Are bikes allowed to go through red lights on major roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Actually the ways people mostly get crushed by SUV drivers are:

1. the driver turns right across their path (right hook)
2. the driver turns left and hits them
3. the driver rear-ends and/or sideswipes them

In contrast, stop-as-yield laws make the roads safer for bicyclists: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

Don't you think that some people will be turning at these intersections when they expect oncoming traffic to stop? A bike blowing through the stop is then a surprise to the turning driver.

We can speculate and make stuff up, or we can look at the actual data!

"Many States have enacted bicyclist stop-as-yield laws to enhance safety and protect cyclists. Based upon the current research and data available, these laws showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in States where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Yields at stop signs where no one is present at the intersection are legal for cyclists in DC.

The issue is blowing stop signs where there’s lots of people present. Cyclists are completely disregarding the specifics of how Idaho stops are supposed to work and just ignoring stop signs altogether. It’s amazing more aren’t killed.

Probably because they are using their judgement and they only blow through stop signs when they think it is safe to do so since they presumably don’t want to die.

I think drivers just get bitter when they see someone on a bike making faster progress while they’re sitting in their gas guzzling overpriced inefficient personal vehicle. You don’t care at all about their safety, you just want them to sit in traffic like you.

Except they don't make faster progress. Half way up the block you're either stuck behind them or passing them if they are fortunate enough to have a bike lane. But then you stop at the red light, they buzz through the red light and then you're stuck behind them yet again. And again. And again. And again. And instead of being able to drive at 25mph you're perpetually stuck behind some cyclist doing 15.

[Anonymous]

No, but I do it anyway. I don't want to lose my momentum so I basically don't follow any traffic laws at all. I've been doing it for 20+ years and no accidents yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today, I was driving westbound on Macarthur Blvd, and I stopped at a red light. Two bicyclists, with children in tow, came up behind me, crossed four lanes of traffic to turn left onto Dana Place. I know bikes can do a rolling stop through stop signs, but is this correct behavior at a stop sign. It seemed very dangerous to me as cars were crossing Macarthur with the light.

That intersection has crosswalks on all sides. So it sounds like they were effectively turning left onto the crosswalk across MacArthur and along Dana. If there was traffic turning left off Dana onto MacArthur, they could have remained on the crosswalk and been protected by the right of way. If there was no traffic on Dana, then they can just merge from the crosswalk onto the Dana proper without any issue. A cleaner way of doing this would have been to come up onto the sidewalk of MacArthur before turning left onto the crosswalk, but either way this sounds like a perfectly safe move. Had they followed the law for cars, they’d be stuck in the left westbound lane waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear before they could turn left and would still need to worry about cars turning right from MacArthur onto Dana while running the risk of being rear-ended by a driver on MacArthur who was not paying attention. I’ll take what they did any day over that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

The real answer right here.

Bicyclists don't ignore stop signs because of cockamamie arguments about how it's somehow safer to ignore traffic safety laws.

They ignore stop signs because physically it's too tiring for them to have to constantly stop and start their bikes.

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine what it would be like if cycling was actually popular in DC?

PARIS — On a recent afternoon, the Rue de Rivoli looked like this: Cyclists blowing through red lights in two directions. Delivery bike riders fixating on their cellphones. Electric scooters careening across lanes. Jaywalkers and nervous pedestrians scrambling as if in a video game.

Sarah Famery, a 20-year resident of the Marais neighborhood, braced for the tumult. She looked left, then right, then left and right again before venturing into a crosswalk, only to break into a rant-laden sprint as two cyclists came within inches of grazing her.

“It’s chaos!” exclaimed Ms. Famery, shaking a fist at the swarm of bikes that have displaced cars on the Rue de Rivoli ever since it was remade into a multilane highway for cyclists last year. “Politicians want to make Paris a cycling city, but no one is following any rules,” she said. “It’s becoming risky just to cross the street!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/world/europe/paris-bicyles-france.html#:~:text=In%20Paris%2C%20parts%20of%20the,bike%20lanes%20weave%20through%20traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

The real answer right here.

Bicyclists don't ignore stop signs because of cockamamie arguments about how it's somehow safer to ignore traffic safety laws.

They ignore stop signs because physically it's too tiring for them to have to constantly stop and start their bikes.

Those are all weak arguments for them. Some of them are arrogant and entitled too. I've had cyclists yell at me as a pedestrian with right of way at a crosswalk when they were supposed to yield. Given I also ride (but do follow laws) it's embarrassing to have fellow cyclists who do stupid things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

The real answer right here.

Bicyclists don't ignore stop signs because of cockamamie arguments about how it's somehow safer to ignore traffic safety laws.

They ignore stop signs because physically it's too tiring for them to have to constantly stop and start their bikes.

You must have missed that bicyclists are not now required to stop at stop signs per DC law. No one is ignoring anything. You are simply ignorant of the law.

[Anonymous]

If there are practices that are illegal now but safer for bikers, maybe we should change the laws. I just think it is important for drivers and bikers to understand the laws that apply to both and expect people to follow them. This morning, on 34th Street, a biker stopped patiently at every light, just like the cars. It was a pleasure to share the road with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there are practices that are illegal now but safer for bikers, maybe we should change the laws. I just think it is important for drivers and bikers to understand the laws that apply to both and expect people to follow them. This morning, on 34th Street, a biker stopped patiently at every light, just like the cars. It was a pleasure to share the road with them.

1) It's already been explained that isn't the law.

2) There is no way it was more pleasant to have a vehicle going slower than you in your line of traffic, stopping and starting all the way down thirty fourth street. I used to ride that way to work all the time and if I wasn't in the yellow median cars were either on my back tire or speeding dangerously around me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not a cyclist, but I don't fault cyclists for not following the law. Our transportation system was built for heavy vehicles. It's sometimes safer for bicycles to leave an intersection before all the cars start up. As such, it's an individual judgement, in the knowledge that if they get into an accident, they will be at fault and may not get compensation. However, when it's a cyclist against a car, no amount of compensation can bring them back to life, so I think it a lot of cases, legality doesn't really matter. What matters is that all drivers should stay aware on the roads and not crush a cyclist.

Correct.

You what’s a good way to get crushed by a SUV? Running stop signs

Actually the ways people mostly get crushed by SUV drivers are:

1. the driver turns right across their path (right hook)
2. the driver turns left and hits them
3. the driver rear-ends and/or sideswipes them

In contrast, stop-as-yield laws make the roads safer for bicyclists: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

Correct. I go through red lights on my bike when I can see there’s no traffic - this actually protect me from conflicts at the intersection.

That said, what OP describes does not sound safe because of the high volume of traffic. I wonder if what actually happened is that the bikers crossed MacArthur in the crosswalk with the green light?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today, I was driving westbound on Macarthur Blvd, and I stopped at a red light. Two bicyclists, with children in tow, came up behind me, crossed four lanes of traffic to turn left onto Dana Place. I know bikes can do a rolling stop through stop signs, but is this correct behavior at a stop sign. It seemed very dangerous to me as cars were crossing Macarthur with the light.

That intersection has crosswalks on all sides. So it sounds like they were effectively turning left onto the crosswalk across MacArthur and along Dana. If there was traffic turning left off Dana onto MacArthur, they could have remained on the crosswalk and been protected by the right of way. If there was no traffic on Dana, then they can just merge from the crosswalk onto the Dana proper without any issue. A cleaner way of doing this would have been to come up onto the sidewalk of MacArthur before turning left onto the crosswalk, but either way this sounds like a perfectly safe move. Had they followed the law for cars, they’d be stuck in the left westbound lane waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear before they could turn left and would still need to worry about cars turning right from MacArthur onto Dana while running the risk of being rear-ended by a driver on MacArthur who was not paying attention. I’ll take what they did any day over that risk.

This is likely what happened. My only disagreement is that biking in the crosswalk actually can be dangerous because you’re less visible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biker here. My rule of thumb is to roll through red lights and stop signs PROVIDED that it has no effect on any traffic that would normally have the right-of-way. If a car has to slow down (or jam on its brakes) because I'm crossing against the light then that's a big mistake on my part. However, sometimes the most efficient path is to roll through a stop sign if the driver to my left or right is starting to slow for a stop - by the time they are actually stopped, I'm long through the intersection and they can actually get going more quickly than if I come to a complete stop.

There's some simple physics also. It's a PIA to get a bike going again after coming to a complete stop. If you have to do that every block, it gets really bad. Better for everyone if I slow down, verify that there is no oncoming traffic, and then keep the momentum going.

The real answer right here.

Bicyclists don't ignore stop signs because of cockamamie arguments about how it's somehow safer to ignore traffic safety laws.

They ignore stop signs because physically it's too tiring for them to have to constantly stop and start their bikes.

literally zero cars stop at stop signs unless there is already traffic in the intersection - they ALL treat stop signs like yield signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today, I was driving westbound on Macarthur Blvd, and I stopped at a red light. Two bicyclists, with children in tow, came up behind me, crossed four lanes of traffic to turn left onto Dana Place. I know bikes can do a rolling stop through stop signs, but is this correct behavior at a stop sign. It seemed very dangerous to me as cars were crossing Macarthur with the light.

That intersection has crosswalks on all sides. So it sounds like they were effectively turning left onto the crosswalk across MacArthur and along Dana. If there was traffic turning left off Dana onto MacArthur, they could have remained on the crosswalk and been protected by the right of way. If there was no traffic on Dana, then they can just merge from the crosswalk onto the Dana proper without any issue. A cleaner way of doing this would have been to come up onto the sidewalk of MacArthur before turning left onto the crosswalk, but either way this sounds like a perfectly safe move. Had they followed the law for cars, they’d be stuck in the left westbound lane waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear before they could turn left and would still need to worry about cars turning right from MacArthur onto Dana while running the risk of being rear-ended by a driver on MacArthur who was not paying attention. I’ll take what they did any day over that risk.

This is likely what happened. My only disagreement is that biking in the crosswalk actually can be dangerous because you’re less visible.

Less visible than what? If drivers are unable to see people who are in the crosswalk, that's a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there are practices that are illegal now but safer for bikers, maybe we should change the laws. I just think it is important for drivers and bikers to understand the laws that apply to both and expect people to follow them. This morning, on 34th Street, a biker stopped patiently at every light, just like the cars. It was a pleasure to share the road with them.

That's not been my experience as a bicyclist, with respect to drivers. When I take the lane as though I were driving a car, and stop fully at every stop sign and red light, it's common for a driver behind me to get angry, because I'm in their way. I would be in their way just as much if I were driving a car, of course. Though actually when I am driving a car, and I stop fully at every stop sign and red light, it's common for a driver behind me to get angry too. But the effect of an angry driver is more threatening when I'm on a bike than when I'm in a car. Plus when I'm driving, nobody disputes that I have a right to be there - unlike when I'm bicycling ("Get the f out of the road, b!").