Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by hermannj314 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

vroombaprime wrote: post #36

TheLarch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am surprised to hear you assert that there is no time saving to be had in running red lights. In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are welcome to join us. What angry drivers usually don't get is that the equation is much different for cyclists. Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car. Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium. Wheeeee!!!

"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car." By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.

The article disagrees with you.

>> Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more.

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

#52

Post by anexprogrammer » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

TheLarch wrote: post #28

skjdflsiugf wrote: post #14

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 i…

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!!!

"Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium"

Therein is the real reason for many cyclists doing it - not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences. There's no licensing, registration or insurance to cycle on the roads. Many cyclists, and I cycle too, behave accordingly with no consideration for other road users, or pedestrians. Hence many cyclists now cycling on footpaths (illegally) and some getting irritated when they encounter a pedestrian on it!

Most "annoyed drivers" aren't annoyed by a cyclist carefully crossing an empty junction - the annoyance comes in rush hour when others are inconvenienced or it's plain reckless.

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

#53

Post by imgabe » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

skjdflsiugf wrote: post #14

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 i…

Stop signs, at least 4 way stops, it's fairly easy to see whether or not there's anyone at the intersection that you'll need to stop for, so it's pretty pointless to stop if nobody is there. For stop lights, I usually stop to see if anyone's coming, then go through if it's clear. It's pointless to wait there for nothing.

Drivers are going to be pissed off no matter what. Being pissed off is a natural result of making the poor decision to drive a car in a city.

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

#54

Post by jread » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

skjdflsiugf wrote: post #14

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 i…

There are 3 cases where rolling through or jump starting at a red light makes sense, and is sometimes safer in my opinion. The first is a t-intersection where the bike lane runs through the non-traffic side - its absolutely safe to run these if you've verified nobody is in the crosswalk. The second is fast moving roads with no or shared bike lanes. In this case I find safely rolling through allows me to get ahead of traffic and up to speed before cars start flying by. I feel this is safer than impeding traffic as you clip in and more slowly get up to speed. Finally, red lights with pressure sensors and no upcoming cars to trigger them. Unless you want to sit there all day I think it's ok to roll through these.

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

#55

Post by cmyr » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #18

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 f…

From the article:

>If a cyclist approaches a red light, meanwhile, he or she needs to stop fully. Again, if there's any oncoming traffic or a pedestrian, it has the right of way. If there's not, the cyclist can proceed cautiously through the intersection. Put simply, red light is a stop sign.

>This doesn't mean that a cyclist is allowed to blast through an intersection at full speed — which is dangerous for pedestrians, the cyclist, and pretty much everyone involved. This isn't allowed in Idaho, and it's a terrible idea everywhere.

Nobody is suggesting that cyclists should just ignore right of way.

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

#56

Post by Vraxx » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

truantbuick wrote: post #34

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…

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.

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

#57

Post by scott_s » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

simonbarker87 wrote: post #29

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…

In residential areas in the US, I think stop signs are sometimes used as a means to slow people down.

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

#58

Post by rwl4 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

"... 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.

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

#59

Post by imgabe » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

> 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.

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

#60

Post by antoineMoPa » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

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.