Anyone see this article in the Observer about a campaign originating among bicyclists in the UK to have bicyclists stop at red lights?

My opinion on the matter: this campaign is misguided and bad for bicyclists (full disclosure: being an ex-messenger, I'm somewhat biased - you develop a disregard for things that prevent you from doing your job as quickly as possible and thus maximizing your pay). Misguided because it asks cyclists to participate in a system of rules designed almost exclusively for cars (with the occasional nod to the pedestrian), rather than seeking to amend the system with bicycle-specific regulations. It puts bicycles and cars on the same plane - running red lights is bad no matter who does it - when the two simply can't be compared in terms of power and potential to cause injury.

Stopping at red lights as a matter of principle is also dangerous for cyclists. A bicyclist generally wants to stay ahead of cars and make them take her/him into account, rather than the other way around. If an intersection is clear, it makes no sense to stay there and let cars pile up behind you, ready to gun it the minute the light changes or make a right turn, for example, right into you.

There's more to add, but I've had my say for now. Thoughts?

The way many people see it, you want to have the same rights as automobiles when it comes to road use, but you don't want to follow all the same rules and laws that automobiles have to follow. Cars could probably safely blow a good number of red lights also; so could motorcycle riders. However, once you say it's okay for cyclists to disregard red lights, someone's going to go through one and get creamed. It's not really that good of an idea.

It would be better if everyone had to stop at red lights but could proceed if the way is clear. That is how the cars drive in Rome with no problem. On the other hand it may be better if they abolished traffic lights. They manage without them in Istanbul.

It would be great if cops ticketed more cyclists for running redlights.

Not just pull the cyclist over for a warning, but actually write and issue a citation.

Same roads, same rights, same rules.

Fortunately, it will never happen here.
Rules that apply to cars dont apply to me just the same as rules that
apply to jet ski's Vs. Sailboats dont apply to me.

The same rules apply to you when your sailboat is under power.

Actually, all the same rules apply for vessels of a similar size. The only significant thing that changes is the ROW.

Commuter,

That would hardly be "great". "Same roads, same rights, same rules" - you have the same fetishization of "rules" as does the author of the article I brought up, the people running this campaign and the anti-bicyclist crowd. What is the point of rules? Is the point of having rules simply to have rules, or to actually effect something (like creating a safe environment for users of the road)? My thesis is that many of these rules, including stopping at red lights as a general principle, make bicyclists less safe.

And where do these rules come from - did they fall down from heaven or something? No - they were created with automobile traffic in mind, not bicycles. Ammendments to regulate bicycle traffic have just been kind of stuck in by the same people who are responsible for dangerous bicycle lanes and other feats of poor bicycle policy.

The top speed, acceleration, weight, minimum stopping distance and power of even small cars makes regulatory devices like red lights and stop signs necessary for autmobile traffic. This is not the case with bicycles.

That's like saying the killing power of a 22 calber rifle is so much less than that of a 50 caliber that people should be allowed to randomly shoot them off downtown. Rogue motorists can do more damage, but I know from experience that rogue cyclists are a threat to other cyclists and pedestrians.

Cyclists used to be quite law abiding 20-30 years ago. It's possible that people's idea of messenger culture changed this. Certainly, the very worst cyclists are the faux messengers. Here in DC, the real messengers are fairly well behaved.

(disclaimer -- the only time I arrived at work bloody was after being hit by another cyclist)


Paul

Call me a rules fetishist, but I really like the idea of cyclists stopping at stop signs and red lights. This is because I am not psychic. When people don't follow traffic laws on a regular basis, I haven't the slightest idea what they might be thinking of doing next. I save my appreciation of spontaniety for other aspects of my life.

--- This has been discussed here before; that by Idaho LAW, a bicyclist treats a stop sign as a yield and a red traffic light as a stop sign:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ho#post1508106
STATE OF IDAHO
TITLE 49 MOTOR VEHICLES CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.

I regularly stop at red lights with cars all around me, including behind me. I take up the whole lane so I am more visible and cannot be (easily and legally) passed. When the light changes, I get off to a good start, and usually am well through the intersection before the cars get going faster than I am (usually around 20 MPH at that point), at which point I move back over to the right. I've only ever had one near accident, and I dare say I'd have had more by now if I didn't follow any rules.

manumission, please clarify. I don't think you're advocating total anarchy, are you? I'm assuming you are advocating that bikes not need to follow car rules, but should have some guidelines of their own, which you feel are better suited to them. Problem is, how do drivers know what your rules are, and thus what to expect from bikes? I agree with the "rules" crowd that predictability, though perhaps boring, is one of the greatest contributers to being safe. It may not be a great contributor to delivering a message in the quickest possible time, but frankly, I'm not a messenger and that's not my aim. I work in an office job and my aim to get to work and back safely on my bike, in a reasonable time, but not at the sacrifice of my safety.

It's no doubt true that the traffic system was designed around cars. That's reality. Rebelling against it might raise some awareness, or it might just piss people off at cyclists. Ignoring it might benefit an individual cyclist much of the time, but at a cost to the perception of cycling as a whole, and probably a cost to the safety of that cyclist eventually. In my opinion.

Bottom line is I follows the same laws because I believe it's the safest option, not out of some ideological position. (And yes, I do make exceptions when I believe it is safe to, which usually means no one else around.)

The rules should be the same, across the board, for all vehicles. This increases safety by eliminating confusion caused by a certain segment of vehicle operators thinking they are somehow "special".

The point of rules is so that everyone on the road behaves in a predictable fashion, and one in which there is always a clear proper behavior. The rules are designed so that if they are always strictly followed, there are no collisions. As soon as there's one vehicle on the road doing whatever it wants, there's a chain reaction of confusion and unpredictability as other drivers react to the unpredictability of the person breaking the rules.

I have always found this issue to be curious. Yes, I see many cyclists blow stop-signs and even red-lights when there is no crossing traffic, particularly in quiet residential areas. I rarely or never see cyclists---even messengers or kamikaze riders---blow red lights when there is traffic. But at virtually every intersection I see, at least two and sometimes as many as four or five cars race through when the light has just turned red or has been a solid red for a second or two. Yet, the carping is about cyclists? It doesn't make sense to me.

+1 This should be our 'stock' response for these types of threads.

I know around here they have red light cameras to detect the real scofflaws... the motorists.

Do I run signs and lights. Yes. I slow and cruise signs in residential neighborhoods that never have enough traffic to justify any traffic control, and I regularly run red lights that do not respond to my bicycle (even after I have contacted the local street services group). However, if there is any traffic about, I wait it out.

I suspect from this post that you've never driven in Istanbul. I have, and it did NOT make me want to modify my countries road systems to mimic them.

At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I stop at all red lights whether there's traffic or not. However, at certain locations, where I don't have the weight or magnetic strength to trigger the light change, I'll treat it as a stop-sign and proceed when there's no traffic. I am prepared to argue that one in court if I ever get a ticket for it. But at regular intersections, it doesn't bother me a bit to wait a minute or so. At most stop-signs I will slowly cruise through if I can see there's no traffic. Otherwise, I stop. I'm rarely in that much of a hurry to get anywhere, so I don't mind stopping, even if it's just for a brief rest.

I don't particularly care what other cyclists do, so long as it doesn't endanger me or others. If they want to go through vacant intersections at top speed, that's their decision.

A trend that I am seeing in Denver is to completely blow by traffic and run the red light in front of a line of cars. I'm seeing it every day - not just an isolated incident. Some people will run a red light by passing a line of cars on the left at 30 mph (it's a steep downhill) and turning right in front of them as they wait for the light. It does nothing for the rest of us other then make us targets when the motorist see us on the road.

I confronted one moron who had filtered to the front of a group of cars (I stopped behind the last car in line as always). When he got to the light, he looked to see if there was cross traffic (there was) and then darted across the street. When I told him that he was supposed to stop for lights, he told me that he had...he just didn't have to wait for the light to change green. Thanks loads, buddy!


This has sever consequences too. A 14 year old was injured on Wadsworth (a very busy 6 lane arterial with turn lanes - about 80 feet wide) when he blew a stoplight at an intersection. He was probably just following the lead of other cyclist that he'd seen doing the same thing.

Word.

And personally, I think that motorists dont give a crap about what we do as long as we don'y delay them. The whole "earn respect by following the law" line is proven meaningless every time a motorist yells at us to "get on the sidewalk".

If we broke a bunch of traffic laws to get out of the way of cars and not delay them, do you really think they would still be writing the editor about our lawless behavior?

Word.

And personally, I think that motorists dont give a crap about what we do as long as we don'y delay them. The whole "earn respect by following the law" line is proven meaningless every time a motorist yells at us to "get on the sidewalk".

If we broke a bunch of traffic laws to get out of the way of cars and not delay them, do you really think they would still be writing the editor about our lawless behavior?

I'm sorry - is this supposed to be a serious analogy? Firing off a .22 in the downtown is inherently deadly, while running a red light on a bike isn't. A better analogy would be subjecting BB guns to the same regulations as assault rifles.

Chipcom - The point of the thread is to consider what the "rules" mean, why they're there, and how they affect road safety. "Stock responses", while providing a quick and handy answer, hardly address the issue.

As for people who did consider the issue: the main issue seems to be predictability, which is something I also like. There's no reason why bicyclists being allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs, as per the Idaho law (and I believe that Montana has also recently floored similar legislation), shouldn't lead to predictable riding behavior. Again, my argument, which no one except JohnB has directly engaged, is that rules like stop lights are car-specific - they do not take a bicycle's properties into account. My thesis is that this is symptomatic of a larger lack of consideration on the part of city planners, legislators and others (e.g., drivers ed teachers) concerning the issue of bicycles on the road and how to provide for a safe environment for bicyclists. I'm not advocating recklessness - I'm arguing that a closer look at the issue of bikes on the street is necessary.

Since people keep bringing it up, I'll say that the "same rights" line makes little impact on me. It's simply wishful thinking - motorists in general and the cops are not going to be sympathetic to a bicyclist acting like a motorist. In SF and Oakland, a bicyclist can take the entire lane in when safety considerations necessitate it, but not as a general principle (try going down Lombard St. sometime in the middle of the lane and let me know what happens!), and even then it's more sufferance than excercising some kind of "equal rights". Since this is the case, it becomes dangerous to act like a car on the streets. If you can't do everything a car can do, the whole "same rights" idea collapses.

Finally, since people seem to like anecdotal evidence, let me bring up my own: I saw a guy run over by a Greyhound bus at 7th and Bryant, across from the Hall of Injustice, in SF when I was messenging. The victim had clearly been either waiting at a red light or had just started to go on green when the bus made a right turn, hit him, and dragged him under the wheels. Score one for following the rules.

I did this all the time when I lived in PA. Im supposed to wait in a line
for 2 changes of the lite behind stinky cars in a situation they created ?
Not gonna happen.
If I dont impede anyones forward motion or get in thier way in any way whatsoever
its a 'them' problem that they dont like it, not mine. People dont need to worry about
what I am doing, Im smart enough to do that myself.

Actually, one of the more compelling aspects of this issue is the indignation and outrage many motorists feel when they see a cyclist whiz through a red-light even though it hasn't delayed or otherwise affected the motorist in any way. If it hasn't affected them, why do they get so irate, as if an insult and deep personal offense has been commited against them?

^^^^^
I dont get angry at cars when Im caught in the rain because they have
a roof and I dont. Same thing.
Being able to expidite / deviate from standard stoplite procedure is a gift
to us for practicing a heightened way of social and environmental responsibility.