Hacker News Reader

Comment by shittyanalogy | Hacker News Reader

I never really understood the value in ticketing cyclists, or jay walkers for that matter in NYC. Very few people are getting hurt, even in the densest metropolitan area in the country so why are we so worried about it? Because cyclists can be annoying sometimes? Also the city speed limit went down to 25 mph. Isn't this supposed to take care of many of the collisions? Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights are going to be discouraged from riding as it just takes too damn long to cycle around smoggy, loud NYC stopping at every goddamn light. But those of us that are aggressive ass-hole riders are just going to be more likely to unsafely try to evade the police. Which is not hard if you know what you're doing.

It doesn't appear to be about safety, as the statistics clearly indicate that it's currently safe. It appears to be about making money and possibly discourage cycling.

View on HN

> Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights

Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC), what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportation seems to do just fine "stopping at every goddamn light". Get off your high horse - even if a bicycle running a light isn't the same threat to public safety as a multi-ton steel death machine doing so, claiming that you can do so and be a "safe cyclist" will do nothing but hurt your credibility.

Eh, I'm a cyclist in NYC and when i come to a red light i slow way down and if there are any pedestrians or cars, I stop. But if it's completely clear, I'll roll through slowly and carefully. It feels pretty safe and I make sure that I always come to complete stops far back if there are pedestrians because they have the right away.

I've heard that some states legally treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs for bicyclists, and I think that's reasonable. I view what I do as the same as jay walking... Technically illegal, but no one is going to stand and wait at a cross walk for 30 seconds for a light to change when it's clear there's no one coming.

"if it's completely clear"

That's my philosophy. I primarily walk, but at times drive & bike.

My take is that iff there is no one else who could possibly be impacted by it that running stop signs and red lights is AOK.

The problem I often see with this is that most people only consider one of the other two modes of transportation (no on cares about Segways, muahaha!) and forgets the other one - often the pedestrians.

I'm fine with cyclists slowing down before hitting a red light and then rolling through because I'm at least somewhat assured that they made an active effort to look out for adult or child pedestrians and pets.

What I really hate is a pack of cyclists blowing past a red light when my kids are walking with me across a sidewalk (example: Riverside Drive).

It can increase hatred towards you, but that does not make you an unsafe cyclist.

If the drivers are present and having their hatred increased, then the cars are present and you shouldn't be running the red light when cars are present, because yes that does make you an unsafe cyclist in that regard.

No, the colour of a light doesn't make crossing the street unsafe. Even if there are fifty cars waiting at that intersection and a thousand more parked at the next lot.

The drivers that it increases hatred for aren't the parked ones ones, and aren't the ones next to you going the same direction, they are the ones that have to worry about an unexpected cyclist in their path, regardless of if you believe you will be safely out their path by the time they get to where you are.

I am sorry but I felt it was obvious I wasn't talking about parked cars.

Actually I'm pretty sure the drivers getting outraged are the ones sitting at a red light doing nothing except waiting and watching and seeing me cross on red. "Oh I saw that asshole run a red light! (HOW UNFAIR!)"

As for the drivers worrying about unexpected cyclists getting in their path.. no, that has nothing to do with the colour of the light. Yes, it may be a concern, just like unexpected cars getting in their path might be a concern. And it has nothing to do with the colour of the light. So it pays to approach an intersection carefully. Because if you drive enough, you may eventually find out that some intersections don't even have lights to begin with, and a car or a cyclist might've misjudged your speed. Yes, even I could make such a mistake and misjudge someone. That's the risk we all take in traffic. Red doesn't mean unsafe. Green doesn't mean the path is clear. What do you do when the light blinks yellow or turns off? What do you do when the light turns green for you and also for the cyclist next to you?

I run reds, but I judge the safety of it just as I would if there were no lights, or as if I were crossing where there's no intersection. And yes I do account for the fact that drivers are not going by the standard yield rules in a light-controlled intersection. I'm not reckless.

Every OTHER form of transportation...

Certainly does not stop at every red light. Specifically pedestrians. Bikes are more maneuverable and faster than pedestrians while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem.

Also I think it's important to note that there is no term for "safely crossing an intersection even though the light is red." That and blowing through indiscriminately are both referred to as "running" which I think contributes to a large problem in perception.

As someone that has had to come to some pretty abrupt stops because bikes darted out into intersections from behind cars while they had a red light and I had a green turn arrow. I disagree. I am in Boston not NYC but there is one intersection I go through in my daily commute where this happens at least once a month, and the first couple times it happened was nearly bad.

Some people are reckless, ticketing those of us that will stop when a police officer puts his arm out isn't going to stop the reckless.

True but ticketing the reckless ones is needed, and the fact there are reckless ones, enough that I encounter them regularly at the same intersection(its a really long light) indicates to me it should be enforced. So I was disagreeing with your belief that "while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem."

Many highway chases are called off because chasing the most dangerous people puts more people in danger than it's worth. It's an unfortunate reality but you can't discourage the extremely reckless by punishing the mildly.

How about a car example: If there is a four-way stop, and a car runs a stop sign because they can see there is no one else waiting, should they be ticketed?

This is a case where if something is done relatively infrequently, it is quite safe. But once it becomes common, it is very unsafe. A lot of other traffic laws are the same.

Cars kill people often. Bikes extremely rarely do.

I'm a bicycle commuter in London, formerly Minneapolis, Santa Fe and Sunnyvale—Palo Alto corridor.

I agree that running red lights is bad in the general case, however I do have some exceptions. In certain circumstances waiting for the light to turn is leaving me in a vulnerable position, or a place where I'm going to block traffic and piss off a lot of drivers. In these cases sometimes I dismount and walk, sometimes I ride out slowly as a pedestrian (London intersections tend to be 3-phase with the walk cycle being all directions, also there are no turns-on-red).

This makes some people angry who want to stick their head in the sand and pretend a bicycle is the same as a motor vehicle. The problem is that it's not. If you are a fast rider in a dense urban area such as London you can at times approximate being a vehicle, but slow riders or fast uncongested roads you can't.

For me it's all about safety and courtesy. I am courteous to pedestrians and I am courteous to motor vehicle traffic. For instance, I move over to let cars pass and I don't take any more space than is necessary to be safe. If a car is stuck behind me I try to go as fast I can until it's safe to make room for them to pass. Similarly if I'm stuck in an unsafe position I may do a technical illegal maneuver to get out of it. This pisses some people off sometimes, usually drivers who have never pedaled in an urban environment ever, but you know what? It's my ass out there on the line and being at times a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian in equal shares, I have a better idea what is safe and considerate than most.

The difference, in my city, anyway, is that lights are timed for cars and not bicycles. A light pattern that usually stops a car twice might stop a cyclist three or four times. A cyclists' lower speed and presence in the open air means that they react to the environment much more quickly. It's nearly impossible for a cyclist to fail to notice cross traffic when approaching an intersection whereas it's difficult for an auto. So, a series of lights that minimally inconveniences a car, and reduces the chance of a crash, inconveniences a cyclist more and hardly reduces the chance of a crash (it may increase the chance since hindrances to cycling reduce cycling rates, which puts people in cars, which are more dangerous per mile.)

Because of all this, the "Idaho Stop" is a recognized, lawful traffic behavior for cyclists in many jurisdictions. It lets them treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.

Someone claiming to be a safe cyclist who runs red lights may present poorly to people who only drive, or who imagine a cyclist speeding through a red light at 20+ MPH, but it's not an oxymoron and it should be understood by someone who is familiar with cycling.

According to Wikipedia, the Idaho Stop has not been adopted outside of Idaho.

I believe many jurisdictions allow bicyclists to proceed through a red light if they stop and wait for a minute or two and the light doesn't change, as a way to compensate for sensor-activated lights that bicycles won't trigger. But that's quite different.

So is Idaho wrong, or are the laws elsewhere wrong? I don't think the potato surplus changes the nature of traffic.

Ah, you're right. I believe it's spread unofficially, though, because I've heard about the practice from several areas of the country.

It seems pretty common. In general, the law around cyclists and how cyclists actually behave is pretty different. And I don't mean to blame the cyclists there. In many cases (like IMO this one) the law is in the wrong and should be changed. In others (e.g. blasting through red lights without even stopping) the cyclists are in the wrong. But making the law better conform to reality here would probably make enforcing the good parts much easier.

There are cases where it's safe to run a red light. Some lights rely on sensors and simply will not change in any reasonable time if there's no traffic. In that case, I'll stop, ensure there's no traffic, then proceed through the red light.

I doubt this applies in NYC, though. If you're proceeding through a red light just to save 60 seconds waiting for the light, you're doing it wrong.

I cycle everywhere, and I stop at every light. But I also realize that the rules of the road aren't some magic tome that came to us from the gods. They were introduced primarily to curb the massive injuries and problems from the early introduction of cars. At that point, bicycles were already around for many many years.

So you combine terrible infrastructure for bikes with road rules that don't protect them, relegate them to the sides, but expect them to follow all of the car-designed rules, which often make no sense for vehicles going <15mph with very low momentum and much, much better vision for the driver.

It's the old UI adage, "the user isn't wrong".

I do not think bikes need to stop at red lights, current laws and urban design are designed to make it really comfortable for cars.

It also makes is more dangerous for me to stop at red lights - because cyclists are bottlenecks in road. they can easily cause a lot of cars to slow down. I have had situations where I stopped at a red light and 4 huge lorries were behind me and once the signal got green they tried to overtake me.It was a really scary ride. If I got ahead on the mostly empty road I could moved ahead enough to reduce the time I was a bottleneck on the road benefiting both the car drivers and me.

In this situation, it's best to make it impossible for them to pass until it's safe (by riding in the middle of the lane).

I will get off my high horse if you get off your high horsepower smog machine.

Seattle? Place yourself in the bike lane stopped at Eastlake and Fuhrman southbound. Very common commute route. No way to not be in the bike lane there given you just crossed the U bridge. (Unless you like riding on steel grating while drivers honk at you.) Then try to make the left onto Harvard Ave (again, extremely popular route) after the light turns green. You have one block to move left across two lanes. Post youtube if possible. I guarantee that proceeding across Fuhrman against the red light, doing your lane changes in the absence of traffic, is safer and less antagonizing if there is even moderate traffic. Only other safe alternative is to use the pedestrian crossings, which kind of fucking proves the point here. There's a million little situations like this.

As a pedestrian in Boston, the cyclists who don't follow the rules have been the most dangerous for me. Just because it's safe to blow through a red light in terms of vehicular traffic doesn't mean that you're not going to run over a pedestrian.

I've yet to be hit, but I've come damn close many times. To add insult to injury, most of the time the cyclists has yelled at me to watch where I'm going. The hypocrisy of that one astounded me.

Errors by cyclists and pedestrians can cause vehicle accidents because mostly drivers expect cyclists and pedestrians to follow traffic rules and adhere to common safety guidelines.

That is an unsafe assumption and one of the first lessons of driving school. That you can never predict what people will do and to always be aware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com