Originally Posted by
TurbineBlade
Red light laws should actually move to lessen restrictions on cyclists, since running a light with your 25 pound bicycle is such a minimal threat compared to running one with a 3,000 pound car. This is exactly why Idaho (idaho stop) allows cyclists to treat them as stop signs....which really makes a lot of sense and decreases motorist angst when cyclists stop and then pass through a light.
Note: I said stop, then pass through the light.
So logically, then, the same should be true for motorcycles and small cars, right? After all, my 2500 lbs car is so much smaller than a 6000 lbs SUV... Heck, perhaps traffic signals should only apply to semis and transit buses? Perhaps what escapes you is that it isn't all about the 'threat' posed by the vehicle running, but by the vehicle having to avoid the runner -- and it is also about efficient movement of traffic - all traffic.
I mean, really, if average cyclist gets to an intersection of a 6 lane road on a bike, stops, and seeing nothing coming, proceeds, as a 45 MPH car is approaching from beyond immediate line of sight, there's no possible way that he'll reach the intersection before the bike clears, right?
I'm not saying I'm not sympathetic... or that I never run reds. But I watch cyclist run reds every day in ways that cause other vehicles to have to deviate from their path when they (the cars) have right of way. Sure, I know you're responsible, and would never do that... but not every cyclist is. This merely gives the authorities a big stick with which to punish the irresponsible.
Of course, as the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.