Hacker News Reader

Comment by skjdflsiugf | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Maybe my understanding of what you mean by "shooting the lights" is wrong, but based on what I believe you're saying, this is not permitted under an Idaho stop law either. Cyclists may treat a red light like a stop sign. So they need to come to a full stop, then proceed through the intersection if it's clear of pedestrians and cars. That is very different from just blowing through a red light at an intersection.

As a cyclist myself, I've noticed a common case where you end up on the receiving end of driver frustration is when you come to a stop at a red light and are situated in the middle of a line of cars waiting for the green. When the light turns, it's going to take you longer to get up to speed than the cars, which often results in frustrated and dangerous behavior by the drivers behind you trying to get around. Having the option to be able to proceed through a red after stopping _when it's safe to do so_ lets you get a jump on things.

I generally avoid busy roads, but when I am at a light I do enter the center of the lane. This is because one of the most common accidents that cyclists suffer is the "right hook" where a right-turning car does not see you. I accelerate hard in that case and don't ever get the feeling I'm hassling anyone much.

As a bike commuter (and one who frequently rolls through stop signs and stop lights) I agree with you. Cycling is dangerous and allowing cyclists to legally roll through stop signs and stop lights isn't going to make cycling safer. I admit that I'm frequently a hypocrite, but as I get older I'm stopping more at signs and lights.

By "shot the lights" I assume you mean going through the intersection even though you're facing a red light. (?) I don't do this, except as allowed by Wisconsin's pretty new law (must wait at least a minute after which you're allowed to assume the lights are "sensing" lights and don't sense your presence). Unless I'm missing some subtlety, I don't understand how it doesn't save time to go through...

I am not an aggressive biker or driver and that you bring them up is confusing the thesis of the article. NOBODY is proposing making it legal to just blast through a red light. Perhaps this is what you mean by shooting the lights, but in that case you "strongly disagreeing" with the article implies you might want to reread what was proposed. The embedded video is an awesome explainer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences"

But it does make sense a lot of the time. The lack of consequences is a contributing factor for this.

Car 'ownership' of the roads is debatable: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

I think the key difference is between stop lights and stop signs. The latter is a more attentive experience and adaptable to the Idaho stop. Stop lights are a bigger challenge. It's been my experience the size & traffic activity of the lighted intersection determines the safety level and flexibility.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com