A related question: There's a section of road near here. There are occasional cyclists on the road but the other drivers routinely ignore them, pass them too close, cut them off at intersections, pull out right in front of them, and open their doors when there are cyclists coming. There's a bar on the street where drivers routinely leave after having had a few drinks, too. No one ever gets ticketed. Is it OK if I drive that way, too?

BB

The risk of being injured or killed running a red light at a T intersection is very low. There is no cross traffic. The biggest risk is running into a pedestrian who is using the crosswalk. This is 100% avoidable if the cyclist makes sure the coast is clear before proceeding through the red.

Why does my right to be on road as a cyclist have to be dependent on blindly following laws designed around the automobile? These laws do not benefit or keep me safe as a cyclist. Motor vehicles and bicycles are two completely different modes of transportation, with two very different capabilities and ramifications when things go wrong.

There are plenty of times when riding we make a decision to do something and safety is a wash. In my experience these kind of intersections are a good example but it all depends on what the situation is right there at the moment.

BUT our right to be on the road means we obey the laws of traffic, whether we think they're stupid or not. Make safe decisions but be prepared to pay.

Legal? No of course not.

That said, Do what you feel is appropriate consistent with how you handle similar situations. There are some that may give you a "shame on you" but I'm not one of them. Use your judgement, check for traffic and do what you're comfortable with.

For the record, I routinely ride through red lights, but don't run them. I slow to "full stop ready" speed, check traffic, and go if it makes sense. In some cases, at certain intersections on my route it actually makes more sense to go on the red than wait for a green because turning traffic makes flow complicated.

I often find myself stopped at a light next to a police car. Many of the officers know me, and will roll down the windows and ask me why I'm waiting. My standard answer is that I'd probably go, but don't like to rub their noses in it.

You should obey the laws of the road, no matter what kind of vehicle you are operating. Everyone is tempted to break traffic laws from time to time, and everyone does, and usually no harm is done. But it is better (in the larger sense) to follow them, and when you do, it makes it easier for others to follow the law -- people are influenced by others' behavior, as you admit in your OP. Life in traffic is easier when everyone's default is to obey the actual written law that exists, rather than whatever unofficial laws people have to guess at by watching other people (yes, I realize this is a pipe dream).

I don't think I know anyone who has never broken a traffic law out of laziness or convenience, so if you do it with good risk judgement, you are not a bigger jerk than anyone else. We all pretty much suck at it, and are defensive and overly entitled. So there's that.

I guess what I'm saying is that running the red here doesn't make you Hitler, but it is a stupid thing to do. And if you decide to do it, you are going to sound like a hypocrite if you insist that others need to be super-vigilant about following the law. Also, if you do it and end up getting ticketed , you deserve it. That's the risk of breaking the law.

This, +1.

caloso
Quote Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
On the straight of the T, with no pedestrians and no traffic turning left towards your direction, and staying on a bike lane or shoulder, I can't think of a single good reason not to run the red. Other than potentially getting a ticket.

There's no possibility of cross traffic, no way to disrupt or impede traffic as there would be at a regular intersection. Pedestrians have a right to expect the intersection will be clear when you have red and some will behave accordingly, unconsciously, but where there are no pedestrians or pedestrian crosswalk that's not even a factor. It's not legal, but it should be.


Enough said…
Also, depends on your area.
Seems to be accepted, here. Even on our auto choked arterials.

The point of traffic laws is that it doesn't work to have everyone evaluate every situation for themselves and make up their own mind about how to drive, regardless of whether they're in a truck, car, bike, or other vehicle. Why should cars worry about cyclists if it doesn't benefit them or keep them safe in their automobiles?

+1

I obey laws that make sense. Until very recently it was illegal for a white person to marry a person of African decent in Virginia. Blind obedience to laws, just because they are laws, strikes me as un-American.

I would blow through it sans pedestrians. I also ignore stop signs and red lights when turning right onto a shoulder. Doesn't hinder anyone or put anyone at any risk. I also jaywalk. I'm also okay with others doing all of these things as well.

What I don't do when I'm driving that I see a lot of people doing is changing lanes in intersections and turning left onto a 2 lane road and not entering into the leftmost lane. Both of those are illegal, but seem to be widely accepted even though they are dangerous practices.

Running reds is never allowed.

You are allowed to turn right on red after stopping, and turn left on red after stopping if going from a one-way street to another one-way street (i.e. there will be no cross traffic).

Gaining a minute or two by not waiting for the light to change is not going to make a big difference.

Laws are meant to protect people's freedom from other people. You can't steal from someone else. You can't assault someone. You can't start fires and destroy (or potentially destroy) other's property. You can't drive down the road at 100 miles an hour with no regard for other road users safety. You can't go through a red light at a T intersection on the shoulder in no way impairing anyone else. You can't walk around the Mall of America with a hooded sweatshirt covering your head. You cannot purchase alcohol on Sunday in Minnesota.

I commute into SF, and while I don't ride down Market where your map shows, I do ride on Embarcadero, where basically every interesection is a T intersection.

While heading North, you are always on the side with no cross traffic, and there is a bike lane. Virtually every cyclist in this bike lane goes through red lights as there IS not cross traffic. The only risks for safety are a car turning left onto Embarcadero taking a wide turn and going into the bike lane or pedestrians crossing. Virtually all riders seem to run these reds on this side. Some going flying through, others slow down and/or stop to look for pedestrians and turning cars and then go through. It isn't legal, but people seem to do it and its reasonably safe. Others jump up on the sidewalk to go around the intersection (technically this is legal as this particular sidewalk is technically part of the bay trail MUP).

I personally run these reds, after slowing down or stoping to make sure its OK. I generally don't run other reds where there could be cross traffic, even if I don't see any traffic, and I don't go through crosswalks weaving through people, but I see many cyclists doing this both of these along Embarcadero. This is not only illegal but potentially dangerous. I will add a few minutes to my ride to wait at these lights.

As somebody who bikes and drives, I strongly object to both your behaviour and your assertion that it is harmless.

If I'm in a car on a through street, and someone coming from my right blows a stop sign or light and turns onto my street, even if they are on the shoulder, it startles me. If I'm close, and I don't know for sure they are going to stay on the shoulder, I might think they didn't notice me, and are about to cross in front of me or merge into my lane, so I might make a panic stop, causing me to skid, or causing, traffic chaos behind me, or I might reflexively swerve to the left without having time to shoulder check. Please don't do that - in your ignorance and blithe confidence, you're causing more stress and risk than you realize.

And if I'm on a bike on the through street, with right of way, and and you rudely cut in front of me like that, instead of waiting your turn, I will run you off the road.

Didn't say that I didn't slow down, look, and signal before making the right. If you're prone to making panic stops when a bike makes a right turn onto the shoulder at 5 mph then you're a hazard to other drivers.

You forgot about cyclists turning left onto Embarcadero, who are expected to merge into the bike lane and have to somehow avoid colliding with rogue cyclists like you.

Slowing down to 5 mph and signalling is completely different from "ignoring stop signs and red lights" as you described it earlier.

Is it? That's exactly how I would treat the same turn if there were no stop sign there.

True, I didn't mention other cyclists turning onto Embarcadero, as that is also another threat, as are bikes ridding across the crosswalks with pedestrians, bikes going from the sidewalk/path to bike path, etc.

As I said I always slow down (very close to a stop or stop depending on visibility) and look before going through, so I will see if there are cyclists who need to merge in an yield to them. The cyclist that blow through without slowing down is more of a concern here.

What I hate more then anything is when cyclists weave through pedestrians in a cross walk, often making the pedestrians stop or slow down when THEY have the walk signal. I also don't like when pedestrians with a don't walk symbol cross when bikes are coming through with the green light and expect that the bikes (or cars) should stop for them (I wonder how many of these would do the same if it was a car coming at 35 mph.

Really? 5 mph? If you say so.

90 degree turn on a 3 foot shoulder. Yeah, I'm going to take it slow.

Maybe replacing "run red light" to "roll through red light with caution" in the thread title would be more acceptable?

Not all laws are meant to protect. Does income tax protect anyone? Does forbidding prostitution protect anyone? Does requiring motor vehicles to be registered protect anyone?

Bottom line, if you want equal rights on the road, follow the laws. Is it okay to do an "Idaho stop" when safe to do so? Sure. I'd be lying if I said I never went through a stop sign. But in an urban environment where you might not see a car coming in from that side street? I'm stopping at the red every time.

I'm genuinely pleased to see how much support there is for following basic rules of the road in this thread; there have been a few that have gone by in recent months which were dominated by the opinion that cycling is so morally superior to motoring - or unfairly marginalized by it - that a rider should have license to ignore whatever rules they choose. How anyone can rage about dangerous drivers blowing through stop signs or intersections and in the same breath demand the right to do exactly those same things because they happen to occupy the roadway on a bike is completely beyond me.

the problem with that line of thinking is that there are plenty of laws that no one follows and are not enforced. They aren't really laws at that point, even if they're still on the books. My favorite is the requirement to stop at the city limits in Ft Worth Texas and sound your horn before proceeding into the city. To warn the horses. Those laws are everywhere and people are in unknowing violation constantly. They may have made sense at some point, or might have even been a joke from the start - it's illegal to each chicken with a fork in a neighboring city here.

We may not approve of it but the reality is, this is one way that our laws evolve. If they become pointless, and most people ignore them, then the law withers from lack of enforcement. Sometimes repealed but more often not; it's just not a real law any more. This particular situation, where there is no possible downside other than someone seeing you "break the law" and thus is consistently ignored, could be seen as belonging to that genre.