "defensive driving", or a move that could "easily get you killed"?

And what does the opposing traffic's left turn arrow have to do with it? Basically we are talking about heading out into an intersection just before the light turns green. Does it matter if there will be an contralateral green arrow? San Rensho's later example is when the arrow is in his direction - he knows he can get into the left lane with no following traffic.

You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red.
You may not appreciate that there are lots of places where, unlike Toronto, there is no "all-red" interval in the signals.

.When I see bikes I have no problem stopping,waiting for them to turn,or otherwise letting them get to where there going.
Just be careful you don't set them up for a collision with someone less accomodating than you. You may stop to let a bike go, but the guy you're blocking from their view in the next lane may not.

i guess id agree genec, but there's still only one side of the story. wonder what the cyclists' pov & rationale was?

He thought he could make it... plain and simple. But for some reason he failed to either take into account the left turner or just didn't jump early enough.

Going out ahead of traffic when there is no cross traffic is one thing... but doing it such that you foul up cross traffic or left turners is a huge NO NO.

Frankly, I gave up jumping lights a long long time ago... it really isn't worth the risk in order to "be more visible." (Yeah I used to do it... just like I used to lean against cars at stops... I don't do either any more)

Generally I have found that I can still take off on a green and still beat motor traffic across the intersection... without any "negative political message." (I usually don't bother, however)

yes, i think most of us did. some of us, however, recognize when breaking a traffic law makes traversing a stretch of roadway safer than waiting for the legal right to proceed. Did you do know in at least one state Red means Stop, YIELD, then proceed thru the red if you're on a bike?

I don't know the other side of the OP's story, that of the bicyclist. all i see is an angry man yelling at a bicyclist for an admittedly dangerous, but noneventful traffic infraction.

Maybe, one day, nun will chase miscreant bicyclists down and harass them in his car? I recommend tempering that attitude, expecting 100 percent legal operation by every operator, motorized or HPV, on the roads is a fools' game.

So let me get this straight. You promote obeying the law unless it is an inconvenience to you? I think that's called anarchy. I often read here that automobile drivers are morons because they can't wait a few seconds for a cyclist .. but it's OK for you to run a red because you're 'special' and should not have to wait? Your attitude is a prime example of why cyclists are fodder for many motorists. Your foolhardy attitude assumes everyone else on the road obeys the law and that could be a fatal attitude for you and your ilk. Imagine for a moment that you miscalculate the timing and a car swerves trying to avoid you strikes a child on the sidewalk .. just because you're 'special'. Riding in a predictable manner is the only safe way to ride, and your method is not predictable.

um, no. Sometimes breaking the law is safer for cyclists.

wow. such vehemence from bicyclists about safe riding techniques that contradict the strict rules of the road.

I think there's been a bevy of discussions about adaptive cycling in this forum.

The move the cyclist was trying to do is a gutsy move that if you don't do it correctly, resluts in what happened here.

The idea is, if you know that there is going to be a left turn only arrow before your red (and oncoming traffic's red) turns to green, you can go straight through the intersection on a bicycle before any oncoming traffic starts to move. You need to be moving right after the cross traffic has cleared when cross traffic are just getting the red. If executed correctly, you are already in the intersection and crossing the intersection just as the left turn arrow turns on and you get through the intersection and on your way without interfering with oncoming left turning traffic (or anyone else for that matter).

I do it all the time, but it takes good timing and a quick sprint in a low gear to do it right. And, if you do it wrong, its a really easy way to get killed and/or piss off oncoming traffic.

Sounds like an incredibly stupid move. Traffic control measures exist for a reason: If we all played God and tried to outsmart traffic patterns there wouldn't be many patterns to outsmart. That, and, eventually we all make mistakes. If we're pulling jackassery like this we're likely to die for our mistakes.

Another thing you've probably already thought of: What if someone in the cross traffic runs the light? Lights seem to be most commonly run when they've just turned red.

Maybe you do it for the adrenaline rush. I can't imagine what else could be important enough to take such a high risk.

um, no. Sometimes breaking the law is safer for cyclists.
.... snip .....

So safer for cyclists is your only consideration? I disagree that your actions are safer for cyclists and I wonder if you ever consider the ramifications of your actions. Or is it just about you?

when i ride, my safety is my prime consideration.

in at least one state Red means Stop, YIELD, then proceed thru the red if you're on a bikeAnd in that state, the cyclist who jumped the red in the OP would still be breaking the law. He would be subject to a citation, and would be held liable if the OPs car hit him.

when i ride, my safety is my prime consideration.Tonight when I rode home, I stopped at every light, and every stop sign. Remarkably, I didn't get hit by a car, even though I wasn't running red lights and stop signs. Not even a near miss. Nary an angry driver, a honk of the horn, or a clenched fist. Luck must have really been on my side tonight, eh, taking chances by stopping at lights the way I did. :lol:

you were probably just slower than riders that choose safe expediency. :D

you were probably just slower than riders that choose safe expediency. :D

Is there any issue with being slow?.......I stop at red lights, and I'm often passed at them by riders that I'll catch down the road and we leap frog like that for a few miles. I know that many cyclists assess a junction and then proceed through a red light if the crossing is clear, I don't agree with this, but I concede that it can be executed safely. However the cyclist in my original post rode through the light as I was turning left on a green arrow. He rode into an on coming vehicle, that would seem to break the law and the unwritten cyclist code of keeping yourself safe. I would love to get his side of the story. I was not proud of my verbal assault on him, but his stupidity cause me, and the cars behind me, to brake sharply in a intersection

nun, no issue with slow, but some riders choose faster over strict legality. there's a poster from New Orleans that had some video up recently about riding in utter disregard to traffic laws in the midst of a seriously congested urban center. if he chose to stay in line with the motorists and not filter, he'd STILL be stuck in traffic.

I agree, the rider you encountered obviously didn't smoothly execute the 'cross on red' movement sometimes chosen by bicyclists.

I mentioned a couple of scenarios, and general conditions, where a rider not following the strict letter of the law may be riding safer as well as more expediently. Sam Rensho's description is a bit more dicey, jumping the opposing left arrow, but hey.

nun, no issue with slow, but some riders choose faster over strict legality. there's a poster from New Orleans that had some video up recently about riding in utter disregard to traffic laws in the midst of a seriously congested urban center. if he chose to stay in line with the motorists and not filter, he'd STILL be stuck in traffic.

I agree, the rider you encountered obviously didn't smoothly execute the 'cross on red' movement sometimes chosen by bicyclists.

I mentioned a couple of scenarios, and general conditions, where a rider not following the strict letter of the law may be riding safer as well as more expediently. Sam Rensho's description is a bit more dicey, jumping the opposing left arrow, but hey.

Yes.

The going straight in front of a left arrow turning car is not a good example of where not strictly adhering to the law is safer for a cyclist. The problem with this manouvre is that in most cases it violates rule no 1 about when it is ok to run a red or a stop. You can only run the red or the light when doing so does not interfere in any way with the right of way of anyone else. With this manoevre, it is almost guaranteed that you will violate the left turning car's right of way if you miscalculate even a little, as happened in the case of the OP.

But just that fact that this manoevre is not the best example does not mean that every instance of running a red light or a stop is unsafe. As long as running the red or the stop does not interfere at all with anyone elses right of way, in many cases, as you have explained Bek, its safer, and if not safer, running a red or a stop is worse neutral.

So to the "follow of the letter of the law" adherents, why the big deal? There is no moral imperative behind stopping at every stop sign or red light. Running a stop sign is not morally equivqlent to electrocuting kittens, its the moral equivalent of violating laws that require you to paint your house a certain color.

The purpose of traffic laws is to make sure there is a predictable, orderly flow to traffic. If you violate a traffic law and it does not affect the flow of traffic in any way, then no harm, no foul, especially if doing so will make you safer.

I mentioned a couple of scenarios, and general conditions, where a rider not following the strict letter of the law may be riding safer as well as more expediently. Sam Rensho's description is a bit more dicey, jumping the opposing left arrow, but hey.

In my case I imagine that the cyclist was unfamiliar with the junction and assumed that as he had a red light I also had a red light. He didn't know, or consider, that while his light was still red my light was green to allow me to make the left hand turn. This is where I believe the argument that a cyclist can use judgment to safely break traffic laws breaks down as sometimes they just don't have enough information to make a safe decision.

Behaving predictably is the safest way to use the road and for me that means stopping at red lights, obeying the law, signaling clearly and being decisive in my lane changes, particularly on rotaries.