So you’re driving, waiting at the stop light, obeying the
law. Okay, maybe you’re on facebook – but that’s just a technicality, you’re
basically being a responsible driver and following most of the important road rules.
You look out the window while you’re deciding whether your friend’s status
deserves a ‘like’ or not, only to see a cyclist zoom past, glance up at the
light, see that it’s red, and then keep going right through the intersection. How
annoying – cyclists should obey the law like everybody else, right? Drivers
hold these truths to be self-evident, all vehicles are created equal, etc.
Well, no.
There is no good reason why cyclists should be obliged to
stop at red lights. On the other hand, there are (at least) four good reasons why cyclists
should be allowed to run red lights. The first is cyclist safety, the second is
that the methods used to decide that red lights should exist are designed for
cars and not applicable to cyclists, and the third is car driver convenience,
and the last is cost. Specifically, cyclists should legally be required to treat a
red light as if it were a stop sign, and a stop sign as if it were a yield
sign.
Currently, Idaho is the only state which has such a law
(since 1982). Some European capitals like Paris and Amsterdam have something
similar, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan apparently said before his recent election
win that he would consider it in London.
Cyclist Safety
In the year after the Idaho Stop was introduced, cycling accidents fell 15%, and now Idaho has 30% better bike safety than comparable cities without the law. Current fashionable planning focuses on bike lanes, but the reality is that intersections/junctions are responsible for between 60% and 75% of cyclist crashes (higher than for cars at 40%). There is evidence that other cycling law-breaking maneuvers, such as riding on the sidewalk or the wrong way up the street, are the cause of many of the bike-car crashes where the cyclist is at fault, but running red lights is not one of them. One of the main causes of cyclist-car crashes is right-turning traffic hitting a cyclist in their blindspot (note: in the UK this is a left turn). Running a red light allows cyclists to clear the intersection ahead of the left turning cars, without having to delay the cars at all.
In the year after the Idaho Stop was introduced, cycling accidents fell 15%, and now Idaho has 30% better bike safety than comparable cities without the law. Current fashionable planning focuses on bike lanes, but the reality is that intersections/junctions are responsible for between 60% and 75% of cyclist crashes (higher than for cars at 40%). There is evidence that other cycling law-breaking maneuvers, such as riding on the sidewalk or the wrong way up the street, are the cause of many of the bike-car crashes where the cyclist is at fault, but running red lights is not one of them. One of the main causes of cyclist-car crashes is right-turning traffic hitting a cyclist in their blindspot (note: in the UK this is a left turn). Running a red light allows cyclists to clear the intersection ahead of the left turning cars, without having to delay the cars at all.
Where Do Signals Even Come From?
A quick look at the Federal Highway Department website shows 9 factors (or ‘warrants’) that lead to implementing signals at intersections, and every single one of them is comically inapplicable to cyclists. A quick read through makes it clear that bikes have not been considered at all when designing traffic lights, and so we should naturally question their place in them rather than assuming without any good reason that they should act the same as cars, which weighs 40 times as much and travels at over three times the speed (for 400x the kinetic energy...)
The first 'warrants' are about vehicle volume – counting cyclists is even optional. Clearly the volumes of cyclists are not enough to trigger the installation of a traffic signal. Warrant 4 refers to pedestrian volume – with an Idaho Stop cyclists must give way to pedestrians on a red light, so this isn’t relevant. Warrant 5 is school crossing. I’m willing to concede that bikes should have to stop at red lights for school crossings. Warrant 6 is based on coordinating signal timing with other intersections. Since those timings are done for car speeds and not bike speeds, bikes will be out of synch regardless so this isn’t relevant. Warrant 7 is that there are too many crashes and adequate trial of alternatives … has failed to reduce the crash frequency. And the only trial of an alternative is Idaho, and it’s been a success, so we can’t rely on warrant 7. Warrant 8 is about traffic density and warrant 9 is about railway crossings. So nowhere is it actually decided that cyclists need traffic signals. The warrants were formulated based on vehicle size, stopping time, and travel speeds which are entirely irrelevant to cyclists.
A quick look at the Federal Highway Department website shows 9 factors (or ‘warrants’) that lead to implementing signals at intersections, and every single one of them is comically inapplicable to cyclists. A quick read through makes it clear that bikes have not been considered at all when designing traffic lights, and so we should naturally question their place in them rather than assuming without any good reason that they should act the same as cars, which weighs 40 times as much and travels at over three times the speed (for 400x the kinetic energy...)
The first 'warrants' are about vehicle volume – counting cyclists is even optional. Clearly the volumes of cyclists are not enough to trigger the installation of a traffic signal. Warrant 4 refers to pedestrian volume – with an Idaho Stop cyclists must give way to pedestrians on a red light, so this isn’t relevant. Warrant 5 is school crossing. I’m willing to concede that bikes should have to stop at red lights for school crossings. Warrant 6 is based on coordinating signal timing with other intersections. Since those timings are done for car speeds and not bike speeds, bikes will be out of synch regardless so this isn’t relevant. Warrant 7 is that there are too many crashes and adequate trial of alternatives … has failed to reduce the crash frequency. And the only trial of an alternative is Idaho, and it’s been a success, so we can’t rely on warrant 7. Warrant 8 is about traffic density and warrant 9 is about railway crossings. So nowhere is it actually decided that cyclists need traffic signals. The warrants were formulated based on vehicle size, stopping time, and travel speeds which are entirely irrelevant to cyclists.
Car Driver
Convenience
I’ll keep this short. If a bike at the front of the queue has to wait for a red light, a car (especially one turning right) has to wait for the bike to move before it can go. If the cyclist has crossed on the red, the car is free to turn.
I’ll keep this short. If a bike at the front of the queue has to wait for a red light, a car (especially one turning right) has to wait for the bike to move before it can go. If the cyclist has crossed on the red, the car is free to turn.
Cost
Installing bike priority signals, ‘bike boxes’, or other infrastructure changes to improve bike safety at intersections is expensive. Changing the law so that bikes are allowed to run red lights leads to the same safety improvements (if you don’t believe me, ask Idaho!), is instantly applied to all intersections, and at a fraction of the price.
Installing bike priority signals, ‘bike boxes’, or other infrastructure changes to improve bike safety at intersections is expensive. Changing the law so that bikes are allowed to run red lights leads to the same safety improvements (if you don’t believe me, ask Idaho!), is instantly applied to all intersections, and at a fraction of the price.
Intersections and traffic lights have been designed for
motor vehicles, and are dangerous places for cyclists. Allowing cyclists to run
red lights improves their safety at virtually no financial cost. Clearing
cyclists from intersections also benefits cars (reducing their start-up time),
and improves trip times for cyclists, so everybody wins. So what’s stopping it?
This is the most carefully articulated and convincing argument that I have read to date as to why bicyclists and motor traffic should be treated differently at red lights. Anyone who has tried riding in Manhattan knows that it can be impossible to ride more than 2-3 blocks without encountering a red light, presenting a difficult choice of racing as fast as possible during the green or carefully riding through the red lights. No surprise that many people choose the leisurely (if scofflaw) pace. Pedestrians can encounter a red light every single block, and so they handle them in much the same way.
ReplyDelete