Happy 4th of July!
The Haight Street Underworld
Giants Clobber The Astros, 13-0
SFist Tonight
In an effort to get more people to ride bikes, instead of pumping more smog into the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is kicking around the idea of legally allowing cyclists to run red lights. Something most of them already so.
CBS 5 reporter Simon Perez -- who we should point out is kind of hot, so if he ever wondered whether or not he should report on-air shirtless, he can wonder no more -- asked Jerry Fountain, a cyclist courier, why he should be allowed to ignore traffic signals.
"We're saving the air," replied Fountain.
OK then.
Now, we should point out that this is a long way off and probably doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever passing, but what say you, SF: agree or disagree?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Jerry Fountain = Douchenozzle
I find that allowing people more ways to kill themselves is a great recruiting tool.
On my bike I'd only ignore red lights if there are no cars in sight. It's ridiculously dangerous otherwise.
As an occasional cyclist and a daily pedestrian, I would just like to ask that cyclists be mindful of pedestrians when going through the red lights. It's bad enough right-turning cars rarely look to their right for pedestrians when turning on red. I've had to dodge/yell to avoid getting hit by cars for years now and I have noticed an increase of cyclists making their own rules and I've had some recent close-calls. Sharing the road (and crosswalks) is not just about cars and bikes. Thank you for posting this topic.
"We're saving the air," replied Fountain.
Yes; when you have died from your injuries when a car crossing through an intersection on the green hits you, you won't be using much air.
I have to ask, "so what"? cyclists don't obey traffic laws anyway so what does it matter whether it's legal or not to blow through stop signs. Might as well let them ride on sidewalks too and, for that matter, poop on the sidewalk.
Why not let them run'um? -- obviously if they endanger anyone else in the cross-traffic it should be a crime, but otherwise leave the decision up to the rider.
Cyclist take their lives into their hands pretty much every time they ride. They shouldn't be trusting a single car on the road to see then at any time, controlled intersection or not.
In that mindset it makes sense that they do what they want.. once again, as long as they don't endanger others.
humorous or not, i certainly wouldn't like to see cyclists injured or fatally hurt from running a red light.
NO. this is the stupidest idea ever.
@KatyG: took the words right out of my mouth! :)
Well it's not like drivers are ever held responsible for hitting and/or killing cyclists so this should be a quicker way of achieving equilibrium. I've only ever had a couple of close calls, but then again I stop for red lights on my bike.
This is not a crazy idea.
They already do this in Idaho - bicyclists approaching a red light are permitted to treat the red light as a "yield" sign - slow down, check for oncoming traffic which has the right of way and then proceed through the intersection.
It apparently works quite well there and is considered a pretty good model of how to think about bicycles from a transportation planning perspective. Bikes AREN'T cars or motorcycles, yet they are generally lumped in with them as far a traffic laws are concerned. Which just leads to silly outcomes from the failure to acknowledge that human-powered wheeled transportation is fundamentally different from internal-combustion engine powered wheeled transportation.
Your assessment of Simon is cracking me up.
I'm an avid biker and bike lover. I'm also a pedestrian and occasion car driver, but for most of my intra-city transportation, I'm a biker, and I think is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of.
I believe the safest way to bike through the city is to bike as if you are a car, meaning: you obey all traffic signs; you obey the 'right of way' rules; you do not cut off pedestrians; you take up a full lane of traffic when there is no bike lane (and do you best to go at traffic speed);
I believe that bikers as much as cars need to respect pedestrians: what out for them and give them the right of way. This also means not obstructing a cross-walk when stopped at an intersection - bikers should stop before the crosswalk (just like a car).
To generalize and stereotype (but stereotypes exist for a reason, no?), bikers need to get off their moral high horse and start treating pedestrians and (yes) cars, not as annoyances or combatants, but as fellow travelers. Yes, you are not burning gas, and that's cool, but this does not mean everybody must bow down before you in thanks or part the streets from all vehicular or pedestrian obstruction so you can reach your destination a couple minutes faster.
Bike riders can pedal through red lights when they start:
a.) wearing helmets
b.) riding bikes with brakes
c.) paying for all damages and medical bills accrued when they have caused an accident due to their inability to stop for 30 seconds at a red light
Bad idea. As a pedestrian I am waiting for the day for a biker to hit me while I have a walk sign. This would probably only increase the chances of that happening.
This makes sense. Listen to me for a second
If someone goes willy nilly through a red light where there is a car coming through on the green - that cyclist has BROKEN the law. The law is not "You don't have to obey red lights".
I run the same red light near my office on a daily basis. If I didn't run this red light, I would not be stopping for 30 seconds. I would be stopping forever. The light will not change until a car comes to trip the sensor. I make a left against a red left turn arrow with a green straight light and only when there is zero cross traffic. Citing me for that would be ridiculous.
I don't understand the vitriol against cyclists who roll an empty 4 way stop, yet nobody seems to care about drivers texting while they drive. I guarantee the hands free law will have ZERO impact. Drivers on cellphones cause far more risk to far more people, yet the are far less apologetic than any cyclist. And don't get me started on MUNI drivers on cellphones :)
Hell yes, I think it's a great idea. And as a pedestrian, I think I should have the right to ignore the law of my choice as well. After all, fair's fair.
This is nuts.
No Bias in the media...
"A controversial idea would let cyclists ignore stop signs."
There is nothing proposed that would allow anyone to "ignore" stopsigns. The proposal is "Treat stopsigns as a yield". If there is nobody at the intersection you can roll through without a complete stop. If there are cars at the intersection, you must yield to your turn. This is safe, fair, and reasonable.
I am ok with letting them run the red light, as long as it will be legally OK for me to run them over when I have the green light while driving.
They already do this in Idaho - bicyclists approaching a red light are permitted to treat the red light as a "yield" sign
That's incorrect. Stop signs may be treated as yeilds and red lights are treated as stop signs.
I am ok with letting them run the red light, as long as it will be legally OK for me to run them over when I have the green light while driving.
That's correct also. With the green light, you would have right of way, so if you hit a cyclist it would be his/her fault and you would not be liable.
I'm willing to entertain the idea.
It sounds like one of those counter-intuitive things that sounds crazy, but might just work. It's interesting that it's working well in Idaho -- of all places -- and I'm sure there's a number of European cities doing the same thing.
Here's why I think it might work: when you don't have lights telling you what to do, everyone has to look around and be more aware of what's going. I would not be surprised if it led everyone to move more carefully -- slower cars, politer bicyclists.
Yeah, okay.
So this courier is a dope, fine.
But come on, don't willfully misrepresent the text of this proposal. It would allow cyclists to treat stop lights as stop signs. That is, they would be required to come to a complete stop and place one foot on the ground. Now, if there were no cross-traffic, there cyclist would be allowed to go through. This is not "ignoring traffic signals," nor is it quite "running red lights."
As someone who bikes everywhere just to save a dime, I can't help but feel dismayed at all sides in this stupid fight.
I'm with ChinaNob. As long as cyclists don't run red lights and cut off peds (or cars) willy-nilly, I don't see the problem, esp. during non-peak times. Yes, it is a moving vehicle, but that's about all it really has in common with a car.
Also, I don't think it's fair to single out one group as causing disrepect - sure, there are rude cyclists, but there are rude car drivers, rude pedestrians, and rude transit operators too.
I concur that treating stop signs and red lights as "yield" makes sense, and would bring the law into sync with the actual de facto behavior of cyclists. Changing the law such that cyclists can just ignore red lights altogether is obviously completely ludicrous. (I also go out of my way to yield the right-of way to peds, and I wish more cyclists would do the same - everybody has to get off and walk sometime.)
Just for the record, I used the words "willy-nilly" before I saw it used in this post. :]
This is a terrible idea, and I don't even understand the justification. If bikes are saving air, why are they suddenly allowed to run red lights?
I also think it's not fair to justify bikes running red lights, going the wrong way on 1-way streets, riding on sidewalks, and running stop signs by comparing them to the assholes who text while they're driving. Both vehicle operators are assholes in those situations. We have laws for a reason. If you choose to break them, you choose to suffer the consequences, whether that's just a talking to from a cop, a ticket, or worse, an accident or death.
I would prefer to see a ballot measure or whatever that says that cops will increase their citations to bicyclists who are breaking traffic laws.
Or better yet, how about this: I ride a motorcycle. Should I be allowed to pause at red lights and run through them because I too am saving air and gas because I get good mileage and I'm more nimble in traffic? I think not. I won't even go through a green light on a motorcycle, bicycle, or car unless I KNOW the cross traffic is stopping.
Anyway. This is a ridiculous idea, and I hope it fails.
this is basically what happens anyway. Most cyclists will yield to anybody that's around though maybe not coming to a total and complete stop. Most of us cyclists don't want to die, if you can believe that.
think of a pedestrian that comes to a deserted intersection at a red. They often look around, see if anyone is coming, then go safely.
And even a driver that comes to a stop sign - does he/she stop completely if nothing is around?
And Brock, the title of your post is misleading like a lot of the other media that's covering this. Nobody will be blowing through anything, expecting the world to stop for them. Nobody will be ignoring anything.
I don't understand the vitriol against cyclists who roll an empty 4 way stop, yet nobody seems to care about drivers texting while they drive.
HA! i heart you very much, manys.
Allowing cyclists to treat red lights as Stop or Yield signs doesn't mean giving them a free pass to barrel into pedestrians. As it is, a pedestrian still has right of way if stepping into the street -- against a red light -- in front of a bicyclist or car who is proceeding through a green light.
If cyclists are allowed to go through reds, they still have to respect the right of way of pedestrians. It just ends the formal legal nonsensicality of having cyclists stop at red lights even when there is no vehicular cross-traffic or pedestrians preventing safe and sensible crossing of the street.
This is just a matter of common sense: when a pedestrian is at a crosswalk, I don't see any sense in their not being able to cross against a red light if it's safe to do so. Same rule of thumb should apply to bicycles...with the proviso that permission to run reds does not equate to permission to run into pedestrians in the process.
*Nobody will be ignoring anything.*
Where can I get one of those crystal balls?
A law tested in Idaho has little-to-no pertinence to the reality of transportation in San Francisco. Now, full-disclosure: I've never been to Boise. But I have been to a few other spots in that state, and it has a lot of open road and wide suburban streets. It simply doesn't reflect the streets, configurations, and driving attitudes of San Francisco. So the Tested-in-Idaho argument ought not be considered as rationale for this policy.
The cyclist's argument that only he or she would be hurt by failing to adequately negotiate an intersection is also weak. I've seen cyclists running stop lights and stop signs and violating other laws not only endanger not only themselves, but also pedestrians and other cyclists. And just because a driver who has the green hits a cyclist doesn't mean their not effected. Aside from potential financial implications, there is the cost of potential unjustified civil suits by the cyclist as well as the simple mental anguish of having injured or God-forbid killed a fellow human being.
Most cyclists in this city are cool, but a couple handfuls give the rest a bad name through their actions. Those couple handfuls prove to me that this law cannot be implemented in a way that protects pedestrians, fellow cyclists, or drivers from those misinterpreting the no-stop law. We also have numerous laws that are in place to protect people from themselves. Insisting cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights should continue to be one of them.
This is retarded. If I'm on my bike and I come to a red light at an empty intersection of course I'm going to ride through it. What am I? A girl scout wearing a hall monitor sash? However, only a fool would ride his bike through a red light at a busy intersection, and if he gets killed as a result, I say "haw! haw!" If he's on a track bike, I say "HAW! HAW! HAW!"
As far as annoying pedestrians are concerned, the only ones I ever even come close to hitting are the crack addled denizens of the Tenderloin who aimlessly wander back and forth across Market Street, flagrantly ignoring all known laws of man. I don't know how many times I've crossed Sixth Street at Market on my bike only to have some incoherent, hopped up drag queen suddenly pop up in front of me, legs akimbo, wig askew. Those people are far more a menace than me on my bike. They need to be rounded up.
If it's good enough for Pocatello, it MUST be good enough for San Francisco!
"Most cyclists in this city are cool, but a couple handfuls give the rest a bad name through their actions. Those couple handfuls prove to me that this law cannot be implemented in a way that protects pedestrians, fellow cyclists, or drivers from those misinterpreting the no-stop law. We also have numerous laws that are in place to protect people from themselves. Insisting cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights should continue to be one of them."
You've just made the point for this law. As it stands, if some SFPD officer sees someone roll a stop sign, and tickets him, it's most likely he's ticketing someone who is a threat to nobody. With the new codification, the set of people who are breaking the law will be narrowed to those couple handfuls, and the cops will be able to ignore the righteous many, but when they see someone blast through a red light at 25 MPH they will ring that guy up and nobody is really to going to jump to that cyclist's defense - including the rest of the cycling population.
And hey, since this means no real need to do a "stop sign running sting" in the Haight, maybe the SFPD will be able to worry about things like, you know, homicides and shit.
once again SFist readers take umbrage at laws that do not affect them in the slightest.
"What's that? Sounds like someone is getting special priveleges! FUCK THAT, *I'm* the only one who's special!", one commenter was seen typing uselessly into a text box, hands quivering -- presumedly with fury, although quite possibly from alcohol withdrawal. When asked why he bothered, the commenter responded, "writing my opinion online means that everyone knows WHAT I THINK. I'm sure the SFist message threads are reviewed by legislators, and my tirades against Trustafarians, track bike riders, and smokers are carefully weighed before each and every important political decision." "I fully expect to be offered a judgeship soon, or possibly a seat on some board", the commenter quickly added, "I'm clearly more than qualified -- I mean, I pretty much know everything -- that's why I don't even bother presenting logical arguments anymore."
careful you don't overdose on that sarcasm there, rajbot.
rajbot: please take your meds prior to posting
This is unimportant for 2 reasons:
1. Bicyclists already run red lights. Most do it without endangering themselves or others, but the only penalty is karma for the ones that can't handle it.
2. SF is so congested that with on-coming traffic, buses, and pedestrians there are very few red lights that you could safely roll thru without stopping anyway.
If someone is stupid enough to ride a bike in downtown San Francisco, then they will not be smart enough to know when it's safe to cross on a red. Some freak will come tearing around the corner and we will all have to watch the horror as the guy wasn't wearing a helmet!
Only in SF
rajbot: OH NOES! PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS ON THE INTERWEB! SOMEBODY CALL TED STEVENS!!!!
everyone else: continue, please. Most of you are wrong, but, do, continue.
As a cyclist, generally treat all red lights as stop signs.
One of my reasons (I have several) is to get a head start on the cars who are waiting behind me. It seems like 1 out of 10 car drivers just can't handle the idea of a cyclist taking up a lane of traffic so they always end up honking at me and riding right on my ass.
The best are the drivers who just want to turn right at a red. If they had pulled up behind another car they'd have to wait for the light to change, but if they pull up behind a bike they get to honk, yell, and sometimes aggressively rev their motors while inching closer to my back wheel.
In these situations I'd rather just cross the red light and get out of the way.
I'm for this, this is how I bike anyway. It'l never pass though; public opposition to cyclist's behavior will only settle down when more than 50% of the people in the city ride bikes.
As evidence, check the comments section of SFGate any time they run a story with the word 'bicycle' in it. Sure as anything it will have 250 posts, all in the vein of "once those damned bi-cycles get off the sidewalk and start respecting the laws like the rest of us..."
I've biked in the city long enough that I find it profoundly safe, mostly due to strength in numbers. Cities where no one expects a cyclist, like in the East Bay, feel a hell of a lot more dangerous.
I think we should make like Hanoi and just eliminate stop signs and traffic signals:
http://laughingsquid.com/time-lapse-of-hanoi-traffic-at-night/
As long as fixies with no brakes are banned, it'a a fair deal.
This can pass IF we get more diagonal crosswalks for peds.
I think there's a lot of confusion about whether bikers should be treated like cars or pedestrians, which partially comes from the way bikers view eachother. All you have to do is scroll through the comments here and you'll see that.
This law will muddy that line even further, and I'm not sure that the majority of drivers (or pedestrians or even bikers) will think that's a good thing.
The sheer amount of BS in this proposal exceeds even MUNI's nonsense. This being SF, I'm sure it'll pass and the arrogant bikers will get another cookie from Mayor Moderate and his Board.
I have to agree, this proposal is seriously retarded. Bicycling is awesome, but as it as SF drivers have so many obstacles to deal with, adding this would only make driving in SF more confusing. Maybe MUNI should invest their time thinking of ideas that improve service or actually make cycling safer in the City.
So, does this release liability if I hit a bicyclist? I'm fine with that.
Otherwise, the what was the MTC smoking?
p940e and Sivart13 are completely correct. This is how cyclists ride in the city anyway, and it's not dangerous. Unless you're a douchebag about it. There are a lot of douchebag cyclists, but there are also a lot of douchebag drivers and pedestrians too -- they're all dangerous.
akit - if you hit a cyclist who is crossing against a red - he is at fault. If you hit a cyclist when you are crossing against a red - you are at fault. Same as always. No difference.
Frankly, if you are a car driver, you should *embrace* this. If cyclists can get to their destination in 20% less time, that is 20% less time that they are on the road, which is good for both congestion and safety concerns. And given that most cyclists will ride like this - putting a foot on the ground at each of say the set of stop signs coming down 18th St would cost me 30-40 seconds - the fact that the cops won't spend any time getting aggravated about a safe roll of a stop sign is a plus for everyone.
The only problem I can see - what will we bitch about on the message boards?
If someone is stupid enough to ride a bike in downtown San Francisco, then they will not be smart enough to know when it's safe to cross on a red.
i don't know if you've noticed but most of us that are riding in downtown san francisco are riding to work. where else would you like us to go?
also it is nerve racking all these people trying to figure out how they can legally hit cyclists. if only you put so much time into figuring out how to get to work or wherever you're going in something other than a car.
This is all about yielding the right of way which everyone needs to pay closer attention to. When I'm on my bike approaching a stop sign, I slow down, look for cars, peds and other cyclists and if no one's there - I don't stop and go through. This is completely safe and it would be AWESOME to have it be law like it is in Idaho.
I have two related WISHES:
Motorists - stop all the whining! Why do you care if a biker blows a stop sign. If it's your turn to go, go!
Cyclists - when you come to an intersection, DON'T BLOCK THE CROSSWALK. Either pull forward past the crosswalk or stop behind it. NOT IN IT. And you get double the loser points if you're wearing earbuds while sitting in the crosswalk.
It was just a totally dumb joke I said. Geesh.
hey guess what, as a bicyclist i've had people get as close as possible to me in their cars and then yell things like 'thats why you should be off the road'
so maybe that's why i'm a bit defensive at your hilarious joke.
Hell, you get double the loser points for wearing earbuds while biking, period.
Anybody who doesn't think it's a problem that (other, besides me) bikers do this anyway has never seen the action at 16th/Valencia at 8:30am on a weekday morning.
If you would like to be an organ donor, run the light (clap, clap). If you like not wearing a helmet, you are nuts (clap, clap).
dude- TheCharlie- you're not saving the air. particulate matter from motorcyle exhaust is a big problem, no matter how good your mileage is.
bikers should definitely get this slack and more. just bc there are jerk bikers who menace pedestrians over as freely as cars menace them doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards a safe, sane set of traffic laws. as others have said, there are certain situations where running a red light is totally safe, or even necessary.
I've been a complainer about SF bikers in the past (just look at my posting history) but I actually wouldn't have a problem with this if it could actually be enforced. As I read this, red lights would become stops. Stops would become yields. Neither troubles me if people actually honored the rule. What bugs me are the bikers who do neither and treat both red lights and stops as green lights. Which happens entirely too often in my (limited) driving experience.
Someone said it above, running red lights already happens, I have no problem if they change the law to accurately reflect this in a safe fashion but then having little mercy on those who aren't happy with even that accomodation.
Oh, god. The MTC is now trying to kill people?
Bah. I didn't read all of the comments first. Yeah, there's a difference between "legally running red lights" and "treating a red light as a stop sign".
Can I delee my above comment somehow?
Legally running red lights will only encourage these peons to act more recklessly. I had one today approach the red light, turn left and ride through the crosswalk and damn near crash into me. Most of them lack sufficient judgment to determine if it's safe to proceed thru an intersection, and now the city wants to encourage them to rely on their faulty judgment even more?
Mark my words: nothing good will happen when you encourage people on bicycles to run red lights.