Today I was pulled over for a traffic violation. I was riding from the strip to Polish Hill. I crossed Liberty at 25th to head east. I jumped the light there, not running a red exactly. The only car nearby was a cop. He pulled out of his spot and got behind, following me. I was like, sweet, an escort. I continued east on Liberty at a moderate pace. I paused at the red light where you make a right to go up the 28th street bridge. Sunday, no traffic, just the one car behind me. I go through the light, almost walking.
POW, He hits the lights, no sirens, and pulls me over. He asked to see my license. I don't have one. He gave me a rather stern talking to and sent me on my way.
At one point in our conversation. He said to me "If you want to be treated the same as any other vehicle, you need to follow the same traffic laws". I wanted to point out that I'd like to be treated the same as any other vehicle but laws would have to change. I'd like to have insurance like any other vehicle but it doesn't exist for me. I wanted to mention how if you ride a bike people can murder you with their vehicles and not even get a stern talking to, let alone a ticket. I kept my mouth shut though, except to thank him and apologize for my irreverence.
busted !
yes! let's hear more about the Texas cycling scene. there's just one "scene" in all of Texas, being that it's such a small and bike-friendly state?
Sounds like you encountered an officer with good intentions toward cyclists...
Personally, I think "Don't run a red light" seems like a fairly light cross to have to bear.
my views on the suitability for bikes of automobile traffic laws notwithstanding, you don't run a light right in front of a cop. that's like spitting on his shoe.
I agree his intentions where just and he was right. It was refreshing actually. I was just overwhelmed by the irony of his comment suggesting I wanted to be treated like another vehicle.
Imagine! A vast infrastructure paid for with endless tax dollars. Tunnels under rivers! Six lane superhighways! Mountains moved so I can ride my bike. A whole crew of people to repair the road when it's damaged by my vehicle. All the vehicle operators would have insurance so if there was an accident and people got hurt they would be able to have their injuries treated and support their family while they're out of work.
I'm not sure why I have to bear a cross. Is riding a bicycle synonymous with being a martyr?
I guess dealing with traffic, breathing in exhaust fumes, witnessing resources being burned and wasted by selfish people driving SUVs. Seeing the land destroyed to build infrastructure to sustain all of this nonsense. I guess that's just a little cross to bear. Personally it seems rather heavy to me, a bit more then a mild inconvenience, Americans are blind to this. It's just a little cross to bear.
Maybe your just ignorant and refuse to witness the mutilation and waste foisted on the planet by the auto and the selfish people that operate them.
Seems like a fairly light cross to bear, maybe for you.
yeah sit at a red light in the dark waiting for a cel-phone-talking drunken idiot to slam into you from behind and kill you. fuck that.
Right, I'm sorry, I should have realized that you ran that red light in front of that cop because really you're an insurgent freedom fighter representing mother earth, and also oppressed bikers everywhere, and not because you were just being dumb and got called on it.
My actions notwithstanding. I don't mind being pulled over by the cops for doing something illegal.
That's his job. I'm just having trouble understanding how it relates to being a martyr and bearing a cross. Am I a martyr because I ride a bike?
@peterb wonderful post! I miss the texas cycling scene - pittsburgh seems like a lot of crit-mass hippies setting themselves up as freedom fighters out to stick it to the man, and championing ideas like insurance, registrations, and licenses for bicycles.
@timito you ran a red and you got in trouble. end of story. maybe the system isn't completely fair to cyclists, but who said life was fair?
pittsburgh seems like a lot of crit-mass hippies setting themselves up as freedom fighters out to stick it to the man
I suspect you'll find the Pittsburgh cycling scene to be a bit more diverse than that. We've also got arrogant people in lycra and attention-seeking freaks on 'bents and tallbikes.
Is wanting the same insurance as an auto, to protect myself should I be injured, to be able to care for my daughter in case of an accident, this isn't "freedom fighting". I didn't "get in trouble" I was pulled over. End of story, you go bury your head in the sand.
This whole thread is in a violent tailspin.
Oh, my heavens, msprout, this is just a mild skid.
Whoo-hoo, freaks and hippies, yay!
I miss the texas cycling scene
Timito, I think you're right to complain about how hard it is to buy bike insurance in the US. But I don't see how that relates to running a red light.
I think Peterb was simply asking if it's really such a hardship to stop at red lights. Nothing to do with literal martyrdom really. Your name-calling ("Maybe your just ignorant") was undeserved.
+1 on the diversity of Pittsburgh cyclists. There's a wide spectrum of opinion here on Critical Mass, for instance.
Which Texas? I heard there were two, the near-Austin part, and the rest of the Republic.
@CMeyers: You joined the wrong forum if you are looking to bash Pittsburgh cyclists.
@reddan: Damn those bent riders...
...and tall bike freaks with their stereos and their jousting...
@REddan pittsburgh seems like a lot of crit-mass hippies setting themselves up as freedom fighters out to stick it to the man
I suspect you'll find the Pittsburgh cycling scene to be a bit more diverse than that. We've also got arrogant people in lycra and attention-seeking freaks on 'bents and tallbikes.
Not to mention crazed geezers weaving round at speeds akin to trees growing and women in skirts, evidently out for the breeze.
Have you ever noticed how black people bike like this...
And white people, well, they bike like this!
Am I right? Am I right?!?!
...and women in skirts, evidently out for the breeze.
or men doing the same.
"I suspect you'll find the Pittsburgh cycling scene to be a bit more diverse than that. We've also got arrogant people in lycra and attention-seeking freaks on 'bents and tallbikes."
Haha, +1
Normally, I don't post but I cannot resist this one.
@peterb, your post is supurb. I can't stop rereading it (and laughing).
and
@timito, about this:
Is wanting the same insurance as an auto, to protect myself should I be injured, to be able to care for my daughter in case of an accident, this isn't "freedom fighting". I didn't "get in trouble" I was pulled over. End of story, you go bury your head in the sand.
your health insurance is designed to cover any injuries you or your daughter should receive. If you are hit by a car, that car's insurance will cover damages. I am confused as to where you are seeing a deficit in your coverage (unless you do not have health insurance in which case you should, as should everyone).
Just so my husband does not kill me for doppleganging, I was accidently posted the above while logged into his account. It is my post NOT quizbot's.
sorry. told you I don't post much!
@quizbot,--er...ilikebikes then-- oddly enough while riding a bicycle the auto insurance might be the operative policy. I know when my daughter's school bus was hit by a car (this has happened to her three times by the way over the course of her school career--never anything serious), it was _my_ auto insurance policy that paid the hospital costs for her to be checked out. Some oddity of no fault insurance or something. We could, of course, have sued the other driver for damages, but in the normal course of events because it happened in a vehicle it was the auto policy and not the health policy that paid.
As near as I can tell, when you get hit by a car in PA, hospital costs are covered by the following things (in order), regardless of who you were driving/riding with, and what you were driving (bike, car, bus, walking):
a) Medical coverage on your car insurance.
b) Medical coverage on car insurance from a relative you live with.
c) Medical coverage on car insurance from the at fault party.
d) Money taken out of your settlement if you sue for damages, or money from anyone else at fault, where the health insurance company sues on your behalf.
e) then.. health insurance pays.
Your health care is last in line. They only pay after everyone else who could paid has paid. Most health insurers are able to legally stand in your shoes and sue on your behalf to recoup large costs. If you don't have health insurance, get way more than the minimum medical coverage on your or your relative's car insurance. The minimum will barely get you through the ER door.
Other kinds of insurance provide some coverage, but they don't cover all types of losses. Here's a page that explains some problems with the USA's current lack of bicycle insurance:
Problems arise when an uninsured motor vehicle operator and a person on a bike without auto insurance collide, or worse, in the case of a hit-and-run. Lack of insurance is also a problem in the case of single vehicle crashes, such as when you hit the light rail tracks at the wrong angle and go down.
Though health insurance if you have it will (in theory) cover your injuries, it will not cover liability (the damage you do to another's property), lost wages, pain and suffering, or damage to your bicycle.
+1 Steven - I was just going to point out all this implies that Timito either has auto insurance (it sounds like he doesn't), and/or the other driver will stick around AND have some form of insurance (or means which can be sued quickly out of him/her to pay medical), or in the very least that he's got health insurance (also not the best assumption).
I think the insurance gripe is a valid one, but I also think Timito was right to hold his tongue when he got pulled over (kudos for having such thoughts AND restraint at the same time!). Why are we razzing him for a mental rant he describes here (a place where the rant is pretty darn valid)?
That being said, I always stop at red lights, rarely turning right on red. Not for the lack of cars passing by - I stop for the cars I don't see or hear or think are there (because I know the second I make that assumption, the universe will smite me with an invisible, inaudible, speeding 10 ton truck).
Timito - please be safe! Don't let the universe smite you!
The hybrid buses are more like 18 tons and are pussycat quiet much of the time, so you're not that far off base.
I have been waiting at red lights a lot more lately since someone mentioned that every cyclist is a representative of all cyclists to some people. When there is no other traffic around, I sometimes put a foot down briefly to justify to myself that I then became a pedestrian.
I have been waiting at red lights a lot more lately since someone mentioned that every cyclist is a representative of all cyclists to some people. When there is no other traffic around, I sometimes put a foot down briefly to justify to myself that I then became a pedestrian.
This.
Even at 2am on smithfield st, when there is no traffic except for a post gazette van driving the wrong way on the street so they don't have to loop around, I've been stopping and waiting a lot more frequently lately.
Health insurance? How can you assume I have health insurance? This is America. I don't have health insurance. I should buy auto insurance, as has been suggested, and just park the car. What? Homeowners insurance? These to me are not viable options. At least once every view days a pedestrian will step out in front of me, Maybe two lengths up, maybe right there where I slam on the brakes so I don't hit them. I know these is an extreme example, but we could both be hurt, maybe my bicycle damaged. Neither party is insured. I know, YOU could pay for my hospitalization, then I could go on welfare, til I'm able to work again.
This forum reminds me of cliques encountered in high school. Early in this thread. Someone named Peterb suggests I'm dumb, that's cool, he's part of the gang. I consider perhaps he's ignorant, That's a foul, name calling. Peter's post is "superb", hilarious in fact. I'm a jerk.
Some guy on here, in a prior thread actually posted publicly on this forum a private correspondence we had, like a jilted teen age lover. He's a cool guy though, part of the club.
This thread here keeps turning to auto insurance.
I'm not talking about cars, how is that so hard to grasp, on a cycling forum. I DON'T DRIVE A CAR.
I think my suggestion a while back in a previous thread was to get renters insurance as it covers you in a couple ways. A) property coverage if your bike is stolen and B)liability protection if you injure someone else or damage their property
Also its really cheap, on the order of 10$ per month.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything for your own medical bills.
I am really surprised tho that some forward thinking insurance company hasnt started offering bicycle coverage. Im not sure what all legal hurdels stand in the way, but if someone can insure their legs for $2000000 then why cant I insure my bike.
@timito: What kind of insurance coverage do you want?
Most insurance companies will provide various add-ons to a base policy; so, for example, you can probably find someone who'll offer a personal liability umbrella for a nominal extra fee on top of a renter's or homeowner's policy. No car required.
Best suggestion I can offer is to A) define what you want and 
talk to a few insurance agents to see what they can do.
'cause your bike isn't attached to a 30,000,000 a motion picture "earning" person.
It'd be fascinating if anybody on this board was an actuary, but I suspect that cycling insurance wouldn't pay them. Remember, insurance is a gamble - you're betting stuff will go wrong badly and fast, the insurance company is betting nothing will ever happen.
Timito, to set the record straight, Peterb didn't suggest you were dumb until after you suggested he was ignorant. You started the name-calling.
This article suggests the financial side of bike insurance is doable as long as you can get a sufficient number of cyclists signed up.
http://bikeportland.org/2010/01/05/bicycle-insurance-coming-to-america-in-2010-27755
Good lord, you guys haven't learned to not respond to this guys posts yet?
timito, you said in another thread that your wife owns and drives a "huge truck". If this vehicle is insured, you would be able to access the medical coverage in the event of an auto vs bike incident. If you are hospitalized due to a negligent pedestrian you would be able to sue this person for their negligence and recoup costs of your hospital visit and bicycle. Their homeowners / renters insurance may cover some of these costs, and if they have assets it will cover the rest. Extra medical coverage on car insurance is quite expensive, and I would hazard a guess that it would be even more expensive on a bike policy. It is likely just as expensive to find a medical insurance plan with a large deductible for catastrophic coverage, if that is what you are worried most about (and it would work if you were harmed while not on your bike too!).
A lot of the people on this board do know each other. Maybe that is why there is a clique vibe. Every event I've attended has been welcoming and open to anyone who shows up. Nobody is excluding you from the clique. I don't think anyone here is out to get you. Sometimes humor or intent are hard to get across in an internet post. I sometimes have to remind myself that I can't assume people are being malicious when there is a possibility they were just trying to lighten the mood or make a joke.
I should attach myself to the insurance on my wife's truck? I don't have a drivers license and don't want one. That's not an option. Renter's insurance? Doesn't cover medical. Oh, darn. I can sue the pedestrian that steps in front of me? Have you ever sued somebody? I haven't. I don't want to. Hire a lawyer? Too sue somebody that doesn't have any money and never collect. That's not an option, really, is it, That's what I should plan on.
Suing somebody? I don't really see any viable options presented here but I'm just ignorant.
Get a job that offers insurance? That is the only other option that wasn't suggested. And not to be the grammar police, but if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, please use the correct form of "you're".
Also if you do something that is illegal, don't complain about the consequences.
timito, I don't blame your healthy dose of sarcasm. Insurance is a pretty convoluted industry. You don't have to attach yourself to anything. The way the PA no fault auto insurance laws are structured, you are covered under her policy automatically, and so is your child (in the event of any auto incident). You don't need to be named on the policy. You don't need a car, you don't need a license, you don't need to drive, you don't even have to look at the car. If it is her policy, and you are related, you are covered. It probably would help if you all lived at the same address, but I'm not sure that is a requirement or not.
Yes, you can't sue someone who doesn't have any assets or insurance coverage, in the unlikely event you are hospitalized by a pedestrian in such a situation.
A personal injury lawyer doesn't charge you. They take a percentage of whatever they recover on your behalf. Any decent one would sit down and talk to you (for free!) about the accident and potential sources of recovery (insurance and assets) before they take your case. Most people have a homeowner's policy or renter's policy that provides liability coverage. You don't even need to sue them, you can just file a claim and deal with an adjuster.
You would still have to deal with all these issues even if you had some crazy-expensive bike policy. Insurance companies rarely just open their wallets and pay your bills without a second thought. All of the suggestions people have offered are viable alternatives to a bike insurance plan, and likely more cost effective.
Don't run a light right in front of a cop...Don't run a light if you don't have insurance...
I had a good feeling this thread would degrade into a shitshow and I was correct.
Carry on.
I wanna tell you about the texas cycling scene...
Comes out of the Virginia swamps
Cool and slow with plenty of precision
With a back beat narrow and hard to master
Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance
Others, mean and ruthful of the Western dream
I love the friends I have gathered together on this thin raft
We have constructed pyramids in honor of our escaping
This is the land where the Pharaoh died
The Negroes in the forest brightly feathered
They are saying, "Forget the night.
Live with us in forests of azure.
Out here on the perimeter there are no stars
Out here we is stoned - immaculate."
Listen to this, and I'll tell you 'bout the heartache
I'll tell you 'bout the heartache and the loss of God
I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night
The meager food for souls forgot
I'll tell you 'bout the maiden with raw iron soul
I'll tell you this
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Timito try to be a little less hysterical please
When I was working a job that didn't offer medical, I picked up some third party major medical. was only about 30$/month. It wouldn't cover doctors visits, etc, but it covered major injury and illness.
And while renters wont cover your injuries, it will offer you liability protection that protects whoever you run over.
Or hit with your u-lock.
Thanks Greasefoot, I'm going to go home and listen to old tapes now.
Back in those days, everything was simpler and more confused.
man i'm upset i didn't get to see this happen in real time... life without the internet... oh well....
cool and slow with plenty of precision...
mean and ruthful of the Western dream...
If even the Shrub can use clipless, then maybe I should give it a shot after all
At least the global media isn't going to report every time you fall.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3739515.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4658327.stm
that one picture explains why I wont wear lycra.
doesn't say anything about a skirt though.
@ Noah If even the Shrub can use clipless, then maybe I should give it a shot after all
One more reason not to.
Shrub's got that bike here in Pgh...It was a gift from Lynn Swann!
Lynn was running for Gov and Shrub did some fundraising for him...Lynn gave him a bicycle as a thank you gift...Shrub then took it back to Crawford TX and did a face plant...
"He likes to go all out."
He's an everyman, like me. And like me, he's terrible at staying upright.
He might be switching to a 29er. What cracks me up is he has all the money in the world and he still wanted to try it before he bought it.
As much as I hate the guy, and there aren't words to describe the degree to which I do, I think that's a good thing - trying a bike before you buy it, even if you do have money oozing out of you.
i've run lights right in front of cops. maybe you're doing it wrong. did you give them a friendly wave before you did it? try that.
Your right, I should get a job that offers insurance? I'm not sure what I was thinking. Get a job that offers insurance, how simple, I should straighten my hair and learn proper grammar though first.
@stefb I'm not sure where I was complaining.
I actually wrote: "I agree his intentions where just and he was right. It was refreshing actually." and "I don't mind being pulled over by the cops for doing something illegal.
That's his job." Maybe you can get a job working for Fox news.
I called several insurance companies,talked to agents, not one called me back.
I think I understand how the humor works here, if your one of the gang, It's really funny stuff.
Some clown chimes in "Timito try to be a little less hysterical please" that's hilarious and really adds to the thread.
I appreciate those that offered suggestions about getting insured. I'm not married to my "wife" in the eyes of the state. My gay brother can't get married. I can't either. The "huge truck" is owned by my wife's mother, she rides on her insurance.
I'll just get a better job and buy a car.
timito: the judge downtown actually has a brain. go down and challenge the ticket. when/if he asks what was up, mention the muggings of cyclists and the fact that waiting at a red light in the strip waiting for boozed up drunkards to fail to see you is a bit unnerving. you might just get the ticket dropped.
both of the tickets i was ever given while cycling were both dropped.
I didn't get a ticket, just a stern warning, cop was cool, I honestly did appreciate the heads up, although I'm sure there was no danger there, sometimes I do ride too fast. He made me think about it, no complaints.
.
Jesus Christ this was all over a "stern warning"? Fuck. Calm down. And I repeat my suggestion that we stop replying to your threads.
I am still confused by the not wanting to wait at a red light because a drunk driver on a cell phone will hit me, but it is apparently okay to ride on the road with the same drink idiot...
I don't know, Timito appears to have edited his last post away, but I think at least on this thread people were pretty darn quick to jump on him for bringing up ideas and experiences that really are not so far out there for this board. I think he's rightfully miffed, and though he comes off a bit stronger than my tastes (and IMHO inappropriately insulting at times), I've noticed over the summer that people tend to disproportionately let his responses rile them up and then come down hard on him.
I don't think it's appropriate or helpful to repeatedly suggest unanimously ostricizing him for reacting badly to snarky or harsh comments / escalations. I don't want to speak for Timito here, but as far as I've noticed, he tends to frame his responses and describe his actions in a bigger picture that is sensitive to some severe injustices that a lot of us face when we get on a bicycle. Yes it can get dark and heavy and yes a lot of people don't want to frame a given discussion that way, but that appears to be his style, so on threads he starts, it's a norm that's appropriate and at least I've come to expect it.
Again I don't want to speak for him, but in this case, it's not just a "stern warning" that illicited such strong responses, but the story around it and a very real struggle to exist in a system built for cars that repeatedly proves fatal and unjust to those without cars, aggrivated by "fellow cyclists" who missed that point entirely. Especially when they're probably a last hope at some empathy.
At least that's what I got out of it. I wouldn't have gotten that much if nobody'd responded, so I'm glad for the discussion. If I'm completely reading everything wrong, I apologize, I mean to neither speak for anyone nor offend anyone.
Jim - I think the idea is that if one has to be on a bike with drunken cell phone users (which seems to be the only option for some at times), presenting a moving target might be safer than waiting in one place to be hit.
ejwme: +n for n large
So we've reached the conclusion that drunk drivers exist and are a real danger, to everybody, not just cyclists. Lets say, hypothetically, a cyclists is struck and injured. There's a good chance this drunk may not stick around. The cyclist is unconscious on the ground, nobody else witnessed the event. This cyclist has no insurance, medical, auto, homeowners.
He can't sue the driver and has no other means to pay hospital bills. What to do.
Is getting a better job really a valid suggestion, sounds elitist and reactionary, if I was black I might assume it was racism. It's certainly ellitism. I'm discouraged someone would suggest this. Really what should my employment choices have to do with getting injured by a drunk.
timito, you seem to ignore much of the advice and only pick out the bits that are specifically not applicable to your particular situation in order to further your argument that the people on this board are out to get you.
I wrote:
Extra medical coverage on car insurance is quite expensive, and I would hazard a guess that it would be even more expensive on a bike policy. It is likely just as expensive to find a medical insurance plan with a large deductible for catastrophic coverage, if that is what you are worried most about (and it would work if you were harmed while not on your bike too!).
netviln wrote:
When I was working a job that didn't offer medical, I picked up some third party major medical. was only about 30$/month. It wouldn't cover doctors visits, etc, but it covered major injury and illness.
And while renters wont cover your injuries, it will offer you liability protection that protects whoever you run over.
Is there anything wrong with these suggestions? It provides a solution given all the available criteria I've read in your posts and all the scenarios you have imagined up. Most people would accept this as a reasonable solution to the problem at hand. Why do you choose to further address the many solutions that don't apply to you for one reason or another?
Call an insurance agent and get the coverage mentioned above. I did this last summer. I called one place and had a policy that started the following day. It took maybe a half hour for filling out the paperwork.
Edit: Our auto policy would not cover my injuries under the above scenario either. In order to use uninsured coverage in cases where the driver flees the scene, they require at least one witness.
@dwillen. You need to have witnesses that you were hit by a vehicle that didnt stop? That's outragious!!! How the hell are you suppose to get witnesses when you're on the ground bleeding to death? I'm gona have to call my agent to check on my policy.
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Fantastic L.A.
@bikefind ejwme: +n for n large
n+1
cars have bumpers, crumple zones, etc. sitting first at the light is a dangerous place for a bike to be. IN FACT, being in or near an intersection has got to be the most dangerous place you can be on a bike. WHY WOULD YOU YEARN TO CAMP OUT THERE IF YOU CAN GET AWAY ALIVE AND SAFE WHEN THERE ARE NO CARS???
seriously. i'm not becoming a dead sitting duck due to formalists who can't understand justified "law bending".
BTW: even sober people roll over bikes and hurt/kill the riders.
cars have bumpers, crumple zones, etc. sitting first at the light is a dangerous place for a bike to be. IN FACT, being in or near an intersection has got to be the most dangerous place you can be on a bike. WHY WOULD YOU YEARN TO CAMP OUT THERE IF YOU CAN GET AWAY ALIVE AND SAFE WHEN THERE ARE NO CARS???
May I recommend a mirror? Makes it much easier to notice those cars sneaking up behind you, AND it works whether you're stationary or not. Then, you can run the red/hop the curb if the oncoming car looks like it's not slowing enough...
a mirror? well, i can hear cars careening up behind me at unsafe speeds all of the time. a mirror is not going to make me safer or any less vulnerable to being killed. what will is avoiding hanging out in places where people find themselves under cars. ie: intersections, door zone, right hand gutter.
i used to have a mirror when i started riding and found it to simply be a distraction. there is absolutely no reason for me to have to move for any other vehicle when i take the lane like i'm supposed to while approaching intersections. if a car wants to get stuck straddling the yellow while i sit in the center of the lane to check for cross-traffic and peds and then blow the light, that's absolutely fine with me.
WHY WOULD YOU YEARN TO CAMP OUT THERE IF YOU CAN GET AWAY ALIVE AND SAFE WHEN THERE ARE NO CARS???
One issue is that you rarely know with complete certainty that there's no cross traffic. Cars turn out of driveways, or don't have their lights on, or you don't notice in the dark that your view is partly blocked by a bush or a sign. Plus, you can only look one direction at a time. You might not see the guy in the pickup who's doing 70 to get through the intersection while it's still green, because you were looking in the opposite direction in the few seconds before he reached the intersection, and before that he was behind some trees.
So you'd better make sure you're not merely 99.9% certain there's no cross traffic. The consequences are much greater, running reds, if you're ever mistaken.
even if something comes at me i know how to try to avoid it. if nothing is there to avoid, wtf is the problem? when you consider things like: "when i enter this intersection i will be entering a lane that has traffic coming from the LEFT, maybe i should look that way first?", you don't have to worry about doubting your senses.
i worry about things behind me more than things in front of me that i am actively scanning. i do all of these things EVEN IF THE LIGHT IS GREEN. there is no guarantee some jag isn't running the red.
look, do any of you consider that cars hit other CARS from behind at intersections quite frequently?
if they are "not seeing" CARS you want to stop in front front of them? really? take a ride down liberty and sit at the left turn light up to polish hill sometime... wait for some 50mph traffic coming up on you. or maybe you could not risk your life and just cross in front of traffic (of course looking left,right,left as you do) right before the green, or during ped crossing time. sure this is "illegal", but i think you'd have to encounter a really bored cop to ever get anything like a ticket for it.
the best reward for law-bending is being able to ride tomorrow.
It would be interesting to see the statistics of cyclists getting hit crossing intersections (against the light and with it) versus cyclists getting hit before entering intersections (IE stopped at one)
those statistics would probably be impossible to determine due to poor statistics collection.
what statistic i would be interested in is the survival rate from a stationary cyclist hit from behind in a 25+ mph collision with a vehicle that "didn't see them... whoopsie!"
Versus the survival rate of the cyclists running a red light who somehow get hit by (usually much faster) cross traffic (despite the cyclists' certainty that they "know how to try to avoid it").
And 25+ mph? In this scenario, the motorist is hitting a cyclist stopped at a light. At that speed he'll need 30-50 feet to stop. If the cyclist wasn't there, the motorist would go flying into the intersection, or into the back of the car right in front of the cyclist.
So for him to still be going 25, so close to the intersection, it's not enough for him to not notice the cyclist (and try to stop right where the cyclist is). He has to not notice the whole intersection.
I just googled the internets and am having a hard time finding a wealth of examples where cyclists have been killed while stopped at a red light & struck from behind. Having much better luck with death by shark attack or lightning strike.
(2008) bicycle rider fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (69%), at non-intersection locations (64%), and between 5 and 9 at night (28%)
Here's an older study that seems to be particularly well-done, because it compares accident characteristics to population exposure. (In other words, it doesn't say, for instance, that since 69% percent of cyclist victims were male, then men must have about twice the risk. They actually count cyclists on the street, notice that more men got hit because men were riding more, and determine that gender isn't statistically significant in accident rates.)
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
For the present discussion, this bit seems relevant (bolding mine):
Bicycle accidents at intersections accounted for 237 of 371 total bicycle accidents (64 percent), and 233 of 314 bicycle-motor vehicle collisions (74 percent). We define an intersection broadly as any point where turning or crossing movements are possible for the bicyclist or the motorist. The definition therefore includes not only the junction of two roadways, but also points where driveways, sidewalks, or paths meet a roadway, or where sidewalks or paths meet a driveway.
The large fraction of accidents that occurred at intersections indicates that these are the major points of conflict between bicyclists and motorists. Overtaking accidents, in which a bicyclist in the roadway was struck from behind by a motorist traveling in the same direction, accounted for only 5 of 314 bicycle-motor vehicle collisions, and sideswipes for 8. The remaining non-intersection collisions included those in which a bicyclist overtook a parked or parking motor vehicle, a motorist opened the door of a parked car into the bicyclist's path, or a motorist or bicyclist changed lanes improperly.
So most accidents occur at intersections, but very few accidents involve the cyclist being struck from behind.
Wow. Great research.
I admit I've been a little cavalier through intersections - but that's some sobering stuff there. Thanks.
How's Idaho doing, given that it has had its roll-thru-a-stop-sign rule in place for five years or so? IIRC you have to stop at red lights then can continue through if traffic is clear. Operative thought there, you have to stop. Blowing through a red light is still verboten.
I didn't find any studies on Idaho before and after. And I'm suspicious of comparing accident counts over a long period of time, because they've been so underreported, and there's been an effort to improve reporting. If there's a change in accident rates, how do we know how much is due to better reporting?
Fatality rates should be more reliable, since they've always been better documented. But Idaho only has about 250 total traffic deaths per year. If they're typical, around 5 of those should involve cyclists (since the national rate is about 2%). There are so few that judging before/after trends would be very difficult.
For what it's worth, here's a secondhand report that Idaho's doing fine, from here:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/so_you_think_cyclists_are_the.html
The law has been on Idaho's books for nearly 30 years without an increase in cycling crashes. In fact, police officers from Idaho have even sent Oregon legislators letters supporting the idea as safe and sensible.
So if it's caused an increase in accidents, the increase has been so small that the police haven't noticed it.
the problem is that i'm not ever saying blow through a light without stopping, which is what your statistics surely include among people who may have been struck standing still.
i want to know how many people survive stopping at a red light like they are supposed to and getting plowed over by a vehicle from behind at speeds approaching 25mph... not how many little kids get hit rolling off of the sidewalk without looking for people in cars turning across the crosswalk and backed into on the sidewalk by someone coming out of a driveway.
your statistics are useless to me other than they clearly indicate that hanging around intersections is very dangerous.
bikes can more quickly maneuver and stop to avoid accidents than cars can, as long as the cyclist can see what to avoid.
like i said, cars run reds all of the time, so maybe you should pay as much attention as if you were "blowing lights" even when you have a green.
i for one, am not going to put myself into a position where i statistically have a dismal chance at surviving a potential "whoopsie" or "bad hair day" caused by another human driving up behind me carelessly or while not even paying attention.
i would rather place my life and safety in my own hands than some random jagoff's any day. which is why none of you will ever get a chance to chat it up at an intersection with me. 
I found some specific numbers on Idaho bike fatalities, 1996-2009. Since the Idaho stop has been around since 1982, this isn't directly useful, but Idaho's web site doesn't seem to have any older figures. The figures are all linked from here:
http://itd.idaho.gov/ohs/stats.htm
1996 3
1997 1
1998 2
1999 4
2000 3
2001 2
2002 3
2003 2
2004 3
2005 3
2006 2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 7
I suspect the big jump in 2009 is just statistical variation, much like the "100% increase" in 1998 and 1999. The other accident figures linked above show no great changes for 2009.
Here's a one-page summary of Idaho traffic law for bikes (pdf), including the Idaho stop:
http://itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/Idaho_Vehicle_Code_for_Bikes.pdf
"the problem is that i'm not ever saying blow through a light without stopping, which is what your statistics surely include among people who may have been struck standing still"
True enough. The available statistics just aren't detailed enough to say for certain which behavior is safer.
My guess is that the risk of a moderate-speed rear-end collision at a stop light is very small. The reason Idaho stops are good isn't that they reduce your accident risk significantly, but that they don't increase it. And if there's no increased risk, there's no reason not to let cyclists proceed through a red light after stopping.
But the numbers to back up any of this are lacking. I don't think anyone's published "Number of motorists colliding from rear with cyclists stopped at light, excluding cyclists lacking taillights or with other preventable safety issues, sorted by speed at impact, per state, 1995-2009", so I guess we all have to use our best judgment. And, most importantly, argue about it on message boards. 
so I guess we all have to use our best judgment. And, most importantly, argue about it on message boards.
hear hear!
i think unixd0rk's intuition about the inherent dangerousness of intersections comes from car-on-car collisions. my guess is that the percentage of rear-end car-on-car collisions that occur at intersections is rather staggeringly high. and i'm sure there's a good number of them to go round. so it stands to reason that if cars run into cars at intersections, they will run into bikes, with considerably more severe consequences.
I suspect the big jump in 2009 is just statistical variation, much like the "100% increase" in 1998 and 1999.
Hard to tell. Statistical variation is a possibility, but then so is dramatically increased ridership - particualrly if 2008 was low in fatalities considering increased ridership
I'm guessing that Idaho, like here, has had increased ridership every year for the past decade or so, even though their fatalitie ahve stayed relatively level.
the thing about increased ridership is that to a point, it seems it tends to decrease fatalities. surely at some point, the more people riding, the more people will die, but the trend doesn't start out that way, it seems.
@HV, people are inferring a causal relationship which is not supported by any data that I am aware of. It seems likely that the true causality is the other way around, but of course it's feedback loop.
"i for one, am not going to put myself into a position where i statistically have a dismal chance at surviving a potential "whoopsie" or "bad hair day" caused by another human driving"
Extreme extension then would then be to stay off the road entirely, or get off the road if other vehicles approach from either direction.
Increased ridership is likely just a small part of the story in Idaho for 2009, since total bike crashes only increased 6%, from 344 to 366, that year. Other bike accident stats increased at a roughly similar rate. Only the fatalities shot up. See the link I posted.
Since 1996, the total number of reported accidents involving bikes in Idaho has increased around 10%.
PA had a lot more reported bicycle crashes compared to Idaho (5878 in 1996, 4422 in 2008). Bicycle fatalities also seemed to be on a definite downward trend in that time, from 218 in 1996 to 142 in 2008.
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBHSTE.nsf/InfoFbListing?OpenForm
So why did PA's figures for both total bike accidents and fatal bike accidents noticeably decrease over that period, while Idaho's seem to have risen slightly, if anything? Better reporting, more cyclists on the road, riskier behavior, law enforcement practices, or improved facilities could all figure into such a change. There isn't enough info in these statistics to point to any one of them and say that's what did it.
"Extreme extension then would then be to stay off the road entirely"
But that increases your risk of getting eaten by a bear. PA currently doesn't collect stats on bike/bear collisions, but I feel sure it's lower for on-road cyclists.
I think 142 bicycle fatalities in 2008 is a bit off. The link you provided says there were 8. There were 142 pedestrian fatalities though. (26 and 218, respectively in 1996) Do bike fatalities sometimes get counted as pedestrian ones?
Steven, here are a few other possibilities:
1. different cycling demographics
2. more road congestion ==> lower average speeds
3. decreased rates of cycling while intoxicated
4. decreased rates of dui
@dwillen: sometimes bike fatalities get coded as pedestrian but not the reverse.
Dwillen: Good catch, thanks. I was comparing the wrong numbers.
But the correct numbers, as it happens, show the same trends. Total PA bike crashes in 1996 were 2389 (26 fatal), and that dropped to 1418 in 2008 (8 fatal), while Idaho's counts went up in the same period.
Lyle, I agree with you. All these factors make it really hard to spot the effect of any particular change (like the Idaho stop) in this data. Maybe Idaho's record didn't improve like ours did because they had the Idaho stop. But there are too many other possibilities to be able to tell.