Advocacy & Safety - How Often Does Scofflaw Behavior Increase Cyclist Safety?

My main concern as a cyclist is keeping myself crash free. Sometimes when defending scofflaw cyclist behavior, the safety card gets played. Some say it is safer for a cyclist to disobey the rules when they deem it to be in their best interest because "the laws were made for motorist safety", "drivers break as many (or more) laws", "bikes can't cause as much damage", etc. These and others are all valid points to some degree, and I have little doubt that technically breaking a law may sometimes result in greater safety for the cyclist in certain cases. My question is, how often would you say this is true for you, in your regular riding area?


Always
Very Often
Sometimes
Very Seldom
Never

I would argue that law-following and safety are really two separate issues for the bicyclist, and, for safety's sake, should be considered as such. The safest and most conservative riders I know of are messengers who break the law on a regular basis. A bicyclist's safety is dependent on awareness (and a little bit on luck), whether they follow the law or not. I don't have an answer to the poll question but I am open to the possibility that law-breaking could increase a rider's safety, insofar as it increases a rider's awareness.

^^I concur. I didn't vote either. I think it depends on what law is being broken in a given situation. Some of the current laws can place the cyclist in an unsafe position if followed. Florida doesn't have any that I am aware of (having to stop for a red light or stop sign is not one), but some other states have "must use side path or bike lane" laws. If these are poorly designed or run through an area with a lot of parking lot entrances/exits, driveways, or side streets, they jeopardize cyclist safety.

Please detail a specific incident where breaking the law increases a cyclists safety, becasue this sounds like the typical justification jingo.

There is a big difference between "scofflaw" behavior, and breaking a traffic law after making a conscious decision that it will allow the cyclist to avoid harm.



"Scofflaw" cyclists:

-flaunt the law in front of as many people as they can
-tell as many people as they can how cool they are for flaunting the law
-get mad at people who point out that they are acting like sullen, rebellious teenagers when they brag about their exploits, and
-whine when they nearly get hit while riding in an unpredictable manner, and then get mad at the same people who point out yet again that were they riding with some semblance of order and procedure, they would likely have never created that situation.

All of the above behavior serves to feed their monumental egos, which is the real reason they ride that way. Not because it "increases their safety" - that is a sorry justification.

Please detail a specific incident where breaking the law increases a cyclists safety, becasue this sounds like the typical justification jingo.

I tend to agree... especially when it comes to running red lights...

I fail to see the advantages to the cyclist of running red lights, whereas I see the potential disadvantage quite easily. The usual rant about running red lights is that you stay ahead of traffic... this only works in areas where traffic is highly congested or moving at less then the cyclist's average speed.

I tend to agree... especially when it comes to running red lights...

I fail to see the advantages to the cyclist of running red lights, whereas I see the potential disadvantage quite easily. The usual rant about running red lights is that you stay ahead of traffic... this only works in areas where traffic is highly congested or moving at less then the cyclist's average speed.

Here's one reason why I sometimes run red lights for safety's sake:

Where I ride motorists often take the first few seconds of a red light as a sort of grace period during which they can still proceed through the intersection. Many will even speed up at a yellow or when the light turns red to get through before the cross traffic starts going. Roads are also very narrow with no bike lanes. A car can likely stop safely at a red light without being rear ended because a car registers in the field of vision far greater than a cyclist, and a cars brake lights are a clear signal of braking (hand signals as a cyclist aren't nearly as effective).

I'll almost always run a red light when there's traffic behind me and the cross traffic permits it because I never know if the car behind me is going to continue barreling through the intersection or not.

I voted "Sometimes" in the poll.

I would argue that law-following and safety are really two separate issues for the bicyclist, and, for safety's sake, should be considered as such. The safest and most conservative riders I know of are messengers who break the law on a regular basis. A bicyclist's safety is dependent on awareness (and a little bit on luck), whether they follow the law or not. I don't have an answer to the poll question but I am open to the possibility that law-breaking could increase a rider's safety, insofar as it increases a rider's awareness.

There is no question that awareness is the key to a cyclists safety. But how would law breaking increase a rider's awareness? If one chooses to obey the law, couldn't they be just as aware as the scofflaw? Messengers break the rules to meet their schedules, others do it out of convenience. I readily admit scofflaw riding does prove very safe for some, but safety probably isn't the priority motivation for doing so. I would argue the same riders would have excellent safety records even while following the rules.

Please detail a specific incident where breaking the law increases a cyclists safety, becasue this sounds like the typical justification jingo. Here's one:

Classic 4-way, signaled intersection, 1 lane in each direction, good sight lines. There are no left-turn arrows, just a green light, and left turners yield. (pretty common intersection across the country).

A cyclist is in front, waiting towards the left side of the lane to make a left turn. Many cars are behind him (most going straight), and quite a few cars on the opposite side going straight. The light is green for cross traffic, but the cyclist can see well down the road in both directions and there is not a car in sight.

Legally, the cyclist should wait for the green, and yield for all the oncoming traffic before making the left. Meanwhile, the cars behind him are either squeezing by or are forced to wait. There's a good chance that there will be no gap in oncoming traffic until the light turns yellow.

I would suggest that running the red light would probably be the safer move in this case.

(also, this is actually a pretty common scenario)

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3198/cyclistiu2.jpg

petitio principii

petitio principii

How so? And to whom are you referring?

If someone says, "How often is it safe to break the law for safety reasons?" then, yes it's a logical error. And there's a bit of that in the framing of the original post. And in responses that say "well, my motivation for breaking the law is always my safety, so the law-breaking always makes me safer"

A more direct question might be, "what portion of your illegal actions are primarily motivated by a desire to increase your safety vs. convenience"

For me, when I run stop signs, it's usually for convenience reasons. I'll stop for safety reasons when other traffic is present.

I always stop at red lights, but will (infrequently) run them after stopping. My motivation is usually safety, like in the example I posted. Occasionally (at a deserted intersection), I will run a red light for convenience.

The only other laws that I regularly violate are bike lane regulations. I will frequently leave the bike in situations where the law would probably require me to stay in the bike lane. This is never for convenience; my motivation is safety when I do this.

There is no question that awareness is the key to a cyclists safety. But how would law breaking increase a rider's awareness? If one chooses to obey the law, couldn't they be just as aware as the scofflaw? Messengers break the rules to meet their schedules, others do it out of convenience. I readily admit scofflaw riding does prove very safe for some, but safety probably isn't the priority motivation for doing so. I would argue the same riders would have excellent safety records even while following the rules.

Agreed. I have often said that the safest rider would be both lawful and aware. The reality is it often doesn't work out that way for some reason, which is obvious looking at accident statistics and hearing all the stories I've heard over the years. I suspect that lawfulness can have a sort of seditive effect on the brain at times, may lead to letting one's guard down, I don't know.

There are definitely times when breaking a law is safer than following it...in part, because there are some really poor laws on the books in some places. Some states in the U.S. have mandatory bike-lane laws with no exceptions. In many situations, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to obey such a law. Other states require you to give a turn signal continuously for a set distance before a turn or lane change. While communicating clear intentions to other drivers is vital, signaling continuously (leaving only one hand to brake) is often a bad idea.

Thing is, I wouldn't think to use the term "scofflaw" to describe a cyclist who breaks these sorts of laws. A traffic law which mandates blatantly unsafe behavior has no legitimacy in the first place. You may still get a ticket, of course...but that's a different issue, and potentially offers a chance to help change a bad law.

mandatory bike lane use laws with no exceptions? come on....

characterizing messengers as the 'most conservative' riders on the roads? no, most conservative are yellow jackets, foot down at every stopsign, hand waving and head nods, that delusively think they are being seen as 'equal road users' by motorists.

I'm with zeytoun; sometimes traffic and road dynamics call for a 'scofflaw' maneuver that will increase safety.

I think of left turns on four or six lane arterials without a center turn lane at unsignalized intersections, where a rider approaching a turn can see a pod of oncoming traffic that will block the left turn, and a lot of motorist traffic overtaking.

the short left turn may increase safety versus sitting on the middle of a busy road, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear.

When I break traffic law, it's often motivated not by safety, nor convenience, but to avoid traffic conflicts with cars. I might ride through an intersection during a "barnes dance" sequence instead of waiting for the car light to turn green, for example, since cars here flip a **** here when you take the lane at an intersection.

My general approach to riding has to do with showing respect to other road users when possible, and asserting my rights unyieldingly when I need them. The showing respect part often, but not always, means demonstrating that I'm a law-abiding road user.

Except to the extent that this sort of breaking the law enhances my safety, I don't make a habit of breaking the law for safety. I ride aggressively, often, but not really illegally unless there's some sort of imminent danger forcing me to do so.

...
characterizing messengers as the 'most conservative' riders on the roads? no, most conservative are yellow jackets, foot down at every stopsign, hand waving and head nods, that delusively think they are being seen as 'equal road users' by motorists....
...

I disagree although I realize it will be hard to make a convincing argument. But here goes. Old, experienced veteran messengers, whether or not they are following the law, studiously avoid putting themselves in positions of dependence on motorist or pedestrian awareness. (To some degree there will still be flashes of dependence that remain unavoidable.) In sharp contrast, the "foot down at every stopsign" types mentioned above happily put themselves in positions of dependence on motorist awareness as part of their schtick. They think they are the most conservative riders on the road, but they're wrong.

Here's one:

Classic 4-way, signaled intersection, 1 lane in each direction, good sight lines. There are no left-turn arrows, just a green light, and left turners yield. (pretty common intersection across the country).

A cyclist is in front, waiting towards the left side of the lane to make a left turn. Many cars are behind him (most going straight), and quite a few cars on the opposite side going straight. The light is green for cross traffic, but the cyclist can see well down the road in both directions and there is not a car in sight.

Legally, the cyclist should wait for the green, and yield for all the oncoming traffic before making the left. Meanwhile, the cars behind him are either squeezing by or are forced to wait. There's a good chance that there will be no gap in oncoming traffic until the light turns yellow.

I would suggest that running the red light would probably be the safer move in this case.

(also, this is actually a pretty common scenario)

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3198/cyclistiu2.jpgAnd the motorist making a right turn on red, that is not looking at the cyclist, T-bones the red light running cyclist. Somehow that does not seem very safe to me.

On the other hand, a two step left turn appears very safe and even legal.

Please detail a specific incident where breaking the law increases a cyclists safety, becasue this sounds like the typical justification jingo.

We Always Run this Red on a Left turn. It won't change for bicycles and we don't want to be sitting ducks for trucks on a 55 mph highway.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh187/10wheels/TuesdayJuly82008Ride008.jpg

And the motorist making a right turn on red, that is not looking at the cyclist, T-bones the red light running cyclist. Somehow that does not seem very safe to me.

On the other hand, a two step left turn appears very safe and even legal.

Obviously assuming the intersection is empty, the cyclist can take the left and stick on the double yellow while the right-on-red car passes inside of the biker.

As mentioned, the poll is a little broad for an issue that has a lot of gray area in it. Generally, my view of riding 'scofflaw' style is that if I come close to getting hit or do something stupid at least it's my own fault. I've come a lot closer to getting hit riding on the right hand side of the road and trying to follow rules than by going where I feel safest. Mind you, I do spend most of my time riding on the right anyway, I only take the lane at certain sketchy parts of my commute, but I have no problem riding on the double yellow through city traffic or jumping lights if the situation calls for it. Like I said, I just feel more in control at certain points when I bend the rules and I can make risk assesments as to what I do.

There are about a half-dozen lights on my commute that I treat like a stop sign. Two lights are of the 'car sensing' variety and my bicycle will not trigger them. They were my 'gateway drug' into red light running.

There are a few lights I run because the low-traffic cross streets are totally clear. I do it for pure speed and convenience. I guess I see it as equivalent to jay walking, which many pedestrians do at the same points. I've done this in front of a cop car, and he did nothing. (Phew!)

There's one light on my route that I run for safety reasons. It's a four lane north/south street that's pretty busy. The east/west street is usually empty. I have to get into the left hand turn lane at the very next block. If I wait until the light turns green, I have to weave inside a huge cluster of traffic to negotiate the lane change. But if I run the light, I get ahead of all the traffic and I can get into the left turn lane very easily and safely. I consider it *much* safer to run the light than wait. But yes, I recognize that it's illegal and that I could get ticketed. If it happens, I'll deal with the consequences.

Oh, and 4 way stops at night... I usually slow down and look very carefully, but I rarely ever stop for them if the coast is clear.

You have to admit, it's a lot easier to see and hear nearby traffic when you are on a bicycle instead of inside a hermetically sealed cage. I'm always more worried about hitting another cyclist than I am a car. Especially those bike ninjas.

I'm getting the sense that I'm trying too hard to justify my illegal actions, so I should stop...

How Often Does Scofflaw Behavior Increase Cyclist Safety?

There's not enough data available to answer that question with any degree of certainty but my guess is that illegal behavior rarely, if ever, increases cyclist safety.

I can think of lots of ways in which illegal behavior increases bicyclist convenience without adversely affecting safety but, then, that wasn't the question.

I can also think of situations in which relying on legal behavior (i.e. proceeding on green) can be pretty dangerous but, then, that also was not the question.

There's also a big difference between technically illegal behavior and scofflaw behavior. I sometimes engage in technically illegal behavior but I'm anything but a scofflaw.

I don't stop at stop signs. I can better concentrate on traffic coming if I keep some movement. If I put my foot down to check for traffic it's distracting and I either don't check as well or I waste everyone's time.

I don't always signal my lane changes or turns. Sometimes I'm being lazy, but sometimes the road surface doesn't allow me to remove a hand.

Anyway, I put "very seldom."

Agreed. I have often said that the safest rider would be both lawful and aware. The reality is it often doesn't work out that way for some reason, which is obvious looking at accident statistics and hearing all the stories I've heard over the years. I suspect that lawfulness can have a sort of seditive effect on the brain at times, may lead to letting one's guard down, I don't know.

So conservative would be minimal dependence on other road users?

And the motorist making a right turn on red, that is not looking at the cyclist, T-bones the red light running cyclist. Somehow that does not seem very safe to me.

On the other hand, a two step left turn appears very safe and even legal.

I'm not sure I agree.

If:
a. 1st inline motorist has no turn signal, and
b. hasn't cut his wheels, and
c. Doesn't immediately turn when you give him a "standing two-count" once traffic clears for the both of you,

it's highly unlikely he's turning right.

I'm not wild about waiting for the green, 'cause there's probably going to be a lot of straight-travelling cars (from the pic) needing to squeeze by--why unneccesarially take that risk?

If a L on red isn't feasible (traffic or other concerns), the bicyclist could back up a good 20' or so from the intersection, time the light so he enters the intersection JUST as it turns green w/10MPH or so momentum, and turn L in front of the opposing traffic, beating lead driver's reaction time.

I hate to take the middle of the road here (pun intended) but I checked "Sometimes".

Downtown in The Grid, I find it almost always safer to keep ahead of traffic - laws be damned.

The rest of the time, I keep moving mostly for my own selfish convenience.

I guess that averages out to "Sometimes" it increases my safety.

And the motorist making a right turn on red, that is not looking at the cyclist, T-bones the red light running cyclist. Somehow that does not seem very safe to me.

On the other hand, a two step left turn appears very safe and even legal.
I mentioned the scenario because it's one I encounter frequently on several intersections near my house.

You're right that the right turner would become the prime danger to the cyclist. Which is why, when I've decided to run this red light, I looked at the lead motorist first. With the narrow streets (as shown in the drawing) it is very easy to observe and interact with that driver. Second, I'm not talking about the two of you suddenly seeing a gap in traffic. I'm talking about no cross traffic because lights are on a timer.

You're right that the right turner would become the prime danger to the cyclist.

As zeytoun explained in the rest of his post, I find that lead car making a right on red to be easy to avoid a couple of different ways (trucks and buses excepted), all depending on how narrow the street is.

I would aim for the double-yellow line anyway (not the far curb). No car wants to touch a double yellow and most are just about as wide as my shoulders. So the oncoming lane can turn right all day as I merge onto the double yellow right next to them if need be. Or with a simple head movement I can give the first car the "go ahead" there and merge in behind him.

When I first started cycling I followed every law there was and coincidentally enough I felt to be a lot more exposed to confrontation with motorists, weather it be people yelling at me, or someone cutting me off, or just generally feeling less safe....I really don't know how to translate this into logic or how and why, but this is the way it is with me. As I am getting more efficient at safely braking the law, the friction with motorists is subsiding and my rides are smoother and smoother. Again, I wish I knew why this happens.

I think people in general need to wake up to the universal laws and not the ones that are being showed down our throats. One of those universal laws states that we shouldn't poison our environment and 99% of the cars out there are doing just that so I say F... them. If a person running for the white house is proudly shouting "drill, baby drill", without even considering the consequences, then running a little red light is the least of our concerns. If a person on a bike breaks the law and that offends you, how about really looking around the world you live in and shutting the F... up. I am not making up the excuses, just looking at the big picture.

I think people in general need to wake up to the universal laws and not the ones that are being showed down our throats. One of those universal laws states that we shouldn't poison our environment and 99% of the cars out there are doing just that so I say F... them.

I feel the same sense of entitlement. My small eco-footprint gives me special rights in my opinion. I also want to limit time spent breathing exhaust fumes. Be nice if hybrid cars were painted a special color so I could more easily ID them and be more polite in their case. 100 Percent electric cars are easy to spot...for now anyway.

My agreeing with you will not benefit you at BF. But I wanted you to have at least ONE "I'm with ya" here.

When I first started cycling I followed every law there was and coincidentally enough I felt to be a lot more exposed to confrontation with motorists, weather it be people yelling at me, or someone cutting me off, or just generally feeling less safe....I really don't know how to translate this into logic or how and why, but this is the way it is with me. As I am getting more efficient at safely braking the law, the friction with motorists is subsiding and my rides are smoother and smoother. Again, I wish I knew why this happens.

It's because you're going where cars aren't. You're not sharing the same space at the same time as often as before.

The sense of entitlement as a reason to run intersections is a pretty bad one, I think, but the opportunity to ride separately from motor traffic is really nice and seems a lot safer.

The sense of entitlement as a reason to run intersections is a pretty bad one, I think, but the opportunity to ride separately from motor traffic is really nice and seems a lot safer.

In my case, I break laws to be 1. Safer and 2. Faster. The entitlement I feel keeps my conscience clear - it's not the reason I break laws.

It's because you're going where cars aren't. You're not sharing the same space at the same time as often as before.

The sense of entitlement as a reason to run intersections is a pretty bad one, I think, but the opportunity to ride separately from motor traffic is really nice and seems a lot safer.


Thank you for pointing that out. I think you gotta good point there.

Attitude is the another reason. If you let drivers know that you don't give a damn about what they think when you "SUCCESSFULLY" practice the scofflaws, they look at you differently, so they kind of keep their distance in their new found respect for you, whatever that respect might be, and besides, most people don't like their asses kissed when you religiously follow all the motorist rules when in reality cyclists are not in the same shoes. I mean, do whatever you like and whatever makes you feel safe, you just gotta realize that there is a lot of gray area (as a matter of fact it's all gray) and my sense of entitlement is directed at those who don't see that and get offended by it thinking that their way is the only one.

commenting on my statement messengers aren't the most conservative, but the yellowjacketed grizzled commuter cyclist

I disagree although I realize it will be hard to make a convincing argument. But here goes. Old, experienced veteran messengers, whether or not they are following the law, studiously avoid putting themselves in positions of dependence on motorist or pedestrian awareness. (To some degree there will still be flashes of dependence that remain unavoidable.) In sharp contrast, the "foot down at every stopsign" types mentioned above happily put themselves in positions of dependence on motorist awareness as part of their schtick. They think they are the most conservative riders on the road, but they're wrong.

robert, you're confusing 'conservative' with, purportedly, 'safest'.

conservative is all about following the rules, the expected. any move that breaks a law is less conservative riding.

i agree, more aware equals greater safety, and perhaps even breaking traffic rules can lend itself to greater safety. but a line of work characterized with running traffic signals does not equate to 'more conservative' by any definition of the word.

How Often Does Scofflaw Behavior Increase Cyclist Safety?

There's not enough data available to answer that question with any degree of certainty but my guess is that illegal behavior rarely, if ever, increases cyclist safety.

I can think of lots of ways in which illegal behavior increases bicyclist convenience without adversely affecting safety but, then, that wasn't the question.

I can also think of situations in which relying on legal behavior (i.e. proceeding on green) can be pretty dangerous but, then, that also was not the question.

There's also a big difference between technically illegal behavior and scofflaw behavior. I sometimes engage in technically illegal behavior but I'm anything but a scofflaw.

You are correct that breaking laws for convenience with no adverse affect (or a negative affect for that matter) on safety has nothing to do with the original question. My main concern is doing what will keep me safest, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

Breaking any particular law can only increase, decrease or have no affect it all on ones safety. So the question "How Often Does Scofflaw Behavior Increase Cyclist Safety? " especially with the for you added in the OP, is indeed a valid one, which can be answered fairly accurately without any additional data. Most seem quite able to accurately distinguish between what increases their safety verses what doesn't, even when analyzing their own behavior.

For me in the areas I ride, the answer is very seldom. But I can easily see the answer being different for others, depending on their conditions. I don't believe there can be one right answer. The question of how often does scofflaw behavior (or breaking a single law even once if you prefer) increase cyclist safety, was meant to determine your estimation of how often safety, verses convenience, is actually your primary motivation when breaking laws.

The question of how often does scofflaw behavior (or breaking a single law even once if you prefer) increase cyclist safety, was meant to determine your estimation of how often safety, verses convenience, is actually your primary motivation when breaking laws.

I'll put it this way for me --

I started out of convenience, but continue for safety.

The convenience part came from standing there while pedestrians started walking across against the light but with no approaching traffic (indeed, I do the same thing as a pedestrian). I figured, heck, I'll go, too.

It didn't take long to notice that, when I crossed early, I had the entire next block -- or more -- to myself without any traffic next to me. Crossing against the light in a safe and reasonable manner became the safer way for me to ride.

I'll put it this way for me --

I started out of convenience, but continue for safety.

The convenience part came from standing there while pedestrians started walking across against the light but with no approaching traffic (indeed, I do the same thing as a pedestrian). I figured, heck, I'll go, too.

It didn't take long to notice that, when I crossed early, I had the entire next block -- or more -- to myself without any traffic next to me. Crossing against the light in a safe and reasonable manner became the safer way for me to ride.

For curiosity's sake, how did the lead cars at the previous signal light treat you when they did catch back up to you, was it more or less the same if you had waited for the light?

For curiosity's sake, how did the lead cars at the previous signal light treat you when they did catch back up to you, was it more or less the same if you had waited for the light?

Several scenarios --

- Sometimes they never caught back up, at least not until a major thoroughfare with a longer light cycle. Occasionally, I'd even leave them behind entirely.

- I would have left without much time remaining on our red light, so they'd catch up and either pass or wait behind me as we both approached the next light -- which was often still red.

- I'd get to the next light ahead of them and have to wait. If they can turn right on red at that intersection, I'll move forward and left so they have room.

I have yet to get a honk or a hostile complaint. But, honestly, there are enough cyclists in this neighborhood that drivers are used to seeing us. I also like to think that, when they see me cross against the light, they can also tell that I'm taking precautions to cross safely and not just ride into the thick of traffic.

'Course, maybe they don't threaten me only because I'm a big ugly dude.. :lol:

^^If you do it right where I live they NEVER catch up.

robert, you're confusing 'conservative' with, purportedly, 'safest'.

conservative is all about following the rules, the expected. any move that breaks a law is less conservative riding.

i agree, more aware equals greater safety, and perhaps even breaking traffic rules can lend itself to greater safety. but a line of work characterized with running traffic signals does not equate to 'more conservative' by any definition of the word.

I see your point. Perhaps careful is the better word.

I just wanted to emphasize that it's possible to break laws when there is literally no chance of being hit or of violating anybody's right-of-way, and this, in my opinion, is more conservative riding and much safer than the situation into which we often put ourselves when riding through the typical green light intersection in congested areas, rolling with the flow of traffic and much more dependent on the sight and awareness and goodwill of left-turners, jaywalkers, right-turners all looking to hit that gap. I'm not suggesting people start running red lights, just be more careful about the green ones.

How Often Does Scofflaw Behavior Increase Cyclist Safety?

There's not enough data available to answer that question with any degree of certainty but my guess is that illegal behavior rarely, if ever, increases cyclist safety.

I don't think that we are concerned about proving anything here. Instead, are there situations where we can logically argue that we are safer doing so. In large, I agree with the statement above with the caveat that you the cyclist probably have a much greater incentive to be careful and attentive than the drivers around you. So there are probably situations where that becomes the overriding factor.

I can only think of one intersection off the top of my head where breaking the law arguably improves one's situation.

http://tinyurl.com/6x3bgn

If you are traveling west, there is a short bike lane on Fairfax Drive that disappears as the road narrows. The bike lane funnels people to the sidewalk prior to the Wakefield and Fairfax Drive intersection and the driveway to/from the university at the corner. It turns out that if one leaves the Fairfax Drive and Glebe Road intersection approximately when the light turns green, one almost certainly can't beat cars to the point where the road narrows where one needs to simultaneously deal with driveway and intersection traffic.

If you are traveling east/west on Fairfax Drive, the light sequence allows people making a left turn to travel first. Consequently, if you can get to the center island on Glebe Road, you can ride unfettered on Fairfax Drive while cars turn left and easily beat any cars to the Wakefield and Fairfax Drive intersection. It turns out that getting to the center island after the initial wave of traffic is pretty easy and one is already positioned past the right turn lane.


I can think of lots of ways in which illegal behavior increases bicyclist convenience without adversely affecting safety but, then, that wasn't the question.

I can also think of situations in which relying on legal behavior (i.e. proceeding on green) can be pretty dangerous but, then, that also was not the question.

There's also a big difference between technically illegal behavior and scofflaw behavior. I sometimes engage in technically illegal behavior but I'm anything but a scofflaw.

We can debate whether an individual cyclist breaking a particular law in a particular traffic situation increases, decreases, or has no impact on their own safety. What about the potential long-term impact on other cyclists? I live in a state where bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles. We've seen lots of venom in the press this year from motorists angered by the impunity with which many cyclists break the law. It flat-out pisses off motorists when cyclists blow through red lights or make other illegal maneuvers. Aren't motorists who see this less likely to treat other cyclists with respect?

Yes, I know that many motorists also break traffic laws. But I doubt many motorists are afraid of angry bicyclists riding too close to them -- I know of lots of bicyclists afraid of angry motorists driving too close. There are a lot fewer cyclists on the road than motorists, and there is a perception that a large percentage of bicyclists routinely break the law (particularly running red lights and stop signs). Motorists already lack respect for bicyclists, and this is reinforced every time a motorist sees a cyclist breaking the law. So shouldn't we break this cycle by taking the moral (and legal) high ground and following the law?

Note: I agree that this issue is far more difficult in states that require bicycles to stay in bike lanes.

So shouldn't we break this cycle by taking the moral (and legal) high ground and following the law?

Or, the law could be adjusted to allow better safety of cyclists.

Laws are never set in stone, after all. Even the Constitution has seen revisions.

On the other hand, my sister was pulled over and ticketed for riding her bike across on red through an otherwise empty intersection in small town Germany. Of course, in that town, there are dedicated bike lanes/paths/etc on every somewhat major thoroughfare on up, so there isn't nearly the same need to separate bikes from traffic "ad-lib" by allowing them to cross on red (as in Idaho, which comes up every time this topic appears).

I disagree although I realize it will be hard to make a convincing argument. But here goes. Old, experienced veteran messengers, whether or not they are following the law, studiously avoid putting themselves in positions of dependence on motorist or pedestrian awareness. (To some degree there will still be flashes of dependence that remain unavoidable.) In sharp contrast, the "foot down at every stopsign" types mentioned above happily put themselves in positions of dependence on motorist awareness as part of their schtick. They think they are the most conservative riders on the road, but they're wrong.

That's the way to put it. As a messenger I learned to ride like I was invisible. I NEVER depended on ANYONE else for my safety. This would involve jumping ahead of traffic on reds, but never so that the cross traffic had to concern themselves with me. Never heard a horn or brakes being applied. Ride beside the curb....are you mad...that's a death strip. Carving in and out of congested core traffic was the only way of getting anywhere quickly. 6 years years messing (through Montreal winters) and not once did I not go home on my bike and only one serious accident (after hours with no injuries, though the bike was a write off)

Knowing what the heck is going on around you is the key, and many of the curb lane riders simply look straight ahead and plod on til they get right hooked or doored. Then they scream about their rights to the road and such, which doesn't do them a lick of good from the emergency room. If you want to use a portion of the roadway you need to be there first and be willing to hold or be capable of sharing when it gets tight.

Or, the law could be adjusted to allow better safety of cyclists.

The law could be changed, but until that happens, people still have an obligation to follow existing law.

If, by changing the law, you mean changing to permit cyclists to do things that motorists cannot do (like current efforts in some states to make it legal for a cyclist to stop on red then proceed), I'm worried that puts us on a slippery slope to losing rights. If we start saying that bikes should not be subject to the same laws as cars, that opens the door to the flip-side of the equation: that bikes should not have the same rights as cars.

I think it's more a question of acknowledging that one size does not fit all. I though the idea behind letting the bikes proceed through the red it to have the intersection clear of riders when the cars take off on the green. I've seen far to many commuters almost wobble into a car leaving the light. Cyclists gathering in a line in the curb lane. tsktsk nothing good can come of this. In my experience I'll thread to the front and if I can't I'll be ready to go on the green, and very rarely do I beaten across the intersection by a car unless he's haulin ass.

The law could be changed, but until that happens, people still have an obligation to follow existing law.

If, by changing the law, you mean changing to permit cyclists to do things that motorists cannot do (like current efforts in some states to make it legal for a cyclist to stop on red then proceed), I'm worried that puts us on a slippery slope to losing rights. If we start saying that bikes should not be subject to the same laws as cars, that opens the door to the flip-side of the equation: that bikes should not have the same rights as cars.
I'm not sure that would be a slippery slope. There are already different laws for different types of vehicles. I don't see the Idaho laws as being for safety, but rather for convenience. If your state wanted to promote cycling over other types of transport, then allowing bikes to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs could help advocate cycling.

I'm not sure that would be a slippery slope. There are already different laws for different types of vehicles. I don't see the Idaho laws as being for safety, but rather for convenience. If your state wanted to promote cycling over other types of transport, then allowing bikes to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs could help advocate cycling.

Especially if 90% of bicyclists ride that way already. This would allow law enforcement to focus on what really matters -- dangerous riding or riding that violates rights-of-way -- and wouldn't punish careful, courteous riders for breaking rules that are, to them, arbitrary.

We need to ask ourselves, what is the point of this law? What is it supposed to do and does it do the job. The current application of traffic laws to bicyclists doesn't do the job. Law enforcement generally does not feel compelled to back up the law, perhaps because they see it as the proverbial pushing a rope. The reckless and dangerous riders are completely unconstrained by it, just look around. Meanwhile conscientious citizens feel compelled to wait at clear red light intersections or otherwise delay themselves for no useful purpose. The traffic law fails to punish or constrain bicyclists that deserve punishment while punishing riders who deserve a free smoothie. That's bad law.

The law could be changed, but until that happens, people still have an obligation to follow existing law.

If, by changing the law, you mean changing to permit cyclists to do things that motorists cannot do (like current efforts in some states to make it legal for a cyclist to stop on red then proceed), I'm worried that puts us on a slippery slope to losing rights. If we start saying that bikes should not be subject to the same laws as cars, that opens the door to the flip-side of the equation: that bikes should not have the same rights as cars.

How is giving bicyclists more rights a step in the direction of taking away their rights?

Breaking The Law by Judas Priest


There I was completely stopping, feeling like a clown
all inside it's so frustrating as I ride from town to town
feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
so I might as well begin to put some action in my life

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

So much for laws of the future, I can't wait to start
Back when they were never broken, I had anger in my heart
you don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue
if you did you'd find yourselves doing the same thing too

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

You don't know what it's like.....

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

Breaking the law......



Disclaimer: AlmostTrick does not condone the breaking of any laws