Advocacy & Safety - Going through red lights vs waiting for the green

As many are aware, Idaho law allows a cyclist to go through a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic:


49-720. Stopping -- Turn and stop signals (2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution.

Some cyclists claim that it's actually safer to go through a red light rather than wait until it turns green, but I've never seen any hard data given to back-up this claim. Is it possible for this issue to be proven either way?

Personally I feel safer doing what other traffic does so I stay put (even though the law allows me to go). It seems that to go through red lights safely every time one can not make any errors, and I don't trust myself to make the right decision 100% of the time.

I can see why it may feel safer in some cases. Sometimes I feel it to be safer myself (though I always wait for the green... not even sure why).

I recall reading somewhere that Idaho monitored bike accident statistics and concluded that collisions did not increase after the law was introduced. But this is just a vague memory.

I love these stupid threads offering all kinds of lousy excuses for breaking the law.

Red light stop. Green light go. Really, it's not hard, is it?

I love these stupid threads offering all kinds of lousy excuses for breaking the law.

Red light stop. Green light go. Really, it's not hard, is it?

It's legal in Idaho.

I love these stupid threads offering all kinds of lousy excuses for breaking the law.

Red light stop. Green light go. Really, it's not hard, is it?


read the OP before posting

If it's legal to go through, I don't see what the point of waiting is... *confused shrug*

It's legal in Idaho, and I would do it because there is no point waiting there if it's safe to go. In other states it's illegal to do that, but that doesn't mean it's less safe than in Idaho.

In some cases it seems much safer to run the light. I don't have actual data (and I wonder if there even have been any studies on the matter). If you have ever been passed dangerously in the intersection by some angry impatient driver you will recognize the desire to have a gap behind you.


I love these stupid threads offering all kinds of lousy excuses for breaking the law.

Red light stop. Green light go. Really, it's not hard, is it?I've never understood this attitude. What is it about a law that makes it so wrong to break? Does legality always equate to safety? Are illegal actions always dangerous? Ignoring the fact that it's legal in Idaho, what's the point of following a law just for the sake of not breaking the law?

Personally I feel safer doing what other traffic does so I stay put (even though the law allows me to go). It seems that to go through red lights safely every time one can not make any errors, and I don't trust myself to make the right decision 100% of the time.
Even if you wait for the green that won't necessarily make it safe. You still have to watch for traffic that's late in clearing the intersection, others that may run the red, and for turning traffic. While your light is red you have the option of choosing when to go, so only do so when you feel certain there's no conflicting traffic. Seems better to have that choice and use it appropriately than to always wait for the green.

It's legal in Idaho, and I would do it because there is no point waiting there if it's safe to go. In other states it's illegal to do that, but that doesn't mean it's less safe than in Idaho.

In some cases it seems much safer to run the light. I don't have actual data (and I wonder if there even have been any studies on the matter). If you have ever been passed dangerously in the intersection by some angry impatient driver you will recognize the desire to have a gap behind you.

I've never understood this attitude. What is it about a law that makes it so wrong to break? Does legality always equate to safety? Are illegal actions always dangerous? Ignoring the fact that it's legal in Idaho, what's the point of following a law just for the sake of not breaking the law?

Predictable behavior in traffic = increased safety. Unpredictable behavior is what results in crashes. The Idaho law is just stupid.

I've never understood this attitude. What is it about a law that makes it so wrong to break? Does legality always equate to safety? Are illegal actions always dangerous? Ignoring the fact that it's legal in Idaho, what's the point of following a law just for the sake of not breaking the law?

Slippery slope.

Lot's of motorists make the argument that it's not really necessary to stop at stop signs. I spent some time at the intersection where I was hit by a stop sign running motorist last March just to see what typical behavior was. Turns out that the people who make anything approaching a full stop are in the minority. I'm sure that they would argue that what they are doing is perfectly "safe".

Speedo

Unpredictable behavior is what results in crashes.That's true, it does. But many crashes occur simply because somebody wasn't paying attention, or was just being reckless.

It is not that hard to slow down or speed up to catch the light green if you are paying attention and looking far enough ahead.

Hmm, its interesting that cyclists were given consideration in this way, but I don't think its a good idea for a few reasons:

1) As mentioned above, this is an upset to the accepted pattern of traffic behaviour - why do bicycles have different rules?

2) Cyclists are given the opportunity to "chance it" across a red light. Temptation leads to accidents due to poor judgement.

3) Resentment of other road users towards cyclists? I know we dont care what they think, but there you go

Ed

This can be compared to a right-on-red for cars; if it's legal, why not?

Also might want to take into account the kind of intersections that exist in Idaho. I've never been, but I imagine it to be much more rural than a lot of states. I have trouble setting off some of the light sensors around here, in fact there are some that I KNOW I've never set off. Some of these lights rarely have traffic going in the same direction as me, so crossing on red is the last option I have (which is legal as far as I know if I can't switch the light.)

I really don't see what the big deal is, though. The state passed a traffic law and didn't see a significant effect on safety. I don't think it's a law that would make sense everywhere, but I guess that's one of the reasons that states get to make their own traffic laws.

It seems that to go through red lights safely every time one can not make any errors...

You can't make any errors proceeding on a GREEN light either. I have written this a million times here:

Look both ways before you cross the street.

Even if it's a one-way street. Even if you have a green. Even if you run the red. Even if it's 3am. The color of the light does not make you safe. Never Ever. YOU make you safe. Follow my rule and the color of the light is totally irrelevant to your safety.

In general there is a lot of confusion of calling what is more comfortable safer, granted when a cyclist feels comfortable they feel safer but feelings do not necessarily reflect the reality of safety. But then again the reality of safety that ignores discomfort by the very nature of being human we tend to avoid that which is uncomfortable. So...

First I would like to point out that studies have shown that bike facilities at intersections improve cyclists compliance at traffic lights. Both cyclists and motorists are more comfortable in sharing a roadway under low density traffic situations, a cyclist that waits for the green with queued cars behind will be riding for a minute or so under very high density traffic which is uncomfortable/frustrating for everyone. Once queued cars thin out after a light it is a more comfortable situation for a cyclist and a less frustrating situation for motorists, sort of a sweet spot that cyclists naturally seek out.

Now combine this with traffic sensors that don't detect cyclists and you have created a system that strongly encourages cyclists to ignore lights and cross at the first opportunity when it is safe to do so.

If indeed cyclists running red lights is a problem then the first action should be put in bike accommodations. (The option of going for good safety training for all road users does not seem viable at this time but should be kept on the wish list.)

The last few posts mention the huge problem of traffic signal sensors which do not detect bicycles. We can solve this at some intersections by teaching bicyclists the relatively simple art of traffic signal tripping, but at other intersections we need the full cooperation of the local traffic engineers, some of whom are helpful and sympathetic, and others of whom are useless. ["Just press the pedestrian button." "Sorry, my arm isn't that long. Even worse, there is no ped. button for the left turn lane."]

I am both a car driver and cyclist. I am most comfortable handling intersections on a bike as I would in my car.
In either case I would proceed through the red if the light was malfunctioning.

You can't make any errors proceeding on a GREEN light either. I have written this a million times here:

Look both ways before you cross the street.

Even if it's a one-way street. Even if you have a green. Even if you run the red. Even if it's 3am. The color of the light does not make you safe. Never Ever. YOU make you safe. Follow my rule and the color of the light is totally irrelevant to your safety.

hard to argue with that.

The other point, about this being similar to "right on red" is interesting, though that rule applies to all traffic, regardless of vehicle type. I don't care for rules which discriminate in this way, but I know that there are some areas where, for example, it's mandatory to use a bike lane or path if it exists, so a precident is, in part at least, already set.

Every ride is different isn't it. Only you know if it's safe or if your taking a chance ignoring traffic suggestions.

But it's fun coming here fighting over meaningless arguments. At least for me. I get a kick out of it.

hard to argue with that.

The other point, about this being similar to "right on red" is interesting, though that rule applies to all traffic, regardless of vehicle type. I don't care for rules which discriminate in this way, but I know that there are some areas where, for example, it's mandatory to use a bike lane or path if it exists, so a precident is, in part at least, already set.

I don't think the two examples are equivalent. The Idaho law gives cyclists more options. Mandatory use laws give us fewer options.

What I like about the Idaho law is that it doesn't force you to go through the red light. It allows you to make the move that you judge to be safer in a given situation.

OK, but why not allow other vehicles the same option? If its safe for a bike to cross the intersection, the same would be true for any road user.
Bikes, of course make up a tiny fraction of traffic, so can in principle filter through a light that is against them with minimal affects to other traffic. If we added everyone to the mix, it might not work so effectively...

You can't make any errors proceeding on a GREEN light either. I have written this a million times here:

Look both ways before you cross the street.

Even if it's a one-way street. Even if you have a green. Even if you run the red. Even if it's 3am. The color of the light does not make you safe. Never Ever. YOU make you safe. Follow my rule and the color of the light is totally irrelevant to your safety.

QFT. :thumb: I can't believe that my mother (and JoeyBike's) was one of the few parents in existence to drill that single line of advice into my head.

Overheard at a corner near my house:

Little girl (to her mother): "Is it safe to go now?"
Mom: "Well, what does the light say?"
Little girl: "It says 'Walk'.."
Mom: "Then it's safe to go."


OK, but why not allow other vehicles the same option? If its safe for a bike to cross the intersection, the same would be true for any road user.
Bikes, of course make up a tiny fraction of traffic, so can in principle filter through a light that is against them with minimal affects to other traffic. If we added everyone to the mix, it might not work so effectively...

Part of the problem as I see it is that we've become reliant on signage and signals. We let dumb, automatic machinery and stationary, colored plates of metal "protect" us, not common sense and situational awareness.

The way I treat them -- if I can cross an intersection separately from other vehicles, thereby not having to compete for the same strip of pavement in a location where most accidents occur, then I'll go.

About this, before anyone starts to pick it apart:


The way I treat them -- if I can cross an intersection separately from other vehicles, thereby not having to compete for the same strip of pavement in a location where most accidents occur, then I'll go.

I do this on foot or on a bike, but not in my car. That's partly because all the signs tell me to stop and I'll get pulled over and ticketed if I don't, but it's also because I can't see well enough down the cross street without driving halfway into the friggin' intersection. I don't have that problem on a bike, of course.

We need predicatable behaviour in traffic flow, and rules help to establish that when the road system is busy. However too many rules in an overpopulated system foster resentment, confusion and ultimately, backlash in behaviour and potentially, accidents.

As to an analogy for the red light rule, it's more like carpool lanes. The vehicle gets a break because it lessens the load on the road system.

As a pedestrian, I routinely violate red lights when it is safe(r) to do so. My favorite example is crossing the mouth of a freeway onramp, where I can easily get right-hooked (just like a bicyclist) when the light is green for both me and the cars entering the freeway from my direction of travel. The safest time to cross any intersection or street is during a large gap in traffic.

OK, but why not allow other vehicles the same option? If its safe for a bike to cross the intersection, the same would be true for any road user.
...

I guess the main difference is the better sight and hearing of a cyclist compared to a driver. Also, we're more maneuverable and faster accelerating for the first 20 feet or so.

I jump out ahead of the light when it makes sense. Clearing the intersection before the cars start passing is much safer then riding at the end of a line of cars and exposing myself to a left hook because cars aren't thinking there might be a bike in the line.

Where I commute, all bikes are "unpredictable" because we're so rare, drivers have no awareness of us. I don't have a need to make pointless statements about how I'm really a vehicle, it's completely lost on the masses. My goal is to make it home alive....

I say if its obviously safe, go.

If in any doubt, chillax.

Dang i'd love that law here. Stupid waiting on stupid reds when there's no-one around grr :mad:

Ok, I'll add my two cents. First, Idaho law doesn't apply BEYOND THE STATE LINE OF IDAHO. Ok. Everyone got that part? Second, Idaho, with the exception of a couple of smaller cities, is pretty much rural. What laws apply there, may not evenly apply anywhere else, even if they were applied everywhere else. Take California for example. The state is the most populous and has at least three dense metropolitain areas of over one million people. Do you really expect that the traffic would be the same? I doubt it. IOW, an Idaho style law here in California would be MORE dangerous. Too much traffic to make it even approach safe. Now, the whole stop sign/red light thing... It is fairly universal that a red octagonal sign, usually with a four letter word in it, means STOP. But what does STOP mean? Cease forward motion, halt. STOP does not equal SLOW. If it was so, the sign would state that. Same for RED lights, fairly universal. Not ambiguous. If you can't respect even that part of the law, you really can't demand respect from motorists that break the laws that are designed to protect us and give us the legal rights to the roadways WE AS CYCLISTS helped get paved in the first place!

You can't make any errors proceeding on a GREEN light either. I have written this a million times here:

Look both ways before you cross the street.

Even if it's a one-way street. Even if you have a green. Even if you run the red. Even if it's 3am. The color of the light does not make you safe. Never Ever. YOU make you safe. Follow my rule and the color of the light is totally irrelevant to your safety.

whoaa there... http://www.vimeo.com/4863641 isn't this you blasting a coulple reds and nearly causing a RTA about 2:20secs?

You can't make any errors proceeding on a GREEN light either. I have written this a million times here:

Look both ways before you cross the street.

Even if it's a one-way street. Even if you have a green. Even if you run the red. Even if it's 3am. The color of the light does not make you safe. Never Ever. YOU make you safe. Follow my rule and the color of the light is totally irrelevant to your safety.


QFT. :thumb: I can't believe that my mother (and JoeyBike's) was one of the few parents in existence to drill that single line of advice into my head....

Part of the problem as I see it is that we've become reliant on signage and signals. We let dumb, automatic machinery and stationary, colored plates of metal "protect" us, not common sense and situational awareness.

The way I treat them -- if I can cross an intersection separately from other vehicles, thereby not having to compete for the same strip of pavement in a location where most accidents occur, then I'll go.

The most memorable thing I learned in Driver's Training, and so applicable to bikes, as described above is
"You never have the right of way unless someone yields it to you."

I'm sorry, but for all you "law and order" types:

5 in the morning, I'm treating stopsigns like yeilds, and stoplights like stopsigns.

Hell... that's what the cagers do. And they can hurt folks besides themselves.

...the roadways WE AS CYCLISTS helped get paved in the first place!

Did we cyclists create traffic signals and stop signs?

But what does STOP mean? Cease forward motion, halt. STOP does not equal SLOW. If it was so, the sign would state that.

I think you've just hit on a great idea.... I'm underwhelmed with the USA's love affair with the stop sign. All we need to do is get all the Ts changed for Ls and the Ps for Ws, so it shouldn't even be that expensive.



Same for RED lights, fairly universal. Not ambiguous. If you can't respect even that part of the law, you really can't demand respect from motorists that break the laws that are designed to protect us and give us the legal rights to the roadways WE AS CYCLISTS helped get paved in the first place!

A bad road user isn't necessarily going to have 'respect' for anything.

Early cyclists may have helped initiate road paving, but certainly didn't pay for it, so any claim to the roads based on history is a rather weak one :p

I admit there is my own little red light rule, when making a left turn after crossing the busy intersection, I tend to run the red with the intention of getting past a lane closure due to construction, that way I can beat the oncoming traffic who tend to forget that I as a bicyclist have the right to a lane. I have time to take my lane, get ahead of traffic and back on shoulder before their crossing light turns green. If I were to wait the rush would be on my tail and people on their way home from work are rude and don't take kindly to bicycle commuters such as myself.So am I being a safe cyclist or should I be waiting for the green? What do you think?

whoaa there... http://www.vimeo.com/4863641 isn't this you blasting a coulple reds and nearly causing a RTA about 2:20secs?

I looked both ways and picked a spot where the cars wouldn't be. A car moving at 40 mph can't kill me behind his back bumper very easily. You just illustrated my point. The color of the light is irrelevant. Look both ways, go when nothing will kill you.

I treat lights as yield sings, works like a charm. On streets where i can see clearly i simply blow past, otherwise i slow down a bit.

I treat lights as yield sings, works like a charm. On streets where i can see clearly i simply blow past, otherwise i slow down a bit.

Your choice, and I refuse to pass judgement. but I simply will not do that.

I'm sorry, but for all you "law and order" types:

5 in the morning, I'm treating stopsigns like yeilds, and stoplights like stopsigns.

Hell... that's what the cagers do. And they can hurt folks besides themselves.
That's all well and good and far be it from me to tell you how to ride, but please don't try to make it seem somehow "less illegal" because you're on a bike rather than in a car. Unless you're in a jurisdiction with an Idaho-type stop law then you're breaking the law just like your so-called cagers do.

The big difference is that when you misjudge how "safe" it is to proceed on your bike you're much more likely to die in the ensuing accident. And it would be your fault to boot.

Let's say you are cycling in Idaho and are using a well designed bike lane (so impeding motorists is essentially a non-issue). You approach an intersection where the light is red so you come to a complete stop as the law requires. Now you are faced with two options (both legal):

1. While the light is still red, look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.

2. Wait until the light turns green, then look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.

Which is the safest option? I would have to say #2, as any error you make while the light is green is less likely to cause an unpleasant outcome than an error made when the light is red.

The way I see it, to say that both options are equally safe is akin to claiming infallibility.

Some cyclists claim that it's actually safer to go through a red light rather than wait until it turns green, but I've never seen any hard data given to back-up this claim. Is it possible for this issue to be proven either way?
Ignoring the Idaho law for a moment, who would perform a study of an illegal act? Who would pay for the study? How would the data be collected?

There is no hard data. Any support would likely be supposition or ad-hoc examples.

===================


That's true, it does. But many crashes occur simply because somebody wasn't paying attention, or was just being reckless.

No one is saying that having laws and having people abide by them would result in no accidents. Anyway, reckless driving is illegal.

===================


What I like about the Idaho law is that it doesn't force you to go through the red light. It allows you to make the move that you judge to be safer in a given situation.

The law would never have been written to "force" cyclists to go through the red light.


I guess the main difference is the better sight and hearing of a cyclist compared to a driver.
This (and the generally lower speed).


Also, we're more maneuverable and faster accelerating for the first 20 feet or so.
Not this because, if it is needed, the failure has already occurred.

We could debate this till the cows come home. Any situation might be safe or dangerous depending on the exact conditions, actions of road users, irrespective of light colour or existance of stop signs.

Hmm, its interesting that cyclists were given consideration in this way, but I don't think its a good idea for a few reasons:
1) As mentioned above, this is an upset to the accepted pattern of traffic behaviour - why do bicycles have different rules?
2) Cyclists are given the opportunity to "chance it" across a red light. Temptation leads to accidents due to poor judgement.
3) Resentment of other road users towards cyclists? I know we dont care what they think, but there you go
Ed
1) There are different rules (explicit and implicit) for bicycles even without the Idaho distinction. Most states have a FRAP law. All states allow cyclists to ride on the shoulder.
2) Cyclists already have this temptation. Anyway, it's not clear that, in practice, it's any less safe.
3) The resentment is large already. I doubt that the Idaho law would increase it significantly.


OK, but why not allow other vehicles the same option? If its safe for a bike to cross the intersection, the same would be true for any road user.
Bikes, of course make up a tiny fraction of traffic, so can in principle filter through a light that is against them with minimal affects to other traffic. If we added everyone to the mix, it might not work so effectively...

I wonder if the Idaho law would be in place if cyclists were very common.

I suspect that the "sense" of the law is that cyclists would be very careful because they are so vulnerable.

Another reason it (the yield at stop signs part) makes more sense for cyclists is that cyclists are generally travelling more slowly than cars when approaching an intersection. People in cars also have more things blocking their view.

=======================


The way I see it, to say that both options are equally safe is akin to claiming infallibility.

Certainly, it would theoretically be safer for cyclists to stop at stop lights and wait for the green. It isn't really known, in practice, whether not stopping is really significantly less safe. Keep in mind that the relative safety might be different in rural and urban areas (that is, the Idaho law might make no sense what-so-ever in NYC).

Thanks njkayaker - that puts a lot of things into sensible perspective.

I think the only thing I would comment is "why only bicycles". Any vehicle could stop at red and then proceed across an intersection with a good margin of safety under the right conditions, just as they do under the provision for "right on red".

...or is this legislation a reaction to the fact that some cyclists pass red lights already?

I think the only thing I would comment is "why only bicycles". Any vehicle could stop at red and then proceed across an intersection with a good margin of safety under the right conditions, just as they do under the provision for "right on red".


One other assumption is that trained traffic engineers have determined whether a signal light is needed at an intersection, and drivers should concede to the engineer's better judgment. However, the trained judgment is often made with only cars in mind. Many intersections that are appropriately signed or signalled for cars may be "overkill" for bikes.

I've heard that the UK has many more uncontrolled intersections, and especially a lot fewer 4 way stops. Is this true? What effect does it have on cycling?

I think the only thing I would comment is "why only bicycles". Any vehicle could stop at red and then proceed across an intersection with a good margin of safety under the right conditions, just as they do under the provision for "right on red".

...or is this legislation a reaction to the fact that some cyclists pass red lights already?
The Idaho law also has the benefit to traffic engineers that they would get fewer requests to fix improperly adjusted traffic light sensors that do not detect bicycles.

And, as mentioned by njkayaker already, a key difference between cyclists and motor vehicle operators is that the cyclist has a greater incentive to only proceed when the path is clear since he's at much higher risk of physical injury if it's not. Plus he's much less likely to cause injury or damage to anyone else than in the case of a motor vehicle.

Thanks njkayaker - that puts a lot of things into sensible perspective.

I think the only thing I would comment is "why only bicycles". Any vehicle could stop at red and then proceed across an intersection with a good margin of safety under the right conditions, just as they do under the provision for "right on red".

If it was safe for a car to stop and then go through a red light, then it wouldn't be a light. It would be a stop sign. Part of the reason for a light is to indicate to the green traffic that cars at the red light (basically) won't make a decision to cross.

I think that one reason it makes (more) sense to allow bicyclists to cross is that they are more like pedestrians (in terms of perspective and speed and vulnerability) and (hopefully) won't make a rash decision.

The "right on red" thing is substantially different because the turning vehicle only has to account for traffic coming from one direction (this reduces the risk drastically).


...or is this legislation a reaction to the fact that some cyclists pass red lights already?
I thought about that notion but I don't think it works out to a reasonable justification for the law. Note that many, many people speed but the speed limit (generally) isn't changed as a result.

I doubt the Idaho law would have been implemented if there was an understanding that it would make things significantly less safe.

Let's say you are cycling in Idaho and are using a well designed bike lane (so impeding motorists is essentially a non-issue). You approach an intersection where the light is red so you come to a complete stop as the law requires. Now you are faced with two options (both legal):

1. While the light is still red, look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.

2. Wait until the light turns green, then look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.

Which is the safest option? I would have to say #2, as any error you make while the light is green is less likely to cause an unpleasant outcome than an error made when the light is red.

The way I see it, to say that both options are equally safe is akin to claiming infallibility.

Your situation is rendered moot because of the two conditions I've highlighted. Safe is safe.

Just to complicate things ;) , add this plausible scenario --

You approach the intersection where the light is red, so you come to a complete stop. You have a car in the curb lane behind you with its right turn signal on, a car waiting patiently in the thru lane, and another car waiting in the left turn lane. You look across to the oncoming side of the intersection and you see the same thing -- one car turning right, another going straight, and a third waiting to turn left.

You get the same options:
1. While the light is still red, look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.

2. Wait until the light turns green, then look both ways and cross if it appears to be safe.