9 ms·

This is what makes bicyclists blow through red lights

16 points by acdanger 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago
>There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. I wish there was a more practical way than increased surveillance to prove the pedestrian/cyclist at fault. Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights. >“every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy" If this is an actual justification cyclists try to use, might I suggest investing in a car? > http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-fine-cyclists/5571/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-f... It's sad that this level of entitlement doesn't seem rare among cyclists (incl. the ones I know/have spoken too). They matter more than everyone else, so they should be allowed to break the law. Then cyclists wonder why most other pedestrians dislike them.
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  (anecdotes are not evidence but) most of the cyclists I see blowing through red lights seem to have little concept of how gears work - hence stopping and starting is "too much work". Not that it helps, mind - many's the time I've passed and re-passed the same red light jumpers despite stopping at every single one.
  - jakejake 11y ago
    At least around here in Chicago gears are totally uncool - fixed gear bike with no brakes is where it's at.
  - talaketu 11y ago
    "work" to change velocity is proportional to the square of the change in velocity, proportional to mass, and independent of gearing.
    - falcolas 11y ago
      "work" also involves the total velocity change, which means that the trip to employment results in the same amount of total work, regardless of the number of stops made, and which over the total of a day results in 0 work being completed (assuming a round trip from home to the place of employment). Perhaps the physics definition of "work" isn't quite the right one to use?
      - talaketu 11y ago
        A regenerative braking system might make cyclists happier to stop, it's true.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      The physical "work" of trying to take off uphill in 7th gear is a lot more effort than taking off in 1st gear on a 7 gear bike.
    - zimpenfish 11y ago
      I'd suggest testing that theory by moving off from a standstill in various gears and seeing how much "work" each one takes.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- melling 11y ago
  Wouldn't the world be better off if more people biked? Maybe we should come up with a better solution than recommending that people get cars?
  - Nadya 11y ago
    If someone is too lazy to bike, my suggestion is to embrace the laziness and get a car. I guess I could suggest they walk or jog - but being reasonable - biking is a lot more practical than walking or jogging when you have a 6 mile commute.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > > There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m > Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights. While the justification does not make any sense whatsoever, the way he explains it also doesn't, since it fails to capture the difference between cars and bicycles: Cars don't fall over when they stop. The thing that makes intersections a little annoying when you have to stop at them is not the effort of stopping and starting, it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one. Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.) That said, there are no justifications for running a red light as a bike, only excuses made by fuckheads.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.)" Arses can leave the saddle, and - more importantly - bikes can tip (substantially shortening the distance from saddle to ground).
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      You're pointing out the obvious that i was implying in my post in the hope that it already was obvious. Getting out of the saddle is both a slightly strenuous thing to do, and also moderately dangerous, since you have to balance on a vehicle that is devoid of inherent balance at low speeds. Dangerous since you run a small risk of "tipping" into the car that's half a meter left of you, sometimes less. As for the tipping comment, yes, that is valid, but also highly depends on the anatomy of the rider. At 5'4" i'm small enough that it is impossible for me to tip my bicycle down far enough to put both feet on the ground in the space afforded me at an intersection. Many intersections have affordances like light poles, rails or just the curb that i can use, but sometimes stopping at an intersection for me means i have to entirely get off the thing.
angdis 11y ago
Yes, it is more work to stop and start at a red light, but there are other trade-offs as well. In particular, if a cyclist can "get through" an intersection BEFORE cars in the same & opposite direction start moving again, it is easier to negotiate the intersection: The cyclist doesn't have to worry as much about the infamous "right-hook" of turning motorists. This requires, of course, that the cyclist has correctly assessed cross traffic. Unfortunately, some personality types just can't handle the fact that cyclists openly subvert "the rules". I don't think that explaining _why_ cyclists do this is going to work on them, regardless of how pragmatic the cyclist behavior is.
- genericuser 11y ago
  The problem I have most with cyclists running red lights is while they avoid the "right-hook" I often find myself having to stop mid left turn as they run the red light so that they don't suffer a "left-hook" while I have a green turn arrow and they have a red light. I am located in the Cambridge, MA area and am constantly amazed to how many cyclists do not pay attention to when a left turn lane would have right of way through a light.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Someone turning left into you across several lanes as they face you has more time to stop and better visibility, as compared to someone turning right into you from the nearest lane. (Note that I am not saying that anything in particular follows from this, just that it seems to be missed in the immediate parent.)
    - genericuser 11y ago
      I agree I do have more time, I am also traveling at a higher speed because I am not taking as sharp of a turn, and because there are frequently stopped cars at that light while one is turning the bikes moving in the bike lane are often obstructed to the point of not being visible until they are in the process of running the red light while one is turning. It is not my intent to say whether a "Right-Hook" or a "Left-Hook" presents a greater danger to the cyclist, merely that I find it greatly aggravating to hear someone use the avoidance of a cycling situation in which the driver would be at fault, to justify a situation where the cyclist would be at fault and still be in what I consider a dangerous situation. Edit: To be honest I have many more issues with other drivers in MA than I do with cyclists, besides awareness of left turns needing to be more widespread among cyclists, I think they are doing as good a job as can be hoped for on the roads around here.
aleksandrm 11y ago
> I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. This is what baffles me the most. The same could be said for cars, not to mention that every red light/stop sign stop-and-go wastes a lot more fuel/creates more pollution. This is a ridiculous excuse for cyclists.
- bradleyland 11y ago
  The distance between you and the impact of your increased fuel consumption or environmental impact is massive compared to the distance between you and the impact of stopping/starting at every single stoplight. For drivers of a car, it's almost imperceptible. How do you quantify the difference? How much more are you going to pay at the pump? For the cyclist, you feel the impact immediately, paid in sweat. I'm not saying it's ok or that it's a good justification. I'm just saying that there's a clear difference in the way people will weigh one against the other under different circumstances.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Probably the exact same reasons that motorists rarely strictly obey the speed limit.
JeremyMorgan 11y ago
>There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. Yet if a driver of automobile obeys all the laws and hits this person, they get sued. This flagrant attitude is the primary cause of tension between bicyclists and motorists. You can't behave like that and then get angry when drivers are rude. This seems like pretty base level common sense.
- branchless 11y ago
  It's just a stupid article that appears to be custom made to inflame debate and further enrage car drivers about "typical" cyclists.
- philwelch 11y ago
  Cyclists often die in car/bicycle collisions and drivers are almost never held legally accountable regardless of whether the cyclist was obeying the law.
- clort 11y ago
  >Yet if a driver of automobile obeys all the laws and hits this person, they get sued. Is this really true? and if it has happened, who won the court case?
  - RHSeeger 11y ago
    Does it really matter if the car driver won the court case if they had to spend $10,000+ on a lawyer to do so?
batou 11y ago
A cyclist wiped me out at a crossing back in '02 after blowing a red light. I was on foot. Put me in hospital for 3 days and off my feet for two months. He rode away and was never caught. If you find any justification for this you're just a selfish idiot. Edit: Counted 6 downvotes so far. At least explain yourself. I want to hear the reason.
- gd2 11y ago
  If we could only get people like that into cars.
  - batou 11y ago
    I'd rather he was in a car. There was a red light camera on the crossing. That's incentive not to jump the light and a penalty if he did. Unfortunately he was dishonest and arrogant and knew he was going to get away with it because identifying a cyclist is near impossible.
    - soperj 11y ago
      If he was in a car, you'd likely be dead.
      - batou 11y ago
        No. It wouldn't have happened at all.
        soperj 11y ago
        because no one has ever run a red light in a car? Go on...
        batou 11y ago
        They do. However looking at your average trip through London by car, I see perhaps ZERO cars running reds and 30+ cyclists doing it. Some of them blast through every red without even a look. Come to think of it I saw one getting stopped in Brentford the other day. When he saw the police car he pedalled harder until he realised they were going to cut him off.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > 728 bike deaths, 30,000 car deaths. Bikes have significantly higher deaths per vehicle-mile of travel than cars; so, if your goal is to get one person from point A to point B, bicycling is more dangerous. If its to get N people from point A to point B, and N is greater than 1, its even worse, because persons/car can easily be greater than persons/bike. > When a cyclist breaks the rules, it only kills them. Bikes kill or seriously injure pedestrians, too, and sometimes other bike riders.
bomb19 11y ago
This is a very biased, not well-researched article.
jfaat 11y ago
I don't think the author's main conclusion follows logically from any of the supporting facts. At best, one could conclude that bikers run lights because other bikers do (which is stated about halfway through the article). In no way do any of those facts conclude that bikers run red lights for an adrenaline rush.
a2tech 11y ago
Cyclists in the US ride their bikes like people in the third world drive cars. If you think this is a good thing, ask any immigrant from outside Europe if they like our well ordered system or if they prefer driving at home.
matthewowen 11y ago
People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit. It isn't. I ride a bicycle. I don't run red lights as a general principle, but if I'm at a quiet intersection which I can see to be clear, I don't think coming to a stop and then cautiously proceeding is a terrible thing to do. It's significantly safer than breaking the speed limit on city streets. I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.
- branchless 11y ago
  On some big intersections when impatient drivers are waiting at lights for some time it's really dangerous to set off with them when. Because of this at such junctions I'll go during the "pedestrian" phase after all the pedestrians have crossed, proceeding slowly as not to hit someone deciding to make a run for it before the lights change. I agree with you about taking a common-sense view to it. Whenever I've used this defense drivers typically state the rules are the rules and common-sense is subjective and we can't have people making up things as they go along. I never like this, it just seems typical of the times we live in.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit. If you mean the posted speed limit, it usually legally is since the posted speed limit is, in many legal regimes, not actually a mandatory limit, whereas the red light is. > I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. Yes, particularly, the relation between normal speed on the road, the distance at which the signal is clearly visible, the timing of the signal, etc., are designed to provide cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc., crossing the intersection safety from, particularly, cars passing through the intersection in other directions. Bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc., violating the rules governing entrance to the intersection are negating that design. > The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car. There's probably an argument that it is in some circumstances safer for a bike to behave like a pedestrian than like a car, sure, as both the size and speed regime may be closer (especially, in the latter case, when coming off a stop) to the former than the latter. OTOH, there's a reason that pedestrians generally aren't supposed to cross against lights, either, so that doesn't really justify blowing through a red light.
rday 11y ago
The primary issue between cyclists and motorists is that very generalization. How about "individuals in cars", and "individuals on bikes". I always stop for red lights. It waaay too dangerous not too. Multiple times I've had pick up trucks hit their horn and blow by me traveling waaay over the speed limit, when I'm following all the rules. Conversely, some cyclists zip in and out of traffic, hit people and scrape cars, and create unsafe situations around them. Pick up trucks routinely give me a few feet when they pass, and even yield at bike path crossings. Just treat everyone respectfully and stop blaming every bike or car for that bad situation the other day. Everyone is different.
escherize 11y ago
> [Paragrahph about bikers running red lights] In short — people are more likely to break a law if they see other people already doing so. Actually there's only evidence to say one is more likely to break _that particular_ law.
fakename 11y ago
I can get a much better sense of cross-traffic and other risks at an intersection when moving through it at full speed on a bike than I can when coming to a complete stop in a car, where 80% of my view is obstructed bymetal, and I can't hear anything.
surrealize 11y ago
> every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy. Please. When you choose to ride a bicycle, expending energy is part of the bargain. And part of the point! Stopping means that you're getting more of that exercise that you're so smug about.
tomphoolery 11y ago
This kind of discussion occurs every time there's a news story of some biker getting hit by a car in /r/philadelphia. There are several real reasons for why bikers don't (have to) stop at red lights: 1.) Bikes are not registered. You can't "get my plate number". I can ride away without receiving any kind of retribution. Not as common in a car now that we have things like vehicle registration and licensing. 2.) Bikes, on average, move much slower than cars. Therefore, the damage that they could potentially cause to innocent bystanders is much less pronounced than if they were driving a car. Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general bikers cause more damage to themselves than to others. Personally, I stop at red lights unless it's pretty clear there's no one coming. I almost always wait a few seconds either very slow or stopped at a red light before proceeding if I can't see around the corner coming up. I'm not going that fast so stopping at a moments notice isn't going to throw me over the handlebars.
- protomyth 11y ago
  "Bikes, on average, move much slower than cars. Therefore, the damage that they could potentially cause to innocent bystanders is much less pronounced than if they were driving a car." Bicycles can kill pedestrians and don't make a whole lot of noise or provide the large visual indication they are coming like a car. Look up the disease code E826.0 [edit: I guess they are changing codes this year - I swear coding is a scam] for some stats.
  - kisstheblade 11y ago
    "Bicycles can kill pedestrians..." I tried to look up the injury code and didn't really get any statistics on people killed by bicyclists. Do you have any further information? Bicyclists running red lights never kill anybody (other than maybe the cyclist). Bicyclists going too fast and too close to pedestrians (red lights or not) can injure pedestrians, but that has nothing to do with "obeying the law", rather it just tells that those people don't consider other people (and we can be lucky they were on a bike and not in car, right?). I mean really, a cyclist running a red light in an empty crossing (after stopping and seeing that the crossing is clear) is some kind of danger to anybody? Suddenly getting to fast enough speeds after take off to kill someone??
webnrrd2k 11y ago
From my experience the main reasons are habit and laziness. I agree with the article -- It takes a lot more personal effort to get yourself moving than it does to step on a car's accelerator pedal. It takes even more effort when you come to a full stop on a bicycle. Once you get moving it's not as big a deal to keep accelerating until you get to your cruising speed, though, so there is more of an incentive to just slow down a bit and run stops/lights. Ever since I got a ticket for running a stop as a kid I've been strict about coming to a full stop at all stop signs and red lights. It bugs me to see people blow through stops on bicycles, mostly because of safety reasons -- it's just asking to get hit by a car. But I'm also super-paranoid when I'm on a bike. If I get in an accident I may have had the legal right to do whatever, but I'm still the one going to the hospital (if I'm lucky).
- jakejake 11y ago
  I ride a bike to work sometimes and I'll slow down, then go through stop signs on a small street if there's nobody nearby. Stop lights, I'll only go through them after coming to a stop and checking for traffic. It's nuts to just go through a red light at full speed, you're bound to get hit at some point. There's an intersection near me with heavy biker commuter traffic and they blow through the light all the time, I keep expecting to witness a death one of these days.
linkregister 11y ago
I ride my bicycle daily in the city. At least once during each trip, a bicyclist blows past me, on the right, and runs the red light that I'm patiently waiting at. Very often, he or she cycles through a crowded crosswalk or in between cars attempting to cross the intersection. This behavior is what gets people mad. I get mad on the rare occasion when vehicles intentionally try to run me into parked cars. I never understood, other than impatience, why a cyclist would run a red. Preservation of momentum is just a relinquished opportunity for good exercise. Running a red is literally shortening the cyclist's life by depriving him or her from the foregone physical activity.
njfrost 11y ago
This is a difficult conversation to have for many reasons. 1. Driving culture and infrastructure are different from city to city 2. Individuals behave differently 3. People are very passionate and emotional 4. The data is difficult and everything is very situational As a cyclist in Portland Oregon, I do feel it is safe to run red lights and stop signs in certain scenarios without being an ass about it. The key to it is awareness and agility. Cyclists have more awareness than car drivers, they can see and hear more than a driver. Second, a bicyclist is going slower and is able to turn out of the way and stop much more easily. Of course cyclist don't want to stop their momentum, that makes sense. Of course there is risk involved. I'd rather focus on how to educate people to ride and drive safely. Our driving culture in the U.S.A is very aggressive and dangerous. We need safer streets and everyone needs to make an effort.
bismuth 11y ago
Separate bike lanes, separate green-time for cyclists at traffic lights, higher frequencey of green-time for cyclists at traffic lights, treating cyclists as a separate but first-class traffic user. These are all ways to alleviate red-light running. As it is, too often a cyclist is seen as a slow, narrow car in the rules. If you are gracious about it as a cyclist, by not actually occupying the entire lane as the rules suggest you do, you get doored from one side, (nearly) swiped off the road by passing cars on the other, and at traffic lights right-turning cars blindly run into you. Also note: while a high-speed cyclist can kill or seriously injure a pedestrian in an accident in rare cases, a car going at a typical urban-road speed will kill or seriously injure a cyclist or pedestrian in most cases. I think that, as with guns, the onus is on the person wielding the deadly device to handle it with sufficient care in the circumstances they find themselves in.

16 points by acdanger 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

>There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. I wish there was a more practical way than increased surveillance to prove the pedestrian/cyclist at fault. Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights. >“every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy" If this is an actual justification cyclists try to use, might I suggest investing in a car? > http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-fine-cyclists/5571/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-f... It's sad that this level of entitlement doesn't seem rare among cyclists (incl. the ones I know/have spoken too). They matter more than everyone else, so they should be allowed to break the law. Then cyclists wonder why most other pedestrians dislike them.

zimpenfish 11y ago
(anecdotes are not evidence but) most of the cyclists I see blowing through red lights seem to have little concept of how gears work - hence stopping and starting is "too much work". Not that it helps, mind - many's the time I've passed and re-passed the same red light jumpers despite stopping at every single one.
- jakejake 11y ago
  At least around here in Chicago gears are totally uncool - fixed gear bike with no brakes is where it's at.
- talaketu 11y ago
  "work" to change velocity is proportional to the square of the change in velocity, proportional to mass, and independent of gearing.
  - falcolas 11y ago
    "work" also involves the total velocity change, which means that the trip to employment results in the same amount of total work, regardless of the number of stops made, and which over the total of a day results in 0 work being completed (assuming a round trip from home to the place of employment). Perhaps the physics definition of "work" isn't quite the right one to use?
    - talaketu 11y ago
      A regenerative braking system might make cyclists happier to stop, it's true.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    The physical "work" of trying to take off uphill in 7th gear is a lot more effort than taking off in 1st gear on a 7 gear bike.
  - zimpenfish 11y ago
    I'd suggest testing that theory by moving off from a standstill in various gears and seeing how much "work" each one takes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
melling 11y ago
Wouldn't the world be better off if more people biked? Maybe we should come up with a better solution than recommending that people get cars?
- Nadya 11y ago
  If someone is too lazy to bike, my suggestion is to embrace the laziness and get a car. I guess I could suggest they walk or jog - but being reasonable - biking is a lot more practical than walking or jogging when you have a 6 mile commute.
Mithaldu 11y ago
> > There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m > Cars have momentum too. Physics makes it so they can't come to an instant stop. Then cyclists wonder why they get hit by cars when they run red lights. While the justification does not make any sense whatsoever, the way he explains it also doesn't, since it fails to capture the difference between cars and bicycles: Cars don't fall over when they stop. The thing that makes intersections a little annoying when you have to stop at them is not the effort of stopping and starting, it's the physical AND mental effort required to evaluate all the possible options for stopping and then balancing the bike, then choosing and encating the right one. Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.) That said, there are no justifications for running a red light as a bike, only excuses made by fuckheads.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "Do keep in mind that proper bike configuration means the leg is almost at full stretch when the pedal is in down position, which means you can't just keep your arse in the saddle and put a foot on the ground. (Unless you've extraordinarily long legs.)" Arses can leave the saddle, and - more importantly - bikes can tip (substantially shortening the distance from saddle to ground).
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    You're pointing out the obvious that i was implying in my post in the hope that it already was obvious. Getting out of the saddle is both a slightly strenuous thing to do, and also moderately dangerous, since you have to balance on a vehicle that is devoid of inherent balance at low speeds. Dangerous since you run a small risk of "tipping" into the car that's half a meter left of you, sometimes less. As for the tipping comment, yes, that is valid, but also highly depends on the anatomy of the rider. At 5'4" i'm small enough that it is impossible for me to tip my bicycle down far enough to put both feet on the ground in the space afforded me at an intersection. Many intersections have affordances like light poles, rails or just the curb that i can use, but sometimes stopping at an intersection for me means i have to entirely get off the thing.

angdis 11y ago

Yes, it is more work to stop and start at a red light, but there are other trade-offs as well. In particular, if a cyclist can "get through" an intersection BEFORE cars in the same & opposite direction start moving again, it is easier to negotiate the intersection: The cyclist doesn't have to worry as much about the infamous "right-hook" of turning motorists. This requires, of course, that the cyclist has correctly assessed cross traffic. Unfortunately, some personality types just can't handle the fact that cyclists openly subvert "the rules". I don't think that explaining _why_ cyclists do this is going to work on them, regardless of how pragmatic the cyclist behavior is.

genericuser 11y ago
The problem I have most with cyclists running red lights is while they avoid the "right-hook" I often find myself having to stop mid left turn as they run the red light so that they don't suffer a "left-hook" while I have a green turn arrow and they have a red light. I am located in the Cambridge, MA area and am constantly amazed to how many cyclists do not pay attention to when a left turn lane would have right of way through a light.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Someone turning left into you across several lanes as they face you has more time to stop and better visibility, as compared to someone turning right into you from the nearest lane. (Note that I am not saying that anything in particular follows from this, just that it seems to be missed in the immediate parent.)
  - genericuser 11y ago
    I agree I do have more time, I am also traveling at a higher speed because I am not taking as sharp of a turn, and because there are frequently stopped cars at that light while one is turning the bikes moving in the bike lane are often obstructed to the point of not being visible until they are in the process of running the red light while one is turning. It is not my intent to say whether a "Right-Hook" or a "Left-Hook" presents a greater danger to the cyclist, merely that I find it greatly aggravating to hear someone use the avoidance of a cycling situation in which the driver would be at fault, to justify a situation where the cyclist would be at fault and still be in what I consider a dangerous situation. Edit: To be honest I have many more issues with other drivers in MA than I do with cyclists, besides awareness of left turns needing to be more widespread among cyclists, I think they are doing as good a job as can be hoped for on the roads around here.

aleksandrm 11y ago

> I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. This is what baffles me the most. The same could be said for cars, not to mention that every red light/stop sign stop-and-go wastes a lot more fuel/creates more pollution. This is a ridiculous excuse for cyclists.

bradleyland 11y ago
The distance between you and the impact of your increased fuel consumption or environmental impact is massive compared to the distance between you and the impact of stopping/starting at every single stoplight. For drivers of a car, it's almost imperceptible. How do you quantify the difference? How much more are you going to pay at the pump? For the cyclist, you feel the impact immediately, paid in sweat. I'm not saying it's ok or that it's a good justification. I'm just saying that there's a clear difference in the way people will weigh one against the other under different circumstances.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Probably the exact same reasons that motorists rarely strictly obey the speed limit.

JeremyMorgan 11y ago

>There are times when, as a cyclist, I blow through a red light. I’ve got momentum, I don’t feel like stopping, I’m running late. Yet if a driver of automobile obeys all the laws and hits this person, they get sued. This flagrant attitude is the primary cause of tension between bicyclists and motorists. You can't behave like that and then get angry when drivers are rude. This seems like pretty base level common sense.

branchless 11y ago
It's just a stupid article that appears to be custom made to inflame debate and further enrage car drivers about "typical" cyclists.
philwelch 11y ago
Cyclists often die in car/bicycle collisions and drivers are almost never held legally accountable regardless of whether the cyclist was obeying the law.
clort 11y ago
>Yet if a driver of automobile obeys all the laws and hits this person, they get sued. Is this really true? and if it has happened, who won the court case?
- RHSeeger 11y ago
  Does it really matter if the car driver won the court case if they had to spend $10,000+ on a lawyer to do so?

batou 11y ago

A cyclist wiped me out at a crossing back in '02 after blowing a red light. I was on foot. Put me in hospital for 3 days and off my feet for two months. He rode away and was never caught. If you find any justification for this you're just a selfish idiot. Edit: Counted 6 downvotes so far. At least explain yourself. I want to hear the reason.

gd2 11y ago
If we could only get people like that into cars.
- batou 11y ago
  I'd rather he was in a car. There was a red light camera on the crossing. That's incentive not to jump the light and a penalty if he did. Unfortunately he was dishonest and arrogant and knew he was going to get away with it because identifying a cyclist is near impossible.
  - soperj 11y ago
    If he was in a car, you'd likely be dead.
    - batou 11y ago
      No. It wouldn't have happened at all.
      - soperj 11y ago
        because no one has ever run a red light in a car? Go on...
        batou 11y ago
        They do. However looking at your average trip through London by car, I see perhaps ZERO cars running reds and 30+ cyclists doing it. Some of them blast through every red without even a look. Come to think of it I saw one getting stopped in Brentford the other day. When he saw the police car he pedalled harder until he realised they were going to cut him off.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 11y ago
> 728 bike deaths, 30,000 car deaths. Bikes have significantly higher deaths per vehicle-mile of travel than cars; so, if your goal is to get one person from point A to point B, bicycling is more dangerous. If its to get N people from point A to point B, and N is greater than 1, its even worse, because persons/car can easily be greater than persons/bike. > When a cyclist breaks the rules, it only kills them. Bikes kill or seriously injure pedestrians, too, and sometimes other bike riders.

bomb19 11y ago

This is a very biased, not well-researched article.

jfaat 11y ago

I don't think the author's main conclusion follows logically from any of the supporting facts. At best, one could conclude that bikers run lights because other bikers do (which is stated about halfway through the article). In no way do any of those facts conclude that bikers run red lights for an adrenaline rush.

a2tech 11y ago

Cyclists in the US ride their bikes like people in the third world drive cars. If you think this is a good thing, ask any immigrant from outside Europe if they like our well ordered system or if they prefer driving at home.

matthewowen 11y ago

People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit. It isn't. I ride a bicycle. I don't run red lights as a general principle, but if I'm at a quiet intersection which I can see to be clear, I don't think coming to a stop and then cautiously proceeding is a terrible thing to do. It's significantly safer than breaking the speed limit on city streets. I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.

branchless 11y ago
On some big intersections when impatient drivers are waiting at lights for some time it's really dangerous to set off with them when. Because of this at such junctions I'll go during the "pedestrian" phase after all the pedestrians have crossed, proceeding slowly as not to hit someone deciding to make a run for it before the lights change. I agree with you about taking a common-sense view to it. Whenever I've used this defense drivers typically state the rules are the rules and common-sense is subjective and we can't have people making up things as they go along. I never like this, it just seems typical of the times we live in.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit. If you mean the posted speed limit, it usually legally is since the posted speed limit is, in many legal regimes, not actually a mandatory limit, whereas the red light is. > I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. Yes, particularly, the relation between normal speed on the road, the distance at which the signal is clearly visible, the timing of the signal, etc., are designed to provide cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc., crossing the intersection safety from, particularly, cars passing through the intersection in other directions. Bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc., violating the rules governing entrance to the intersection are negating that design. > The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car. There's probably an argument that it is in some circumstances safer for a bike to behave like a pedestrian than like a car, sure, as both the size and speed regime may be closer (especially, in the latter case, when coming off a stop) to the former than the latter. OTOH, there's a reason that pedestrians generally aren't supposed to cross against lights, either, so that doesn't really justify blowing through a red light.

rday 11y ago

The primary issue between cyclists and motorists is that very generalization. How about "individuals in cars", and "individuals on bikes". I always stop for red lights. It waaay too dangerous not too. Multiple times I've had pick up trucks hit their horn and blow by me traveling waaay over the speed limit, when I'm following all the rules. Conversely, some cyclists zip in and out of traffic, hit people and scrape cars, and create unsafe situations around them. Pick up trucks routinely give me a few feet when they pass, and even yield at bike path crossings. Just treat everyone respectfully and stop blaming every bike or car for that bad situation the other day. Everyone is different.

escherize 11y ago

> [Paragrahph about bikers running red lights] In short — people are more likely to break a law if they see other people already doing so. Actually there's only evidence to say one is more likely to break _that particular_ law.

fakename 11y ago

I can get a much better sense of cross-traffic and other risks at an intersection when moving through it at full speed on a bike than I can when coming to a complete stop in a car, where 80% of my view is obstructed bymetal, and I can't hear anything.

surrealize 11y ago

> every time a cyclist stops, they lose kinetic energy and have to work harder upon starting off in order to accelerate and restore that kinetic energy. Please. When you choose to ride a bicycle, expending energy is part of the bargain. And part of the point! Stopping means that you're getting more of that exercise that you're so smug about.

tomphoolery 11y ago

This kind of discussion occurs every time there's a news story of some biker getting hit by a car in /r/philadelphia. There are several real reasons for why bikers don't (have to) stop at red lights: 1.) Bikes are not registered. You can't "get my plate number". I can ride away without receiving any kind of retribution. Not as common in a car now that we have things like vehicle registration and licensing. 2.) Bikes, on average, move much slower than cars. Therefore, the damage that they could potentially cause to innocent bystanders is much less pronounced than if they were driving a car. Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general bikers cause more damage to themselves than to others. Personally, I stop at red lights unless it's pretty clear there's no one coming. I almost always wait a few seconds either very slow or stopped at a red light before proceeding if I can't see around the corner coming up. I'm not going that fast so stopping at a moments notice isn't going to throw me over the handlebars.

protomyth 11y ago
"Bikes, on average, move much slower than cars. Therefore, the damage that they could potentially cause to innocent bystanders is much less pronounced than if they were driving a car." Bicycles can kill pedestrians and don't make a whole lot of noise or provide the large visual indication they are coming like a car. Look up the disease code E826.0 [edit: I guess they are changing codes this year - I swear coding is a scam] for some stats.
- kisstheblade 11y ago
  "Bicycles can kill pedestrians..." I tried to look up the injury code and didn't really get any statistics on people killed by bicyclists. Do you have any further information? Bicyclists running red lights never kill anybody (other than maybe the cyclist). Bicyclists going too fast and too close to pedestrians (red lights or not) can injure pedestrians, but that has nothing to do with "obeying the law", rather it just tells that those people don't consider other people (and we can be lucky they were on a bike and not in car, right?). I mean really, a cyclist running a red light in an empty crossing (after stopping and seeing that the crossing is clear) is some kind of danger to anybody? Suddenly getting to fast enough speeds after take off to kill someone??

webnrrd2k 11y ago

From my experience the main reasons are habit and laziness. I agree with the article -- It takes a lot more personal effort to get yourself moving than it does to step on a car's accelerator pedal. It takes even more effort when you come to a full stop on a bicycle. Once you get moving it's not as big a deal to keep accelerating until you get to your cruising speed, though, so there is more of an incentive to just slow down a bit and run stops/lights. Ever since I got a ticket for running a stop as a kid I've been strict about coming to a full stop at all stop signs and red lights. It bugs me to see people blow through stops on bicycles, mostly because of safety reasons -- it's just asking to get hit by a car. But I'm also super-paranoid when I'm on a bike. If I get in an accident I may have had the legal right to do whatever, but I'm still the one going to the hospital (if I'm lucky).

jakejake 11y ago
I ride a bike to work sometimes and I'll slow down, then go through stop signs on a small street if there's nobody nearby. Stop lights, I'll only go through them after coming to a stop and checking for traffic. It's nuts to just go through a red light at full speed, you're bound to get hit at some point. There's an intersection near me with heavy biker commuter traffic and they blow through the light all the time, I keep expecting to witness a death one of these days.

linkregister 11y ago

I ride my bicycle daily in the city. At least once during each trip, a bicyclist blows past me, on the right, and runs the red light that I'm patiently waiting at. Very often, he or she cycles through a crowded crosswalk or in between cars attempting to cross the intersection. This behavior is what gets people mad. I get mad on the rare occasion when vehicles intentionally try to run me into parked cars. I never understood, other than impatience, why a cyclist would run a red. Preservation of momentum is just a relinquished opportunity for good exercise. Running a red is literally shortening the cyclist's life by depriving him or her from the foregone physical activity.

njfrost 11y ago

This is a difficult conversation to have for many reasons. 1. Driving culture and infrastructure are different from city to city 2. Individuals behave differently 3. People are very passionate and emotional 4. The data is difficult and everything is very situational As a cyclist in Portland Oregon, I do feel it is safe to run red lights and stop signs in certain scenarios without being an ass about it. The key to it is awareness and agility. Cyclists have more awareness than car drivers, they can see and hear more than a driver. Second, a bicyclist is going slower and is able to turn out of the way and stop much more easily. Of course cyclist don't want to stop their momentum, that makes sense. Of course there is risk involved. I'd rather focus on how to educate people to ride and drive safely. Our driving culture in the U.S.A is very aggressive and dangerous. We need safer streets and everyone needs to make an effort.

bismuth 11y ago

Separate bike lanes, separate green-time for cyclists at traffic lights, higher frequencey of green-time for cyclists at traffic lights, treating cyclists as a separate but first-class traffic user. These are all ways to alleviate red-light running. As it is, too often a cyclist is seen as a slow, narrow car in the rules. If you are gracious about it as a cyclist, by not actually occupying the entire lane as the rules suggest you do, you get doored from one side, (nearly) swiped off the road by passing cars on the other, and at traffic lights right-turning cars blindly run into you. Also note: while a high-speed cyclist can kill or seriously injure a pedestrian in an accident in rare cases, a car going at a typical urban-road speed will kill or seriously injure a cyclist or pedestrian in most cases. I think that, as with guns, the onus is on the person wielding the deadly device to handle it with sufficient care in the circumstances they find themselves in.