I bet most of us have crept up to lights and proceeded through just like you stated...especially when the light won't activate for you. And at least you are honest about why you do so, instead of trying to pass it off as some safety issue. :beer:

If the cop would have done her job and cited you, would you try to argue that it was safer in front of a judge? What studies, statistics or other evidence would you present to show that it is safer? Can you present any here? Or it is just a case of it's not 'convenient' for you to stop? Stopping at traffic control devices is just for suckers, right?

Honestly, I can think of a couple of ways stopping at a redlight might put the cyclist at risk of a crash, but they all result from bad road position rather than the fact that the cyclist stopped, and they're still safer than running the light.

1. Stopping in a lane other than proceeds in the desired direction of travel, i.e. stopping to the right in a right turn lane when the intention is to go straight.
2. Stopping too far to the right in a multi-direction lane, in regards to intended direction of travel.
3. Stopping in a motor vehicle's blind spot.
4. Stopping on the sidewalk, expecting to cross as a pedestrian (this may or may not be legal, depending on the state, but don't expect a motorist to be looking for you there).

I'd just about bet the bus/cyclist crash mentioned earlier was a combination of either 1 and 3 or 2 and 3.

As for using filtering as a an excuse to run a light, BS, that dog don't hunt. Don't filter unless there is a wide, paved shoulder or bike lane on both sides of the intersection, so that a motorist who just passed won't have to change their line to pass again. If that means taking the lane and waiting through more than one light cycle, I've done that, it doesn't hurt.

Now, if you find yourself stuck at a light that won't change, treat it as a stop sign and report it as a malfunctioning light.

Holland sounds like they may have a nice set up with a separate light for cyclists. This ain't Holland, and they have a lot more cyclists per capita. If you like this idea, set precedent and get this system established in your area.

But don't advocate ignoring traffic control devices for the sake of personal convenience as safer when it's not. That's just a load of BS.

Do I have to repeat my self over and over again? The laws in Holland, which allow bikes to proceed from a red before cars do, is clear evidence that it is safer for bikes to be up and moving before cars at an intersection.

And by the way, why should the burden of proof be on me. I've given you my proof, the laws of the cointry of Holland, you prove your proposition that slavish adherence rules is safer.

Oh my, what great oratory and debating skills you have. You forgot to add "neener, neener, neener".

Actually the poster made several other comments prior to coming to the conclusion they offered... it was you that whittled it down to the "neener, neener, neener," while conveniently overlooking the other comments that downplayed the faux "safety" issues.

If your rideing on the roads with cars trucks etc then you need to follow the same laws. Simple fact its not you hitting a car you should be worried about but the car hitting you from the side. Now in most places its perfectly legal to run a malfuntioning red light. Such as one that will not change for a cyclist. Your not suppose to sit there and wait for the light to change for a extended period of time. Take this exmample. No trafic crossing your path no car to trigger the light for you red light will not change your bike ither doesnt have enough metal to trigger a metal detector under the road or enough weight to trip the scale sensor (scale sensors are old tech not seen muh any more) your not expected or requied to wait for a car to trip the light and may go through the red light.

That's not proof. In Japan they drive on the left side of the road, that doesn't prove it would be safer to do it here.

The base-line here is that obeying traffic law is safer than breaking it. If you think this is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you to prove your position.

Get a ticket for running a redlight and tell the judge, "That's how they do it in Holland," and let us know what kind of response you get.;)

Cyccommute, chipcom, genec: I have already done that. I HAVE PRESENTED STATISTICS RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD. Once again, real slow: I - HAVE - PRESENTED - STATISTICS - RELEVANT - TO - THE - DISCUSSION - IN - THIS - THREAD. They suggest that running red lights/stop signs is a relatively minor safety issue for cyclists while, comparatively, getting right-hooked while Obeying The Law is a real problem. None of you have acknowledged or confronted these data, and yet you keep asking for evidence. Deal with these statistics and my interpretation of them, if you dare - and if you are capable of such a task. You have asked for evidence, and I have presented it - don't pretend like it is not there.

It's funny - you true believers in the absolute necessity of following the law condemn me and others for saying that we run reds - but then you admit that, under your own arbitrarily chosen circumstances, you do the same. That is a hypocritical position. If a light won't change for you, because of the fact that it was designed for the weight of a car and not a bicycle, the proper response, according to your dogma, would NOT be to run it - it would be to get off the bike, walk it across the crosswalk, and then proceed to start cycling again at some other point. The fact that you go through lights that won't change for you is a clear matter of convenience for you and you admit as much - so, in fact, you are the ones guilty of the "crime" you attribute to others.

You have invented straw men to knock down, rather than deal with a real issue. No one here has advocated shooting through red lights at top speed. No one has advocated ignoring others' (motorists' and pedestrians') right-of-way. No one has advocated reckless behavior. Do you think that dealing with non-issues makes an argument? The first step in making an argument is to be able to fairly outline your opponent's position. You are dealing with caricature instead.

I brought up one aspect of the overall safety situation for cyclists. I have made a clear argument and, importantly, presented QUANTITATIVE DATA - not just personal anecdotes or vague feelings about the situation - to support my position. In response, my critics (with the notable exception of JohnB) have subjected me to non-sequiturs and "na-uh"-level non-arguments, lectures on the necessity of following the law - whether it's good or bad, whether it's relevant or not, and whether they themselves follow it or not - misguided strategies to "win the respect" of motorists, and ad hominem attacks based on the fact that I've worked as a messenger. This kind of response has nothing to do with "advocacy" and "safety".

If someone would like to continue the discussion from the point of view of the statistics I've brought up, I'll welcome that. Otherwise, I'm done here - there's simply no point of continuing a debate with parties who misrepresent your position and ignore your actual arguments and evidence. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go do something useful and support Germany against Costa Rica in the World Cup.

No, there is a dramatic difference between what you advocate and treating a light as a sign when it doesn't change. Traffic.

If there is enough traffic around to trigger the lights, there is no need to run them. If there is no traffic about... then treat the light like a sign and run it.

The HUGE difference here is that I am not "running lights" while others are waiting for the same signal... I am not taking some "special privilege" that in reality does NOT exist.

BTW I do not recall any statistics... just a couple of case histories. Both of which may have been very different situations had the cyclists been positioned in the road in a different manner.

Data or examples? Very different.

Anyway, its seems quite stupid to try to avoid one risk (right hook) by breaking the law with a different risky behavior (runing red) when a legal and safe option is available (line up with traffic)

Al

I'd bet that folks who break traffic laws routinely while driving (any type of vehicle) have never tried for an extended time period to follow all laws to the letter.

I also bet that if you tried this for an extended time (>1mo.) that you will find it is actually lower stress an easier. But the key is you have to practice this for extended period so it becomes natural, doesn't require concious effort so you do this as habit. Until you reach this point obeying the law seems harder or more inconvienient because you are breaking old habits in doing so.

Try it. Try never speeding, always coming to full stop at stop line, not rolling over it ever. When making a right turn legally on red, stop at stop line, look both ways, then move across x-walk. Go beyond the law and always use turn signals, always give a good buffer between you and vehicle ahead. No matter what kind of vehicle you drive.

As in many aspects of life, art, communication, business, it is often suggested that before one can learn how to bend or break the rules or process, one should have deep proficiency in the rules/process.

Al

Manumission, I give up. I'm as frustrated as you are at the supposed arguments that many on this board are making. Time and time again, people won't address the issue I'm raising, just launch into some diatribe about how what I'm saying is bullsh*t without ever addressing the substance of my argument. I'm not going to waste any more thought on them.

+100

Very very much in agreement here!

Too many people turn driving into some competitive sport. Relax, slow down, work hard to obey the laws and the stress levels just melt away.

The problem is you are trying to trade a minor hazard (right hooks) for a major hazard (running reds)... so the "cost benefit analysis" doesn't work.

It is really that simple.

If you don't even know how light triggers work or what the law is, how can you claim to know if they are functional or not or if you a breaking the law or not?
In fact it is legal to proceed thru a red non functioning light (but check you local laws first). This is not running a red light.
But in order to proceeed legally thru a non functioning red light, you need to know if it really is non functional, not make some wild guess because you don't know how the sensor and light timing work.

Al

Genec and noisebeam: You two didn't see my post in which I brought up relevant statistical data from the national DOT? Post #106 on page 5 of this thread? The big long post where I made long, detailed argument supported by evidence (i.e., an actual argument)? The one where I included a source for my information and links to the original documents so that others can examine the raw data without my interpretations? Since you seem to have missed it, it's right --------> here <--------. Or are you just picking-and-choosing what parts of the discussion you want to deal with and ignoring the rest?

Your justification of your own law-breaking behavior is just that: a justification. You run reds in some situations because it is convenient. I pointed out one very simple way a law-and-order absolutist as yourself can respect The Authority of the red light (getting off your bike and acting as a pedestrian) but, predictably, you ignored it and instead rationalized the behavior you excoriate in others.

Enough - I'm heading for the exits with San Rensho and the other sane people.

The problem is the data does not support your arguement. The "right hooks" can occur anywhere... not necessarily at a light controlled intersecions. And the lack of incidents at traffic control signals that you use to contrast the right hooks occurs simply because many cyclists do tend to stop.

Now you want to use accurate data... wait a few years and check the data on the one state that does permit red light running by cyclists... I can't remember the state... Indiana, Ohio or Iowa... I think it's one of those.

Where have I ever said I have or justified running a red light or stop sign?

Unless you are talking about inoperative signals. I (would) follow the letter of AZ law:
"C. The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has an official traffic control signal that is inoperative shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection and may proceed with caution only when it is safe to do so. If two or more vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time and the official traffic control signal for the intersection is inoperative, the driver of each vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection and the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of the vehicle on the right. "
However I have never encountered an inoperative signal where the x-traffic was light enough to allow me to proceed on red, so I have in these few rare cases used the ped x-walk button to activate the red. Not because I needed to because of law, but for my safety.

As to the data - Gene answered that.

Al

Actually, the problem I see here is not that the argument is not well formed (It may or may not be), but that you refuse to entertain the argument in the first place. Exhibit one is the way you skip the meat of the argument and immediately start playing with symantics in the above reply.

The point at hand here is whether cyclists are safer out in front of car traffic in an intersection, or interspersed in it. The only reason this has anything to do with running red lights, is that in the US, jumping the red is the only way to reliably get in front of a line of cars. We provide for no bicycle specific traffic controls.

I can see why you don't want to entertain the notion that red light running might, under certain (and certainly limited) circumstances, might be safer. Commuters tend to pretty rigorous about following traffic laws, and mostly for good reason. We really aren't on our bikes, in traffic, long enough to get a good feel for patterns. I have what most would consider a long commute, and I'm on my bike for only 2.5 hours in a day. Your run-of-the-mill road ride is 3+ hours. Messengers can be out on the streets for 6-10 hours a day. So the best advice one can give is to follow the rules. It is easiest and doesn't rely on knowledge of the area to be safe. But, and I see this on the forum a lot, the advice we want to give is, many times, confused with topics which we want to discuss. Happens all the time in the helmet debate and drives me batty there too. This mindset seriously limits the types of discussions we can have.

But remember that the laws are simply rules on a piece of paper; beyond the most basic, these rules are, while with reason, essentially arbitrary. Light cycle timing possibly most of all; which means it is relatively easy to change. But how do you discuss the topic of changing a light cycle to enhance how bicycles maneuver through intersections without listening to people who know the lights well enough that they can time a jump? If these people feel safer, and if it looks like a good idea, then it is a relatively easy step to introduce a "bike control" light which makes this jump safe and within the written rules. Peds have theirs, why can't we have ours? A dedicated bicycle light and a bike box (and coupled with a "bikes have absolute right of way through intersections" rule) would make merging into the center lane for a left turn absolutely unnecessary as well, eliminating what is probably the biggest impediment to the adoption of fully integrated traffic cycling.

But gee. If the discussion is forbidden by tabboo, then what'll we do?

Whoa, hold on there... I did indeed entertain the argument, and have even mentioned that there is one state that does allow this. (for the life of me I cannot remember the state). Based on that one state there is precedent... but there is little data of the results over time... the data that was offered did not support their point as there was no clarification of right hook accidents by location citing controlled intersections or simply any intersection.

On the other hand I find the argument rather wanting. The basis of the argument is that cyclists can be easily right hooked in an intersection, thus it is safer to run the lights.

Right hooks are quite easy to prevent by proper lane positioning, so I feel that the risk of right hooks is not as great as the risk of being hit by a mistimed vehicle that one might encounter running a red.

Now yet another view is what you are proposing, a system that changes the light controls to something similar to that of Holland or France, with a special light for cyclists. This is an altogether different argument.

The basis for my disagreement with the red light runners is that they are promoting running the lights not in a legally supported manner, but by personal choice... not working within the system for change, but simply running the lights they feel they can get away with.

I suggest that there is already a test case, and that over time data can be amassed to properly support this... until such time, it is best to work with traffic and the existing traffic controls.

Any "skipping of the meat" is simply due to earlier statements.

As far as forbidden by taboo... perhaps that all comes down to the method of selling the sizzle vice the steak.

To all the Mr. Vibratings out there, from Monty Python's Argument Clinic:

Man I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating It can be.
Man No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating Not at all.

And

Interviewer Good evening. I have with me in the studio tonight Mr Norman St. John Polevaulter, who for the last few years has been contradicting people...Mr Polevaulter, why do you contradict people?
Polevaulter I don't!
Interviewer You told me that you did.
Polevaulter I most certainly did not!
Interviewer Oh. I see. I'll start again.
Polevaulter No you won't!
Interviewer Ssh! Mr Polevaulter I understand you don't contradict people.
Polevaulter Yes I do!
Interviewer And when didn't you start contradicting people?
Polevaulter Well I did, in 1952.
Interviewer 1952?
Polevaulter 1947.
Interviewer Twenty-three years ago.
Polevaulter No!

Hi Gene,

After blowing somewhere near a half-million red lights as a messenger, I can say that I didn't do it to 'make more money,' but simply to satisfy the minimum requirements of the job. Busting red lights downtown, and doing it right, is essentially the job description of bike messenger. If messengers couldn't run lights and otherwise work in the zone beyond the written law, there would be little advantage to using a bike for deliveries and there would be no bike messengers. But it's not up to us lowly messengers anyway, although many people seem convinced that messengers are these brazen mavericks out there carving their own selfish rules right under the nose of The Man. In fact we work for The Man and are enabled only by Him. He could pull the plug at any second, but He won't.

The bike messenger is merely a cog in the machine. He/she and all the red light running is just a function of something much larger and beyond their control. If all the messengers suddenly got religion at the same time and decided en masse to stop running red lights, they would simply be fired en masse with a shrug and replaced with a new batch who would perform the required function of the job. I guess what I'm saying is don't hate the player, dog, hate the game.

But don't hate it too much, because that would be pretty useless. Remember, if municipalities cracked down on messengers, really cracked down, then messengers would cease to exist and most of those deliveries would then be conveyed on some pollution-spitting device. That would suck. There's not enough room for those vehicles and the air is bad enough already. The current situation is workable and sustainable. Cries for a solution to the bike messenger 'problem' generally come from areas where there are few if any actual messengers. Real messengers have proven over several decades that they can handle the freedom and special responsibility that comes with the job. It's also somewhat of a self-organizing system in that bad messengers are knocked out of the game rather quickly. Messengers get away with what they can get away with, and with what they have to get away with to satisfy their very demanding clients, and that's it. It may not be an ideal situation with regards to a possible collateral damage PR effect on cyclists as a whole, but nonetheless there will always be bike messengers until the Machine that spawned bike messengers and allows them to function for its benefit changes dramatically or conks out completely.

Welcome my son. Wecome to the Machine.

Actually, the messenger industry itself now has a huge PR problem in that there is a gigantic booming population of people rolling around dressed up like bike messengers, and apparently doing everything they can to pass themselves off as messengers to the motoring public. It's freakin bizarre. The number of faux messengers now dwarfs the number of actual messengers in cities across North America.

Robert

Robert,

How do faux messengers pass themselves off as the real thing? How does a motorist or an unaware bicyclist such as myself identify a real messenger from a faux messenger, or either of those groups from regular non messenger cyclists getting about town, campus or anywhere else?