
This is what makes bicyclists blow through red lights - acdanger
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/26/this-is-what-makes-bicyclists-blow-through-red-lights/?hpid=z10
======
Nadya
_> 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-f...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/05/why-we-should-never-fine-
> cyclists/5571/)

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
(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.

~~~
talaketu
"work" to change velocity is proportional to the square of the change in
velocity, proportional to mass, and independent of gearing.

~~~
falcolas
"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
A regenerative braking system might make cyclists happier to stop, it's true.

------
matthewowen
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
In _most_ areas the posted limit is the actual, statutory limit, and exceeding
it by even 1mph is violating the law.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In most areas the posted limit is the actual, statutory limit, and exceeding
> it by even 1mph is violating the law.

In most _states_ , yes; OTOH, many of the exceptions are large (both
geographically and by population) states like California and Texas, so "most
areas" is a little bit less clear.

------
rday
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.

------
aleksandrm
> 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
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.

------
surrealize
> 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.

------
JeremyMorgan
>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.

~~~
clort
>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
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?

------
bismuth
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.

------
a2tech
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.

------
angdis
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
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
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
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.

------
tomphoolery
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
"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
"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??

~~~
protomyth
> Bicyclists running red lights never kill anybody (other than maybe the
> cyclist).

[http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/bicyclist-
senten...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/bicyclist-sentenced-to-
probation-in-fatal-sf-embarcadero-crash/) and I think this link made HN
[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bicycle-crash-
kills-...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bicycle-crash-kills-
another-pedestrian-central-park)

That's the first search result - there are others

an old 2011 study [https://www.scribd.com/doc/65531772/Hunter-Bike-Accident-
Stu...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/65531772/Hunter-Bike-Accident-Study) which
has the pull quote:

"This present study, based on every hospital in New York State, hasfound that
in New York State alone, there were approximately 1000 pedestrians struck by
cyclists each year necessitating medical treatment at a hospital. Even this
figure grossly underestimates the frequency with which pedestrians are injured
in collisions with cyclists."

------
webnrrd2k
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
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.

------
bomb19
This is a very biased, not well-researched article.

------
jfaat
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.

------
njfrost
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.

------
linkregister
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.

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

------
escherize
> [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.

------
batou
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.

~~~
richmarr
...and on top of the actual collisions there are near-misses, which cause
significant stress to pedestrians (I assume most of this is just through
thoughtlessness rather than wanting to buzz the tower).

To be clear, I've been cycling on the streets of London since I was about 6;
this comment isn't coming from a place of cycle-hatred.

~~~
batou
This was London as well. Farringdon in particular.

I'm was also a cyclist but I wont get on the things now.

~~~
dalore
I had one in London run a red, just missed me. I said woah and kind of swung
out to protect myself/hit him as you do. He took offence and started hunting
me down the streets of London and then wanted to fight.

If I wasn't so hungover and with a heavy full backpack with laptops in it I
might have. But I just walked away whilst he was yelling insults.

He had no time so had to run the red, but he had lots of time to take out his
road rage on a pedestrian.

~~~
batou
Good for you - probably the best outcome. I'd have probably just flipped my
shit. Someone pulled a knife on me in Ealing and my reaction was to smash him
in the face. Hurt like hell but not as much as the later realisation that I
could have pissed him off and ended up worse off than I did.

------
fakename
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.

