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

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))

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.

That's a sad anecdote. It doesn't seem to address the argument or actual safety data presented in the article.

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!!!

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.