(I know you were kidding so don't take this as an attack. Your comment was a catlyst that I needed to get myself back into this discussion)

In the case that I was talking about there actually wasn't a set route, but I knew full well that the shortest way to go from the start to the first (mandatory) checkpoint was to go through this intersection. I admit that I planned it that way on purpose. In this particular case, much of the pack stopped. A few went through on the red. One of them got hit.

The funny thing was that I knew that there was an alternate route that was slightly longer but involved fewer intersections. When I rode them before the race, the alternate was always faster unless I got a green on the intersection in question. I thought that people that knew the area would see the same thing (they were given time to review the manifest before the race). Aparently no one did. They were only interested in the shortest route. I fear that this is beginning to take precident over more intelligent planning.

I look at intersections like obstacles. Maybe like someone planning a cross race looks at stairs or hurdles. People deal with them in different ways. When I plan a race that doesn't have a set route, I try to look at how people will run it. I try to get people to negotiate certain situations, but thier actual path is untimately up to them. Some are intersections, some are bad roads, etc... Last year (same race as was referenced above) I made a manifest where taking the freeway for one exit was a massive shortcut between two checkpoints, thinking that no one in their right mind would do this (of course I never reveal my intentions for the route before the race). I was wrong. There were no incidents.

Taking current developments in racing tactics into account, I intend to re-evaluate my strategies before I plan another race.