I encounter these T intersections all the time and find it annoying to have to stop for no real reason. I have wondered about getting a law passed that would allow this. If a bike lane exists, a hard barrier like a curb could protect it from traffic (from Ben Maddox Way) turning in that direction. It's probably less safe if the top of the T (Ave 280 here) is only one lane in each direction or has no bike lane. What do you think?
by TibetanSideOfTown
31 Comments
There is no point in stopping if it’s clear, IMO
Yes but I bet drivers turning left onto your road often go all the way to right lane and thus endanger you if you run the red. So I’d just be careful for that
I live near an intersection like this. It has a concrete separated bike lane, and no, bikes are not expected to stop at the light. Not sure I’d do that in a non-separated lane, though.
I would recommend calling your city’s transportation department, and asking for clarification. It is quite likely that traffic engineers can take a look at this and add signage allowing bikes to go through on red if certain conditions are met. (Source: am government engineer)
Yes, as long as there is no crosswalk like on this map.
I would roll that 9 out of 10 times. Gotta watch for left turning traffic and police, but I would roll that every day.
Fully separated bicycle infrastructure (like the Netherlands with dedicated two-way bicycle roads, basically) would be cool to keep it moving but just as a bike lane, no.
Im a relatively experienced cyclist. If there were traffic I would definitely stop. If zero traffic – I mean zero – I might, might be tempted to run the light. Also depends on how big the intersection is. This looks like a big one and I might not feel comfortable running it.
I default to following traffic rules in 99% of cases including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.
Yes, cyclists should be allowed to go through the red if its in a bike lane, provided there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk (the image above doesnt show a crosswalk, but I don’t know if there is actually no crosswalk there).
Not if there are pedestrians… or cyclists coming from the perpendicular street looking to turn into the bike lane.
If the sidewalk is continuous, and bikes can legally bike on the side walk running th light, then cyclists should be allowed to run the light in the bike lane/road. But it really depends on your local jurisdiction.
depends on the country you live in I suppose
If there’s a bike lane, I absolutely would. If there’s not, I would treat it like a guild and look for traffic turning left, but almost certainly would still run it.
But I also live in an Idaho stop state where I’m allowed to treat red lights like stop signs.
Personally I would just stop. Don’t need motorists having more reasons to have a bad impression of cyclists just so I can save a minute or two.
I slow to watch for pedestrians crossing and cars turning left, but usually will continue moving
if the red arrow is a bike path, there’s no reason to stop at the red light unless there are pedestrians.
Yes.
The engineers should make this question moot by installing stop lights correctly so they don’t apply to the cyclists. [Like here.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/23kgSh3pMVXYBgsaA)
depends. do you have free will?
IFF you have a protected bike lane, I think it should be fine. If it’s not protected, I wouldn’t risk it, as people turning left may drift over a bit.
Coming from someone who has been hit 3 times: The average car weighs 3000 lbs. The average fit person about 168 lbs + bike. You can NEVER assume a driver’s intentions, competency or if they are of sound mind. The cyclist will always loose. Read the road “carma” and ride defensively.
No cop, no stop
https://www.calbike.org/bicycle-safety-stop-faqs/
If it’s me I’m probably gonna roll that light unless it’s a very narrow road that traffic is turning onto. If it’s clear or there’s a bike lane or there’s a little bit of sidewalk I can jump onto for a little bit safely and unobtrusively I’ll just go through.
Around where I bike (Eastern PA in the US) the bike lanes will actually have a solid perpendicular line painted if there is an expectation that you stop for traffic for light or stop sign, or the bike lane has no perpendicular line painted if you are allowed to bypass the light. This is commonly used for the exact scenario you describe above, since it doesn’t make sense for the cyclist to stop because car traffic shouldn’t be crossing into the bike lane, unlike if it was a full 4 way stop.
What does the vehicle code say for this municipality? Here in California, bikes are to be treated as “vehicles” on a roadway and need to follow all posted signage.
I stop for cars not lights exclusively
Slow down enough that you can easily yield to a pedestrian or left turning bike then roll on through.
if you have a protected bike lane there, then it would be fine… otherwise, you’re likely going to get flattened by someone taking a wide left out of ben maddox way
There’s an intersection like this near where I live. The bike lane is the same pavement but separated by some bollards.
The paint markings read to me like bikes are intended to continue through. There’s no stop line at the light and an arrow on the ground pointing in the direction of travel.
I always ride straight through it.
yes. but doing so will just make cyclist look bad. and that does worse for everyone, so just dont do it & respect traffic-laws. things like this are faulty infrastructure problems tho.
Is that Caldwell? I’d roll that light 99 out of 100. The shoulder is wide enough to stay far right out of the road, and because there’s just that one house on the other side you really just gotta watch the turning traffic.
On a related note, I thought California had the red light as a yield law already.