4 ms·

I’m not really certain where I stand on that, but several thoughts come to mind. It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs

I’m not really certain where I stand on that, but several thoughts come to mind. It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs it, he can kill the bicyclist. If the bicyclist runs it, the driver can kill the bicyclist. While the risk is not symmetrical the outcome is the same. One would think that the party with more risk would be less likely to run the stop sign but in my experience (which is probably not typical world wide) in the Bay Area the opposite is true. Although admittedly it seems the law just isn’t enforced here. Maybe unequal laws would more likely be enforced and some combination of personal risk plus enforcement would achieve the desired outcome. Additionally many bicyclists are also drivers. So it might be prudent to penalize them for the behavior equally so that it discourages the behavior in general and removes dangerous drivers more easily; assuming their behavior on different vehicles correlates.

pmontra 7y ago
I add another point. All cyclists are also pedestrians. Maybe not in the Bay Area but pedestrians often run traffic lights when there are no approaching vehicles. A cyclist feels closer to a pedestrian than to a driver in my experience. So, no traffic, no danger, run the traffic light. The same cyclist (and pedestria) will stop when driving a car.
- Benji_San 7y ago
  As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my bike on the road I behave as a car. Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.
  - pmontra 7y ago
    Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years (roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.
- hinkley 7y ago
  If there is no traffic then there is nobody to witness the cyclist, and nobody to get upset about 'bike culture'.
ytpete 7y ago
There are also pedestrians in the mix - so a cyclist running a red light can still pose a serious hazard to other people. In the Bay Area there have been cases of pedestrians killed, as well as serious injuries such as broken legs or arms. I'd also worry about bicycle-vs-bicycle collisions. Maybe density is too low to make this terribly likely, but it doesn't sound like a scenario that would go well either.

pmontra 7y ago

I add another point. All cyclists are also pedestrians. Maybe not in the Bay Area but pedestrians often run traffic lights when there are no approaching vehicles. A cyclist feels closer to a pedestrian than to a driver in my experience. So, no traffic, no danger, run the traffic light. The same cyclist (and pedestria) will stop when driving a car.

Benji_San 7y ago
As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my bike on the road I behave as a car. Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.
- pmontra 7y ago
  Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years (roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.
hinkley 7y ago
If there is no traffic then there is nobody to witness the cyclist, and nobody to get upset about 'bike culture'.

ytpete 7y ago

There are also pedestrians in the mix - so a cyclist running a red light can still pose a serious hazard to other people. In the Bay Area there have been cases of pedestrians killed, as well as serious injuries such as broken legs or arms. I'd also worry about bicycle-vs-bicycle collisions. Maybe density is too low to make this terribly likely, but it doesn't sound like a scenario that would go well either.