Brennan

Apparently, Paris is making a real push to increase cycling, and this new law is a result. The city says a years-long study "demonstrated that the passage of cyclists through red lights isn't accident-prone and avoids certain conflicts between cyclists and vehicles that are stopped at lights."

Cyclists Can Ignore Some Traffic Lights, Paris Announces : The Two-Way : NPR

daihard 

In other words, the value of the Idaho Stop is being recognized in Paris, too. Good.

Darth Lefty 

Pshaw! In Rome, anyone can ignore traffic signals!

Paris was good to bike in if you do it like you're supposed to. Velib and ten-speeds and hybrids are everywhere. The drivers are used to it and accomodating. There are manners to the traffic, and scorn for those who violate them. My wife, with her suburb sensibility, would ride back up the street on the sidewalk, and got a lot of dirty looks for it.

CliffordK

Or, they could do it like Cairo where traffic lights are just a mere suggestion.
But, since Cairo cars look more like golf balls than cars.. I'm not sure it would be the most bike friendly place.

This seems to indicate that there are two primary exceptions to the red light rules.

• Right turn on red (common across the USA, does one have to actually stop?)
• Bike path across T intersection (I've stated a few times that it is silly to stop at a T intersection when continuing straight with no vehicles crossing the bike lane.

Looigi

There is a Paris, ID.

Shimagnolo

So it will be known as the "French Stop", until our congress critters get upset with the French, then it will be renamed the "Freedom Stop".

CrankyOne

Title is a bit of a misnomer and nothing like an Idaho stop. They are being given their own traffic signals that they are required to obey. No different than a green left turn arrow when other lights are red. If there is no bicycle specific signal they are still required to obey the motor vehicle signals.

Shimagnolo

They are not getting a traffic signal.
They are just getting a sign that indicates the new rule applies at the intersection.

kickstart

From what I understand signs only allow a cyclist to cross a T on red, or make a right on red which is otherwise illegal in France. In addition there are separate signals for cyclists in some places.
Its not like the Idaho rules that allow a cyclist to treat all stop signals as a stop sign and proceed through an intersection on a red.

CrankyOne

Thank you. The articles I'd read stated that they were installing lights for bicycle riders rather than signs.

Paris to let cyclists skip red lights - BBC News

howsteepisit

So my question is - do the Paris police enforce traffic laws with respect to cyclists? I my opinion, no enforcement = no law.

spare_wheel

it's silly to ride to a stop for any motorist-specific traffic signal if there is an unimpeded view and no cross traffic.

daihard 

Well, dang.

It's still good that bicycles are allowed to turn right on red where cars aren't. More flexibility for bikes.

CliffordK

And that is the problem... The signals are for all road users. The laws are for all road users.

But, the government needs to analyse whether the laws and signals actually make sense for all users, and make changes to improve them.

spare_wheel

incredible.
do you really believe that i, as a pedestrian or cyclist, need a signal to cross a road safely? do you really believe jaywalking and AFRAP laws are for all road users? is non-enforcement of speed limits for all road users?

and apart from grossly discriminatory traffic laws and their disgusting lack of enforcement for motorists, our society treats people walking or cycling who are hit by vehicles like human road kill. there is no equity or justice on our roads.

vision zero!

CliffordK

A stoplight is not just for some of the road users.
And the others can blow through without a care in the world... cars won't hit them will they?

Unfortunately many are poorly designed for bikes. Which Paris is apparently realizing and trying to fix, at least in a few situations.

Lights are also a bit odd... even when driving a car, it is not uncommon to get stuck sitting at a light with no traffic, especially when driving after midnight. For the night traffic, some cities are actually setting their lights on blink to help with the problem of sitting at lights with no traffic. Some places probably only need the lights a few hours a day during rush hour.

I do find it interesting riding on bike paths with no stop signs or yield signs at path/path intersections. I assume some collisions occur, but they seem to be fairly rare. The cyclists and pedestrians just seem to work it out.

kickstart

Huh?

I'm all for Idaho stops....and FRAP/S....because I recognize a bicycle isn't a motor vehicle or a pedestrian, having different abilities and limitations. Different laws for bicycles isn't "discriminatory" as other types of vehicles have restrictions due to their nature too. I also recognize that special privileges are a hard sell as there's sound logic behind having predictable patterns of behavior that apply to all.

I don't see any proof of inequity in that pedestrians or cyclists are any less disposable than motorists when the victim of irresponsible driver behavior, but will agree there's a deplorable lack of accountability and enforcement for all road users....yes including cyclists. Like it or not, the law is the law until its changed.

spare_wheel

since the law varies enormously in the usa with no measurable effect on road safety i have to wonder why you believe these laws were implemented in the first case...

for example, in CA pedestrians can cross freely along a road way and in idaho signals are essentially optional for people biking. likewise much of the world does not have "as far right as is practicable" or "jaywalking" laws.

the vast majority of traffic law/statute that mentions cyclists or pedestrians in the usa is designed for the convenience of motorists at the expense of active transport.

"share" the road, bikers!

spare_wheel

yes...it...is. stoplights are designed to prevent motorists from smashing into people driving, cycling, or walking. people walking or biking have absolutely no need for stoplights.

kickstart

Motorcycles have special licencing requirements, are allowed to use carpool lanes, can split lanes in California, sometimes have special or free parking. Commercial vehicles have special licences by type, are restricted in usage, pay more in taxes and tolls. Bicycles don't require any licence, have privileges and restrictions that i wont bother listing as you know them. There are basic federal standards, each state and community can do what is best for their individual requirements. Looking at it objectively, it makes more sense than doing otherwise.

As to the laws favoring the motorists, there's always going to be a balancing act between meeting the needs off the majority, while accommodating the rest in a reasonable manner with limited space and resources.

Spent most of the day running around Seattle and the U district today. I'm really pleased how much easier and more convenient cycling is becoming in the downtown and surrounding areas. Once some of the major projects are finished, and the gaps filled, its going to make Seattle a world class cycling city.
It seems inevitable the balance will change, and so will the laws in their time.

JoeyBike

From the linked article in the OP:

Seeing those words (from someone other than me) is like being illuminated by a light shining down from Heaven. How this FACT is not common knowledge among cyclists everywhere (outside of Idaho and now Paris) has always left me shaking my head. I hope I live to cycle in a world where common sense finally prevails on this matter.

I live in a city where every cyclist runs every red light they can. It is expected by local motorists and pretty much ignored by police. Cyclists are not dying right and left from this practice. In fact, it is almost unheard of. Most of us are getting right-hooked, doored, or steam-rolled from behind. It would be nice if such "Idaho Stop" laws were in place here so the small contingent of narrow-minded motorists could shut up about us doing what is natural, safe, and the right thing to do.

genec

Move to Idaho. NO doesn't make sense on so many levels.

kickstart

The Idaho and Paris laws while different, don't allow cyclists to "run" or blow red lights, both require the cyclist to stop before proceeding.
What you're advocating is a local anomaly of a few cities that will never be made legal, and shouldn't be.

I-Like-To-Bike

I suspect that, despite what you and JoeyBike think, the U.S. cities that strictly enforce traffic laws on cyclists are few and far between.

daihard 

FYI, Seattle allows bicycles to take the full lane. They have recently been painting sharrows in the middle of the streets to reflect it. Unfortunately, they don't plan on re-painting the old ones placed on the right side of the street. (I double-checked it with SDOT.)