Advocacy & Safety - Red Light Running

I made a post in SSFG about this, as a thread came up about running red lights with a PSA linked.

My post is here:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9824294&postcount=7

A picture is included.

Basically, I want to know if it is legal to go through on a red, considering the bike lane is not broken outside of the crosswalk. There is another T intersection composed with stop signs, and it has the same thing. I am not a threat to anyone turning onto Murray Boulevard nor am I obstructing traffic, so is it legal?

Thank you for any information regarding this!

Of course it is illegal. The outside lane is painted thru too, but vehicles there must stop as well.
You are a potential hazard to pedestrians.
It is your choice to break the law or not and some can probably do it with reasonable safety (not that that is all laws are about). But don't try and justify the behavior.

Illegal.

It is always illegal to run red lights, at least in PA and I would imagine in most if not all states. There's a similar type of intersection near me. We were stopped at a red light at the | part of the T. When our light turned green, we started into the intersection to make a left, and wouldn't you know it, some ignorant idiot on a bike blew through the red light right in front of us. He could have been killed, except for my wife's fast reaction (she was driving).

I am increasingly of the belief that other cyclists are as much, if not more of a danger to us than motorists.

It's a real simple thing to remember, never mind all the rationalizations you may get from other riders:

YOU
CANNOT
RUN
A
RED
LIGHT
WHILE
ON
A
BIKE!

You may survive (& even thrive) for a while doing this; sooner or later, it WILL bite you in the azz.

It is always illegal to run red lights, at least in PA and I would imagine in most if not all states. There's a similar type of intersection near me. We were stopped at a red light at the | part of the T. When our light turned green, we started into the intersection to make a left, and wouldn't you know it, some ignorant idiot on a bike blew through the red light right in front of us. He could have been killed, except for my wife's fast reaction (she was driving).

I am increasingly of the belief that other cyclists are as much, if not more of a danger to us than motorists.

If I'm not mistaken in Idaho a bicyclist can treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs. It must be nice.

Yeah, I would never run a red light turning left from the | portion of the T. I was curious about the right side bike lane in the picture, as it is not in the way of anything and the lane does not break.

Thank you for the input so far!

(Also, regarding pedestrians in the area, there are next to none at the intersection.)


If I'm not mistaken in Idaho a bicyclist can treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs. It must be nice.

They tried to pass that law in Oregon, and it failed. :(


It's a real simple thing to remember, never mind all the rationalizations you may get from other riders:

YOU
CANNOT
RUN
A
RED
LIGHT
WHILE
ON
A
BIKE!

You may survive (& even thrive) for a while doing this; sooner or later, it WILL bite you in the azz.

My thread title may be a bit inappropriate for what I am asking about. It is the right side bike lane, without breaking through the intersection, that I am curious about going through on a red light. I never run red lights outside of this T intersection. I have when I am in a hurry, but it is a rare thing for me.

In NC, motorcycles can't trip the light sensors so it's legal to run the light after some form of "Mother-May-I." I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there on a bicycle, legal or not. We don't have bike lanes though, so this may not be pertinent.

Yeah, I would never run a red light turning left from the | portion of the T. I was curious about the right side bike lane in the picture, as it is not in the way of anything and the lane does not break.

Thank you for the input so far!

(Also, regarding pedestrians in the area, there are next to none at the intersection.)



They tried to pass that law in Oregon, and it failed. :(



My thread title may be a bit inappropriate for what I am asking about. It is the right side bike lane, without breaking through the intersection, that I am curious about going through on a red light. I never run red lights outside of this T intersection. I have when I am in a hurry, but it is a rare thing for me.

Are you talking about the top of the "T?" Far right side of the picture?

In NC, motorcycles can't trip the light sensors so it's legal to run the light after some form of "Mother-May-I." I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there on a bicycle, legal or not. We don't have bike lanes though, so this may not be pertinent.

In the Florida Streets Smart booklet it pretty much says the same thing as sadly not all induction coil sensors pickup either bicycles or motorcycles. Although personally I would prefer to make a right hand turn, hook a U-turn come back to the intersection and make a final right turn. Might be a little longer, but I think that in the long run that it would be safer.

Legal, no? Inventive, yes!

If you get caught, you could always mention it was only your high level concern for pedestrian safety that kept you on the street rather than making giant bunny hops on and off the sidewalk. My sister ducked a ticket by getting the patrolman laughing.

Ok. I've seen and heard the Idaho argument enough. Are you in Idaho? If yes, the law applies. If not, the law does not apply. How is this difficult? Go ahead and tell the judge - It is legal in Idaho, when NOT in Idaho. Seriously, when did efficiency become more important than safety? I'd rather get there alive, then die from my own stupidity.

I have a better question, would you proceed if you were in a car? If not, then you should probably STOP!

My thread title may be a bit inappropriate for what I am asking about. It is the right side bike lane, without breaking through the intersection, that I am curious about going through on a red light. I never run red lights outside of this T intersection. I have when I am in a hurry, but it is a rare thing for me.

It doesn't matter; the bike lane is part of the road, and governed by the traffic light. My statement stands.

Are you talking about the top of the "T?" Far right side of the picture?

Yes, the top of the T on the far right side, where the bike lane ceases to break at the intersection (except during the crosswalk).

This thread makes me sound like I am gung ** about blowing reds! :lol: I am not at all, was just curious about the deal with the bike lane on the far right, wondering if it has special privileges during a red.

Go for it. Believe it or not, pedestrians are horrified when they see a bicycle coming at them. Just ring you bell and keep going. That's what I normally do.

Around my neck of the woods, pedestrians expect us to run lights. It's just funny. When I'm feeling nice (actually when I see lots of cross traffic), and can't run the light, I'll begin slowing down. The pedestrians crossing the street sees me in their peripheral and they immediately come to a complete stop mid-step, yielding to me.

If I don't go, they give me a pissed off look because I made them stop for nothing.

The websites for Oregon and the City of Portland have some good resources summarizing their laws related to bicyclists, if you're looking for some exciting reading.

Oregon Statutes Pertaining to Pedestrians and Bicycles
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_ped_statutes_2008.pdf

Portland City Code Title 16 Vehicles and Traffic (Parts Pertaining to Bicycles)
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=71947&c=34814

To sum up (granted I just skimmed them), bicycles are considered vehicles for the purpose of vehicle laws with very few exceptions, and I didn't see any exceptions stating that it's ok for bicycles to blow red lights at T intersections.

Yes, the top of the T on the far right side, where the bike lane ceases to break at the intersection (except during the crosswalk).

This thread makes me sound like I am gung ** about blowing reds! :lol: I am not at all, was just curious about the deal with the bike lane on the far right, wondering if it has special privileges during a red.

Unless there is signage immediately before the intersection exempting bicycles from having to stop at the red, you need to stop. Or unless there are LEO's directing traffic again all vehicles need to stop for red lights, and stop signs.

If I'm not mistaken in Idaho a bicyclist can treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs. It must be nice.

Stop signs require that you do two things: 1) stop (e.g., cease all forward motion for at least an instant) and 2) yield to any crossing traffic or pedestrians in the crosswalk (and a crosswalk is there, whether there are stripes painted for it or not). Once you've done those two things, you can go on.

Red lights are different... you have to stop and yield, but you can't proceed into the intersection until the light turns green.

For the "Idaho Stop" law, you still have to slow, scan for pedestrians and crossing traffic, and yield right of way to them if any are present. So you still have to stop for any crossing traffic. There's an old saw which says, "a yield without a stop can be safe, a stop without a yield is still dangerous."

So... if you plan to make a habit of running stop signs and traffic signals, always be sure to scan and yield to any crossing traffic (as well as pedestrians) before you do so.

In my area, there is a T intersection with a guard rail at the top of the T, no sidewalks, and a straight through bike lane that parallels the top of the T.

There are no peds, and no way a car could go straight. I run the red light.

In this case there is no one I pose a threat to, no way no how.

The light controls when motorists coming off the freeway around a tight 180 degree bend that ends at the base of the T may enter the perpendicular street at the top of the T. No motorist can make that bend at anything higher than about 25-30MPH, thus they approach the light at a safe speed and are not likely to run through the intersection, cross 4 lanes, and ram into the guard rail.

I believe I am quite safe running that light.

In your linked post you say there is no break, however from what I see there is a break where the crosswalk crosses it. To me that mans you stop here just like the cars do and proceed when the light turns green. Bike lane/car lane, no difference.

Technically illegal. I'd definitely run it.

Edit: Watch for pedestrians.

+1 on being illegal.

Same deal with this intersection: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=570+Downing+St,+Denver,+Colorado+80218&ll=39.747524,-105.118271&spn=0,359.996516&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.74742,-105.118668&panoid=VrTUZMI7x7sxYImMMQgN7A&cbp=12,273.39,,0,7.91

The far right stripe marks the bicycle lane.

I would routinely run it though. You can tell how few pedestrians there are in this little piece of suburbia - not even a sidewalk.

WHEN TRAFFIC LIGHTS DON'T TURN
Always stop and wait for red lights. You not only ensure your safety, but also increase respect for cyclists as law-abiding road users.
But some traffic lights don't turn green until they receive a signal from a metal detector buried in the pavement. A bicycle doesn't have enough metal to make many of them work.
Recognize the detector by a square or octagonal pattern of thin lines in the pavement, where slots were cut for the detecting wires. The detector is most sensitive if you ride along one of the wires.
If your bike doesn't trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red isn't against the law, because the light is defective.
Detectors are made that work for bicycles, at little or no additional cost. Federal design guidelines exist for these detectors. If you put enough pressure on your local and state government, bicyclists can avoid the crashes and the city can avoid the lawsuits which may follow.

This is from http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/road_tough.htm directly from PENNDOT. So it's not illegal in PA.

Yes, the top of the T on the far right side, where the bike lane ceases to break at the intersection (except during the crosswalk).

This thread makes me sound like I am gung ** about blowing reds! :lol: I am not at all, was just curious about the deal with the bike lane on the far right, wondering if it has special privileges during a red.

nope, it does not.

^^ Oops. You have to stop at the red light but you can procede through if the light doesn't turn green.

This is from http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/road_tough.htm directly from PENNDOT. So it's not illegal in PA.

Only if the light is malfunctioning and will not turn...and you should wait a reasonable amount of time to determine if the light won't trip or not....not all lights use detectors.

It is your choice to break the law or not and some can probably do it with reasonable safety (not that that is all laws are about). But don't try and justify the behavior.

Besides safety (or alleged safety) and revenue, what else is traffic law about?

Unless there is a unique traffic volume flow situation it is very unlikely that the top of the T needs to be triggered to switch to green. The default is more likely green for the top and the entrance (stem of T) needs to be triggered.

I didn't see any sensors cut marks in the pavement either. They could be there or out of sight.

Besides safety (or alleged safety) and revenue, what else is traffic law about?

Efficient flow, predictability, reduced social friction, uniformity from one locality to another...

Technically: It is illegal in most US states. That doesn't mean I wouldn't run the light, of course. I treat all red lights and stop signs as yield.

+1 on being illegal.

Same deal with this intersection: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=570+Downing+St,+Denver,+Colorado+80218&ll=39.747524,-105.118271&spn=0,359.996516&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.74742,-105.118668&panoid=VrTUZMI7x7sxYImMMQgN7A&cbp=12,273.39,,0,7.91

The far right stripe marks the bicycle lane.

I would routinely run it though. You can tell how few pedestrians there are in this little piece of suburbia - not even a sidewalk.

Ah, but if I'm not mistaken isn't that road one lane (not counting the bike lane) for each direction, and isn't there a second stop light over the bike lane? If they didn't want/intend for cyclists to stop then why install the second stop light over the bike lane?

Only if the light is malfunctioning and will not turn...and you should wait a reasonable amount of time to determine if the light won't trip or not....not all lights use detectors.

Yep, the road from the library that I go to all the is on a timer not a sensor. I haven't actually timed it but when I'm sitting at the red waiting for it to change so that I can cross 9th it seems to "take forever" before it changes. And more then once I've asked pedestrians to push the walk button to help change it quicker.

Ah, but if I'm not mistaken isn't that road one lane (not counting the bike lane) for each direction, and isn't there a second stop light over the bike lane? If they didn't want/intend for cyclists to stop then why install the second stop light over the bike lane?

I thought that too, but in Lakewood, for some reason, almost every intersection with traffic lights have two lights.

They either have the second one attached to the side of the pole, or attached to the horizontal bar on the far right side. Even if there is only one lane, bicycle lane or not.

Its a weird Lakewood thing. Probably for visibility or something.

Regardless of the intent though, I would still run it if there were no peds in sight. Which is a rare occurence.

EDIT: I should also note, that when I do run that light, I'm extremely careful about traffic turning left from Oak St onto W 20th Ave. Those drivers don't know how to stay out of the bicycle lane. If I see one turning, I slow down and wait until they've gone through the intersection.

Sorry, I never run a red.

Of course it is illegal. The outside lane is painted thru too, but vehicles there must stop as well.
You are a potential hazard to pedestrians.
It is your choice to break the law or not and some can probably do it with reasonable safety (not that that is all laws are about). But don't try and justify the behavior.Careful with being too broad. I have seen several bike lanes that do not have the stop line across them. With the way some state laws are written, it may be technically legal to continue through the red. It may also depend on how the state defines bike lane and roadway.

Careful with being too broad. I have seen several bike lanes that do not have the stop line across them. With the way some state laws are written, it may be technically legal to continue through the red. It may also depend on how the state defines bike lane and roadway.

I was referring to the specific pictured intersection in question

I thought that too, but in Lakewood, for some reason, almost every intersection with traffic lights have two lights.

They either have the second one attached to the side of the pole, or attached to the horizontal bar on the far right side. Even if there is only one lane, bicycle lane or not.

Its a weird Lakewood thing. Probably for visibility or something.

Regardless of the intent though, I would still run it if there were no peds in sight. Which is a rare occurence.

EDIT: I should also note, that when I do run that light, I'm extremely careful about traffic turning left from Oak St onto W 20th Ave. Those drivers don't know how to stay out of the bicycle lane. If I see one turning, I slow down and wait until they've gone through the intersection.

Multiple lights are also for redundancy's sake. If one bulb goes out, the whole intersection isn't thrown into chaos.

Careful with being too broad. I have seen several bike lanes that do not have the stop line across them. With the way some state laws are written, it may be technically legal to continue through the red. It may also depend on how the state defines bike lane and roadway.

It's not 'technically' legal for a ped to cross against the red unless there is a WALK/DON'T WALK signal present that may give them ROW while the light is still red - I don't see it being legal for a bike unless there is some similar signal.

Pedestrians are required to obey stop lights as well, I wounder what our legal "experts" would say about pedestrians "running" that light?

Next point is that intersection does not follow MUTCD guidelines, no wounder its confusing for cyclists.

You may survive (& even thrive) for a while doing this; sooner or later, it WILL bite you in the azz.

In areas of high crime, stopping at reds regularly will get you punched in the throat and robbed. Red lights were designed for people who are "protected" by steel and glass bubbles. I have no answer for motorcycle riders.

Look both ways before you cross the street and you will be OK.

In areas of high crime, stopping at reds regularly will get you punched in the throat and robbed. Red lights were designed for people who are "protected" by steel and glass bubbles. I have no answer for motorcycle riders.

Look both ways before you cross the street and you will be OK.

Joey,

It must suck living in your world. As I don't know too many people who have been "punched in the throat and robbed" while waiting at a red light.

If things are truly as bad as claim them to be, why don't you move to a safer community?

And if someone was really intent on doing the next person at a red light harm they wouldn't stop "just because" they were "protected by a steel and glass bubble."

On the very first day of my attaining a driver's license (16.5 years old) I was stopped at a four-way intersection with stop signs all around. I could see a pickup truck coming at me from across the way and he was moving at a speed that had me believe he was not going to stop. On my left I could see a young boy on a stingray bike bombing along and shrouded by bushes on his left. He could not see the pickup approaching on his left. The truck was not stopping. The kid was not stopping. I could do nothing but sit and watch as the truck hit the kid square amidship. The kid, his bike, and the truck all flashed past by me on my left. Impact sounded like a muffled paper bag bursting. I was in some kind of shock but got out and went back to the kid who was almost 200 feet down the road behind me and very dead. The driver of the pickup was up on the sidewalk further down the road and being surrounded by other witnesses. He was drunk (no surprise) and very confused. The image of that accident has stayed with me for 37 years. I stop at all red lights. All times of day and all locations. If I were all alone in Death Valley and came upon a red light, I'd still stop. Some things you don't forget.

Old Town

On the very first day of my attaining a driver's license (16.5 years old) I was stopped at a four-way intersection with stop signs all around. I could see a pickup truck coming at me from across the way and he was moving at a speed that had me believe he was not going to stop. On my left I could see a young boy on a stingray bike bombing along and shrouded by bushes on his left. He could not see the pickup approaching on his left. The truck was not stopping. The kid was not stopping. I could do nothing but sit and watch as the truck hit the kid square amid ship. The kid, his bike, and the truck all flashed past by me on my left. Impact sounded like a muffled paper bag bursting. I was in some kind of shock but got out and went back to the kid who was almost 200 feet down the road behind me and very dead. The driver of the pickup was up on the sidewalk further down the road and being surrounded by other witnesses. He was drunk (no surprise) and very confused. The image of that accident has stayed with me for 37 years. I stop at all red lights. All times of day and all locations. If I were all alone in Death Valley and came upon a red light, I'd still stop. Some things you don't forget.

Old Town

Did the drunk stop drinking and driving?

If things are truly as bad as claim them to be, why don't you move to a safer community?

In one word: Freedom

New Orleans is the least uptight city in the USofA. I could move to a European country perhaps and be happy.

Unfortunately, Freedom does not equal Safety. I am not willing to make the trade. Wouldn't a fish act differently in shark infested waters than they would in a fish bowl? I'll take my chances with the sharks and act accordingly.

If it is painted through at the top of the T you may not have to stop. It depends on where you are.

The example that came to my mind was where the right turn lane is fully painted through then stopping is not required. In these cases the right turn feeds into a lane that does no exist on the other side of the intersection; thus, if everyone obeys the law (no changing lanes in intersections and ending the turn in the same lane as it was started in) there is no possibility for a collision.

In Medford OR there are several streets that allow the outside lane at the top of the T to continue without stopping. There are buttons on the lane to separate the traffic and the lights hung over individual lanes apply to that lane only. It sounds more confusing than it is.

Summary, without knowing your state laws and without seeing what you mean by "painted through" I do not know. You may want to approach your city council and present a recommendation for how it should be handled at that point along with a request for signage.

The kid was not stopping.

Which brings us back to: Look both ways before you cross the street. It is SO simple. No other behavior will protect you at an intersection. NONE.

In one word: Freedom

Unfortunately, Freedom does not equal Safety. I am not willing to make the trade. Wouldn't a fish act differently in shark infested waters than they would in a fish bowl? I'll take my chances with the sharks and act accordingly.

You should try riding in an Asian country (like P.R. China). You have total traffic freedom and total chaos. It took a few hours of observation to even determine what side of the road they are supposed to drive on. I remember one night during rush hour my wife insisted on walking on the sidewalk, after seeing her almost hit twice, my Chinese friend and I convinced her to walk in the street. People drive too fast on the sidewalk.

I enjoy it but it takes a particular, hyper aggressive, attitude to ride fast there. The other option is to go very slow and yield for everything (based on my observation, the second was no safer then the first).

Idaho has a sensible law that essentially allows cyclists to treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs.
I see no reason this shouldn't be universal. But it's not. So yes, it's 'illegal' in most places to run the lights and not come to an absolute stop at stop signs.

So what? I'm going to do what many cyclists do, and let the circumstances of each situation influence me. I'm treating stop signs as yield signs and will come to a full stop at red lights, if there are cars waiting there too. I'm wary of disrespecting red lights and thereby telling motorists cyclists have no respect for the law, but if there's a red light at a 'T' intersection and by staying to the right, I can't interfere with traffic if I keep going straight, I may blow the light.

The fact that it is 'illegal' :eek: is not going to deter me unless there's a cop around. I'll give you another example. I occasionally ride a MUP that has stop signs every 1/4 mile or so. These stop signs frequently benefit very short dead end roads that have no traffic, no residences; they simply dead end 40 feet past the MUP. Even a cop is going to think it's stupid to not treat those as yield signs.

A non bicycle example are the many roads that appear designed to handle traffic at 50 mph, but are marked 30 or 35. Almost no one drives them at or under the posted speed and tickets are not handed out. Sometimes 'the law is an ass' and only a prig or a martinet doesn't get it.

So what? I'm going to do what many cyclists do, and let the circumstances of each situation influence me. I'm treating stop signs as yield signs and will come to a full stop at red lights, if there are cars waiting there too. I'm wary of disrespecting red lights and thereby telling motorists cyclists have no respect for the law, but if there's a red light at a 'T' intersection and by staying to the right, I can't interfere with traffic if I keep going straight, I may blow the light.

The fact that it is 'illegal' :eek: is not going to deter me unless there's a cop around. I'll give you another example. I occasionally ride a MUP that has stop signs every 1/4 mile or so. These stop signs frequently benefit very short dead end roads that have no traffic, no residences; they simply dead end 40 feet past the MUP. Even a cop is going to think it's stupid to not treat those as yield signs.

A non bicycle example are the many roads that appear designed to handle traffic at 50 mph, but are marked 30 or 35. Almost no one drives them at or under the posted speed and tickets are not handed out. Sometimes 'the law is an ass' and only a prig or a martinet doesn't get it.

Just a "me too" post. However, when driving I am likely to obey the posted speed limit. Yes, you can be given a ticket for traveling the speed limit, you can be given a ticket for anything; but, it will not hold up in court. Just ask for a recorder, the rules change fast. I want a judge to tell me just how much above the maximum speed, that I am permitted to travel at, I am required to travel at. Then I want a definition of, "flow of traffic," if a dozen of my friends and I are on a, basically empty, freeway in the middle of the night, are we the flow of traffic? If so then the flow is going to be at over 100mph.

A non bicycle example are the many roads that appear designed to handle traffic at 50 mph, but are marked 30 or 35. Almost no one drives them at or under the posted speed and tickets are not handed out. Sometimes 'the law is an ass' and only a prig or a martinet doesn't get it.

You just basically described, in a nutshell, the root problem of our society as a whole concerning using the roadways...nobody gives a crap about either obeying or enforcing the laws that we have. So basically the bottom line is to do what you feel you gotta do to be safe.