Seems like TFA is an opinion piece and cites no research on actual safety. It alludes to one reason this is good: getting the cyclist out of the intersection, and therefore greater danger, sooner. Another good reason might be to make cyclists' behavior more predictable. As is, you never know which type of rider you are going to get, so you can't make assumptions.
I think an actually safer thing to do would be to give cyclists the right of way. Then drivers could at least take for granted that cyclists are going to not stop for red lights or stop signs.
One aspect of safety which wasn't mentioned in the article is the moment when lights turn green and cars and bikes begin to move forward. There's a noticeable tendency for some riders to want to stay in front of the cars and this engenders an equally fierce desire in the drivers to overtake said cyclists. Road rage is almost unavoidable at this point.
I usually stop behind the lead car at traffic lights to avoid this; I can usually keep pace with cars (in London) but flaunting this by trying to race them away from the lights is just asking for trouble, not to mention more physically taxing.
So... if I'm on the front of a queue and can safely move away before the lights turn green, I'll do it because it puts distance between myself and the lead car, giving the driver more time to line up a safe manoeuvre around me once the traffic starts moving.
This has to be weighed up against the very real danger that the drivers will be fuming with rage at the arrogant cyclist in front and thus losing the senses of calm and serenity that I'm trying to spread :-)
I agree it's a real problem. I mean it's important to remember that not every driver is an asshole, just like not every cyclist is a crazy law breaker, but there is enough of a critical mass of both to make sharing the road really dangerous, and cyclists come out worse out of it because physics.
Ideally, I think larger cities could do well with removing the ability to drive cars there without some hefty taxes/tolls and instead provide moving walkways and better public transit. Then cycling becomes much safer and a better option.
I've also had the idea to run a "shower truck" some place like NYC: basically park it in front of an office building between 8 and 9am and for $1/minute you get to shower in there. Lack of showers has always been the reason I didn't commute by bike.
How about no. Stop signs were designed to prevent people being hit by crossing traffic.
This isn't just a to protect the cyclists from being hit by cars, but to protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists.
I'm sorry but my experience of living in London in the past 4 years pretty much made me hate cyclists with passion.
I find them considerably more dangerous and pesky than cars, they simply ignore all rules whether it's not giving a flying duck about the red signal at a bike lane while pedestrians have the green light to cross the street, utterly ignoring no bikes allowed in the run/walk only paths in Hyde Park or by interchanging road, bike lane, sidewalk and even the crosswalk at will with nill consideration to pedestrians and a shitty attitude to boot.
I'm constantly buzzed off green lights (to me) by cyclists that cycle at high speeds because they could not be arsed to honor a red light, I've been hit by bikes more than once in these 4 years, and just over the weekend I've seen a guy on a rental metro bike hit a baby carriage (empty one as far as i could tell) in Hyde Park because they were in a no-bike zone and came out a turn which has no visibility whatsoever.
I really don't understand the level of self entitlement that cyclists seem to have and why they seem to have such a shitty attitude towards drivers and pedestrians alike.
A bicycle rolling through a stop sign isn't any less dangerous than a car rolling through one, if anything a car is easier to spot than a bicycle and cars don't tend to have their visibility shuttered by driving between full lanes.
The reason why most countries do not allow roll through stop signs or at least heavily restrict them is that rolling through a stop sign sets the wrong behaviour pattern because once you get used to a stop sign you know you can roll over you aren't going to slow down to roll over speed you might simply slow down by a bit but not nearly enough to respond appropriately.
The same thing is going to happen to cyclists they'll get use to it and eventually get careless they won't give 2 ducks about the padestrians trying to cross the road with already ludicrously short light times and they'll take more and more risks as far as crossing the intersection goes.
Cyclists don't have mandatory insurance, they can hit anyone and do pretty hefty damage if it's at speed and good luck suing them for anything at least with cars in most countries you can always sue the insurance of the offending driver.
Heck at this point I'm not even entirely sure if being hit by a bicycle in the UK constitutes a "road accident" so they might as well just take off and not give a flying duck about it, it happened to me got hit in the side I assume by the stem/handlebars at pretty high speed the cyclist didn't seem to give a shit at all and just wobbled a bit and continued on his way without even checking. It was a sharp pain but not bad enough however the night after half my side was purple if it would be a bit stronger or sharper hit I might've ended up pissing blood for 2 weeks.
I live in London too. As a pedestrian, irresponsible cyclists have really pissed me off to no end.
Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians.
Not all cyclists are like this mind you, but it's enough of a population that I second-guess most cyclists wil follow rules of the road.
To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a green light, you generally assume cars approaching the red light orthogonally will slow down and respect the stop signal. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will ignore their traffic light. That's what it feels like to be a pedestrian around cyclists in London.
Quite too often cyclists will plow through zebra crossings (crosswalks for you USA folks, where pedestrians have full right of way). Even if you're in the middle already.
A cyclist once came at full speed within inches of my daughter's pushchair (stroller) when we were in the middle of the zebra crossing, and when I loudly said "what the heck" at the guy. He turned back and screamed very loudly "Fuck You", in front of my daughter.
Similarly just the other day a cyclist came through a zebra crossing at full speed about a foot away from me. I again said "what the heck" and he responded loudly "oh, Fuck Off".
A few intersections have cyclists that regularly come through when pedestrians have the green man signal.
> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians.
Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.
Well that's now things end up working the laws are they stand now supposed to prevent bad behaviour but many cyclists tend to ignore them for many reasons including considerable lack of enforcement.
Passing a law that induced bad behaviour from the get go is counter productive.
I've read the article and I've watched the video and it's utterly out of touch with reality from my personal experience. Also we have stop and yield signs specifically for one reason and that is to take out personal judgement out of the picture.
Considering the poor judgement I see exhibited by cyclists already I'm not prone to give them any more reasons to justify their current behaviour.
"It's not fun to stop at a stop sign" isn't a good enough reason to let them decide when it's their time to cross and when it's not.
In my city (not-UK), it is only allowed if you are moving at the speed of pedestrian traffic (a limit of 8mph). I'm guessing to allow children to ride without fear of being cited, or allow a cyclist around a difficult road condition.
My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.
My concern is that such a move would give further credence to cyclists that they're "above the laws of the road", which would lead to even more of the dangerous types of cyclist behaviour I mentioned above.
I hate out-groups too. Nothing can compare to the entitledness of car drivers. I've been yelled at, swerved at, had trash thrown at me while walking or cycling, often with children. Many drivers seems to consider the slightest inconvenience as a personal attack worthy of violent response with a deadly machine.
I know this. Glass bottle thrown at my head for riding in the bike lane in Iowa. Apparently, I did something upsetting. Pick-up trucks are a strong signal for this type of behavior. No one in a sub-compact has ever tried to kill me. Not sure why that is my experience, could just be coincidence.
I regularly cycle, walk, and drive in Boston. Drivers are definitely more entitled here. I can rewrite each of your anecdotes with drivers in the villain slot. especially the swearing at you when they break the rules parts. And pedestrians, as a group, certainly don't know how to follow rules either - jaywalking is rampant, and I have yet to find a dedicated bike lane that they won't happily clog up, even if it means walking directly on top of the "bikes only, no pedestrians" painted on the ground.
>To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a green light, you generally assume cars approaching the red light orthogonally will slow down and respect the stop signal. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will ignore their traffic light. That's what it feels like to be a pedestrian around cyclists in London.
To put into perspective - when you're driving and you are in the right hand lane going straight, you generally assume cars in the left lane will not attempt to make a right hand turn onto a cross street through your car. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will run you over (without even signaling) to make a right hand turn. That's what it feels like to be a cyclist around drivers in Boston.
Admittedly, I can't put a driver in the place of the stroller anecdote. But I did have a near miss when a parent pushing their child in a jogging stroller came careening around a blind corner without looking and almost crashed into me (I was walking my bike at the time, heard them coming, and got out of the way.)
I am a cyclist in NYC and I try my best to follow the mentality of "I am a car." I do not run red lights. When I see bikers do this it seems highly dangerous. Maybe the Idaho stop works in Idaho, but I doubt it would work in busy crossings in NYC.
Really? In Manhattan biking up and down avenues, I find it often makes more sense to run the red light. Riding next to unpredictable taxis and cars seems much more dangerous than getting ahead of the traffic cluster by running the red light (and the grid makes it pretty easy to see when someone's coming down the street you're crossing).
Part of my commute down 2nd Ave above the Queens-Midtown Tunnel doesn't have a dedicated bike lane, so I try to spend as little time riding side-by-side with cars as possible. Bike lanes make things easier.
On the other hand, biking in Brooklyn or Queens where the traffic is faster and less predictable (and thus more dangerous), I agree.
Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily and quickly), being prepared to stop if necessary, but continuing on through if there's no reason to do so, is perfectly safe.
I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to come to a stop, get off my seat and set foot on the ground, remount, then get going again from a standstill. When you're doing this every few blocks--which is not at all uncommon when biking in the city--it gets extremely frustrating. As a car driver, imagine if you had to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, turn off the ignition, then restart the car and continue on your way. It feels like the same thing. (edit: used more clear terminology)
Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily and quickly), being prepared to stop if necessary, but continuing on through if there's no reason to do so, is perfectly safe.
For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps.
For a younger and less experienced cyclist, with less strength, riding in a noisy area while it's raining? Not so much.
There is always a danger in discussions about road traffic laws of assuming -- consciously or otherwise -- ideal conditions and skillful drivers/riders. However, those people were much less likely to have an accident already.
I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to come to a stop, dismount, remount, then get going again from a standstill.
What kind of bike are you riding if you have to dismount every time you stop?!
Maybe it's a national or cultural thing, but to me (based in cycle-filled Cambridge, UK) that idea is crazy and any bike where it was true would be very bad for riding on the road.
There is certainly a real problem with road design that causes stop-start behaviour for cyclists. We most often see this here when looking at shared use cycle paths along pavements (sidewalks) set back from the road: it's an idea that sounds cycle-friendly, but in reality those paths don't have priority at junctions with side roads while the main road does, meaning for any cyclist competent and confident enough to ride at closer to normal traffic speeds, the shared use paths are not a useful alternative to on-road cycling.
However, I think this article is far too quick to gloss over legitimate concerns about whether cyclists really can judge when it's safe to traverse a junction against a red light or stop line. Again, it's possible that the uses for these tools are different here in the UK -- we use stop lines quite rarely for example, often precisely because a junction doesn't give a sufficient view on approach to enter it without stopping to check first. But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly. And yes, tragically, sometimes cyclists do get seriously injured or killed doing so.
I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone. Of course it can't literally be true in cases like road space reserved for certain classes of traffic. However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous, because in reality, breeding resentment for cyclists who ride as if they own the road does make a significant number of motor vehicle drivers more aggressive toward them. I think the roads are safer places when road users respect each other and act courteously -- when people voluntarily give way (yield) to help someone else make progress, slow down and give more space around vulnerable road users, and so on. If you lose that culture, then however in the right a cyclist might be legally, they're still going to be the one who ends up in hospital or worse if their riding antagonises people driving several tonnes of fast-moving metal who then get frustrated and make a mistake or simply don't yield when a cyclist expected them to as a courtesy but the law doesn't actually require it.
None of this is to say that current laws are ideal or we shouldn't change them if the data warrants it. I strongly believe that road safety policy should be evidence-based. I'm just not sure this article has made that case, at least not in a way that would apply on the roads around here.
(Sorry, I should have "straddle" rather than "dismount". )
> For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps.
But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast; it's incumbent on drivers and riders to adapt to the conditions around them and their abilities. Idaho stops permit cyclists to behave a certain way at intersections, but it's still incumbent on the cyclist to do what is safe in that situation.
> But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly.
You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary. If a cyclist is just blowing through stops signs (or failing to stop fully at red lights), they're still breaking the law under Idaho stop rules; they'd be legally at fault in the event of an accident and I'd hope any policemen who observed that kind of behavior would cite them.
> I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone.
I see it differently. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part). When we categorically lump bicycles into the same set of rules that cars must obey, it seems to me we're treating them as an afterthought and putting them into a disadvantageous position to the heavier, faster moving vehicle with less visibility. And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue.
> However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous
I can easily match all the anecdotes about bad cyclist behavior appearing in these comments with stories about drivers who've darted in front of me into reserved cycling lanes in the middle of a block so they can double park, or blown past me with about an inch of clearance from my handlebars even though state law requires 2 feet, or who've honked at me or shouted obscenities and threats because I'm (lawfully) riding on "their" road. (The best part is when they tell me I should be biking on the sidewalk instead!) I don't think trading anecdotes is a useful way to adjudicate this specific issue, but in many US cities, at least, there is already pervasive "us vs. them" hostility to cyclists. I think the best way to break down this "drivers-vs-cyclist" culture is to get more cyclists on the road, where, in most places in the US they are vastly outnumbered by automobiles. Cities with large volumes of cyclist traffic tend to have less accidents per capita because drivers and pedestrians are used to them being around. Laws that make cycling more safe and enjoyable tend to make people ride their bikes more. They also signal that municipalities that adapt them view bicyclists as more than just second-class users of roads.
But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast
Yes, certainly. My point was more that the upper bound of what the law allows tends to be less than what the most skilled and experienced road users could safely do, because most road users aren't that skilled and experienced.
For example, while I am certainly expected to slow down on a motorway if there's driving rain and limited visibility, I am not permitted by law to exceed 70mph under any normal circumstances. This remains true despite the fact that I happen to have many years of driving experience, to have received more training than most drivers, and to drive a more capable car than most drivers, all of which correlate negatively with accident risk and might suggest that I could drive safely at faster speeds under appropriate conditions.
You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary.
I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not. Moreover, driving significantly below the limit and holding up other road users without a good reason is widely considered antisocial, but again you have the problem of not everyone having the same judgement about when slowing down is sensible.
There are plenty of other problems with driver judgement, too. A lot of drivers maintain that they can be talking safely on a mobile phone while driving, perhaps because they have a hands-free system installed, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But in this case, our law explicitly allows for using a hands-free system while driving even while prohibiting a hand-held device, despite the evidence showing very little difference in safety (both versions being horrendously dangerous). That law has been openly used by both arrogant drivers and the marketing of hands-free system manufacturers to "justify" the dangerous behaviour.
So my concern with changing the rules for cyclists at stop lines and red lights is not that it wouldn't actually remain illegal to do dumb things, it's that more cyclists might be encouraged to do those dumb things because as they see it they appear to have the law's blessing and it sways their judgement, and that the harm caused by this might outweigh any good caused by allowing responsible and safe cyclists to make smoother and faster progress at times.
Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part).
We also agree on all of this. Sometimes different rules are appropriate. There are lots of streets where I live that are one-way for motor traffic but have a small, contra-flow lane for cyclists allowing them to go the other way as well, for example.
I just don't necessarily accept, on such evidence as I've seen so far, that where we do have multiple modes using the same road space in an inherently dangerous area like a junction, it's the right time to have different rules for different traffic.
And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue.
And if that's the evidence in Idaho, then good for them, I wish them every success in making their ...
> I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not.
I disagree with this counterpoint. In "Idaho Stops" the law is extremely clear - a red light is treated as a full stop, and a stop sign is treated as a yield. As yield and stop are both well understood on American roads this law would be clear to cyclist and driver alike.
Following your line of reasoning, yield signs should be replaced with stop signs as the harm caused by drivers blowing through them outweighs the benefits. Do you agree with this?
I get the feeling (but don't know) that the practical effects of yield/give way lines, stop signs and red lights might be different on the roads here from on the roads there, so perhaps we're drawing different inferences about how road users are likely to treat them.
For example, here in Cambridge, UK, I'm not aware of any general problems with anyone's behaviour at give way lines, but cyclists going through red lights or past other blocks such as no entry signs frequently seem to exhibit poor judgement and create potentially dangerous situations. In this case, the law is also clear -- passing that red light or no entry sign is illegal -- and I'm sure the cyclists all know that. So it's not whether they understand the law that I'm calling into question, it's their judgement about how to cycle safely regardless of the legality.
If cyclists tend to exhibit different patterns of behaviour where you are, then what we're talking about might make a lot of sense in your environment. It seems most of us agree that looking at the real evidence is the only way to be sure. But over here, at least, I would worry that changing the law in this way would be seen by a large number of cyclists as condoning their current riding style, dangerous as it often is.
When I drive (which is a lot less than I bike), I drive a stick, and at least at reds, I put the car in neutral and engage the parking brake so I can rest my feet, which (except for the loss of momentum) is comparable to the trouble incurred in dismounting for a bike.
In general, driving or biking, I think we should stop trying to decrease effort, and increase it instead. It's good for you. As a cyclist you get stronger, faster, more skilled. As a driver, you get more skilled and are forced to stay more alert. All of these things make you and everyone around you safer, so savor and put as much of yourself as possible into your cycling and driving, for everyone's sake. You don't get good at things you don't do.
As a cyclist of 40 years who's (hopefully) learned from their mistakes, I strongly disagree.
Not only is it unsafe, pisses-off drivers and pedestrians, gives cyclists a bad name, but it's also completely unnecessary because you'll easily catch-up with cyclists who shot the lights at the next intersection anyway without even trying.
That's what cyclists who shoot lights don't get is that it's actually not any faster in the long run.
Having said that, I suspect that many drivers who are pissed-off by cyclists shooting lights would be the ones doing it themselves if they were on bikes because it's really just a form of road-rage. Yes, some cyclists are stupidly aggressive, but so are many drivers.
As a bike commuter (and one who frequently rolls through stop signs and stop lights) I agree with you. Cycling is dangerous and allowing cyclists to legally roll through stop signs and stop lights isn't going to make cycling safer. I admit that I'm frequently a hypocrite, but as I get older I'm stopping more at signs and lights.
I am surprised to hear you assert that there is no time saving to be had in running red lights.
In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are welcome to join us.
What angry drivers usually don't get is that the equation is much different for cyclists. Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car. Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium. Wheeeee!!!
"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car."
By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.
I appreciate what seems to be a sincere sentiment, but at the same time I don't feel like it's my place to point out to a stranger that her, say, sedentary lifestyle or drinking habit is a health risk.
>> Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more.
"Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium"
Therein is the real reason for many cyclists doing it - not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences. There's no licensing, registration or insurance to cycle on the roads. Many cyclists, and I cycle too, behave accordingly with no consideration for other road users, or pedestrians. Hence many cyclists now cycling on footpaths (illegally) and some getting irritated when they encounter a pedestrian on it!
Most "annoyed drivers" aren't annoyed by a cyclist carefully crossing an empty junction - the annoyance comes in rush hour when others are inconvenienced or it's plain reckless.
I think the key difference is between stop lights and stop signs. The latter is a more attentive experience and adaptable to the Idaho stop. Stop lights are a bigger challenge. It's been my experience the size & traffic activity of the lighted intersection determines the safety level and flexibility.
Maybe my understanding of what you mean by "shooting the lights" is wrong, but based on what I believe you're saying, this is not permitted under an Idaho stop law either. Cyclists may treat a red light like a stop sign. So they need to come to a full stop, then proceed through the intersection if it's clear of pedestrians and cars. That is very different from just blowing through a red light at an intersection.
As a cyclist myself, I've noticed a common case where you end up on the receiving end of driver frustration is when you come to a stop at a red light and are situated in the middle of a line of cars waiting for the green. When the light turns, it's going to take you longer to get up to speed than the cars, which often results in frustrated and dangerous behavior by the drivers behind you trying to get around. Having the option to be able to proceed through a red after stopping _when it's safe to do so_ lets you get a jump on things.
I generally avoid busy roads, but when I am at a light I do enter the center of the lane. This is because one of the most common accidents that cyclists suffer is the "right hook" where a right-turning car does not see you. I accelerate hard in that case and don't ever get the feeling I'm hassling anyone much.
By "shot the lights" I assume you mean going through the intersection even though you're facing a red light. (?) I don't do this, except as allowed by Wisconsin's pretty new law (must wait at least a minute after which you're allowed to assume the lights are "sensing" lights and don't sense your presence). Unless I'm missing some subtlety, I don't understand how it doesn't save time to go through...
I am not an aggressive biker or driver and that you bring them up is confusing the thesis of the article. NOBODY is proposing making it legal to just blast through a red light. Perhaps this is what you mean by shooting the lights, but in that case you "strongly disagreeing" with the article implies you might want to reread what was proposed. The embedded video is an awesome explainer.
Stop signs, at least 4 way stops, it's fairly easy to see whether or not there's anyone at the intersection that you'll need to stop for, so it's pretty pointless to stop if nobody is there. For stop lights, I usually stop to see if anyone's coming, then go through if it's clear. It's pointless to wait there for nothing.
Drivers are going to be pissed off no matter what. Being pissed off is a natural result of making the poor decision to drive a car in a city.
There are 3 cases where rolling through or jump starting at a red light makes sense, and is sometimes safer in my opinion. The first is a t-intersection where the bike lane runs through the non-traffic side - its absolutely safe to run these if you've verified nobody is in the crosswalk. The second is fast moving roads with no or shared bike lanes. In this case I find safely rolling through allows me to get ahead of traffic and up to speed before cars start flying by. I feel this is safer than impeding traffic as you clip in and more slowly get up to speed. Finally, red lights with pressure sensors and no upcoming cars to trigger them. Unless you want to sit there all day I think it's ok to roll through these.
Always used to see a guy cycling on my commute home. He'd roll through every stop sign and most traffic signals. (He explained one day that it "saved energy" for him to keep going...even though he cycled as "exercise...")
I don't see him anymore. One day last year, he rolled through a red light in Koreatown, right into a truck which had the right of way. He was thrown from his bike about 20 feet and died from blunt force trauma and/or internal bleeding by the time paramedics arrived.
It's a data point and was used as such. The effects of breaking moving vehicle laws can be rationalized away when the mass of the vehicle moving is low. That doesn't preclude other incidences, such as this one, where someone who's job it is to drive a truck has to wrangle with the fact they killed someone. They guy who died could give two shits about the situation.
I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing with people in it on his side of the road at the intersection at the end of my street. I rolled up to him in my car at the next light and told him he was breaking the law. He asked "but is it safe?". The implication is, with this leading question, is that he thought it was safe to do. What he didn't observe was the car behind him not slowing down for the pedestrians because they were watching him.
Stopping at a crosswalk, or yielding right of way, is an important rule because it gives VISUAL indicators to other drivers of nearby vehicles. It's a backup mechanism for safety at times. Rationalizing laws don't apply to oneself because they cause delay do not include the fact it the action may also be the difference between life and death - for someone else. Are we really going to rationalize away the fact driver may float lights more if they see bikes doing it as well?
The way Davis, CA handles this is to install special lights for bikes. I would assume they thought through it and decided floating lights is bad.
For the last 4 years, up until a few months ago, I had been riding at least 5-6 hours a day on fairly busy roads. I've seen a lot of shit that people do as a result of other's actions, including bikes, and I do NOT think bikes should be precluded from obeying traffic laws, especially when the only point to it might be to speed up a bike commute or "save energy". Whatever that means.
In case you can't be bothered to read this either:
> He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get back to full speed.
I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling.
You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars.
Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right mind wants to spend their time utterly immobilized, doing nothing but trying to avoid hitting other cars?
Cycling is always a bit of an adventure, always exhilarating.
I'm all for acceptable public transportation to be the norm, but until then cars work fine. Roads also weren't originally built for bikes. I actually don't know how many of the bigger cities look now, and I imagine most of them have bike lanes, but places like where I live have bikers just taking the right lane because there's no extra space. There also isn't enough space to expand the road to make room for both of us. Ultimately they're a huge hazard because they're difficult to see and hear. I really don't think they should ever mix cars and bikes. Or at least not in high capacity areas. Also you're desire to exercise is completely your own, I'm glad you enjoy it, but it's a personal choice.
>If a cyclist approaches a red light, meanwhile, he or she needs to stop fully. Again, if there's any oncoming traffic or a pedestrian, it has the right of way. If there's not, the cyclist can proceed cautiously through the intersection. Put simply, red light is a stop sign.
>This doesn't mean that a cyclist is allowed to blast through an intersection at full speed — which is dangerous for pedestrians, the cyclist, and pretty much everyone involved. This isn't allowed in Idaho, and it's a terrible idea everywhere.
Nobody is suggesting that cyclists should just ignore right of way.
I haven't read the book, but second the sentiment.
Few death traps on my commute take more time and energy than any lights. The one spot where old railway was transformed into bike lane is sweet. You can travel half the city without constantly worrying about dying.
Yeah and no. Cyclists should not roll through anything until they've completely scanned the intersecting traffic, which usually requires stopping briefly (but may not, for intersections with good visiblity and low information density and riders who are good at holding a line at slow speeds -- exercise good judgment). You put your life in the hands of others whenever you enter an area you did not already successfully vet for the absence of opposing traffic.
But, waiting for a red when there's no traffic is pointless. Also, there can be a lot of danger for cyclists, especially novices, when the light turns green, due to aggressive motor vehicles, so going through a traffic-free red can even be safer.
While you can argue that the same logic applies to cars, the potential for confusion/abuse and the fact that cars weigh much more factors against allowing cars to follow the same rule. So, when cycling:
Treat stop signs as stop signs (NOT yields), and treat red lights as stop signs (NOT yields). Come to a _complete_ stop, scan, and if there's no traffic in either direction, continue. Completely safe, but you save waiting for a red light to turn when there's actually no traffic spooled up.
(Don't forget to look both ways even on one way streets. If you run a red and get hit by a salmoner[1] you can't really complain, can you?)
Get over the dismounting thing. Going through reds is about saving time waiting for it to turn to green, not about saving time dismounting. A good city rider should be really good at dis/remounting seamlessly, as well as being able to ride at crawling speed without having to stop or swerve.
Try to get over the momentum thing too at least for a while. You'll become a stronger faster more skilled cyclist this way anyway, and there's nothing more pleasing than not just being /faster/ than a cab, but actually /accelerating/ more quickly than a cab despite all their cylinders and horsepower, and it's going to take a lot of stop and go practice to get you there, so don't slack on this. If you're using clipless this goes double -- you need to get really good at unclipping/reclipping so the worst thing you can do when you start is to jealously guard your momentum and never put your foot down.
Again, the key is, never go through an intersection that you haven't already gotten total visibility into. Whether this lines up with signal phases or not is irrelevant. You can get run over by a misbehaving road user when you have a green too, and you should beware then as well, treating greens as (very soft) yields, especially in intersections with poor visibility or high information density (eg in Manhattan, crossing an avenue while going crosstown)
And of course, I'm human, so I don't always practice what I preach. I often regret that later and wish I had.
[1] salmoner: slang for road user going the wrong way down a one way street (usually but not always a cyclist -- I observe that NYPD patrol cars also often do it, usually just because they can (no sirens) but sometimes to get to an emergency (sirens))
OK, maybe the article is right and cyclists should be able to do Idaho stops. I'm open to allowing this if the available data says it's safer for everyone.
What I can't accept is some cyclists following the law and others not. Either everyone should do Idaho stops, or no one should. What settles that is the current law.
Are Idaho stops legal for cyclists where you live? No? Then until the law is changed they are not an option, period.
Whenever someone yells at me for doing this i just tell them, "it's pareto efficient" Of course, i slow down and make sure there are no cars or people in the way before crossing.
One thing I find frustrating about driving in the US is that stop signs are everywhere! Even on a fully open junction in a quiet suburb where you can see a good few hundred feet down the road, you still have to stop. I know it's the law, but why?
In the UK you don't have to stop at every junction, if the junction is open (i.e. you can see traffic clearly) and it's clear you can go on through without stopping. If the junction is closed (i.e. you can't see oncoming/cross traffic) then you must stop, and get a good visual before pulling out.
As a result of this cyclists in the UK already don't stop at junctions because, unless its a closed junction, no one has to stop if it's clear.
I'm pretty sure in the US you can crawl right on a right light if it's clear so what's the difference in letting a cyclist carefully go through a stop sign or red light?
After having spent a ridiculous amount of time on a bike recently, I now believe the difference is perceptional. When you drive you are in a glassed in box. The glass has no anti-reflective coating so you see a lot of moving reflections. This makes peripheral vision mostly useless. You have blind spots that you have to move your head to overcome. Your line of sight is lower to the ground. You can't hear anything outside the car unless you have your window down and then probably not either. You can't talk to anyone, the best you can do is honk your horn in an slow speed possible collision situation.
So compared to a cyclist/pedestrian a driver is deaf, dumb and partially blind. So it makes perfect sense that cars have to stop and other transportation modes do not.
This disparity becomes quite poignant when someone in a car stops to let a cyclist/pedestrian cross the street when they actually have the right of way. They are expecting the cyclist/pedestrian to trust their life to the judgment of someone who is quite isolated from the environment.
I don't see how it's safe to allow this for bikes, but it's not safe for cars? Why not just allowing everyone to "slow down and look for traffic" and then decide if it's safe to go through or not? That's basically what you do when there's no traffic lights and if people really slow down and look there will be rarely any problems with that. That's how roundabouts function, and they are generally very safe.
As discussed in the article, cars have worse field of vision, drive faster, and cause significantly more damage when they mis-judge whether it's safe to proceed.
Cyclist commuter here. Red lights should be red lights to everybody.
However, Idaho stops are the way future. It's just doesn't make sense to apply the same "come to a complete stop" standard to cyclists. They're traveling at a much lower speed and have much less ability to accelerate. The extra time it takes to come to a complete stop (which means finding your balance at a stand still), and then remounting the bike accelerating through the intersection is not worth it, and makes the commute that much more of a slog.
I think characterizing the Idaho stop as "rolling through the intersection" might be a little bit misleading, since it conveys a really lax attitude. Idaho stops are generally quite safe.
Edit: In most cases, Idaho stops have very similar cadence to a car coming to a full stop. You slow down up to the line, look all around you, determine the right of way, and if you have it, you start peddling back up to cruising speed. The fact you don't come to a complete stop is pretty much a technicality because the timing is almost the same.
If you come to a complete stop, the timing is all off, and there's much more likely to be hesitation and ambiguity. Starting from a stop takes a lot more time, is much more likely to lead to false-starts, and puts you in a very vulnerable position.
Interestingly enough, I think you missed one of the more important points by focusing only on the stop signs. Red lights can't be red lights to everyone in a lot of places simply by the nature of their construction. It's why the dead red laws exist, and it's that very often red lights were constructed with solely cars in mind and have sensors that cannot detect bikers that signal a request to the light for a change. While this isn't the case at all lights, it highlights the fact that there are clear differences in the classes of vehicles and that the control structures on the roads were designed with cars in mind, not bikes. These laws are simply attempts to rectify this in light of an increasing interest in bikes as a transportation method.
Any advice for bicycle commuters approaching a red light on a rarely-used side road that is triggered entirely by a weight sensor? I took your advice once ('red lights are red for everybody') and sat their for 5 minutes waiting until another car pulled up to trigger to weight sensor and the light changed in seconds.
Now I just go. I treat that particular red light like a stop sign. I don't lose any sleep over it. And most cops where I live are pretty forgiving to bicyclists.
Clearly there are exceptions. In my area, I don't come across lights that use sensors (or at least the sensors pick up cyclists).
I'm just uneasy with saying "red lights = stop signs for bicyclists". In complicated intersections, you need to wait for the green, unless it's very obvious there's no oncoming traffic.
I'm curious about what Germans think of this, since people look a pedestrian askance if you don't wait for the light.
As an occasional cyclist I'm of two minds. On the one hand, having too many stop signs along a roadway gets annoying so mentally one wants to simply slow down and look and if no cars have the right of way at the time, go through. The danger is that this behavior gets modified to a default of riding through and only slowing down if a motorist doesn't give you right of way (slow down or wave on) and assuming that as a cyclist I have the primary right of way (weaving through pedestrians and cars) in other words wishing people and cars did not have to share (yes, it's only a mindset, but one easy to allow to set in).
Also, since cycling is healthy, you get even more exercise by stopping and starting constantly so from a health perspective it's better as it improves your workout and keeps you alive by preventing unnecessay collisions.
In Germany you can lose your driver's license quickly if you ignore red lights as a cyclists. It's enforced a lot, especially in cities with a high percentage of cyclists.
And you'll get frequent comments by others, but even more as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.
I wish we had something like that for cyclists who flout red lights. It's too common where I live. And I know the allure, as a part time cyclist, I understand it but a disincentive is good too.
German here. The accusing looks are a thing but it's mostly old people in my experience. In cities with lots of young people it's quite common to just cross the road when traffic permits. Having lived in the UK though I feel like I should also say that it doesn't go that far ;-)
Your comment about exercise assumes that everyone rides for - well - exercise, but that's not generally true here. For example, students rarely own a car here, most cycle. I'm not a student any more and still don't have a car. Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I just don't need it (there's a good car sharing offering in my city for the rare occasions where I do need one). I do nearly everything by bike, from getting to work or around in the city to groceries. When cycling about with 20kg of stuff strapped to my bike, exercise is usually not what I'm looking for :-)
Oh and there are a lot less stop signs here than in the US, at least the parts of it that I've driven in (DC area). Traffic planning accounts for cyclists as well here, so long stretches of road without having to stop are much more common. We even have a bunch of Fahrradstrassen in my city - roads where cyclists have priority (cars only allowed if there's a sign permitting them)
The cop who gives you a ticket probably doesn't care about your Vox articles, Maclolm-Gladwell-grade pseudo statistics, or these comments.
At least in the Bay Area, cops are definitely willing to take the time to ticket cyclists. In Los Gatos where I live, the police will sometimes take a Saturday and just watch a busy intersection and literally ticket EVERY cyclist who blows through.
Of course we have also had a few cycling fatalities here, always the same story:cyclists blowing through intersections.
Don't do it. Don't be the asshole who makes life more difficult for other cyclists. No one cares about your bogus statistical arguments.
"... Oftentimes, they don't trigger traffic lights to change, because many run on inductive sensors buried in the road (the reason for all the "Dead Red" laws in the map above)."
This drove me crazy when I lived in Seattle. Many of their lights would never turn. So I would have to get off my bike, walk over and press the button. Now that I live in NYC, Idaho stops are the norm where nearly everybody, including the casual cyclist does it and tickets are few and far between, it not only takes my commute from 15 minutes to (literally) 4 minutes, but I feel safer because I'll usually leave a huge pile of traffic behind me with a clear road around me for blocks since they stop at every light and I don't.
Of course, NYC has a 25mph city-wide speed limit, so that helps dramatically.
I think the most important thing here is being obsessive about looking for cars and yielding appropriately. If you fail to do that and are a daredevil who just blindly runs out into traffic, which I see fairly regularly, you are putting your life at risk and potentially others around you as well.
Edit: Looks like Seattle just passed a dead-red law last year! Now if they would just classify electric skateboards as bicycles like California did, that would be spectacular.
> Drivers might be angrily remembering the last biker they saw flout the law, wondering when traffic police will finally crack down and assign some tickets.
How about the laws where drivers have to maintain a minimum distance from cyclists? If I ever see that law enforced, I might start giving a shit about other traffic laws. Running lights allows me to get a head start on traffic and hopefully get to the next light/stop sign before drivers try to murder me by passing within inches so they can stop 100 feet away a few seconds sooner.
I had someone do this me between stop signs and then he had to slam on his brakes since he barely had time to get around me. I then proceeded to follow him for the next few blocks because a car isn't that much faster than a bike in these situations.
People in cars hate being slowed down. Some, I hear, even get violent. There is a patience I learned moving through my city at 15 mph. I wish more people appreciated it.
While driving & cycling, I observed that most cars here in Quebec pass through stops at speeds ranging from 15 to 30 km/h by doing what we call an american-stop in Quebec-slang ("stop américain"). I suppose this also happens in the US.
In a car, 15-30 km/h feels like you are really close to be completely stopped. It turns out that these speeds are pretty much the average cyclist speed range. (Cyclists may appear to go faster because they are smaller, just like trains look like they are slower than they really are).
I guess most frustrated car drivers don't realize they are also "breaking the law" at stops. I can only recommend they start cycling, the endorphins would calm them.
79 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadI think an actually safer thing to do would be to give cyclists the right of way. Then drivers could at least take for granted that cyclists are going to not stop for red lights or stop signs.
I usually stop behind the lead car at traffic lights to avoid this; I can usually keep pace with cars (in London) but flaunting this by trying to race them away from the lights is just asking for trouble, not to mention more physically taxing.
So... if I'm on the front of a queue and can safely move away before the lights turn green, I'll do it because it puts distance between myself and the lead car, giving the driver more time to line up a safe manoeuvre around me once the traffic starts moving.
This has to be weighed up against the very real danger that the drivers will be fuming with rage at the arrogant cyclist in front and thus losing the senses of calm and serenity that I'm trying to spread :-)
Ideally, I think larger cities could do well with removing the ability to drive cars there without some hefty taxes/tolls and instead provide moving walkways and better public transit. Then cycling becomes much safer and a better option.
I've also had the idea to run a "shower truck" some place like NYC: basically park it in front of an office building between 8 and 9am and for $1/minute you get to shower in there. Lack of showers has always been the reason I didn't commute by bike.
This isn't just a to protect the cyclists from being hit by cars, but to protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists.
I'm sorry but my experience of living in London in the past 4 years pretty much made me hate cyclists with passion.
I find them considerably more dangerous and pesky than cars, they simply ignore all rules whether it's not giving a flying duck about the red signal at a bike lane while pedestrians have the green light to cross the street, utterly ignoring no bikes allowed in the run/walk only paths in Hyde Park or by interchanging road, bike lane, sidewalk and even the crosswalk at will with nill consideration to pedestrians and a shitty attitude to boot.
I'm constantly buzzed off green lights (to me) by cyclists that cycle at high speeds because they could not be arsed to honor a red light, I've been hit by bikes more than once in these 4 years, and just over the weekend I've seen a guy on a rental metro bike hit a baby carriage (empty one as far as i could tell) in Hyde Park because they were in a no-bike zone and came out a turn which has no visibility whatsoever.
I really don't understand the level of self entitlement that cyclists seem to have and why they seem to have such a shitty attitude towards drivers and pedestrians alike. A bicycle rolling through a stop sign isn't any less dangerous than a car rolling through one, if anything a car is easier to spot than a bicycle and cars don't tend to have their visibility shuttered by driving between full lanes.
The reason why most countries do not allow roll through stop signs or at least heavily restrict them is that rolling through a stop sign sets the wrong behaviour pattern because once you get used to a stop sign you know you can roll over you aren't going to slow down to roll over speed you might simply slow down by a bit but not nearly enough to respond appropriately.
The same thing is going to happen to cyclists they'll get use to it and eventually get careless they won't give 2 ducks about the padestrians trying to cross the road with already ludicrously short light times and they'll take more and more risks as far as crossing the intersection goes.
Cyclists don't have mandatory insurance, they can hit anyone and do pretty hefty damage if it's at speed and good luck suing them for anything at least with cars in most countries you can always sue the insurance of the offending driver. Heck at this point I'm not even entirely sure if being hit by a bicycle in the UK constitutes a "road accident" so they might as well just take off and not give a flying duck about it, it happened to me got hit in the side I assume by the stem/handlebars at pretty high speed the cyclist didn't seem to give a shit at all and just wobbled a bit and continued on his way without even checking. It was a sharp pain but not bad enough however the night after half my side was purple if it would be a bit stronger or sharper hit I might've ended up pissing blood for 2 weeks.
I live in London too. As a pedestrian, irresponsible cyclists have really pissed me off to no end.
Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great danger to the rest of us pedestrians.
Not all cyclists are like this mind you, but it's enough of a population that I second-guess most cyclists wil follow rules of the road.
To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a green light, you generally assume cars approaching the red light orthogonally will slow down and respect the stop signal. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will ignore their traffic light. That's what it feels like to be a pedestrian around cyclists in London.
Quite too often cyclists will plow through zebra crossings (crosswalks for you USA folks, where pedestrians have full right of way). Even if you're in the middle already.
A cyclist once came at full speed within inches of my daughter's pushchair (stroller) when we were in the middle of the zebra crossing, and when I loudly said "what the heck" at the guy. He turned back and screamed very loudly "Fuck You", in front of my daughter.
Similarly just the other day a cyclist came through a zebra crossing at full speed about a foot away from me. I again said "what the heck" and he responded loudly "oh, Fuck Off".
A few intersections have cyclists that regularly come through when pedestrians have the green man signal.
It's pretty ridiculous.
Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.
Passing a law that induced bad behaviour from the get go is counter productive.
I've read the article and I've watched the video and it's utterly out of touch with reality from my personal experience. Also we have stop and yield signs specifically for one reason and that is to take out personal judgement out of the picture. Considering the poor judgement I see exhibited by cyclists already I'm not prone to give them any more reasons to justify their current behaviour.
"It's not fun to stop at a stop sign" isn't a good enough reason to let them decide when it's their time to cross and when it's not.
His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel on the road.
My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.
My concern is that such a move would give further credence to cyclists that they're "above the laws of the road", which would lead to even more of the dangerous types of cyclist behaviour I mentioned above.
I hate out-groups too. Nothing can compare to the entitledness of car drivers. I've been yelled at, swerved at, had trash thrown at me while walking or cycling, often with children. Many drivers seems to consider the slightest inconvenience as a personal attack worthy of violent response with a deadly machine.
>To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a green light, you generally assume cars approaching the red light orthogonally will slow down and respect the stop signal. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will ignore their traffic light. That's what it feels like to be a pedestrian around cyclists in London.
To put into perspective - when you're driving and you are in the right hand lane going straight, you generally assume cars in the left lane will not attempt to make a right hand turn onto a cross street through your car. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will run you over (without even signaling) to make a right hand turn. That's what it feels like to be a cyclist around drivers in Boston.
Admittedly, I can't put a driver in the place of the stroller anecdote. But I did have a near miss when a parent pushing their child in a jogging stroller came careening around a blind corner without looking and almost crashed into me (I was walking my bike at the time, heard them coming, and got out of the way.)
Part of my commute down 2nd Ave above the Queens-Midtown Tunnel doesn't have a dedicated bike lane, so I try to spend as little time riding side-by-side with cars as possible. Bike lanes make things easier.
On the other hand, biking in Brooklyn or Queens where the traffic is faster and less predictable (and thus more dangerous), I agree.
Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily and quickly), being prepared to stop if necessary, but continuing on through if there's no reason to do so, is perfectly safe.
I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to come to a stop, get off my seat and set foot on the ground, remount, then get going again from a standstill. When you're doing this every few blocks--which is not at all uncommon when biking in the city--it gets extremely frustrating. As a car driver, imagine if you had to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, turn off the ignition, then restart the car and continue on your way. It feels like the same thing. (edit: used more clear terminology)
For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps.
For a younger and less experienced cyclist, with less strength, riding in a noisy area while it's raining? Not so much.
There is always a danger in discussions about road traffic laws of assuming -- consciously or otherwise -- ideal conditions and skillful drivers/riders. However, those people were much less likely to have an accident already.
I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to come to a stop, dismount, remount, then get going again from a standstill.
What kind of bike are you riding if you have to dismount every time you stop?!
Maybe it's a national or cultural thing, but to me (based in cycle-filled Cambridge, UK) that idea is crazy and any bike where it was true would be very bad for riding on the road.
There is certainly a real problem with road design that causes stop-start behaviour for cyclists. We most often see this here when looking at shared use cycle paths along pavements (sidewalks) set back from the road: it's an idea that sounds cycle-friendly, but in reality those paths don't have priority at junctions with side roads while the main road does, meaning for any cyclist competent and confident enough to ride at closer to normal traffic speeds, the shared use paths are not a useful alternative to on-road cycling.
However, I think this article is far too quick to gloss over legitimate concerns about whether cyclists really can judge when it's safe to traverse a junction against a red light or stop line. Again, it's possible that the uses for these tools are different here in the UK -- we use stop lines quite rarely for example, often precisely because a junction doesn't give a sufficient view on approach to enter it without stopping to check first. But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly. And yes, tragically, sometimes cyclists do get seriously injured or killed doing so.
I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone. Of course it can't literally be true in cases like road space reserved for certain classes of traffic. However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous, because in reality, breeding resentment for cyclists who ride as if they own the road does make a significant number of motor vehicle drivers more aggressive toward them. I think the roads are safer places when road users respect each other and act courteously -- when people voluntarily give way (yield) to help someone else make progress, slow down and give more space around vulnerable road users, and so on. If you lose that culture, then however in the right a cyclist might be legally, they're still going to be the one who ends up in hospital or worse if their riding antagonises people driving several tonnes of fast-moving metal who then get frustrated and make a mistake or simply don't yield when a cyclist expected them to as a courtesy but the law doesn't actually require it.
None of this is to say that current laws are ideal or we shouldn't change them if the data warrants it. I strongly believe that road safety policy should be evidence-based. I'm just not sure this article has made that case, at least not in a way that would apply on the roads around here.
> For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps.
But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast; it's incumbent on drivers and riders to adapt to the conditions around them and their abilities. Idaho stops permit cyclists to behave a certain way at intersections, but it's still incumbent on the cyclist to do what is safe in that situation.
> But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly.
You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary. If a cyclist is just blowing through stops signs (or failing to stop fully at red lights), they're still breaking the law under Idaho stop rules; they'd be legally at fault in the event of an accident and I'd hope any policemen who observed that kind of behavior would cite them.
> I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone.
I see it differently. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part). When we categorically lump bicycles into the same set of rules that cars must obey, it seems to me we're treating them as an afterthought and putting them into a disadvantageous position to the heavier, faster moving vehicle with less visibility. And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue.
> However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous
I can easily match all the anecdotes about bad cyclist behavior appearing in these comments with stories about drivers who've darted in front of me into reserved cycling lanes in the middle of a block so they can double park, or blown past me with about an inch of clearance from my handlebars even though state law requires 2 feet, or who've honked at me or shouted obscenities and threats because I'm (lawfully) riding on "their" road. (The best part is when they tell me I should be biking on the sidewalk instead!) I don't think trading anecdotes is a useful way to adjudicate this specific issue, but in many US cities, at least, there is already pervasive "us vs. them" hostility to cyclists. I think the best way to break down this "drivers-vs-cyclist" culture is to get more cyclists on the road, where, in most places in the US they are vastly outnumbered by automobiles. Cities with large volumes of cyclist traffic tend to have less accidents per capita because drivers and pedestrians are used to them being around. Laws that make cycling more safe and enjoyable tend to make people ride their bikes more. They also signal that municipalities that adapt them view bicyclists as more than just second-class users of roads.
Yes, certainly. My point was more that the upper bound of what the law allows tends to be less than what the most skilled and experienced road users could safely do, because most road users aren't that skilled and experienced.
For example, while I am certainly expected to slow down on a motorway if there's driving rain and limited visibility, I am not permitted by law to exceed 70mph under any normal circumstances. This remains true despite the fact that I happen to have many years of driving experience, to have received more training than most drivers, and to drive a more capable car than most drivers, all of which correlate negatively with accident risk and might suggest that I could drive safely at faster speeds under appropriate conditions.
You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary.
I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not. Moreover, driving significantly below the limit and holding up other road users without a good reason is widely considered antisocial, but again you have the problem of not everyone having the same judgement about when slowing down is sensible.
There are plenty of other problems with driver judgement, too. A lot of drivers maintain that they can be talking safely on a mobile phone while driving, perhaps because they have a hands-free system installed, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But in this case, our law explicitly allows for using a hands-free system while driving even while prohibiting a hand-held device, despite the evidence showing very little difference in safety (both versions being horrendously dangerous). That law has been openly used by both arrogant drivers and the marketing of hands-free system manufacturers to "justify" the dangerous behaviour.
So my concern with changing the rules for cyclists at stop lines and red lights is not that it wouldn't actually remain illegal to do dumb things, it's that more cyclists might be encouraged to do those dumb things because as they see it they appear to have the law's blessing and it sways their judgement, and that the harm caused by this might outweigh any good caused by allowing responsible and safe cyclists to make smoother and faster progress at times.
Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part).
We also agree on all of this. Sometimes different rules are appropriate. There are lots of streets where I live that are one-way for motor traffic but have a small, contra-flow lane for cyclists allowing them to go the other way as well, for example.
I just don't necessarily accept, on such evidence as I've seen so far, that where we do have multiple modes using the same road space in an inherently dangerous area like a junction, it's the right time to have different rules for different traffic.
And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue.
And if that's the evidence in Idaho, then good for them, I wish them every success in making their ...
I disagree with this counterpoint. In "Idaho Stops" the law is extremely clear - a red light is treated as a full stop, and a stop sign is treated as a yield. As yield and stop are both well understood on American roads this law would be clear to cyclist and driver alike.
Following your line of reasoning, yield signs should be replaced with stop signs as the harm caused by drivers blowing through them outweighs the benefits. Do you agree with this?
For example, here in Cambridge, UK, I'm not aware of any general problems with anyone's behaviour at give way lines, but cyclists going through red lights or past other blocks such as no entry signs frequently seem to exhibit poor judgement and create potentially dangerous situations. In this case, the law is also clear -- passing that red light or no entry sign is illegal -- and I'm sure the cyclists all know that. So it's not whether they understand the law that I'm calling into question, it's their judgement about how to cycle safely regardless of the legality.
If cyclists tend to exhibit different patterns of behaviour where you are, then what we're talking about might make a lot of sense in your environment. It seems most of us agree that looking at the real evidence is the only way to be sure. But over here, at least, I would worry that changing the law in this way would be seen by a large number of cyclists as condoning their current riding style, dangerous as it often is.
In general, driving or biking, I think we should stop trying to decrease effort, and increase it instead. It's good for you. As a cyclist you get stronger, faster, more skilled. As a driver, you get more skilled and are forced to stay more alert. All of these things make you and everyone around you safer, so savor and put as much of yourself as possible into your cycling and driving, for everyone's sake. You don't get good at things you don't do.
In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are welcome to join us.
What angry drivers usually don't get is that the equation is much different for cyclists. Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car. Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium. Wheeeee!!!
By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.
>> Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more.
Therein is the real reason for many cyclists doing it - not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences. There's no licensing, registration or insurance to cycle on the roads. Many cyclists, and I cycle too, behave accordingly with no consideration for other road users, or pedestrians. Hence many cyclists now cycling on footpaths (illegally) and some getting irritated when they encounter a pedestrian on it!
Most "annoyed drivers" aren't annoyed by a cyclist carefully crossing an empty junction - the annoyance comes in rush hour when others are inconvenienced or it's plain reckless.
But it does make sense a lot of the time. The lack of consequences is a contributing factor for this.
Car 'ownership' of the roads is debatable: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
As a cyclist myself, I've noticed a common case where you end up on the receiving end of driver frustration is when you come to a stop at a red light and are situated in the middle of a line of cars waiting for the green. When the light turns, it's going to take you longer to get up to speed than the cars, which often results in frustrated and dangerous behavior by the drivers behind you trying to get around. Having the option to be able to proceed through a red after stopping _when it's safe to do so_ lets you get a jump on things.
I am not an aggressive biker or driver and that you bring them up is confusing the thesis of the article. NOBODY is proposing making it legal to just blast through a red light. Perhaps this is what you mean by shooting the lights, but in that case you "strongly disagreeing" with the article implies you might want to reread what was proposed. The embedded video is an awesome explainer.
Drivers are going to be pissed off no matter what. Being pissed off is a natural result of making the poor decision to drive a car in a city.
I don't see him anymore. One day last year, he rolled through a red light in Koreatown, right into a truck which had the right of way. He was thrown from his bike about 20 feet and died from blunt force trauma and/or internal bleeding by the time paramedics arrived.
I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing with people in it on his side of the road at the intersection at the end of my street. I rolled up to him in my car at the next light and told him he was breaking the law. He asked "but is it safe?". The implication is, with this leading question, is that he thought it was safe to do. What he didn't observe was the car behind him not slowing down for the pedestrians because they were watching him.
Stopping at a crosswalk, or yielding right of way, is an important rule because it gives VISUAL indicators to other drivers of nearby vehicles. It's a backup mechanism for safety at times. Rationalizing laws don't apply to oneself because they cause delay do not include the fact it the action may also be the difference between life and death - for someone else. Are we really going to rationalize away the fact driver may float lights more if they see bikes doing it as well?
The way Davis, CA handles this is to install special lights for bikes. I would assume they thought through it and decided floating lights is bad.
For the last 4 years, up until a few months ago, I had been riding at least 5-6 hours a day on fairly busy roads. I've seen a lot of shit that people do as a result of other's actions, including bikes, and I do NOT think bikes should be precluded from obeying traffic laws, especially when the only point to it might be to speed up a bike commute or "save energy". Whatever that means.
In case you can't be bothered to read this either:
> He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get back to full speed.
My entire comment was based on someone else's comment in these threads, not the article.
And, not that I give a shit what you think, I actually did read the article and don't have to agree with it regardless of whether I "bothered" or not.
I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling.
You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars.
Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right mind wants to spend their time utterly immobilized, doing nothing but trying to avoid hitting other cars?
Cycling is always a bit of an adventure, always exhilarating.
Global warming, congestion, obesity epidemic, and arguably peak oil. Also: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
I agree that many downtowns such as those of Las Vegas, Houston, and Atlanta simply are not bikable.
Except for the brake dust, noise pollution, CO2 emissions, and the tens of thousands of people who die in crashes every year.
>If a cyclist approaches a red light, meanwhile, he or she needs to stop fully. Again, if there's any oncoming traffic or a pedestrian, it has the right of way. If there's not, the cyclist can proceed cautiously through the intersection. Put simply, red light is a stop sign.
>This doesn't mean that a cyclist is allowed to blast through an intersection at full speed — which is dangerous for pedestrians, the cyclist, and pretty much everyone involved. This isn't allowed in Idaho, and it's a terrible idea everywhere.
Nobody is suggesting that cyclists should just ignore right of way.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0
Few death traps on my commute take more time and energy than any lights. The one spot where old railway was transformed into bike lane is sweet. You can travel half the city without constantly worrying about dying.
But, waiting for a red when there's no traffic is pointless. Also, there can be a lot of danger for cyclists, especially novices, when the light turns green, due to aggressive motor vehicles, so going through a traffic-free red can even be safer.
While you can argue that the same logic applies to cars, the potential for confusion/abuse and the fact that cars weigh much more factors against allowing cars to follow the same rule. So, when cycling:
Treat stop signs as stop signs (NOT yields), and treat red lights as stop signs (NOT yields). Come to a _complete_ stop, scan, and if there's no traffic in either direction, continue. Completely safe, but you save waiting for a red light to turn when there's actually no traffic spooled up.
(Don't forget to look both ways even on one way streets. If you run a red and get hit by a salmoner[1] you can't really complain, can you?)
Get over the dismounting thing. Going through reds is about saving time waiting for it to turn to green, not about saving time dismounting. A good city rider should be really good at dis/remounting seamlessly, as well as being able to ride at crawling speed without having to stop or swerve.
Try to get over the momentum thing too at least for a while. You'll become a stronger faster more skilled cyclist this way anyway, and there's nothing more pleasing than not just being /faster/ than a cab, but actually /accelerating/ more quickly than a cab despite all their cylinders and horsepower, and it's going to take a lot of stop and go practice to get you there, so don't slack on this. If you're using clipless this goes double -- you need to get really good at unclipping/reclipping so the worst thing you can do when you start is to jealously guard your momentum and never put your foot down.
Again, the key is, never go through an intersection that you haven't already gotten total visibility into. Whether this lines up with signal phases or not is irrelevant. You can get run over by a misbehaving road user when you have a green too, and you should beware then as well, treating greens as (very soft) yields, especially in intersections with poor visibility or high information density (eg in Manhattan, crossing an avenue while going crosstown)
And of course, I'm human, so I don't always practice what I preach. I often regret that later and wish I had.
[1] salmoner: slang for road user going the wrong way down a one way street (usually but not always a cyclist -- I observe that NYPD patrol cars also often do it, usually just because they can (no sirens) but sometimes to get to an emergency (sirens))
What I can't accept is some cyclists following the law and others not. Either everyone should do Idaho stops, or no one should. What settles that is the current law.
Are Idaho stops legal for cyclists where you live? No? Then until the law is changed they are not an option, period.
In the UK you don't have to stop at every junction, if the junction is open (i.e. you can see traffic clearly) and it's clear you can go on through without stopping. If the junction is closed (i.e. you can't see oncoming/cross traffic) then you must stop, and get a good visual before pulling out.
As a result of this cyclists in the UK already don't stop at junctions because, unless its a closed junction, no one has to stop if it's clear.
I'm pretty sure in the US you can crawl right on a right light if it's clear so what's the difference in letting a cyclist carefully go through a stop sign or red light?
So compared to a cyclist/pedestrian a driver is deaf, dumb and partially blind. So it makes perfect sense that cars have to stop and other transportation modes do not.
This disparity becomes quite poignant when someone in a car stops to let a cyclist/pedestrian cross the street when they actually have the right of way. They are expecting the cyclist/pedestrian to trust their life to the judgment of someone who is quite isolated from the environment.
However, Idaho stops are the way future. It's just doesn't make sense to apply the same "come to a complete stop" standard to cyclists. They're traveling at a much lower speed and have much less ability to accelerate. The extra time it takes to come to a complete stop (which means finding your balance at a stand still), and then remounting the bike accelerating through the intersection is not worth it, and makes the commute that much more of a slog.
I think characterizing the Idaho stop as "rolling through the intersection" might be a little bit misleading, since it conveys a really lax attitude. Idaho stops are generally quite safe.
Edit: In most cases, Idaho stops have very similar cadence to a car coming to a full stop. You slow down up to the line, look all around you, determine the right of way, and if you have it, you start peddling back up to cruising speed. The fact you don't come to a complete stop is pretty much a technicality because the timing is almost the same.
If you come to a complete stop, the timing is all off, and there's much more likely to be hesitation and ambiguity. Starting from a stop takes a lot more time, is much more likely to lead to false-starts, and puts you in a very vulnerable position.
Now I just go. I treat that particular red light like a stop sign. I don't lose any sleep over it. And most cops where I live are pretty forgiving to bicyclists.
I'm just uneasy with saying "red lights = stop signs for bicyclists". In complicated intersections, you need to wait for the green, unless it's very obvious there's no oncoming traffic.
As an occasional cyclist I'm of two minds. On the one hand, having too many stop signs along a roadway gets annoying so mentally one wants to simply slow down and look and if no cars have the right of way at the time, go through. The danger is that this behavior gets modified to a default of riding through and only slowing down if a motorist doesn't give you right of way (slow down or wave on) and assuming that as a cyclist I have the primary right of way (weaving through pedestrians and cars) in other words wishing people and cars did not have to share (yes, it's only a mindset, but one easy to allow to set in).
Also, since cycling is healthy, you get even more exercise by stopping and starting constantly so from a health perspective it's better as it improves your workout and keeps you alive by preventing unnecessay collisions.
Your comment about exercise assumes that everyone rides for - well - exercise, but that's not generally true here. For example, students rarely own a car here, most cycle. I'm not a student any more and still don't have a car. Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I just don't need it (there's a good car sharing offering in my city for the rare occasions where I do need one). I do nearly everything by bike, from getting to work or around in the city to groceries. When cycling about with 20kg of stuff strapped to my bike, exercise is usually not what I'm looking for :-)
Oh and there are a lot less stop signs here than in the US, at least the parts of it that I've driven in (DC area). Traffic planning accounts for cyclists as well here, so long stretches of road without having to stop are much more common. We even have a bunch of Fahrradstrassen in my city - roads where cyclists have priority (cars only allowed if there's a sign permitting them)
At least in the Bay Area, cops are definitely willing to take the time to ticket cyclists. In Los Gatos where I live, the police will sometimes take a Saturday and just watch a busy intersection and literally ticket EVERY cyclist who blows through.
Of course we have also had a few cycling fatalities here, always the same story:cyclists blowing through intersections.
Don't do it. Don't be the asshole who makes life more difficult for other cyclists. No one cares about your bogus statistical arguments.
This drove me crazy when I lived in Seattle. Many of their lights would never turn. So I would have to get off my bike, walk over and press the button. Now that I live in NYC, Idaho stops are the norm where nearly everybody, including the casual cyclist does it and tickets are few and far between, it not only takes my commute from 15 minutes to (literally) 4 minutes, but I feel safer because I'll usually leave a huge pile of traffic behind me with a clear road around me for blocks since they stop at every light and I don't.
Of course, NYC has a 25mph city-wide speed limit, so that helps dramatically.
I think the most important thing here is being obsessive about looking for cars and yielding appropriately. If you fail to do that and are a daredevil who just blindly runs out into traffic, which I see fairly regularly, you are putting your life at risk and potentially others around you as well.
Edit: Looks like Seattle just passed a dead-red law last year! Now if they would just classify electric skateboards as bicycles like California did, that would be spectacular.
How about the laws where drivers have to maintain a minimum distance from cyclists? If I ever see that law enforced, I might start giving a shit about other traffic laws. Running lights allows me to get a head start on traffic and hopefully get to the next light/stop sign before drivers try to murder me by passing within inches so they can stop 100 feet away a few seconds sooner.
People in cars hate being slowed down. Some, I hear, even get violent. There is a patience I learned moving through my city at 15 mph. I wish more people appreciated it.
In a car, 15-30 km/h feels like you are really close to be completely stopped. It turns out that these speeds are pretty much the average cyclist speed range. (Cyclists may appear to go faster because they are smaller, just like trains look like they are slower than they really are).
I guess most frustrated car drivers don't realize they are also "breaking the law" at stops. I can only recommend they start cycling, the endorphins would calm them.