CrankyOne

How does his jumping the red make any difference? If he'd waited for green he would have had the same scenario but worse since the drivers would either have to wait a considerable distance until there were no more oncoming cars or pass with much less than 3' clearance.

CrankyOne

This may indeed be the best option for you, however this also negates one of the biggest benefits of bicycles in that they do not require the serial queuing space and delay of cars. What you're saying is that "even though I'm much smaller and don't need to take up the huge amount of space that you do, I'm going to act like I do need all of that space and be delayed the same as you".

Something like 30 times as many bicycle riders can clear an intersection in a given amount of time as cars. Bicycle riders should not be penalized for others choices.

emveezee

In NYC, the leapfrog can happen frequently. Me, going a smooth pace, while a motorist guns it to 40 mph - usually unsafely and sometimes illegally - racing to get to the next red just before I do, making me pass him again. Will be cold day somewhere before I let that type of behavior change what I do. If I were to queue behind him, never mind other drivers getting upset, other cyclists would think I've sucked in too much exhaust.

MMACH 5

As I said, "We're all just trying to get to work." So the message I hope is being sent is that I'm a commuter, just like they are. And maybe more importantly, I'm a vehicle operator, just like they are. I abide by the same rules and wait my turn. Being predictable makes interaction with other vehicles safer. When everyone on the road knows what to expect from the other vehicles, they can better decide how to proceed. That's where traffic laws benefit the traveling public.

That's all peachy, in an environment like Amsterdam. Here in Dallas, there rarely comes a time when I'm not the only bicycle on the road with motorists. Regardless of how many bicycles could pile through an intersection, I'm just another vehicle on the road.

Obeying the law is being penalized?

achoo

If you're so tough, why'd you whine like a baby about what's found on the road: cars and car exhaust?

CrankyOne

Do you want it to always be like it is? What are you doing to get better infrastructure in Dallas?

CrankyOne

If it means queuing up and waiting with cars, YES. In most states you can legally filter to the front of the line and that is often much more efficient for you and you should do it. Why wait for a bunch of cars to go through or even for another light cycle if you don't need to?

MMACH 5

I'm a BikeDFW board member and serve on several other bicycle committees. Over the last several years, bicycle infrastructure in Dallas is better than it used to be, but I still have to get to work. I'm not naive enough to think that Dallas will ever be a bicycle-centric city or that I'll even have a bike lane or path to ride my 26 miles across town.
As an LCI, I think that helping others learn to ride in on the roads we have may be more valuable than the infrastructure itself.

mconlonx

Sometimes I will queue up with a line of traffic to avoid cars having to leapfrog me, sometimes not.

I will queue up behind or beside a car which passed me earlier, while a light is green.

If the light is red and someone passes me so they can come to a stop faster than if they were following me, I will definitely pass them on the right at a stop and make them pass me again. F' them. The light was red and they could easily have stayed behind me and not lost any driving time at all.

I've always wondered this, though: if you are in a state which has a 3' passing rule, which as riders we expect cars to obey, do you pass cars on the right with less than a 3' margin...?

MMACH 5

And I'll say it again, when I pull up behind someone at a light, they probably just passed me. I'm not going to force them to make their way around me again.
We're all just trying to get to work.
I just don't consider it a penalty to wait 90 seconds for a light to change. I'd do it in a car, I do it on my bike.

Mr. Hairy Legs

The driver had every right to be annoyed. My view is that if you're making traffic congestion even worse, you're doing it wrong.

CrankyOne

Why? Would you like better facilities on your ride? Ideally what?

spare_wheel

because i see the results of breathing volatile and particulate pollution at work and do not relish developing copd, severe asthma, or lung cancer. my goal when cycling in dense traffic is to spend as little time in their exhaust as is possible. my health trumps silly traffic laws created for and by motorists!

MMACH 5

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Where there's a bike lane, I use it. I've ridden in cities with more bicycle infrastructure and it is fine. For myself, I'm quite pleased with the routes I ride on a regular basis.

spivonious

It's interesting to read all of the opinions on this. To provide further detail, while my co-worker isn't a cyclist himself, he makes every effort to pass safely. He was not gunning it to get the next red light. If the cyclist had not run the red lights, he probably would have only leap-frogged once or twice.

Personally, I agree with MMACH 5. I don't filter to the front unless the road has a nice shoulder (thus not requiring cars to move over to pass me). We're all trying to get to work/home and I'm not saving any time on my roads by passing two or three cars waiting at a red light. I'm usually the only bicycle on the road, so any group benefit is lost as well. I'm able to start up faster than the average driver, so I'm never holding anyone up behind me. I move back right once I'm through the intersection.

Of course, better infrastructure would remove this conflict between bicyclists and motorists, and I'm a member in the local chapter of the League of American Bicyclists. We're working towards getting some real bike lanes installed in the city, but it's at least a year off. It's also unlikely to ever go in in the suburbs where I live and work.

Finally, it's nice to have a thread in A&S that isn't about a cyclist being killed or a motorist being slapped on the wrist.

dru_

I think there is a middle ground on this, and it is highly situational, but let us all be honest here.

'Running Red Lights' comes in many forms, and yes, there are many techniques to minimizing the potential for conflicts.

As I see it there are three separate issues in play in the described situation:

1. Car Passing Bicyclist
2. Bicycle Filtering / Passing Car
3. Bicycle 'Running' Red Light

Addressing each on it's own merit.

1. Car Passing Bicyclist

Inconvenient for the car perhaps, but if traffic is such that this is occurring multiple times in a single trip, then reality is that there really is no need to worry much about the repeated passing, so the driver has in fact repeatedly created an avoidable situation. Unfortunately, the roads are for cars mentality generally assumes that they have the right to pass, but the bike does not.

2. Bicycle Filtering / Passing Car

Interestingly, in no state in the US is this codified. If there is a bike lane, sure the bike has the right to use that lane to keep moving to the red light. In any other case, this is a grey area of interpretation. The rule of thumb among cars seems to be 'if there is space filtering is fine'. Think about the frequency with which we see cars going around other cars to the right to run right at red lights, and going around cars waiting to turn left in the lane. Given that rule of thumb, if there is space, the bicycle absolutely can (and arguably should based upon most european bike friendly intersection models) filter towards the light/stop sign/roundabout/merge. If this means the cars have to pass the cyclist again, this is just the result of traffic patterns and not the cyclist intentionally causing an issue (despite perception).

3. Bicycle 'Running' Red Light

At the surface this is pretty clear cut, but the reality is far less so. Most light signals in the US are magnetically triggered. No modern bike has enough magnetic mass to trigger them, so most states have laws that explicitly grant bikes and motorcycles the right to pass through red lights under certain circumstances. This is not one of them. So how can 'running' a red light be justified? Well, there are many situations, but let us look at the ones that seem to offend drivers but are in fact reasonable, and arguably safer.

* Slowing and approaching a light, reducing speed to a degree that it is possible to make a true visual judgement if the intersection is clear and 'safe' to cross. (Yes that is in quotes, no intersection is ever truly safe) While this is not strictly speaking legal or advisable, this is the most common case of 'bikes blowing lights'

* Leaving a stop prior to a green light, during a left turn cycle. While viewed as annoying by most drivers, this is in fact a safety measure that reduces the risks associated with starting from a stop side by side a car. Most cyclists have some lateral motion in the first few pedal strokes from a stop, and this puts them at risk of interacting with a vehicle accelerating in a significantly more linear motion.

* "timing" the light. Where the cyclist sees the light, and sits up, approaching a light at a speed that should allow them to accelerate through the last vehicle just as the light changes. It is a common amongst experienced cyclists practice that is dangerous, but not unreasonably so. This practice is not illegal, but is absolutely perceived as 'blowing' red lights.

* sharing a go cycle at stop signs. This is the last specific use case, but it is common enough that it needs to be addressed. The practice of approaching a stop sign and 'going' in cycle with the car traveling the same way through the intersection.

Regarding both 1 and 2, this is where the laws that require the cyclist to maintain a line as far to the right as is 'safely practicable' creates a dichotomy of the bike on the road being both vehicle and not at the same time. Both drivers and cyclists want it to be this way on their own mismatched terms. There is no good resolution to this but for both parties to evolve some respect *AND* personal responsibility. In every instance above, in the mind of most drivers, the cyclist will always be at fault, and due to this it falls to us to ride in a manner that reduces our risks. Sometimes that means doing things in a manner that is very non-threatening, while at other times it means being the jerks that we are often perceived as.

JoeyBike

AND...one or two more cars could make the green if the cyclist is NEXT TO THEM instead of in front of them going through the intersection. Or better yet, if all cyclists ran red lights when safety permits, even MORE cars could make the green light. Like I have been saying for years..."Everybody wins!"

JoeyBike

In some areas of New Orleans, at certain times of the day, I am happy to give and get 3 inches of room. Usually traffic will be moving less than 20mph or more likely crawling along. I can't split lanes and give both sides three feet. And I don't expect three feet of space to be afforded me. I just need them to do the best they can, which is normally the case.

Out on the open road with 50+ mph limits. I'll expect the 3 feet.

It's what happens AFTER the red light changes to green that keeps me from hanging around to give thirty extra distracted motorists a free shot at me. If I run the light I get to operate in a nice clean gap with no cars for a while. Maybe one or two will catch up, maybe not. That's still better than 30 cars racing past me only to stop at the next signal up the road and annoy me yet again by being in MY WAY.

MMACH 5

As I've mentioned, I ride this way because it works well for me in my circumstance. On the multi-lane roads I use here in Dallas, when I'm taking the lane at a red light, nearly every car approaching from behind moves into the next lane to wait on the light. There's an occasional car turning right and even more rare is the guy who would rather drive behind me than the line of cars in the next lane or two.

Dallas has a few areas that are dense with traffic lights and even some narrow-ish two-lane roads, but most of my riding is a bit removed from those parts of town. I have stretches of a mile or two between traffic lights. This offers me pretty good gaps of car-free riding.

Joey, the next time I get to NOLA, I'll bring my bike. I hope you'll show me the sights (I'll try to keep up).

-=(8)=-

My co-worker said that annoyed her too, and gave a pretty hilarious synopsis of how she doesn't let it happen by using some artful blocking tactics
There are exceptions, but overall, if you are riding vehicular, you wouldn't be in that situation, because you would be in your spot in the queue.
I dont do it . . .

spare_wheel

I thought you gave a good summary of why I and others run red lights.

Just one minor correction:

Most loop detectors are inductive, not magnetic. The motion of the rim (or crank arm) causes current flow that triggers the detector. That being said I ride rims that do not trigger detectors because most detectors are calibrated for the heavier rims used on mtbs and hybrids.

spivonious

@dru_ - according to him, the bicyclist was treating the red lights as yield signs, proceeding through when clear (illegal in every state including Idaho). It was this behavior that directly caused the repeated leap-frogging and the increased agitation of my co-worker. These are all standard U.S. four-way signaled intersections. No bike boxes or roundabouts.

As far as your comment about light sensors, it's not true. Lights use metal detectors, not magnetic detectors. A carbon bike might have trouble triggering the device, but steel and aluminum bikes should be fine. If they're not, the sensors need to be adjusted. In this case, there were plenty of cars to trigger the sensor, so it's moot.

In PA, filtering is not explicitly forbidden for bicycles, but it is implied that it shouldn't be done unless there is ample space in the lane.
@JoeyBike - this particular road is 35mph, tiny shoulders. Closer to your 55mph road than a clogged urban street. I wouldn't consider it wide enough to safely filter up at red lights. Here's a good shot of it: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0500...QManjKvJ7g!2e0

spare_wheel

This is why my two commuters have chopped flat bars. It always amuses me how fuming mad "blockers" get when I still manage to squeeze by.

spare_wheel

Treating reds as yields is *legal* in idaho. Moreover, it's arguably legal in other US states under some circumstances (dead red laws). It's also legal in many european regions. There is absolutely no evidence that treating a red as a yield is associated with increased risk for cyclists. Interestingly, the reluctance of female cyclists to run reds is hypothesized to be one of the contributors to the increased risk of death for women cyclists in London.

dru_

I guess I assumed that more states used the magnetic variety that GA has gone to. The inductive was apparently prone to malfunction here (I never got a decent answer why it didn't work) but the result was that bicycles and motorcycles lack the mass to trigger them. So we got a law that gives those vehicles the right to proceed through red light after 2 minutes or a full cycle where the directionals did not trigger.