I run red lights. There, I said it.
Views: 151
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
I missed that.
But you still don't point out the potential problems it could create if you are hit while doing so or have some kind of accident.
It also leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth to see an attorney and somebody who calls themselves a bicycle advocate publicly justifying, and to an extent even encouraging, the running of red lights.
Chicago Bicycle Advocate said:DUG: Please see Heather Stratton's response. I wrote that post because I wish to advocate for a change in the law. Will my little post on my little blog have an impact? Almost certainly not, but change is a process. It has to start somewhere. Cyclists that run lights are often scoffed at as arrogant outlaws. That, in my view, is unfair. There are legitimate reasons for not following the rules of the road when biking in traffic.
notoriousDUG said:I think that is a little upsetting that you, as an attorney, failed to note or point out that regardless of your justification for running a traffic light or sign it is still illegal and punishable via citation and fine. Not to mention that if you choose to disobey a traffic control and end up in an accident, regardless of the other party's level of malice or stupidity, you are going to be viewed as in the wrong and probably have no recourse when it comes to getting compensated for the damages even if it could be argued the other person was at fault.
And for the record; I run lights and signs for the same reason you do but I recognize the legal position it puts me in and choose to not advertise or publicly justify my actions because I do not want to give people the impression they are in the right to do so.
-
Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on
-
Duppie:
I am forced to admit that I am not aware of any statistics that support using stop as yield. In the absence of such supporting data I have offered what I hope is a reasonable explanation for why disobeying a stop light/sign may increase bicycling safety. I do not advocate for a change in the law simply because the present statute is "unfair" but because I think it makes a safe and reasonable approach for dealing with the risks motor vehicles pose to bicyclists illegal, and that, in my opinion, should not be.
I have purposefully avoided using the term "Idaho stop" (d'oh). My goal is to relate the "stop-as-yield" concept to urban traffic. The fair point has been raised before that what happens in Idaho will rarely be relative to what happens in an urban setting like Chicago.
-
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on
-
"Anticipate ignorance, expect stupidity."
Funny. However, in my next life I want to come back dumber than a bag of hammers.
Anne said:funny, i've almost been hit by two cyclists charging thru an intersection this year who were seemingly trying to obtain that cocoon of urban space and serenity.
my motto is "anticipate ignorance, expect stupidity". While I would trust you, or others on this board, perhaps, to NOT be stupid, I have a profound lack of trust in the greater demographic of road users (and that includes pedestrians!)
Chicago Bicycle Advocate said:Charging through an intersection without looking for bikes and motor vehicles is stupid. Slowing down, looking then going when the coast is clear is sometimes reasonable.
Anne said:but what if i'm riding a bike through an intersection on the green and you run the red?
as a cyclist, i'd like everyone to obey the traffic rules, then we can all safely arrive at our destinations.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
While I have also run the occasional red light, I am actually strongly opposed to people doing so in places like the loop. It is extremely rare that this is absolutely no potential cross traffic, be it pedestrian, cyclist or car. I find it safer to simply take the lane behind whatever car is last in the light queue when I approach and proceed when the light turns with the rest of the vehicles. In the loop area it is rare that a car will actually go faster than I am. I feel that allowing cyclist to run red lights would not improve the safety of cyclists, motorists or pedestrians. I feel other measures would improve cycling in the loop, such as: continuation of bike lanes through the loop, protected bike lines on upper Wacker, and removal of parking on one side of Wabash/Wells with protected 2-way cycling traffic.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
I found your blog entry well thought out, largely based on the fact that you clearly have put a lot of thought in your behavior. A well thought out approach might work for you and others that apply it with rigor.
Bu the daily reality I observe is not riders like you. Instead I observe a lot of riders that move into an intersection without a clear plan of escape. When a car intersects they often simply brake, forcing the car to slow down, etc. You can hardly blame drivers that see bicyclists like that for considering us "outlaws".
(On a side note: By sticking with green lights, I rarely have to move for any other traffic user and usually can move in a straight, uninterrupted line. And I manage to keep up with the flow of cyclists. Even those that run every red light)
My concern with your desire to change the law isn't that responsible riders like yourself cannot apply it and use it to improve their own safety, but that the majority of riders sees it as a vindication of their unsafe and (unintentionally) antagonistic behavior. And for that majority of bicyclists I do not believe for one second that it improves their safety.
Chicago Bicycle Advocate said:Duppie:
I am forced to admit that I am not aware of any statistics that support using stop as yield. In the absence of such supporting data I have offered what I hope is a reasonable explanation for why disobeying a stop light/sign may increase bicycling safety. I do not advocate for a change in the law simply because the present statute is "unfair" but because I think it makes a safe and reasonable approach for dealing with the risks motor vehicles pose to bicyclists illegal, and that, in my opinion, should not be. I have purposefully avoided using the term "Idaho stop" (d'oh). My goal is to relate the "stop-as-yield" concept to urban traffic. The fair point has been raised before that what happens in Idaho will rarely be relative to what happens in an urban setting like Chicago.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim S on
-
Duppie I concur. There have been a few I have seen that just fly into the intersection against the red and then seem surprised to have to hit the breaks. Does not matter how Adept or skilled you think you are it is the Car that worries me.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
The only time I will ever run a red is during the wee hours of the night when motor vehicle traffic is nil and my presence at the intersection is insufficient to trip the signals. I'm sorry, but your post - while admittedly well thought out - strikes me as a strained justification for your own bad behavior rather than a supporting argument for increased cyclist safety. I somewhat vaguely recall a survey of bicycle accident statistics that found collisions involving automobiles approaching cyclists from behind while both are moving with traffic to represent the lowest percentage of automobile/bicycle collisions overall while broadside collisions were the highest. If this is correct (I lack the time and motivation to look it up right now), it not only renders your concern unfounded but actually counterproductive considering that your proposal would increase the likelihood of the latter.
-
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on
-
Traffic laws exist as a method of minimizing error by creating a standard which we are all accustomed to operating within. However traffic laws are only a part, though albeit an important part, of this standardizing process. This is why a vehicle operator accustomed to a city is out of place on a country road and vise versa. There is a social contract that plays a critical role in establishing this standard; like it or not the standard in the fine city of Chicago is that bicyclist run red lights and violate all manner of other traffic laws. So much so that operators within the system know to expect "the unexpected" from a bicyclist. In the real world this translates to some wiggle room for cyclists who operate in an unexpected manner while it penalizes those that obey the traffic conventions for an automobile. My point? Run a red light or two.
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
I agree with Frank. If this were passed in Chicago (which would be foolish given the size of our city), it would only legalize the foolish and dangerous behavior that already is practiced by some cyclists.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan L on
-
There is a big difference between blasting through a red light and slowing down to check out the situation then going through the light.
I was recently yelled at by two d-bag drivers at Wellington and Halstead, and it made me laugh a little out of the absurdness. I was completely stopped at the red light until I realized there were zero cars coming down the street for blocks. Right then a pedestrian crossed the street so I went as well. The driver of a van sitting at the light yelled something like "what’s the big hurry a$$hole?". Then a guy in the car behind him yelled something at me also, which was too stupid to commit to memory. I just smiled and gave them both a thumbs up which is code for F.U. in my book and continued on my way. Did I break the law, sure. Did I hurt anyone, nope. Would the drivers have been ok with me if I had gotten off my bike and ran it across the street before continuing on? How stupid would that have been yet it's not much different than a jogger crossing the street at a red.
It always cracks me up when a cyclist flies past me though while I'm waiting at a red light (this happens a lot at Milwaukee/Damen/North). 95% of the time I end up catching up to the very cyclist that just could not be bothered to slow down or stop for nothin yet even though they risked their lives to cross, there was no real time advantage in doing so other than to simply not stop at all. Although I almost always stop and wait at all 6-way intersections, there are some red lights that are just plain silly to stop and wait. I do at least slow down and make sure the coast is clear before penetration but stopping all together would simply be foolish for someone on a bicycle at some of these lame locations. Berteau and Damen is just one of many examples in this city
What has really been weirding me out lately is how to approach stop signs. I've noticed a rising trend where cars actually refuse to go through the intersection until I go first. I've even tested out this issue by completely acting like a car and waiting my turn and still cars will just sit there till I go through. It doesn't happen at every single intersection but it happens often enough that I find it much easier on everyone if I just get through it, of course, only if it's safe to do so. Besides, how many people in cars start fumbling with crap like phones, food, drinks, Tom Tom’s, CD's, children, etc while approaching a stop sign? All I have to worry about is not dying or killing someone. I don't wear headphones and I don't talk on the phone. My #1 concern is to get through an intersection safely and efficiently without disrupting traffic. I will admit some people are better than others at gauging how safe a situation ultimately is. I actually use my ears more than my eyes to scope out my path in this city. How many drivers use their ears to tell where other cars and bikes are? NONE! It is simply not a skillset a driver has which is another reason someone on a bicycle can gauge the safety of an intersection much better and faster than anyone in a car. Even with the windows down and no music playing, the engine noise alone makes it impossible for a driver to use their ears effectively.
I will also admit that near bicycle collisions are becoming more frequent at intersections with stop signs. It’s always on my mind while crossing an intersection.
-
-
Ryan:
I must respectfully disagree. In no way would what I am advocating legalize or permit carelessness or negligent use of the roadway. A statute of the kind I am proposing would look something like this:
"A person operating a bicycle approaching a stop sign or stop light shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping."
Such a statute would uphold the duty of the bicyclist to use due care and caution at intersections. Failure to do so would violate the law. Ignoring traffic control devices as if they did not exist at all is not something I would ever promote. Frankly, for those who would charge into a controlled intersection without plan or concern it wouldn't matter a lick what the law is.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I agree with Frank. If this were passed in Chicago (which would be foolish given the size of our city), it would only legalize the foolish and dangerous behavior that already is practiced by some cyclists.
-
-
How is that different from the 'Idaho stop' law?
Chicago Bicycle Advocate said:Ryan:
I must respectfully disagree. In no way would what I am advocating legalize or permit carelessness or negligent use of the roadway. A statute of the kind I am proposing would look something like this:
"A person operating a bicycle approaching a stop sign or stop light shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping."
Such a statute would uphold the duty of the bicyclist to use due care and caution at intersections. Failure to do so would violate the law. Ignoring traffic control devices as if they did not exist at all is not something I would ever promote. Frankly, for those who would charge into a controlled intersection without plan or concern it wouldn't matter a lick what the law is.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I agree with Frank. If this were passed in Chicago (which would be foolish given the size of our city), it would only legalize the foolish and dangerous behavior that already is practiced by some cyclists.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
