
Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights - RyanMcGreal
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride
======
mazelife
Although the article alluded to studies that show this approach is safer it
didn't bother to cite any. Here's one based on results when the law passed in
Iowa: [http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-
bikes-...](http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-
page-1-of-15-title-page.html)

Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees
around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily
and quickly), being prepared to stop if necessary, but continuing on through
if there's no reason to do so, is perfectly safe.

I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to
come to a stop, get off my seat and set foot on the ground, remount, then get
going again from a standstill. When you're doing this every few blocks--which
is not at all uncommon when biking in the city--it gets extremely frustrating.
As a car driver, imagine if you had to come to a complete stop at a stop sign,
turn off the ignition, then restart the car and continue on your way. It feels
like the same thing. (edit: used more clear terminology)

~~~
galdosdi
When I drive (which is a lot less than I bike), I drive a stick, and at least
at reds, I put the car in neutral and engage the parking brake so I can rest
my feet, which (except for the loss of momentum) is comparable to the trouble
incurred in dismounting for a bike.

In general, driving or biking, I think we should stop trying to decrease
effort, and increase it instead. It's good for you. As a cyclist you get
stronger, faster, more skilled. As a driver, you get more skilled and are
forced to stay more alert. All of these things make you and everyone around
you safer, so savor and put as much of yourself as possible into your cycling
and driving, for everyone's sake. You don't get good at things you don't do.

------
skjdflsiugf
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 in the long run. Having said that, I suspect
that many drivers who are pissed-off by cyclists shooting lights would be the
ones doing it themselves if they were on bikes because it's really just a form
of road-rage. Yes, some cyclists are stupidly aggressive, but so are many
drivers.

~~~
TheLarch
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!!!

~~~
vroombaprime
"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.

~~~
TheLarch
I appreciate what seems to be a sincere sentiment, but at the same time I
don't feel like it's my place to point out to a stranger that her, say,
sedentary lifestyle or drinking habit is a health risk.

------
gamblor956
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 force trauma and/or internal
bleeding by the time paramedics arrived.

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

~~~
kordless
It's a data point and was used as such. The effects of breaking moving vehicle
laws can be rationalized away when the mass of the vehicle moving is low. That
doesn't preclude other incidences, such as this one, where someone who's job
it is to drive a truck has to wrangle with the fact they killed someone. They
guy who died could give two shits about the situation.

I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing with people in it on his
side of the road at the intersection at the end of my street. I rolled up to
him in my car at the next light and told him he was breaking the law. He asked
"but is it safe?". The implication is, with this leading question, is that he
thought it was safe to do. What he didn't observe was the car behind him not
slowing down for the pedestrians because they were watching him.

Stopping at a crosswalk, or yielding right of way, is an important rule
because it gives VISUAL indicators to other drivers of nearby vehicles. It's a
backup mechanism for safety at times. Rationalizing laws don't apply to
oneself because they cause delay do not include the fact it the action may
also be the difference between life and death - for someone else. Are we
really going to rationalize away the fact driver may float lights more if they
see bikes doing it as well?

The way Davis, CA handles this is to install special lights for bikes. I would
assume they thought through it and decided floating lights is bad.

For the last 4 years, up until a few months ago, I had been riding at least
5-6 hours a day on fairly busy roads. I've seen a lot of shit that people do
as a result of other's actions, including bikes, and I do NOT think bikes
should be precluded from obeying traffic laws, especially when the only point
to it might be to speed up a bike commute or "save energy". Whatever that
means.

~~~
cmyr
Here's an explanation from a physics professor (cited in the original article)
that might help explain what "save energy" means. [http://nacto.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M....](http://nacto.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.-Curry.-2001..pdf)

In case you can't be bothered to read this either:

> He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per
> hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get
> back to full speed.

~~~
kordless
> In case you can't be bothered to read this either:

My entire comment was based on someone else's comment in these threads, not
the article.

And, not that I give a shit what you think, I actually did read the article
and don't have to agree with it regardless of whether I "bothered" or not.

------
upofadown
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.

------
truantbuick
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 accelerating through the intersection is
not worth it, and makes the commute that much more of a slog.

I think characterizing the Idaho stop as "rolling through the intersection"
might be a little bit misleading, since it conveys a really lax attitude.
Idaho stops are generally quite safe.

Edit: In most cases, Idaho stops have very similar cadence to a car coming to
a full stop. You slow down up to the line, look all around you, determine the
right of way, and if you have it, you start peddling back up to cruising
speed. The fact you don't come to a complete stop is pretty much a
technicality because the timing is almost the same.

If you come to a complete stop, the timing is all off, and there's much more
likely to be hesitation and ambiguity. Starting from a stop takes a lot more
time, is much more likely to lead to false-starts, and puts you in a very
vulnerable position.

~~~
hermannj314
Any advice for bicycle commuters approaching a red light on a rarely-used side
road that is triggered entirely by a weight sensor? I took your advice once
('red lights are red for everybody') and sat their for 5 minutes waiting until
another car pulled up to trigger to weight sensor and the light changed in
seconds.

Now I just go. I treat that particular red light like a stop sign. I don't
lose any sleep over it. And most cops where I live are pretty forgiving to
bicyclists.

~~~
truantbuick
Clearly there are exceptions. In my area, I don't come across lights that use
sensors (or at least the sensors pick up cyclists).

I'm just uneasy with saying "red lights = stop signs for bicyclists". In
complicated intersections, you need to wait for the green, unless it's very
obvious there's no oncoming traffic.

------
IgorPartola
Seems like TFA is an opinion piece and cites no research on actual safety. It
alludes to one reason this is good: getting the cyclist out of the
intersection, and therefore greater danger, sooner. Another good reason might
be to make cyclists' behavior more predictable. As is, you never know which
type of rider you are going to get, so you can't make assumptions.

I think an actually safer thing to do would be to give cyclists the right of
way. Then drivers could at least take for granted that cyclists are going to
not stop for red lights or stop signs.

~~~
pjbster
One aspect of safety which wasn't mentioned in the article is the moment when
lights turn green and cars and bikes begin to move forward. There's a
noticeable tendency for some riders to want to stay in front of the cars and
this engenders an equally fierce desire in the drivers to overtake said
cyclists. Road rage is almost unavoidable at this point.

I usually stop behind the lead car at traffic lights to avoid this; I can
usually keep pace with cars (in London) but flaunting this by trying to race
them away from the lights is just asking for trouble, not to mention more
physically taxing.

So... if I'm on the front of a queue and can safely move away before the
lights turn green, I'll do it because it puts distance between myself and the
lead car, giving the driver more time to line up a safe manoeuvre around me
once the traffic starts moving.

This has to be weighed up against the very real danger that the drivers will
be fuming with rage at the arrogant cyclist in front and thus losing the
senses of calm and serenity that I'm trying to spread :-)

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
IME drivers fume with rage no matter what I do. They'll shout abuse at me as
they pass even if I'm in a bike lane, completely out of their way.

~~~
IgorPartola
I agree it's a real problem. I mean it's important to remember that not every
driver is an asshole, just like not every cyclist is a crazy law breaker, but
there is enough of a critical mass of both to make sharing the road really
dangerous, and cyclists come out worse out of it because physics.

Ideally, I think larger cities could do well with removing the ability to
drive cars there without some hefty taxes/tolls and instead provide moving
walkways and better public transit. Then cycling becomes much safer and a
better option.

I've also had the idea to run a "shower truck" some place like NYC: basically
park it in front of an office building between 8 and 9am and for $1/minute you
get to shower in there. Lack of showers has always been the reason I didn't
commute by bike.

------
brudgers
This is a half measure. What cyclists need is access to limited access,
pedestrian free, well maintained roadways.

[https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-
cycling-0](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/effective-cycling-0)

~~~
vlehto
I haven't read the book, but second the sentiment.

Few death traps on my commute take more time and energy than any lights. The
one spot where old railway was transformed into bike lane is sweet. You can
travel half the city without constantly worrying about dying.

------
rwl4
"... 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.

------
simonbarker87
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 junction is closed (i.e. you can't see oncoming/cross
traffic) then you must stop, and get a good visual before pulling out.

As a result of this cyclists in the UK already don't stop at junctions
because, unless its a closed junction, no one has to stop if it's clear.

I'm pretty sure in the US you can crawl right on a right light if it's clear
so what's the difference in letting a cyclist carefully go through a stop sign
or red light?

~~~
blackbagboys
You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right

~~~
simonbarker87
Ok, that seems sensible if it's on a red. Basically treat it like a closed
junction

------
dogma1138
How about no. Stop signs were designed to prevent people being hit by crossing
traffic.

This isn't just a to protect the cyclists from being hit by cars, but to
protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists.

I'm sorry but my experience of living in London in the past 4 years pretty
much made me hate cyclists with passion.

I find them considerably more dangerous and pesky than cars, they simply
ignore all rules whether it's not giving a flying duck about the red signal at
a bike lane while pedestrians have the green light to cross the street,
utterly ignoring no bikes allowed in the run/walk only paths in Hyde Park or
by interchanging road, bike lane, sidewalk and even the crosswalk at will with
nill consideration to pedestrians and a shitty attitude to boot.

I'm constantly buzzed off green lights (to me) by cyclists that cycle at high
speeds because they could not be arsed to honor a red light, I've been hit by
bikes more than once in these 4 years, and just over the weekend I've seen a
guy on a rental metro bike hit a baby carriage (empty one as far as i could
tell) in Hyde Park because they were in a no-bike zone and came out a turn
which has no visibility whatsoever.

I really don't understand the level of self entitlement that cyclists seem to
have and why they seem to have such a shitty attitude towards drivers and
pedestrians alike. A bicycle rolling through a stop sign isn't any less
dangerous than a car rolling through one, if anything a car is easier to spot
than a bicycle and cars don't tend to have their visibility shuttered by
driving between full lanes.

The reason why most countries do not allow roll through stop signs or at least
heavily restrict them is that rolling through a stop sign sets the wrong
behaviour pattern because once you get used to a stop sign you know you can
roll over you aren't going to slow down to roll over speed you might simply
slow down by a bit but not nearly enough to respond appropriately.

The same thing is going to happen to cyclists they'll get use to it and
eventually get careless they won't give 2 ducks about the padestrians trying
to cross the road with already ludicrously short light times and they'll take
more and more risks as far as crossing the intersection goes.

Cyclists don't have mandatory insurance, they can hit anyone and do pretty
hefty damage if it's at speed and good luck suing them for anything at least
with cars in most countries you can always sue the insurance of the offending
driver. Heck at this point I'm not even entirely sure if being hit by a
bicycle in the UK constitutes a "road accident" so they might as well just
take off and not give a flying duck about it, it happened to me got hit in the
side I assume by the stem/handlebars at pretty high speed the cyclist didn't
seem to give a shit at all and just wobbled a bit and continued on his way
without even checking. It was a sharp pain but not bad enough however the
night after half my side was purple if it would be a bit stronger or sharper
hit I might've ended up pissing blood for 2 weeks.

~~~
jeffwass
Agreed 100%.

I live in London too. As a pedestrian, irresponsible cyclists have really
pissed me off to no end.

Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great
danger to the rest of us pedestrians.

Not all cyclists are like this mind you, but it's enough of a population that
I second-guess most cyclists wil follow rules of the road.

To put into perspective - when you're driving and you have a green light, you
generally assume cars approaching the red light orthogonally will slow down
and respect the stop signal. Now imagine the situation where you cannot assume
this and at every intersection you go through, you assume a car will ignore
their traffic light. That's what it feels like to be a pedestrian around
cyclists in London.

Quite too often cyclists will plow through zebra crossings (crosswalks for you
USA folks, where pedestrians have full right of way). Even if you're in the
middle already.

A cyclist once came at full speed within inches of my daughter's pushchair
(stroller) when we were in the middle of the zebra crossing, and when I loudly
said "what the heck" at the guy. He turned back and screamed very loudly "Fuck
You", in front of my daughter.

Similarly just the other day a cyclist came through a zebra crossing at full
speed about a foot away from me. I again said "what the heck" and he responded
loudly "oh, Fuck Off".

A few intersections have cyclists that regularly come through when pedestrians
have the green man signal.

It's pretty ridiculous.

~~~
_pmf_
> Many cyclists have an attitude of entitledness, which makes them a great
> danger to the rest of us pedestrians.

Isn't the reasoning for the proposal that allowing bikes this special
treatment of stop signs and red lights would incite them to use the road
instead switching to the sidewalk (to be faster)? I.e., yes, bikers might be
entitled, but the suggestion would also benefit pedestrians.

~~~
joncrocks
In the UK (where I think the poster is from), it's already illegal for
cyclists to cycle on a pavement (sidewalk) next to a road. I think.

His experiences are with cyclists flouting the existing laws when they travel
on the road.

~~~
hermannj314
In my city (not-UK), it is only allowed if you are moving at the speed of
pedestrian traffic (a limit of 8mph). I'm guessing to allow children to ride
without fear of being cited, or allow a cyclist around a difficult road
condition.

My point is that I do not know of anywhere that a cyclist can hop on a
sidewalk at full-speed and not be violating the law.

------
imgabe
> 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.

~~~
hermannj314
I had someone do this me between stop signs and then he had to slam on his
brakes since he barely had time to get around me. I then proceeded to follow
him for the next few blocks because a car isn't that much faster than a bike
in these situations.

People in cars hate being slowed down. Some, I hear, even get violent. There
is a patience I learned moving through my city at 15 mph. I wish more people
appreciated it.

------
mc32
I'm curious about what Germans think of this, since people look a pedestrian
askance if you don't wait for the light.

As an occasional cyclist I'm of two minds. On the one hand, having too many
stop signs along a roadway gets annoying so mentally one wants to simply slow
down and look and if no cars have the right of way at the time, go through.
The danger is that this behavior gets modified to a default of riding through
and only slowing down if a motorist doesn't give you right of way (slow down
or wave on) and assuming that as a cyclist I have the primary right of way
(weaving through pedestrians and cars) in other words wishing people and cars
did not have to share (yes, it's only a mindset, but one easy to allow to set
in).

Also, since cycling is healthy, you get even more exercise by stopping and
starting constantly so from a health perspective it's better as it improves
your workout and keeps you alive by preventing unnecessay collisions.

~~~
dx034
In Germany you can lose your driver's license quickly if you ignore red lights
as a cyclists. It's enforced a lot, especially in cities with a high
percentage of cyclists. And you'll get frequent comments by others, but even
more as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

~~~
mc32
I wish we had something like that for cyclists who flout red lights. It's too
common where I live. And I know the allure, as a part time cyclist, I
understand it but a disincentive is good too.

------
antoineMoPa
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.

------
zaccus
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.

------
dynofuz
Whenever someone yells at me for doing this i just tell them, "it's pareto
efficient" Of course, i slow down and make sure there are no cars or people in
the way before crossing.

------
karma_vaccum123
The cop who gives you a ticket probably doesn't care about your Vox articles,
Maclolm-Gladwell-grade pseudo statistics, or these comments.

At least in the Bay Area, cops are definitely willing to take the time to
ticket cyclists. In Los Gatos where I live, the police will sometimes take a
Saturday and just watch a busy intersection and literally ticket EVERY cyclist
who blows through.

Of course we have also had a few cycling fatalities here, always the same
story:cyclists blowing through intersections.

Don't do it. Don't be the asshole who makes life more difficult for other
cyclists. No one cares about your bogus statistical arguments.

------
ivanhoe
I don't see how it's safe to allow this for bikes, but it's not safe for cars?
Why not just allowing everyone to "slow down and look for traffic" and then
decide if it's safe to go through or not? That's basically what you do when
there's no traffic lights and if people really slow down and look there will
be rarely any problems with that. That's how roundabouts function, and they
are generally very safe.

~~~
arthurdenture
As discussed in the article, cars have worse field of vision, drive faster,
and cause significantly more damage when they mis-judge whether it's safe to
proceed.

------
mamon
TL;DR; Why? Because we should encourage natural selection in humans. Only the
fittest cyclists survive :)

------
galdosdi
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))

