"Riding on the road while obeying all traffic control devices is the safest and most efficient way to ride"

Maybe it is, but the issue here is, is red light jumping a big deal? I don't think it is.

And IF you are a bicycle safety advocate, then you know RLJ is not the biggest concern in terms of bicycle safety - automobile driver behavior is. Its offensive to me when people who claim to care about my safety (ie bicycle SAFETY advocates) seem more concerned with the fact that some motorists are pissy about the fact that I jump the occasional red (when the coast is clear) than they are with the fact that hundreds of us bikers are being killed by ignorant, oblivious, inconsiderate, and often vindictive and murderous drivers.

Hello?

Strange dichotomy....
Bicyclists holding cars up is the only complaint from cars drivers
I have ever heard. Nothing image or respecting laws related...ever.
Only being irate for being held up....Strangley enuff, holding cars
up is one of the mainstays of the Alpha-VC mindset.
Using this actual, quantifiable data, I would say 'advocates' and 'safe'
cyclists hurt our imagined image more than anything else.

Did you actually read the Observer article. Pedestrians get quite irate when struck by bicycles (not to mention seriously injured and occaisionally even killed). If cyclists act like they don't give a damn about the safety of others, why should anyone care about their safety? If cyclists make themselves unpopular, their rights will not be respected (or respected even less than they are already).

To see how bad things have become in the U.K., read the article.

You need to listen to the radio more... I know of three citings on various radio shows where listeners rant and rave about cyclists and "running red lights and stuff" comes up often. I even saw a rant about that on a sailing message board.

Everything we do as cyclists, seems to irratate some motorist... including just using the street.

I read the article but am commenting on some items that the thread veered
to. Would you not agree, especially living in NYC, that sidewalk riding is
somewhat acceptable here ? Given some of the 'get on the sidewalk' complaints
in alot of these threads, I would say so. When Im in Brooklyn, I see food delivery
guys are all over the sidewalks amoungst others.....

Not only running redlights, it all goes hand-in-hand. The worst violators of safety I see are not the motorists, but the teens on their mountain bikes. Why?
It's caused by someone in an authority position in their lives giving the kid a bike and turning him or her loose with the admonition to "Stay out of the way of cars, Johnny," when the authority figure has absolutely no idea what safe cycling is. To a teen this gives them a free pass to ignore all traffic control devices, be in the right lane, in the left lane, all over the road, on and off the road, the worst possible cycling scenario.

With this example of cycling it isn't hard to see how hundreds of deaths occur annually. Yet this seems to be how Lem would have everyone ride on two lane, NOL, rural roads and highways when only an iota of drivers have any problem with safely passing in the on-coming lane or slowing before passing, if necessary.

I don't know that much the food delivery guys do is really acceptable (except for the fact they deliver food of course). They are just as bad as the cab drivers but on two wheels. They cycle the wrong way on one way streets, run red lights and sometimes ride on the sidewalk (not so common in my part of Manhattan though, too many people perhaps). The worst accusation against them is of course that some/many of the bikes they ride are stolen (one guy on these forums found his stolen bike being ridden by a delivery guy and forcefully retook possession).

I must admit to having a somewhat lax attitude to red lights in Central Park though. I would feel like an idiot being the only guy (ped or cyclist) who stopped for them. Even the police ignore the rules of the road on the central park loop (I saw a bunch of them on bikes going the wrong way one time).

While I agree teen (and early 20's) guys often ride their bikes recklessly, they also drive that way. It must be hormonal. I doubt it has anything to do with a positive authority figure or not. And while I also agree that running red lights is foolish, for the most part (and have stated to that effect before), I also recognize that a cyclist cruising through a red light when there's no traffic is not that big a deal. As I mentioned early in this thread, I see cars running amber and red lights at every intersection. It reminds me of the old Yakov Smirnov routine when he describes learning to drive in America "Red means stop, green means go and yellow means go like hell.' Except they don't stop for the reds anymore. In fact, I see drivers of allages becoming progressively more impatient and dangerous. I have observed during these past few months most cars still racing up behind me and passing with only inches from my left even when I am taking the lane, sometimes fully down the middle and they are men and women of all ages. This did not occur as often in the past as it does now.

No, the problem is not with the cyclists, in my opinion, for they are not threatening anyone's life even if they were to run a red (which I don't). The problem is with motorists. They can't veer and weave through pedestrians as I see cyclists who routinely run reds do. They plow into pedestrians and cyclists and other cars and kill people. Perhaps they are crazed by the fumes or the high cost of fuel, insurance and maintenance and the urgency to make more money to feed the car; I don't know. I'm neither disrespecting life nor other users of the road, but they sure are with me and they commit a great deal more offences with potentially lethal consequences than any of the cyclists I see. Just my opinion, but I stand by it.

So it's motorists fault that some cyclists can't be bothered to wait at red lights? Or is because car drivers are supposedly so bad, that cyclists have (arbitrarily) gained the right be 10 times worse?

Nope. It's motorists fault for running reds a hundred times more often and with deadlier consequences than cyclists. Say what you will about the actions of a few seemingly dangerous cyclists, but truly examine their conditions and circumstances and it will become evident they rarely, if ever, pose a real threat to anyone on the road---pedestrian, motorist or fellow cyclist---and must perform certain maneuvers to ensure they are seen and to avoid being hit by inattentive, frustrated, impatient and overly-aggressive motorists. It is innate that cyclists understand they share the road. Sharing the road is not innate in most motorists attitudes.

You were either deliberately hoping to provoke an argument (that I won't be baited into) or remarkably selective in what you choose to read. I acknowledged that there are cyclists---even a large number of them---that run reds among other moronic things like talk on a cell-phone while in heavy traffic, ride with no lights or reflectors at night, ride against traffic or speed along sidewalks, weaving among pedestrians (all of which I condemn as well). I see it daily, but I also see cars run reds at EVERY intersection with only the rarest of exceptions being when they don't. And when they do, the danger and potential for catastrophe is exceptional in contrast to the harmless cyclists scooting across empty intersections that I see. The contrast is about 100-1 during my commutes and, therefore, not in the same league as one another when it comes to frequency or potential for destruction, death and disaster. Perhaps I don't see more reckless examples of cyclists running reds, but I have yet to witness an accident caused by a cyclist running a red in twenty-five years of bike commuting. I can't tell you how many car accidents I have seen or witnessed as they happen. The two offences, while legally equal, are realistically nowhere near one another in severity or frequency.

Cheers.

Your idea is ridiculous. Just becuase a bicycle is likely to cause less damage than an automobile in an accident - it shouldn't have to follow common sense rules? Regardless of whether a person is hit by a car, or a bicycle at 20mph - they're going to have serious injuries. I have a friend who has been unfortunate enough to tangle (on foot, not in or on another vehicle) with both types of machines - he'll tell you that they both hurt - a lot.
The idea that the operator of a bicycle should be exempt from common sense because his vehicle hurts less in some situations is complete and totally absurd.

Besides, in all but the most freakish of circumstances, stopping at a red light is safer than running it. If somebody can convince me that running red lights is usually safer than stopping at them - then the argument against stopping for them might have some merit, otherwise it's a bunch of bunk.

While it's true that a car will do more damage than a bicycle to anything or anybody hit in a crash, either can be lethal. It makes no sense to increase risk, particularly to others, for the sake of saving a few minutes on a given trip.

But I suppose it's just human nature to do this. We've all seen drivers, cyclists and pedestrians increase risk to save an insignificant amount of time.

I'm afraid you seriously misread me. AT NO TIME HAVE I ADVOCATED OR CONDONED RED LIGHT RUNNING BY A BICYCLE. PERIOD. I never stated they should be exempt from common-sense. You're putting words in my mouth, so to speak. Please read what I posted in entirety. It is clearly defined that I am not in favour of cyclists---or anyone else---running red lights. I hope that makes it clear.

My point was that I see motor vehicles run red lights at least a hundred times more often than I see cyclists running red lights. Yet, all the attention seems to be on the light-weight, highly maneuverable vehicle travelling at 10km/h and that can stop within two inches of applying the brakes running a red light, not the 1/4 ton vehicle accelerating up to 60km/h or more that needs eight meters minimum to stop running a red light. The two are not one and the same. Indeed, a pedestrian being hit by a bicycle will report it hurts and it does. It's happened to me and I can attest it wasn't a pleasant experience. My secondary point was that a bicycle is better able to weave through and steer around pedestrians crossing a cross-walk if the cyclist can't be bothered to wait his/her turn, but if a pedestrian is struck they are not likely to be seriously injured or killed as they almost certainly are when hit by the cars who are running lights a hundred times more often than cyclists. No-one should run red lights. I don't. And I object to my fellow cyclists that do. But the seriousness of a cyclist running a red light is not on the same scale as a motor vehicle running a red light. Does that make more sense to you now?

This is hardly the first thread where the issue has been 'considered'. The issue is a pretty simple one - obey the freakin law! It's not rocket science.

The pedestrians may not be injured or killed by a cyclist weaving though them but they will be pissed off. The more it happens, the more they will hate cyclists. They will end up detesting them as much as the cyclists who call car drivers "cagers". This becomes a problem when these pedestrians get behind the wheel of their cars and become drivers (almost everyone drives in the U.S.).

+1
Sometimes the simple answers really are the best.:D

I agree completely, and this is why forwad thinking countries like Holland have separate rules for bikes, for example, a different set of stop lights which allows bicyclists to proceed before cars after a red.

No argument there. If I get P-o'd at cyclists who almost run me over on the sidewalk and in a cross-walk when I'm walking, I certainly understand how pedestrians hate all of us.

Obey the law? If the law were that all bicyclists must ride in the opposite direction of traffic, then you would follow that law, right?

You got some 'splainin to do about this one, Lucy. I call horsepucky.

If that was the law I'd probably move someplace where the lawmakers and the folks who elected them had a bit more sense.

Obey the law...is this a hard concept for you to understand? Or do you advocate everyone just obeying the laws they feel like obeying and ignoring the rest. What is the criteria that dictates who must obey and who must comply? Hell, it's inconvenient for me to stop at stop signs and lights in my truck...f it, I'll just ignore them. It's inconvenient for me to share the road with cyclists...f it, I'll just run em off the road. It's inconvenient for me to live next to a guy who plays loud music... f it, I'm just gonna shoot him and bury him in the back yard. It's inconvenient for me not to smoke in public buildings... f it, I'm just gonna smoke. It's incovenient for me not to drive drunk...f it, I'll drive drunk. F it all, I am above the law...lookee at me..weeeeeeeee!!

How about thinking about the issue with common sense rather than knee-jerk rebel-wannabe tendencies.

Hey my friends convertible sports car stops faster than any bike (from the same speed) and accerlates faster too. He gets a great near 360 view as he approaches stops. Surely he should be able to run reds too.

Al

But that's not a law anywhere, now is it? So it's an absurd question.

We have laws for the general civilized behavior and protection of all citizens. Sure, some of them are dumb, but that's why I can't just say, "Gee, it's hot today, I think I'll not bother wearing pants." A rather ridiculous and repulsive idea, isn't it? The same with traffic laws, but me not wearing trousers isn't likely to kill anybody. Unless they die from fright.:D

So I take it that you are not participating in World Naked Bike Day either? I'm sure the world thanks us for our modesty. :D

And I see a hundred times more cars on the road than I see bikes - is it really so surprising then that we see more cars running red lights than bicycles? If every bicycle was replaced by a car and vice versa we'd see bicycles run red lights a hundred times more often than cars, it's a moot point. May I also say that my previous reply was not intended wholly for your post, but as a general response to some of the wacky and outrageous claims being tossed about by others.

Another thing about automobiles and laws of the road, the first speed limits existed decades before automobiles had even been invented, and when the first speed limits were adopted in the U.S. (in the early 1900s) most of them were below 15mph (your typical automobile of the day, say an Oldsmobile would top out at 20mph anyway, and anybody on even one of the heavy singlespeed bicycles of the day could easily pass somebody in a car going uphill) - in 1900 there were only 8000 automobiles in the U.S. - the league of American Wheelman had 150,000 members in that same year. In 1915 the first stop signs appeared in the U.S. - most people still didn't own cars. The truth of the matter is that the automobile made up but a small percentage of all traffic on roads at the time the early modern traffic laws came about, horses and bicycles made up most traffic, and more people got about on public transport than by personally owned vehicles - these laws weren't created for automobiles. You could possibly blame the car for the stoplight (or you could just accept that it'd be invented anyway - because it would have), and you can most definately blame the car for the parking meter (but if you're on a bike you don't have to worry about those pieces of crap anyway) - but controlled intersections existed long before most people had even seen car, much less owned one. Had the automobile only been a novelty, we'd still have traffic laws, signs, speed limits etc.