10 ms·

Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

40 points by RyanMcGreal 10y ago

mamon 10y ago
TL;DR; Why? Because we should encourage natural selection in humans. Only the fittest cyclists survive :)
IgorPartola 10y ago
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.
- pjbster 10y ago
  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 :-)
  - mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
    IME drivers fume with rage no matter what I do. They'll shout abuse at me as they pass even if I'm in a bike lane, completely out of their way.
    - IgorPartola 10y ago
      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.
dogma1138 10y ago
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.
mazelife 10y ago
Although the article alluded to studies that show this approach is safer it didn't bother to cite any. Here's one based on results when the law passed in Iowa: http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-page-1-of-15-title-page.html http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-... 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)
- Silhouette 10y ago
  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.
skjdflsiugf 10y ago
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.
- barney54 10y ago
  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.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  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!!!
  - vroombaprime 10y ago
    "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.
    - TheLarch 10y ago
      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.
gamblor956 10y ago
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.
- ddlatham 10y ago
  That's a sad anecdote. It doesn't seem to address the argument or actual safety data presented in the article.
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    Actually it does. If there is a 1% chance of a cyclists fatality for a certain illegal behavior, you might be that 1%. You will be 100% dead.
  - kordless 10y ago
    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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
brudgers 10y ago
This is a half measure. What cyclists need is access to limited access, pedestrian free, well maintained roadways. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0
- vlehto 10y ago
  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.
galdosdi 10y ago
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))
zaccus 10y ago
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.
dynofuz 10y ago
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.
ivanhoe 10y ago
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.
- arthurdenture 10y ago
  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.
simonbarker87 10y ago
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?
- blackbagboys 10y ago
  You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right
  - simonbarker87 10y ago
    Ok, that seems sensible if it's on a red. Basically treat it like a closed junction
- scott_s 10y ago
  In residential areas in the US, I think stop signs are sometimes used as a means to slow people down.
upofadown 10y ago
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.
truantbuick 10y ago
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.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  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.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  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.
mc32 10y ago
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.
- dx034 10y ago
  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.
  - mc32 10y ago
    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.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  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)
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
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.
rwl4 10y ago
"... 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.
imgabe 10y ago
> 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.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  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.
antoineMoPa 10y ago
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.

40 points by RyanMcGreal 10y ago

mamon 10y ago

TL;DR; Why? Because we should encourage natural selection in humans. Only the fittest cyclists survive :)

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.

pjbster 10y ago
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 :-)
- mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
  IME drivers fume with rage no matter what I do. They'll shout abuse at me as they pass even if I'm in a bike lane, completely out of their way.
  - IgorPartola 10y ago
    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.

dogma1138 10y ago

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.

mazelife 10y ago

Although the article alluded to studies that show this approach is safer it didn't bother to cite any. Here's one based on results when the law passed in Iowa: http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-page-1-of-15-title-page.html http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-... 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)

Silhouette 10y ago
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.

skjdflsiugf 10y ago

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.

barney54 10y ago
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.
TheLarch 10y ago
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!!!
- vroombaprime 10y ago
  "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.
  - TheLarch 10y ago
    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.

gamblor956 10y ago

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.

ddlatham 10y ago
That's a sad anecdote. It doesn't seem to address the argument or actual safety data presented in the article.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Actually it does. If there is a 1% chance of a cyclists fatality for a certain illegal behavior, you might be that 1%. You will be 100% dead.
- kordless 10y ago
  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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

brudgers 10y ago

This is a half measure. What cyclists need is access to limited access, pedestrian free, well maintained roadways. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0

vlehto 10y ago
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.

galdosdi 10y ago

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))

zaccus 10y ago

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.

dynofuz 10y ago

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.

ivanhoe 10y ago

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.

arthurdenture 10y ago
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.

simonbarker87 10y ago

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?

blackbagboys 10y ago
You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right
- simonbarker87 10y ago
  Ok, that seems sensible if it's on a red. Basically treat it like a closed junction
scott_s 10y ago
In residential areas in the US, I think stop signs are sometimes used as a means to slow people down.

upofadown 10y ago

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.

truantbuick 10y ago

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.

Vraxx 10y ago
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.
hermannj314 10y ago
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.

mc32 10y ago

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.

dx034 10y ago
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.
- mc32 10y ago
  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.
lorenzhs 10y ago
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)

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

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.

rwl4 10y ago

"... 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.

imgabe 10y ago

> 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.

hermannj314 10y ago
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.

antoineMoPa 10y ago

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.