3 ms·
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 BEF
by 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 agoThe 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 agoSomeone 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 agoI 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.
- djthorpe 11y agoCyclists have a very different set of motivations when getting from A to B than cars do. Pedestrians also have a different set of motivations for their actions, but you notice it less because they generally have their own space. I don't think any sort of mutual understanding will help the situation much. The only ways to deal with this is to bring motivations in line or separate out the traffic into separate areas, which is how most cities end up dealing with the issue.
- rday 11y agoIMHO trying to beat the traffic is more dangerous than running a red. You are in a hurry... the guy who is late to work doesn't see you when he burns the "newly red" light....