BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I wish we had green boxes. I stay in traffic. I don't like filtering mostly cause if the light changes green while I am only part way to the front, I worry that some yinzer who doesn't signal a right turn may not see me and hook me.

I try to gauge whether or not the cars I'm passing are going to have to overtake me again in a few seconds.

If it's so long that everybody isn't going to make it through, I try to go up the line, but if it's just a few cars I get behind the last one.

Also, use extreme caution when filtering. Cars can be turning into the lane, coming out of parking lots, going into parking lots, etc. Cars ahead of you might be allowing space for cars to get through, which you may not notice until the car is right on top of you. Don't count on them signaling either.

I think the green boxes and filtering in general only makes sense in conjunction with bike lanes. Otherwise, I wait in line with the cars. Although, then you run the risk of getting rear-ended if you're the last in line (which came horrendously close to happening to me on Penn last year)... so...

Thanks, I'm glad to hear my instincts were in line with others'. Another consideration for me was that it's good for drivers to see that a cyclist has to wait his turn, too. Being a good cycling ambassador has been more on my mind, too.

I stay away from filtering because if I should get hit doing it I'll be at fault. I just want to have something to back me up in a accident and not have a driver win the case because of my filtering.

My behavior varies with the design of the intersection.

* If there is a wide shoulder, and I was riding in it anyway, I roll up to the front.

* If there is no shoulder and no bike lane, I get in line with stopped traffic. More specifically, I get LEFT in the lane as I approach the front car, so I am directly in front of the driver. When the light turns, I keep the lane until the threat of right-hooks is over, then I visibly get right. At that point, if there is space, I may even do a little hand wave to encourage the lead driver behind me to pass.

* In a multi-lane street with little to no shoulder, I take the lane. I may even do this when the light is green (think McKnight Road, even though it has a good shoulder).

* I can't offer much advice on streets with bike lanes, as I see them so rarely.

+1 stu.

I like to be safe.

I do not like to wait in a line with 10 people in it that is 100 feet long (because they are each carrying a ton of steel rubber and plastic with them).

I try to balance these two thing at corners the best I can.

I generally agree with Stu, but if I am riding with a group I prefer to never filter. I think it confuses drivers to the group’s intentions, i.e. are they going straight? Turning? In fact that is one of the problems with filtering; it distorts your predictability to the drivers around you.

Be seen, be predictable.

I was biking down Wightman a while back and came to a line of cars waiting at the stop light on Beacon, when another cyclist passed me on my left, then filtered past the line of cars on the right, then ran the stop light. That takes a special type of jagoff. I'm not morally opposed to running red lights, particularly if the intersection is empty, although I never do it myself because it's not that much of an inconvenience to wait with the quick light timings in Pittsburgh. But to communicate to a line of half a dozen cars "I'm more important than you" is just making life more difficult for every other cyclist on the road.

@mpm

Should cyclists waste their time to make some car drivers (ugh) happy? Or rather, slightly less pissed off than they would be otherwise?

I don't think so.

"They are just making life more difficult for every other cyclist on the road."

Bull!

I agree that filtering is a bad idea in most cases. I also agree with mpm. I struggle with the reasoning behind passing a line of waiting vehicles. It screams, I am more important than you and generally increases tension between drivers and cyclists.

DanH - "Beeing a good cycling ambassador" - that is an awesome thought, it is these unsaid actions that show drivers we are vehicles too and we respect the rules of the road.

@ TonyP it is these unsaid actions that show drivers we are vehicles too and we respect the rules of the road.

I think you are being naive here.

Cars hate it when the movement of their car is impeded by other cars. Every day cagers are driven to rage because of this.

People die from that rage.

Every day.

Having a bike safely and efficiently passing a car driver while the driver is impeded by other cars makes that anger worse. Sure.

That is no concern to me. Why should it be?

If car drivers become even more frustrated at dealing with car traffic when a bicycle is the more efficient and appropriate tool, and demonstrating that, how is that something other than a good thing?

@Dan: The state of Pennsylvania's advice on Getting Through Traffic Jams seems to implicitly endorse filtering when traffic is dense. To be fair, they do point out that filtering may be illegal in your municipality, but this quotation sums it up: "... it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.”

The bottom line, IMO, is that there is no blanket answer that covers all situations. You have to assess what is safest for you each time you come to a red light, and that may change from one ride to the next or even from one light to the next.

i usually don't filter, unless traffic is way backed up (e.g. i'm headed along ellsworth toward negley from aiken, on my way to giant eagle at, say, 6pm). then i do it carefully, and pay careful attention to people's signals and how much room they have to move forward—or unexpectedly to the side.

i do this because i am somewhat of a vehicularist (somewhat), and i want to be treated like any other vehicle on most roads i'm on. i don't think this is doing anything for any other cyclists, but i do hope it causes people driving nearby cars to consider me the same as all the rest of the vehicles out there. as in: something that annoys them, but not something that has no business being there in the first place.

and incidentally, that is how the vast (overwhelming) majority of cars seem to treat me.

@mr. marv: I stay away from filtering because if I should get hit doing it I'll be at fault. I just want to have something to back me up in a accident and not have a driver win the case because of my filtering.

what makes you think you would be at fault? even if it were against the law to filter—which, to my knowledge, it's not—if you are hit by someone being incautious, the fault generally rests on them.

@Mick, why it should be a concern for you -- because your behavior affects others. You probably treat your friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers in ways that, you hope, will help them treat you and others with respect. So this is really the same sort of thing, except on the road.

Imagine you are the driver, frustrated, waiting at a red light. You see a cyclist illegally proceeding through the intersection. Which do you think is more likely:

"There goes another damn cyclist, disobeying the rules, all cyclists are scofflaws."

or

"There goes another cyclist, making good time through traffic. I wish I had a bicycle."

Mick, who is being naive? "That is no concern to me. Why should it be?"

It should be, because that rage YOU create may be taken out on a fellow cyclist or worst yet you.

I suppose you would have no problem being clipped by a vehicle you just filtered past.....the "cager" would just say, oh well, he added to my rage.

I also suppose if we were all standing in a line at a grocery check out, you would deem it ok to walk right past me and check out first because you are holding your groceries in a more efficient or appropriate way.

It's a fine line your walking Mick. I appreciate your opinion, just respectfully disagree.

There goes another damn cyclist, disobeying the rules, all cyclists are scofflaws.

There goes another cyclist, making good time through traffic. I wish I had a bicycle.

Depends on the person. Logical people understand that they are stuck in traffic because there are too many cars on the road. Illogical people get mad when someone passes them through a space that is only big enough for them.

Today on Ellsworth near Aiken there was traffic backed up a bit and a driver, with their turn signal on couldn't fit between the car in front and the parked car on their right, they wanted to filter up to the intersection but couldn't fit. I could, so I passed them and turned right. Maybe that guy was pissed and thinks that cyclists are scoflaws, maybe he wished he was on a bike.

I think we have officially branched this discussion into to two separate topics: filtering and running red lights.

There is nothing in Pittsburgh, to my knowledge, that makes filtering explicitly illegal, but even if there were, I see nothing wrong with following the State's advice and cautiously disobeying.

As for running red lights, every time I see another cyclist run a red light, I yell at them "you're giving the rest of us a bad name!" because that is EXACTLY what is happening. It only takes one douche nozzle blowing through red lights to make the people in cars at those intersections hate us. You are not "cautiously disobeying" the traffic light, you are blatantly disregarding it.

@ hidden variable I was thinking of the cyclist that was killed by a truck while filtering last summer. The cyclist was found at fault for not following traffic laws.

Also my personal reasoning (i don't know if it's good reasoning) I want the same respect on the road os cars, so I try to obey the rules of the road and stay predicable. Also I try to keep tension down between cars and cyclist not that I'm worried about drivers road rage against me but against another cyclist.I often wonder how a driver a completely anger will treat the next rider they encounter.

Look at Forbes and Wightman.

If there are cars moving through that intersection, it isn't very safe for a biker.

If there are NOT cars moving through the intersection, it *IS* safe for bikes. Cars stopped at lights don't have much affect on that.

When the light changes, the cars that are were waiting will be come moving deadly hazards.

The safest thing might be to go through the intersection. FIRST CONCERN. (I don't know either way if mpm saw the biker acting safely. Nothing he wrote precludes it)

Why are you people asking me to speculate on what the drivers MIGHT be thinking?

It only takes one douche nozzle blowing through red lights to make the people in cars at those intersections hate us.

And that is why you will never change their minds.

We all have a line we are willing to cross. I think it's good that we are at least able acknowledge it.

Mr. M - if you are thinking of the young woman that happened in the outlying town, killed by the tractor trailer rig - she may have been found at fault for breaking the law, but my interpretation of the incident is that she was killed because she was wearing an ipod with earphones (and being generally clueless about her situation) which IMO is much more dangerous than filtering, not wearing a helmet, not having blinkies, etc. Your senses and your brain keep you alive, not these "accessories".

I don't know exactly what the law is for filtering, I do know if you are in a car that is filtering and are involved in an accident you are at fault. I was a passenger in a such car (also we were teenagers and that also is a factor). I've just been playing it safe till I know what the law actually is.

@ edmonds yeah thats what I was thinking about. I was not sure if one of the things she did or a combination of all the things she did found her at fault. After that case I decided against everything she did to ensure I had some sort of defense in a accident.

@ JaySherman5000 It only takes one douche nozzle blowing through red lights to make the people in cars at those intersections hate us.

Haters gonna hate.

Sometimes rage towards cyclists might come from things we do that perhaps we should not be doing.

I suspect that is rare. No more likely that drivers hating us for taking a lane or being on the road.

In either case "I don't want to go through a red light, because cars will hate us then" makes me think of abused children. "If I'm good, daddy will stop beating me."

No, he won't.

Every bike rider could wait at every red light, no matter how dangerous that may be, and car drivers will still hate us.

@Mick: I don't understand how waiting patiently in the middle of a line of cars at a red light, taking the lane, is less safe than filtering past all of those cars and running a red light. I don't care if there's cross traffic or not.

For the record, I was not criticizing the filtering, just the running of the red light. The reference to filtering was just to emphasize how many people were watching him run the red light.

Why are you people asking me to speculate on what the drivers MIGHT be thinking?

You're already speculating. "Cars hate it when the movement of their car is impeded by other cars." "Should cyclists waste their time to make some car drivers (ugh) happy? Or rather, slightly less pissed off than they would be otherwise?"

But most drivers aren't filled with rage. A tiny percentage are. When you decide not to care about how drivers react, you may be causing some of the 99% of non-raging drivers to get angry.

"... it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.”

As I've pointed out before, if you think waiting in line for a red light in heavy traffic makes the road "obstructed" for cyclists, then isn't it obstructed for the cars too? If so, it must be OK for drivers to use the bike lane or the shoulder to get around the cars "obstructing" them at the light. It's better for cyclists in general if we don't assert that this is what the law means by "obstructed", and save it for broken-down vehicles and the like.

@mpm.

While you are waiting in the line of not moving cars, you are indeed safe. Probably safer than somone filtering.

(Of course, there is no reason to think the car drivers will have less hate for taking the lane than they do for a bike going through a light.)

The trouble is those cars start moving. Then you have to go through an intersection with moving cars.

Not a tremendously perilous situation of course, but clearly some risk.

Filtering past stopped cars when there is room and the cars are not moving is fairly safe. Not as safe as being stopped between stopped cars. More safe than being between moving cars.

When you get to the light? If there are no cars approaching (and visibility is good as it is on Wightman at Forbes), it is safe to go through.

If you have waited for the stopped cars to start moving through the intersection?

Then you are putting yourself at risk.

Intersections 101:

No moving cars? Safe

Moving cars? Not safe.

(Note: no reference to status of lights.)

there always seems to be this sentiment among cyclists that behaving just so will earn us more respect from drivers of automobiles. i have seen nothing to cause me to believe this. it makes intuitive sense, sure, but our intuition also tells us that people are rational and that if we could just demonstrate our points adequately, they would agree with us. rarely does that turn out to be the case, though.

"scofflaw cyclists" are the number one complaint of cyclist-hating drivers. we think if we can reduce or eliminate this scofflawing, we would appease those drivers. the problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes "scofflaw cyclists" are the reason these drivers hate cyclists. it is not. it's just a low-hanging fruit, an easy-to-find soapbox on which to stand and be sublimely self-righteous.

the reason these people hate us is because we're in what they consider their space. we're an invasion, a baser element of society that can't afford or doesn't want to do things their way. the people who can't fight the need to complain about cyclists at every opportunity see us as judgemental pricks who think we're better than everyone else. well, they're right about that in my case, but me obeying the laws isn't going to change their minds about the rest of you.

i do obey the laws, but i do it to be safe and predictable. and if i think i can be safer by breaking a law, you can bet i'm going to do it.

@ steven When you decide not to care about how drivers react, you may be causing some of the 99% of non-raging drivers to get angry.

Next time there is one of those comment squalls after a news article, check it out.

Those that complain about bikes going through read lights are there for sure.

But almost always in the context of saying that no bikes should have any rights on the road unless no bicyclists ever break the law.

And they are tucked in with a bunch of other comments that say bikes shouldn't be on the road. Or that bikes should never take the right of way when a car is present. Or that adults shouldn't ride bikes. Or that bikes need insurance and registration before they go on the road.

"Maybe, if we're all good, cars will stop beating us."

@Steven, that quotation is from the PA BICYCLE DRIVER'S MANUAL. I think, in that context, a line of cars DOES represent an obstruction, but ONLY for the cyclist. This view is reinforced by the section heading "GETTING THROUGH TRAFFIC JAMS"; implying that a traffic jam, for the cyclist, is an obstruction.

Though I have never read it, I'm reasonably certain that the PA motor vehicle driver's manual does not indicate that a line of cars waiting in traffic is an obstruction for someone IN A MOTOR VEHICLE. Hence, motorists must wait in line at the light.

Again, there is no blanket answer that reconciles everything. Bicycles, believe it or not are different from cars, and they should be treated differently than cars. We just have to make sure that the standards we apply allow for both types of vehicles to coexist safely.

Commenters are not representative of the general public. The jerks who post about how cyclists should get off the road are the same jerks who yell "Get off the road!" I agree that courteous cycling isn't going to change their minds.

But the other 99% are courteous drivers. They don't shout and usually aren't motivated enough to bother posting.

But maybe they get a little more annoyed when they see a cyclist cutting in line, or behaving "unfairly". So maybe the next cyclist encounters 2% pissed-off drivers instead of 1%.

Courteous behavior isn't to appease the jerks, it's to get along better with the non-jerks who vastly outnumber them.

Let's say you filter to the front of a line of cars and the intersection is not clear, so you can't run the red light, assuming that this was your purpose for filtering to the front. What then? I'm assuming you either take the lane in front of the lead car or you take the lane in front of the second car; you are now in the same position, danger-wise, as you were in when you were waiting at the back of the pack, except you have signaled to every driver you filtered past that you believe you're more privileged than them. At this point you are certainly inconveniencing them for no benefit to yourself, since you were unable to get through the red light, and I'm assuming the line of cars was not going to be stopped for more than a single red.

I don't think this is a contrived example, considering the intersection in question (Wightman and Beacon). Any thoughts?

"Courteous behavior isn't to appease the jerks, it's to get along better with the non-jerks who vastly outnumber them."

hear! hear!

Courteous behavior isn't to appease the jerks, it's to get along better with the non-jerks who vastly outnumber them.

i never seem to have issues with those people, though. so you're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

I sometimes think about how smart riding requires finding a combination of what's safe, what's legal, and what's courteous.

On those occasions when filtering is safe and legal, I'll admit that my adherence to courteous riding (and the above discussion is evidence that there isn't consensus about whether filtering is or isn't discourteous) depends greatly on whether I have to go to the bathroom, I'm hungry, day care is going to ding me for being late, etc.

"I'm assuming the line of cars was not going to be stopped for more than a single red."

I ride down 5th to Penn on my outbound commute. When I get near Shady, Beechwood, or Penn, there are typically so many cars stacked up in the right lane that they will be there for multiple light cycles. (Sometimes, because of traffic attempting to turn left, that lane is backed up as well.) This is when I filter past them. If the traffic is clearly going to take less than one cycle to clear the intersection, I wait my turn.

Again, my action depends on the situation.

"so you're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

the goal is not to "solve a problem" it's to maintain good relations.

Also, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Intersections with multiple red-light cycles (usually due to the lack of a separate turning lane) are a good situation for filtering in fully stopped traffic. This is not that though. This is a (nearly always) single-red intersection with a left-turn lane and a flow-through lane.

If so, it must be OK for drivers to use the bike lane or the shoulder to get around the cars "obstructing" them at the light.

Whether or not it's ok or not, people do.

the goal is not to "solve a problem" it's to maintain good relations.

hey, i mean, i try to be nice and respectful to every human being i come across until they do something to show me they don't deserve it. i just don't have any illusions about my actions influencing how they feel about cyclists in general.

The PA Bicycle Driver's Manual wasn't written by PA, though. PA got permission to reprint and adapt an existing bike safety book. Many other states (and a few foreign countries) did too.

The ones that are available on line all make the same claim that it's sometimes safe to filter but there may be some local law that prohibits it (all except one for the UK that says that in the UK, filtering is legal).

PA failed to remove or edit this particular passage from the book they adapted. But there's little evidence they intended it as any kind of official endorsement of filtering.

In any case, the law takes precedence over how PA adapted the text in a booklet. I think the relevant law for filtering is

3304. Overtaking vehicle on the right.

(a) General rule.--The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the

right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions:

(1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left

turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm

or shoulder of the highway.

(2) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for

two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being

traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be

made by driving off the roadway.

(b) Limitation.--No passing movement under this section shall be made

unless the movement can be made in safety.

That suggests filtering may be legal in such cases, but it's not completely clear. For instance, since the law says cars can't pass safely without 4 feet of room, how much room must bikes have to pass safely? A judge might think we need the same 4 feet, and filtering with a few inches between you and a car is unsafe and therefore illegal.

@mpm Let's say you filter to the front of a line of cars and the intersection is not clear, so you can't run the red light, assuming that this was your purpose for filtering to the front. What then?

The purpose of filtering is make forward progress and increase options.

I could do a variety of things after filtering.

If there is good space on the far side of the intersection, I will proceed and the cars will pass.

I almost never take a lane in front of a car that I filtered past. Sometimes I will, say on Fifth Ave in Oakland, where there are plenty of other lanes for them. Not often.

Sometimes I will stay stopped next to the road, while the line of cars goes past.

For example, I will filter past cars on Atwood stopped for Bates. When the light changes I will cross the Bates, then stop behind a parked car, let the cars the I filter past pass me. Then, I'll take the lane.

At that corner, I often even run the last of the red light to do this - stop on the other side of the intersection to let the cars pass - BUT I got through a dangerous intersection wtihout dying.

If I'm lucky, on Atwood St., when the next bolus of cars catches up with me, I'll get to the downsloped part of Atwood and they will be slowing for the stop sign and I can keep the lane. (Atwood is hard choice is block the only lane or be in door zone.)

At some intersections, sometimes, I will get off my bike and walk in the crosswalk -with my bike between me and the murderous traffic patterns. I do this particularly at lights where the "stop before proceeding with right turn on red" is interpretted by drivers as "slow down to 20 mph and look left for traffic while turning right".

I'm sure as hell not going to eschew filtering so I can do that when I get to light.

If there was some huge amount of traffic on Wightman going right on Forbes, I might walk across Forbes. Not likely at that intersection, but if there were a bunch of rowdy traffic, midnight, Saturday? You betcha!

If I were going North on Wightman at Forbes, and traffic were heavy, it's likely that I would filter. If there is no traffic on Forbes, I will likely procede with caution though the red light.

If there were traffic on Forbes, I would start moving as soon as the Forbes traffic ws stopped. This might be before my light turns green. It might be sometime after my light turns green. No matter.

Continuing North on Wightman, the road is very narrow there. If there were no pedestrians, I would probably get on the sidewalk and let the cars I filtered past pass me with no danger. That means going pedestrian speed and exercising caution at driveways and intersections.

If there were pedestrians on the sidewalk, I might wait at the corner for the Wightman traffic bolus to pass, before going up that narrow uphill stretch.

My referent here, is safety. Not the law. And MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT projected judgmental thoughts a car driver might have about my actions.

> Also, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

you cant do that, man... hiddenvariable was a conscientious objector

I should get a helmet cam and record my passage through West End/the West End circle at rush hour. That 1/4 mile requires a jambalaya, or melange, of filtering, not filtering, taking the lane, waiting by the curb, being a courteous bike paradigm, and disregarding what drivers may think, to negotiate effectively and safely.

"I sometimes think about how smart riding requires finding a combination of what's safe, what's legal, and what's courteous."

"Again, my action depends on the situation."

What they said.

I bend the arc of traffic law toward what is going to keep me alive.

Edmonds, this thread had me wondering how you handled that stretch of road. That's pretty much how I see it, too. I filter on Noblestown/Main but slowly, carefully, and with my eyes on the auto body shop, the side streets on both sides, and the driveways.

There are places in the suburbs where I can filter forward at high speed, giddily. southbound Babcock at Babcock at Peoples Plank Road backs up horribly, sometimes all the way to Thompson Run Road. I passed 93 cars on the way to a Flock ride a year or so back.

At the same corner, coming down Peoples, requires taking the lane if peeling left, and hugging the shoulder if going right.

You cannot legislate subjectivity. There are so many variables. It's a wide spectrum of grey between "Don't be a jerk" and "Give no quarter and don't let the bastards get to you".

I don't even know how I know what I know. I've just been riding forever. But I think we suburban riders (Pinky, Edmonds, ejwme come to mind) have it figured out. It's a bit different from city intersections.

My internal question (and maybe filtering rationalization) is if there were 50 cyclists lined up single file at a red light with a wide lane, what would a car do when it came up to that last cyclist?

I feel pretty confident they would wonder why the bikes were single file as they filtered past them up to the light.

And now I have a new data point to add to my experience: Watch out about getting over to the right after taking the lane while stopped at a light.

Friday morning, McKnight at Peebles/Babcock inbound, I am first in line in the curb lane (3 inbound at that point, 4 if you count the left turn lane). We wait out the red light. Light turns green, off we go, but the car behind me passes me on the right at full power.

For those unfamiliar with that particular corner, the chances of someone right-hooking me there are almost zero, since traffic headed from southbound to westbound (Babcock) was shunted off via a separate ramp.

Nope, he couldn't wait four seconds to switch lanes and pass me on the left. He has to pull a dickwad move and fly along the shoulder.

if someone attacks you it's because they are a delinquent - not because johnny douchebag ran a light on his bike. wtf is wrong with people? did the laws of cause and effect cease to be a "thing" at some point? was it because of "nine eleven"?

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/07/when-bad-guys-ride-bikes/2536/

"The worst thing for a cycling advocate is to see some other cyclist dangerously blow through a red light. It’s just the worst PR."

Thoughts, Mick/unixdork?

It is really bad PR for us (shrug).

Puzzling as to why speeding cars smashing into buildings isn't similarly bad press for all autos, but it is what it is.

Now, on this board, there is a tendency to lump fools dangerously blowing off lights with skilled riders cautiously chosing to go through a red light.

There are times when it is simply more dangerous to stay at an intersection than go through a red lgiht.

@Mick:There are times when it is simply more dangerous to stay at an intersection than go through a red lgiht.

Can you give me some examples? I've personally not encountered any situations where running a red seemed warranted on safety grounds.

(Seriously, not being argumentative. I've run reds for my own convenience, and as part of group rides...I make no claims of complete law-abidingness.)

Forbes and Oakland Ave, no traffic on Oakland and agressive drivers on Forbes, You want to turn right on Bouquet.

If you go through the red, your last block on Forbes is traffic-free. If you wait for the light to change, you will be surrounded by cars.

On, say, a football Saturday, an hour after the game ends. "Traffic" is equal to "exceptionally drunk , high spirited young people."

***

Going North on Braddock for a left at Forbes. No traffic on Forbes. 1 AM Saturday morning. Drunkards approaching from the rear. You hear their engines racing.

Do you wait for them to overtake you? Or go through the light?

If you wait, you might have oncoming traffic too, leaving you in the midst of the intersection.

***

Panther Hollow Blvd at Greenfield. Traffic approaching only from the rear.

***

In general, 1) Good visibility. 2) MV traffic approaching that will reach you if you do NOT go through the red. 3) That's the only traffic.

Or - making a left turn. No traffic now, but if you wait for the light to change, you'll have high-speed moving traffic in both directions.

Exra credit: The laws of physics indicate the cars will either screech to a stop or violate the 4 ft rule at high speed.

@reddan I've personally not encountered any situations where running a red seemed warranted on safety grounds.

I find that really hard to beleive.

Fair enough.

Personally, if I believed that a vehicle approaching from the rear was driven by a drunkard, I'd hop onto the sidewalk, parking lot, or driveway rather than remain on the road in his vicinity.

Oblivious drunks unaware of my presence are an unpredictable danger no matter where on the road they are in relation to me. Drunks that are aware of my presence are certainly no less likely to do something stupid if they see me run the light ahead of them(and, I would suggest, might be more likely to do so...).

[Edited to add:]

In general, 1) Good visibility. 2) MV traffic approaching that will reach you if you do NOT go through the red. 3) That's the only traffic.

Or - making a left turn. No traffic now, but if you wait for the light to change, you'll have high-speed moving traffic in both directions.

Eh, I dunno. I could make the same argument as any road user, not just a cyclist...I'd always be safer if I violate traffic laws and no-one else does so.

in my opinion, things break down (further) as traffic becomes more unpredictable...the more people who choose to do their own thing, for whatever reason, the more likely it seems that multiple sets of unpredictable actions result in the most vulnerable road user getting smashed.

@Reddan Personally, if I believed that a vehicle approaching from the rear was driven by a drunkard, I'd hop onto the sidewalk, parking lot, or driveway rather than remain on the road in his vicinity.

When I'm on the rad at midnight on a weekend, my belief is that everyone driving a car is falling-down drunk. I spend a lot of time on sidewalks. I don't make good time.

Sometimes, say going up Forward from the park, when a car passes, I'll be in a ditch next to the road with my (well-lit) bike between me and and the drunkard.

Maybe not every driver is too drunk to see. But you only get to wrong about that once.

Once in a while I've gone through a red light because there is a person or persons standing or sitting nearby and my instinct tells me to move along quickly before a confrontation starts. Mostly, though, I've done it out of impatience.

+1 pseudacris on having sketchy people standing around and no other traffic in the vicinity.

I tend to avoid being out on a bicycle on friday and saturday nights if at all possible, but I guess not everyone can rearrange plans to get off of the road at that hour. I will actually just not go out if I know that some concert or sports event is happening and there may be a high number of drunk drivers out there.

reddan, I think there's a spectrum that you point towards that's useful to inspect further...

Sometimes in a car, the safest thing is to break a law. It's rare, but if it avoids an accident (rather than causing one), one could make the argument that it is morally more righteous than predictability. On a bike, I think it's relatively more justifiable, since the user is much less protected from the harm one would be attempting to avoid, while simultaneously being less likely to cause severe damage than a motor vehicle by being unpredictable.

Pile fallible and differing cyclist/driver/pedestrian/loiterer perceptions of a given situation, and perhaps the ability to determine right and wrong is too blurred to consider until Monday Morning Quarterbacking time.

@ejwme:Sometimes in a car, the safest thing is to break a law. It's rare, but if it avoids an accident (rather than causing one), one could make the argument that it is morally more righteous than predictability

I think you're right. To be honest, the time I most frequently break the law while driving is in the service of predictability...exceeding the speed limit (sometimes quite significantly) is something I will often do on the highway, so that I am moving with traffic rather than at odds with it.

I know this isn't exactly on topic, but yesterday I had a near-hit and I thought I would share. I was at the intersection of the rankin bridge coming from the waterfront trail. I didn't have the opportunity to get into the turning lane so I went to the cross walk by the gas station, pressed the button and waited a good 1-2 minutes for the walk signal (obviously thinking this was the safest thing to do). The traffic coming from the kennywood side had a red light, I'm sure of it. I assumed traffic knew what it was doing, and I headed across and halfway across I look up and see a u-haul truck literally a foot away from me. He just continued turning and I don't even know if he saw me. I looked back at his light and it was red.

So, I suppose I was way too trusting of traffic to do its job. I suppose next time I'll actually look. That was a little bit of my fault but damn, mr u-haul.

I was wondering if it would be safer to use the walk signal at that intersection but people will turn right on red and aren't expecting to see a pedestrian or cyclist there.

I'm pretty sure I've had the same thing happen to me when making a left turn onto that bridge with a protected Green

For some reason people in this area think right on red is the same as having a green turn signal. Meaning that they seldom stop or even slow down to make sure they can safely turn against the light.

@ italianblend intersection of the rankin bridge coming from the waterfront trail.

I went through a red light at that intersection. It was safer for me to do so than wait. Hot Sunday, 2008. @reddan. Just sayin'.

More to the point. At some intersections, I might walk through with my bike between me and the likely-looking source of the worst traffic.

If a car trashes my bike, it's a shame, but...

I hate it when an intersection is so deadly looking that I feel compelled to press the "walk" button and walk through with my bike as a shield, but I've done it and I expect I'll do it again.

The bike doesn't really provide a lot of protection.

@ italianblend That was a little bit of my fault

I disagree. Not your fault at all.

On the other hand, trust traffic - about as much as you trust the Nigerian Oil Ministry with your bank account number.

Haha. Okay it wasn't my fault, but I was a bit stupid for not "looking both ways."