Hmm. People wonder why motorists honk and flip us off.

Might have been safe, but two vehicles stopped means you should, too. If you expect one to follow the rules, like not running red lights, it seems appropriate to follow them, as well. While what you did might have been safe (and I tend to agree on that) you sort of rubbed their noses in it, with your blatant flouting of the very rule they were obeying, at that very time. One cyclist is trying to do the right thing by motorists, many of whom do feel cyclists have no right to be on the road, much less flouting the laws, and you pretty much thumb your nose both at him and at the motorist. Sort of a "look at me, suckers," moment. Don't tell me that didn't occur to you.

"on bike" makes you a vehicle. If you want the legal protections afforded you, then earn them, especially when others who disagree with those legal protections are sitting right there. "on foot" makes you a pedestrian, and is different, period.

Inside the car, the driver has little concept of what it's like to be outside, on a bike, with vision and perception, agility and options not limited by pavement and curbing. All of those afford us the opportunity, in theory, to watch out for ourselves, regardless of legal restrictions being imposed. Trying to convey that concept by blatantly running a light does not convey that concept.

Now, "I do not stop for no one" is a neat saying, and I admit I also do not stop for no one. However, when a car is approaching, sitting at a stop sign, a stop light, or I approach an intersection where I will expect other vehicles to obey the law, I do, as well. I've definitely been known not to, and my idea of a right turn on red, while clipped in, is an abbreviated stop, I've been yelled at by a car when I rode past a line of stopped cars at a light and then proceeded through because it was clear. My answer? "You are exactly right. I'm sorry." Everyone knows the rush that comes when, on a charity ride, traffic is stopped and you "own the road." Generally, once out of harm's way, that ownership ends and you share it, including the obligations.

At what point "clear" is clear enough differs to the cyclist and the approaching car. Today, drivers in vehicles are distracted enough watching their GPS, texting, and on cell phones. Add another infraction to the mix by a cyclist, and tragedy can result. After helping to investigate aviation mishaps and auto accidents, including some reconstruction, I can only say what seems to be the cause in 99% of them: a combination of little things, all happening or being done at an inopportune time when other little things are there to contribute.

Combine "little things" going on in a car with what seems like a minor infraction on a bike, and the result is tragic synergy.

Basically, if you want cars to respect you, act like it. If you don't, don't, but then don't complain about it. The other cyclist was right, but wrong in his approach. You were wrong, but consider it benign. Doesn't matter, you were still wrong. You'll be wrong again, no doubt, as will I and almost everyone here. We ride bikes; it's a different world. Viewed through a windshield, it is not a different world. I may well have done the same thing you did, I have no way of knowing. Generally, though, in my small rural area, I figure I could well encounter that motorist again, and I'd prefer he/she thought that bicyclists were willing to do what they have to do in their cars.