It depends on the situation. For instance, some T intersections in my area have pointless lights. There usually isn't anyone on the road with green and hardly any traffic. And, the light sensors aren't all bike friendly, so they don't change. In cases like that, I do a slow roll.

I see people blow through lights all the time without any regards to other cars or bikes on the road. It's only a matter of time until they become a statistic and I become a witness on the police report. Then we all get read another "I got hit by car today!" thread.

bike lanes here (and in Stockholm/Copenhagen) have a dedicated signal. i'm referring to a bike lane within 1 meter of the side of the street. It's also important to note that they usually turn green before the street light for autos, so that you get out in front it you are directly adjacent without a divider, which I find quite nice. you can actually see one of them in OP's video at about 40 secs in.

I have never ever seen or heard of such a thing.

here's a few photos of the swedish ones in Malmö ... kinda hard to ignore these ones ... you'd have to be a total jack-ass

Does that mean you cross the red light after coming to a stop (while it is still red)?

I crawl through stop signs, but come to a full stop and wait at red lights. Thankfully, I do not encounter many traffic lights when I commute. If I am first at a red light with cars behind me, I will sometimes take off early so that the first car will not hit me if they accelerate too fast.

I never stop when turning right on red except if there is traffic.

I think if you are on a bike you should play by the same rules as the other people on the road. Stop at a red light and roll through a stop sign. As a drive nothing boils my blood more than the cyclists that blow through stop signs and red lights or ride down the dotted line between lanes when traffic is stopped. Here in Minneapolis people get hit on bikes all the time because they don't stop at reds or riding in and out of traffic, weaving around stopped cars that start to move...ect.

IMO, we should play more by the rules of the cars so that we are all (ideally) playing on the same set of rules to avoid accidents. How do cyclists expect drivers to see them blowing down the ceterline at 25 mph when they are at a stand still or see them blowing through red light quick enough to stop?

Its alway sad to see a cyclist get hurt (or worse) but a good number of them are not following the rule of the road when the accident happens. Not that motorists are not at fault, but we all know who wins these collisions.

If I stopped at every stop sign and traffic signal along my commute, my commute time would suffer badly. Most of my riding is through residential neighborhoods and city streets.

I treat everything like a yield sign. I approach every intersection w/ caution - regardless of whether or not I have right of way. I don't want to get run over by someone else running a stop sign or a red light. If I am approaching a stop sign or a red light I slow dramatically to give myself ample opportunity to gauge whether it's safe to proceed or not. If it is safe to do so, I go. If not, I stop.

When I first started riding again, I used to stop for signals and stop signs. Then one day a guy rolled down his window and said "Wow, I've never seen that before. You stop for traffic lights?" I figured "why should I be the only one?"

I didn't stop for red in a previous life, but I do now.

Depends on the intersection. But generally, yes.

And fwiw, a true trackstand is a cessation of forward movement and therefore complies with the legal requirement in the California Vehicle Code. At least that's my argument.

Actually on second thought, I've definitely ignored some of these, particularly when the equivalent car light is green, and you need to stop and hit the button to trip the cycle light.

(Note: this is only true at very few, select, suburban intersections)

Clever boy.

I stop peddling, baby steps.

As of 2012 Montreal was ranked as the 23rd most livable city in the world. Stockholm wasn't on the list. But then maybe things have taken a turn for the better since you left, and maybe Stolkholm's standing dropped because you live there.

I ALWAYS stop for red lights and stop signs. Makes drivers mad as they want to roll through, but f em. I'm not going to cause an accident by rolling through a stop sign or running a red light. Both mean come to a full stop, even if turning. If I'm going to get hit it's going to be while following the law to the letter.

And I understand Stockholm has bicycle traffic jams at rush hours. We don't have those here either.

but you do have Rush, hmmm sound even to me.

Where did you get your crime statistics from? Having lived in Stockholm for 6 months, it's one of the cleanest and safest cities I've ever been to and I seriously doubt the crime rate is as high as 134 per 1000.

Also, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...livable_cities , Stockholm is in fact on the list (above Montreal, in fact)

Never been there myself - this is the page referenced: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden "(approximately 151 offences/1000 inhabitants)"
For Quebec I took the info on Quebc from the page for Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...nada#section_2 "6,626 offences /100,000 inhabitants. Deviding by 1,000 gives 66 / 1,000 inhabitants.

Yup - sorry - I missed it on that page. However, what keeps me in Montreal is the cost of living here vs Toronto, Vancouver or Ottawa - which includes the likelyhood of finding and keeping a job, and the relative pay scales. I have family in all those cities.

Stockholm doesn't look all that great to me from that perspective either. And I see absolutely no reason for anyone to refer to this city as a "craphole".

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...ity2=Stockholm

seems to me crime in Canada is rampant, just today I saw a big story about two drunken college girls who stole some potato chips out of someone's open garage. out of control.

which auto club compiled the list of livable cities?

OK, 66 vs. 151 seems more reasonable than 6 vs. 151 (as initially stated), and it doesn't really say anything about violent crimes vs burglaries vs victimless crimes. And while it is expensive compared to other places, wages are proportionately higher there and there are plenty of cheaper suburbs to live in (I paid only $400/month for a student apartment there, which is in fact cheaper than State College).

I didn't say anything about Montreal (I'm sure it's a nice city), I'm just addressing your perception of Stockholm as a seemingly high-crime city because it definitely is not.

I don't really understand why you started this Stockholm vs. Montreal discussion? There are a lot of "most livable city" lists The Economist hat put Stockholm on 6th place
https://www.economist.com.hk/blogs/gu...ankings?page=1 so you just need to find the right list for your favourite city ;-)

But still, why the Stockholm vs. Montreal discussion?

I'd rather bend a few laws if it meant not getting hit. I figure staying alive is a higher priority than staying legal, although staying legal is a higher priority than not holding someone else up for a few seconds.

Where did you live for 400 USD? Lappis? Good parties and some nice swimming there.

For me, it all depends on the time of day and the amount of traffic. During the daytime, I'll wait. Traffic is heavy enough where I only wait maybe 30 sec for a light to change. It's not always, but most times. Now at night, I might see 2 or 3 cars in 7 of my 11 mile commute. I tried to wait. After 2 min at one light, I decided it was stupid to wait. I'm careful, but I still go.