I guess I don't understand exactly what your scenario is, if not one of my three. "Following the law to the letter" is too general to be a scenario. What are you suggesting in terms of where the bike was, where the car that hit him was, and how they came together? You say the bus and the body were in the intersection, at the crosswalk? Could the rider have been riding in the crosswalk? If so, that may or may not have been legal, depending on the locale, but is not something you will generally find recommended by those of us debating you, and is certainly not what we are advocating when we talk of obeying the law.

I guess I'm lucky to be riding in an area where the motorists are not as aggressive as those written about by many of you. I've been taking the lane at intersections consistently for 2-3 years now, and don't recall ever getting honked at or yelled at for it. Gunning of engines when passing after the intersection, sometimes, but I don't let that bother me anymore. I'm tempted to comment that I don't care what motorists want to see me doing or not, if I believe I need to do it to be safe, and I have a legal right to, I'll do it anway. But since I seem to live in a less hostile area, I also feel compelled to stop short of asserting that everyone should feel the same way, since I haven't "walked (pedalled) 7 miles in your moccasins".

I agree with your goal, just not your method. Again, in my seemingly less aggressive geography, I find that taking the lane itself is almost always sufficient for cars to see me and take me into account. (Except for the occasional a-hole who rushes through without looking, which is always going to be a problem for both of our styles.) As is riding out a bit into the lane, if I'm on a road without a decent shoulder or bike lane.

Your method of "getting out in front" requires either (a) you happen to arrive first at a stop light, or (b) passing a line of cars to get first in line, then in either case, progressing through on a red. My opinion is simply that both the passing and the anticipating the red is more risky than the risk that is averted by getting away from the cars ahead of time. For one thing, if the light changes green before you get to the front of the line, then there you are with cars passing beside you, just what you wanted to avoid. Or you are now stuck looking to get back in line, as a favor from the motorists you just passed.

I would also think that the ill will of motorists is more provoked by a cyclist passing and anticipating the red than by my acting like a car and waiting for it with them. However, I'll admit that I no longer have the same mindset as non-cycling motorists, so I might be the wrong person to ask.

Yep, advocating obeying the law is the sign of a big baby...stick with that, it really makes you look like a mental giant.

I never claimed to be an angel and ,if anything is childish, it's your attempt to say - 'you ain't perfect so I can do wtf I want'. Kinda third-grade, don't you think?

Now how about all you safety advocates...since that seems to be your latest excuse for running lights, provide some specific, real-world examples of how running a light is safer than stopping for it. If you don't have a safety concern, you are simply breaking the law for your own convenience, which is not acceptable in a community. So how is stopping at that light putting you in danger...and how is running it a safer option?

Oh my,,,I am being a big baby...WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frankly, this is one of the biggest loads of horse-pucky I have ever heard. It's no wonder that the USA has such a high crime rate and the roadways are so scary for so many people - in a car or on a bike - it's because there is no respect for the law nor an understanding of why laws exist. What the hey, count me in, let's do whatever the hell we want, law of the jungle, that way I am perfectly justified sticking my boot up your okole if I feel like it.

Nobody faults anyone for doing what they gotta do for safety...but quit trying to disguise your need for convenience as safety unless you can provide some valid safety reasons to run a red light. (I can't wait to hear these...we'll see who's got the creative minds in this thread)

In cantor's case 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS' fits well. If you can't justify running a red light on merits, confuse the issue with double yellow lines and wrong-way riding. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

I'd like to attempt to summarize the different points of view here:

1. manumission's original proposition, as I understand it, is that running reds can be done safely, and also that doing so increases the overall safety of the cyclist, by distancing him or her from the car traffic in the intersection.
2. Many people may agree with the first part of that, that it can be done safely, but don't necessarily see a larger effect on overall safety.
3. Others simply disagree that it can ever be done safely, or cannot be done safely often enough to make a habit of.
4. There is also the question of whether motorists are more pissed off by having to wait for cyclists (which could bolster manumission's position) or by seeing cyclists blow off reds and other traffic laws, which would argue for either no larger safety effect, or actually making the situation less safe by increasing animosity toward the cyclist, or all cyclists. (This latter is perhaps the position of the person promoting the Stop on Red campaign in the Observer article?)

Does that help to focus the discussion?

My personal position is pretty much the second part of #3 - it can't often be done safely, so why build a strategy around it?

Good lord. I can understand that, as a former "jarhead", unquestioning obedience is an important characteristic for you, but here in civilian life, examining whether or not "The Law" serves a useful purpose is a good thing. Understanding that concept isn't rocket science, either. The fact is that the US has a history of laws that make no sense, go against what a large majority of people actually want and what is not ipso facto unconstitutional, and/or have been harmful to the personal liberty of large numbers of people. Until the Civil War, it was perfectly legal in some places to own other human beings and it was ILLEGAL to harbor fugitive slaves; during Prohibition, it was ILLEGAL to drink a beer (and yet many people did it anyway, which was one of the factors in the repeal of that silly ammendment); and, until very recently, it was ILLEGAL in some places for Jim to bugger Joe with Joe's consent or, for that matter, for Rev. Smith to get a BJ from the Mrs. in the privacy of their home. Should any of those laws been followed blindly until, magically, the relevant laws were repealed?

Can we please, pretty please, stop pretending like "The Law" is written in stone and is infallible and stop throwing it up as a pat answer to questions requiring a little critical thought?

And to answer your question about the necessity of traffic-regulation systems for cars (the one in which you termed my statement "horsepucky"): have you ever seen the result of a collision between two cars entering an intersection at the same time? Ever witnessed the gridlock that ensues when a large section of traffic lights goes out of service for some reason? If you're not able to grasp the basic physics involved here (momentum and inertia and the inability of two objects to occupy the same point at the same time), then I can't help you.

Atbman and PaulH - Thanks for returning to the topic and bringing up relevant safety considerations. My point remains that red lights and other traffic controls, as we have them now (at least in the US), have been designed around the car, with relatively little actual consideration of how bicycles, and even pedestrians, fit into the picture. If they have been designed around the car, then it is very likely (and, in my opinion, certainly the case) that considerations for bicyclists, including those relating to safety, have been strictly secondary. This situation needs to be rectified. I didn't consider this position controversial or radical until I brought it up here.

I lived in Berlin for a while and biked there regularly and I've also biked around Holland, and there is a world of difference between the systems there and in even a "bike-friendly" place like the Bay Area. You can see what a traffic network that takes bicycles seriously looks like: dedicated lights at busy (keyword: busy) intersections, dedicated paths off the street in many places and, frequently, the right of way at intersections. Because of all of this dedicated infrastructure, and a much higher consciousness of bicyclists there on the part of motorists, it is safe to bike there. And guess what? That probably translates to more people following the law there (for those people whose meaning in life depends upon complete devotion to "The Law").

This is not to say that it is impossible for bicyclists to manage while acting completely legally within the current system. A number of posters here have remarked that they have never had any kind of substantial dangerous encounters with cars. I find it difficult to believe, but I'm happy for you. This is not the case with me, and it is not the case with any bicyclist I know, and these close calls and potentially dangerous situations have rarely arisen when I or my sample of bicyclists were "breaking the law". Encounters with incompetent and/or angry motorists at intersections are a regular occurence. Moving beyond personal anecdote, the fact remains that we still have over 40,000 accidents involving bicyclists every year in the US, and the percentage that are fatal is going up. If someone doesn't think this situation necessitates a look at the entire system, including whether or not always staying at a red-lighted intersection in all circumstances is always safe for the cyclist, then I have to say that that person is simply not interested in safety.

Now that I've brought up the dreaded statistics, let me indicate where I got them from. Data on crashes involving bicyclists from 2004 are here; a 5-year study covering the years 1993-1998 is here (WARNING: PDFs). These are both US DOT studies, and keep in mind that these are only reported accidents.

Take a look at p. 22-23 of the 5-year study. As a contributing factor in all crashes involving bicyclists, "failure to obey traffic signs/control devices/officers/safety zone" is listed for only 1% of these accidents (no contributing factor on the part of the bicyclist: 40%). One per cent. In their Scenarios 1 and 5, in which a car going straight hits a bike on a crossing path and a car turning left hits a bike on a parallel path, respectively (the only scenarios really applicable to getting hit when running a red light), Failure to Obey factored into 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively, of all accidents. In contrast, in 60% of all accidents in their Scenario 4 (their "right hook" scenario), there were no contributing factors on the part of the bicyclist. In numbers, not percentages, there were 27,000 accidents grouped in Scenario 1 and 5,000 in Scenario 5, while there 5,000 in Scenario 4. Doing the math, 601 bicyclists were involved in accidents in which they disobeyed a traffic-control device, while 3,005 got right-hooked while they were "legally" minding their own business and waiting for the light to change.

Do you still think there's no merit in looking more closely at the safety issue involved in the decision to run a red light vs. stay put at the intersection?

Looking at fatal crashes (pp. 36-38), Failure to Obey was a contributing factor in 3.4% of all reported incidents (at all locations, intersection or not); Failure to Obey contributed to 11.2% of fatal crashes at intersections with a car going straight. By way of comparison, in 22.2% of fatal crashes at intersections with a car going straight, there was no contributing factor on the part of the bicyclist (this figure was 30% for all fatal crashes).

These, of course, are not fully detailed numbers, and we lack a lot of other relvant data (for example, what percentage of riders routinely run red lights). But what these statistics suggest is that whatever dangers bicyclists face, running red lights is hardly a grave one in general - not by far. However, I'll admit that if you are unlucky enough to be hit at this time, you do have a slightly elevated chance of being killed, but not as much as some people think.

I feel fully justified in maintaining my point: we need to have a rational review of traffic safety from the point of view of bicyclists, and leave this blinkered dogmatism about "The Law" out of it in the first instance. Education, both for motorists and bicyclists, while necessary, can only go so far. If bicyclists themselves continue to pretend that bikes are just like cars and should be subject to the same rules as cars, the overall environment in urban centers will not and cannot change substantially. It will still be designed with the car as the primary consideration, and provisions for bicyclists will continue to be stuffed into whatever is left over. I don't like this scenario, and if working to change it makes me a "wanna-be rebel", then so be it.

I can see two scenarios with the particular accident I was describing (Greyhound bus - not a car - running over bicyclist): a) the victim was waiting at a light, too far over to the right; he was either next to the bus or it pulled up beside him; and when the light changed, he started out going straight, and the bus made a right turn into him; b) as you noted, the cyclist was riding in the crosswalk, and the bus made a right turn into him. Based on what I saw, I thought that (a) was more likely, but (b) did not appear to be impossible. In any event, the victim had been right-hooked; and, as I said, I didn't feel the need or the desire to go and examine the scene in detail.

My comment about "following the law to the letter" was with regards to your scenarios in general. There are many scenarios, not just the two you brought up, in which a cyclist is riding perfectly legally, but is in danger. Acting legally and being safe are not necessarily synonomous, despite the fact that some people (not you) seem to think that they are. More experienced cyclists get a feel of what's safe (sometimes through painful lessons) and act accordingly, regardless of what's in the DMV guide. Newer cyclists, obviously, don't have this experience, and there's even less education available than to new motorists (which, as atbman pointed out, is often pretty shameful). People just getting into cycling in urban areas should be more cautious until they get a feel for the conditions of the road.

I want to make clear that I think that intersections demand extreme caution on the part of cyclists, no matter what you're doing (approaching, stopping and standing, or going through them). This applies to intersections with with no traffic control devices, stop signs and lights, even if they are green at the time.

wow. now you are being a ******** baby. read your own posts. you huff and puff about the degeneration of society and how i have no respect for the law because i dont give a damn about running a red and then here you are admitting you speed around in your truck? er, i assume its "for your own convenience, which is not acceptable in a community."

but no, maybe you arent a hypocrite. maybe you're mr short term memory. you ask the tough questions, like "who am i?", and "how did i get here?". and "did i just say that?". maybe you should check your arm for clues, maybe you left yourself a note there.

as to your request, examples have been given on this thread about why and how intersections are dangerous, and how minimizing time in them esp time shared with cars minimizes certain risks.

Working within the system to modify the laws and change the focus of the auto-centric methodology is one thing.

Advocating running red lights today by personal choice is another.

One state has already set a precident for red lights as stop signs for cyclists, so the whole idea is not off the wall, but the proper way to do this is to work with your representitives and get the law changed, not to go willy nilly about.

No data? Then why do the Dutch have two sets of traffic lights, one for bicyclists and one for cars, and the bicyclists get the green light before cars? Because they have studied the problem and realize that is safer for all traffic.

You absolutists really tickle me. "Must obey all traffic laws at all costs" then you paint yourselves into a corner rhetorically and won't budge no matter how absurd your arguments. How true the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

No data? How about Dutch traffic laws, where there are two sets of lights at intersections, one for cars and one for bicycles, where the bicycles are allowed to proceed first because that is safer for everyone. Face it, we have a backward, flawed system.

You absolutists really tickle me, "must slavishly obey all traffic rules". Then your single minded position paints you into a rhetorical corner and you still won't budge. How true the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

I would agree. I mean come on, there is a difference between rolling through a light when it is obvious that there is no other traffic whatsoever and you have slowed or stopped to verify that (or if the darn light refuses to activate) and just blowing through because you don't feel like stopping and 'think' you can dodge what traffic there is. I've yet (in 40 some years) to have a motorist get mad because I happen to be in front of him/her, in line, at a light. But I often see them get quite peeved when cyclists blow the light, filter up the right, filter up via lane splitting, etc.

Right off the bat you make an ignorant assumption based on some stereotype you have in your little mind. It's not a matter of unquestioning obedience...if you don't like the law, get it changed, otherwise or in the meantime obey it to the best of your ability. Or perhaps you don't mind if I come over and burn down your house, since I don't particularly agree with the arson laws and don't feel like waiting till hell freezes over to see them change. Come on, are you really this dense?

Can we perhaps quit putting words and thoughts into other people's posts that are not there? Where does the concept of 'same roads, same rights, same rules' confuse you into thinking it means blanket acceptance of all laws with no ability to make changes? If you don't like the law, change it...but until that happens it is your duty as a law-abiding citizen to obey the laws on the books to the best of your ability. That is a foundation of living on this earth among others in a civilized (I use that term loosely) society. You and I don't have the right to arbitrarily ignore laws we don't agree with. We have the right to seek changes, not the right to ignore. If you want to disobey to make some political statement fine...then you also accept without whinning any consequences that come with that civil disobedience. Do we all obey all laws to the letter all the time? Of course not...but when you don't obey and get caught, accept the consequences like a man, instead of whinning like a puppy. Of course on the specifics of running lights, disobedience might get you killed or maimed. Indeed, I'd almost bet that while you rail against laws, if we met on the street you'd be giving me crap about not wearing a helmet, even though there is no law stating that I have to. So how do you reconcile advocating selective obedience of laws, which could put you at risk of injury, and my personal choice, within the law, not to wear a helmet, which could also put me at risk of injury? That would be a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

I call horsepucky on your reasoning for having those traffic regulation systems. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the vehicles, it is about controlling the flow of traffic. Funny how the technology behind stop signs and lights has remained pretty constant for many years, while the physical and technical capabilities of motor vehicles has constantly changed. Or are you suggesting that we made some change in a stop sign that the rest of us haven't seen due to the introduction of more powerful engines or better braking systems? I maintain, your statement is horsepucky.

So now you are trying to blame traffic lights and the law for accidents and dangerous encounters? Again, provide some specifics...I'd bet most of your problems are caused by your own lack of skills and/or respect for the law, not by the laws or traffic devices themselves. But of course, it's easier to blame anything but yourself...another trend in our society.

And I still think you are full of horsepucky and looking to find excuses for being inconvenienced by mere laws. So I'll ask you again, please provide some specific instances where obeying the law, specifically stopping for a light, put you in more danger than complying with the law.

Bullcrap...I have yet to see an instance cited where complying with the law and stopping for a light has put someone in danger. But, since I am ********, you won't mind enlightening me, will you?

I also invite you to point out where I said I speed around in my truck. I said I aint no angel, but gave no specific instances. For the most part I drive the speed limit, the only exceptions would be on a freeway where the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit and going too slow might actually put others at risk, due to the impatience of folks like you who don't want to be inconvenienced by slower traffic. Indeed, there is an instance where you might even be able to make a case that following the law to the letter may be more dangerous that compliance...but even that is a stretch.

When in my vehicle I do stop for all stop signs and lights...so if it's okay for you to blow them on your bike, you won't mind others blowing them in their cages, will you. Oh wait, your special, what's ok for you isn't necessarily ok for anyone else. Forgive my impertinance. :rolleyes:

Now how about explaining the differences in the roads themselves and provide the full picture, rather than focusing on the small portion that fits into your stance? Where are all those cyclists located on (or off) the roadway in relation to the motor vehicles and the stop lights?

You are the only person who is being the absolutist here...everything has to be black and white and any opposition to your viewpoint must be black in realtion to your white. Who are you, Ann Coulter?

The set up in Holland is exactly what you have been railing against, bikes filtering up to the front of cars and then blowing the light. That is essentially how it works in Holland. There is an area IN FRONTof cars stopped at lights for bicycles. Two set of lights, one for cars one for bikes. After the red, the bikes get a green while the cars still have the red, so the bikes can be moving before the cars take off from the light.

C'mon Chip, read what you have written. Its your position that is black or white. You say always obey every traffic rule, no matter the situation, how much more black and white is there? My position is that you don't always (but usually should)have to obey the rules because sometimes they do not promote maximum safety, which is not cut and dried like yours.

You seem to forget that there are twice as many bicycles in holland as there as cars - obviously bicycle traffic will be a bigger priority than car traffic there. DUH.
You'll also note that the bicycles still have traffic lights to obey, they have their own set of lights for their own special needs (and yes, they stop at them). Because Holland has such a huge ammount of bicycle traffic, this works for them. It wouldn't make sense in most other places - and as of yet nobody has pointed out why running red lights is or would be (consistently) safer than stopping at them...

The more basic question to ask is would you run a red light or blow a stopsign if a cop is present? If not, why not? I mean if it's safer to run the light then to wait, you can make that argument before a judge...you're going to get laughed at (and fined) but you can try.

is this really so hard for you?

its ok for you to speed in your bigass truck out of convenience.
but then you turn around and lambaste cyclists for running lights
out of convenience.

you dont understand that its hard to take you seriously when
you lecture people on the importance of obeying the law. when you
contradict yourself in the same post?

You're completely missing the point. The question is not whether its a violation of a rule, everyone agrees it is, the question is, it is safer or not to run a red in some situations. A judge is not going to rule on whether it is safe, just on whether you did it or not, so his opinion has nothing to do with the discussion of whether its safe or not.

By the way, last weekend I ran a red light, not once, but twice in front of the same cop, after slowing, seeing there was no traffic and then proceeding, and the cop did nothing. And I know she saw me because I was looking straight at her because she was stopped at the light, going the opposite direction I was.

And was there other traffic at the light with you... in the same direction? Or was this the usual case of you being alone at a light that was not going to trigger and making a decision based on the reality of the situation.

I am not against cyclists getting a "nod" ahead of other traffic, I just feel that we need to work the system rather than take this into our own hands and "just do it."

Well, I actually read most of the posts in this thread - whew!!
I, too, ran a red light in front of a cop the other day. The cop did nothing. Like the previous poster, I approached the red with full intention of stopping, stood on my pedals at a near stop, looked in all directions, and, there being no traffic (except for the cop), I pulled through the light. I can't speak for all cops or all jurisdictions, but, what I did is clearly against the law for this state, but the cop did nothing.

As for filtering up (I've never heard that term before) a line of cars, I can tell you, if cars are stopped, there is no way I'm going to sit in a logjam if I can safely pass stopped traffic - on either side (whichever one seems safest at the time). When I do this, I keep an eye on the traffic controls so that I can anticipate when cars should start moving again - and I make doubly certain I am not caught along side a car in that driver's blind spot so that he might cut me off because he doesn't know I'm there.

I've done it too many times to count - and more than once have found myself running "alongside" a cop - I overtake him/her when he/she is stopped, he/she overtakes me when traffic moves. No cop has ever stopped me for this or even looked askance at me - so it must not be that frowned upon - and I know that I can do this safely - it takes a little planning and alertness.

Those of you who want to sit in a three block long line of traffic "just because" are free to do so. For me, being able to make time in heavy traffic is one of the true advantages of being on a bike. I will not sit in a line of traffic, period.

I also do not consider cautiously proceeding through a red light "blowing it." I would never make any maneuver that requires an auto to slow down or stop for me, period. If the driver doesn't see me or makes a mistake, I'm dead. But passing through a red light is far different than "blowing" through without checking for and yielding to crossing or oncoming traffic that has the right of way.

Caruso

Correct, the roadways are set up for cyclists just as the signals are and the laws are. The same doesn't apply here. But I don't see how any of that relates to the simple issue of stop lights in the US - as they say, it is what it is...don't like it, change it...but scraping the current laws until you get your changes ain't gonna cut it. Motorists have a hard enough time understanding the laws as it applies to bikes now, how long do you think it will take them to understand and accept the changes if ever made? I'd say decades at the least. So in the meantime we gotta live with the laws we got and do this real strange thing called leading by example, obeying the current laws to the best of our ability, no matter if the cagers or anyone else is not obeying them. Like our mommas always told us...you gonna jump off a bridge just cuz Suzy Rottencrotch does?

Now where exactly did I say "always obey every traffic rule, no matter the situation"? I said obey the law, I never put any conditions on it. If your safety requires breaking the law, by all means, do so. I believe proving that you were in fear for your safety would be an affirmative defense in about any state in the US. But don't try to pass off convenience and a safety concern...pleeeze, if I don't buy whatever the excuse is, how you gonna expect some judge or jury that don't even ride to buy it? (Then again, that might work in your favor too). I said I ain't no angel...but I don't blatently break laws that could result in putting someone else...or me, at risk, and I don't proudly strut around proclaiming that the law ain't worth diddly squat and I aint gonna obey it...bad form, bad leadership and not very neighborly.

So again, give me some examples of how obeying the law affects your safety? I think the reason nobody cites examples is because you know that so many knowledgeable cyclists in this forum might see that it was your own behavior that put you at risk, not the law, and call you on it. Or perhaps you are afraid that HH will come back out of hiding and that he and I would agree on something...causing the earth to implode! :eek:

So come on yourself, you guys claim you want objective discussion, but only on your terms and in agreement with your viewpoint. Let's drop the rhetoric and post some specific scenarios where you believe stopping at a traffic light puts you at risk, leaving wrong-way cyclists and how they do it in other countries for after we settle that little discussion.

this is so much horsepucky...why do you keep dodging the question...please point out why it is safer to run a red light rather than to stop for it, providing some specific examples. If you can't do that, why don't you just run off and grumble in the corner about how unfair or how much of a hypocrite I am. Wahhhh, my heart is bleeding....:rolleyes:

OK so point out how running that light in front of the cop was safer than stopping for it? You stated accurately what the question is and you also cited an example of running a light...now add the final piece, why was it safer?