In places, this recognition has actually been codified into law (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop).
And when there are pushes for regulations to make cycling safer, they roll their eyes and vote against it, even when they're simple, effective, cheap measures.
The seemingly widespread belief among cyclists that they don't need to follow the rules of the road is, in my opinion, a large part of the reason Americans are so opposed to changing said rules to make cycling safer. There are a very large number of Americans who believe the primary reason cyclists get hurt is because the cyclist was doing something dangerous.
They also see many more cars flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis. On a normal late afternoon, I can stand outside the local supermarket and see 20+ cars jumping red lights, obstructing junctions, sitting on pedestrian crossings, etc. within half an hour.
> cyclists would rather throw themselves into oncoming traffic rather than dealing with the inconvenience of having to stop at stop lights.
Yes, as do a lot of car drivers.
Specifically, the issue is with Amber lights. The highway code says:
AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
Observing car driving habits in London, an average of 2-3 cars break this rule every time a light cycles from green to red. This behaviour is legally the same as jumping the light on red. Cyclists are far less likely to break this rule (they're slower across the junction and are aware that that puts them in danger from the other lights going green).
If you factor in all those cars into your assessment, you'll probably find that cyclists are not worse than cars at obeying the law around traffic lights.
Normally end up with a bus in the bus lane and 3-4 cars sat in the junction across the pedestrian crossing on every light change at peak time.
Well there is your loophole big enough to drive a truck (lorry?) through even on an amber light!
/devils advocate
The loophole for a cyclist is that they could swing their leg off the bike and magically become a pedestrian, cross the stop line, get back on, and legally ride away across the junction regardless of lights. Given that swinging your leg off the bike makes no reasonable difference to anything, why get annoyed if they don't bother with that part?
Isn't it just like claiming a general exemption on all amber lights because doing anything might cause an accident?
* Some cyclists blatantly run a red light in the middle of the cycle, oftentimes out of nowhere. Overall, perceived as unpredictable behavior.
* Some drivers tend to run the yellow, and sometimes pass through the intersection a bit after the red has been on. It just happens that the red cycles overlap a bit, then the other drivers are still stopped, and alert for the road to clear. While annoying to lose 500ms of the start, it is fairly predictable and rarely leads to sudden brake slamming.
It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs it, he can kill the bicyclist. If the bicyclist runs it, the driver can kill the bicyclist. While the risk is not symmetrical the outcome is the same.
One would think that the party with more risk would be less likely to run the stop sign but in my experience (which is probably not typical world wide) in the Bay Area the opposite is true. Although admittedly it seems the law just isn’t enforced here. Maybe unequal laws would more likely be enforced and some combination of personal risk plus enforcement would achieve the desired outcome.
Additionally many bicyclists are also drivers. So it might be prudent to penalize them for the behavior equally so that it discourages the behavior in general and removes dangerous drivers more easily; assuming their behavior on different vehicles correlates.
Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.
I'd also worry about bicycle-vs-bicycle collisions. Maybe density is too low to make this terribly likely, but it doesn't sound like a scenario that would go well either.
I have seen 3 accidents and maybe 100 near misses involving cyclists and have been in a few myself. In all of them, it was the cyclists fault.
Cyclists may have higher risks, but that doesn't seem to stop us from doing stupid dangerous things all the time. Although in fairness most near accidents I have seen are vagrants crossing a busy intersection without waiting for a green, seemingly with the intention of being run over.
I do that because I want to get out of this life without maiming or killing someone. I'm old enough to know it's long game and to know people that have accidentally killed people. And you don't want to go there. You might think that if it's not your fault it won't fuck with you. Trust me it will.