BIKE: analysis of running red lights (medium long)

[Mike Librik or Amy Babich]

Our argument about red lights keeps pointing up that we are not always
discussing the same thing. I encounter this problem when trying to
discuss bike traffic safety in depth with people. This post is not
intended to argue for or against the practice of running red lights, but
to catalog some of the unspoken assumptions present in the arguments.

Pulling out my hammer and chisel, three subtopics come to mind:
1. Reasons why the red light was run
2. Considerations a driver makes upon consciously failing to yield
3. Assumptions about general morals and internal moral controls

First is matter of the different reasons for running a red light. Three
reasons come to mind, and more may exist:
(1) There are the drivers who are simply oblivious of the light's
presence, or that the light has changed from green to red. Such a person
killed Ben Clough at MLK @ Lavaca (apparently drunk), and another
injured my friend Giovanni Bertolini at Guadalupe @ Airport (apparently
not paying attention). Motorists are a bigger problem here. Bikers
/usually/ move more slowly than cars and are less isolated from their
surroundings, so they are more likely to detect the traffic lights.
Moreover, the truly drunk person cannot cycle very well (excepting
tricyclists).
(2) A second reason would be to push a "stale yellow." Folks trying
unsuccessfully to beat a red light are fully aware of the light and what
it means. Both bikers and motorists do this in their own way. Bikers
often offer the justification that it would be more dangerous to wait
exposed at the lip of the intersection, or at least very stressful to do
so. This type of running a light can be done either by accelerating down
an open approach to the intersection, or else by "trailering," that is,
tailgating the preceding vehicle so closely as to have /de facto/ right
of way as a trailer towed by that vehicle would, even if you entered the
intersection after the red light (while the "towing" vehicle did not).
(3) Last are the drivers who came to some sort of stop and then proceed
at their own discretion. Just how much of a stop and how long they wait
may vary. Both bikers and motorists do this. Cyclists and motorists can
both be pressed for time. Cyclists may view themselves as pedestrians,
meaning their running the light is more akin to jaywalking (which is
bad, but less condemned than a vehicle running a light). Cyclists in
particular have the worry about sensors that do not detect them. If one
does not trust a sensor to work, one's may see waiting as pointless. A
cyclist who knows the green to be too short may feel that crossing at a
self-chosen quiet moment is safer than the moment chosen by the signal
(as the cyclist expects to be caught back on red before clearing the
intersection). Note that strong cyclists on lightweight bikes may never
see this last problem, while a weak one loaded with cargo may encounter
it more often. Such problems can and have been fixed by having the city
improve their facilities, but improvements are spotty. A last
consideration about bikes is that most uprights and many recumbents are
relatively difficult to stop and start compared to a car, so many
cyclists have some urge to avoid going into the stop. A novice motorist
uncomfortable with shifting a manual transmission may have the same urge
to not fully stop.

The most relevant thing about this subtopic (I think) is when we compare
cars running reds to bikes doing it (a recurring theme of the argument).
In my ordinary experience, I mostly see cars doing reason #2 and
cyclists doing reason #3. It would be good to know what other people's
experiences are, as these experiences will inform people's views.

The second important subtopic is about the failure to yield. Note that
this is separate from the act of disobeying a signal. The presence of
other traffic is the main thing, and beyond that we can ask "how present
is the traffic?"
(1) The driver who ran a red light with absolutely nobody around is
guilty of disobeying a signal, but not failure to yield, since there was
nobody to yield to. When crashes occur, the problem is that one party
failed to yield.
(2) How the other traffic is approaching can weigh on how likely it will
make the driver yield to it. The presence of cross traffic, approaching
the intersection at speed will carry the greatest weight. Opposing
traffic with a priority left turn figures in, but its presence, or
degree of presence, may be measured differently from cross traffic. The
presence of pursuing traffic is of less value in this decision, aside
from the risk of their disgust with us for running the light, unless it
is maneuvering to turn right in front of us.
(3) Within each of these categories of present traffic is the question
of how far away the traffic is. This could be measured in estimated time
till arrival or estimated distance. Each method has its shortcomings,
but the likely question a cyclist asks themselves before running a red
in front of such traffic is "do I have time to cross?" Among those who
would run a red in front of approaching traffic, we will get a division
between those who would do it in some particular proximity to traffic
and those who would not. Cyclist who are willing to "thread the needle"
and run a red through dense traffic are the ones most griped about, but
then more restrained red-light-runners, who are just as annoyed by the
daredevils, complain when critics revile the problem in general,
ignoring this division.

The most relevant thing about this subtopic is how much these scruples
about how we run a red light come into discussion. Of course, those who
hold that it never should be done prefer to leave these out altogether.
But if one is talking to people who do run red lights, then this range
of considerations is exactly what one is really discussing.

The last subtopic is quite different, but is still present and active in
the discussion. This is no less than the generalization about peoples'
morals, or internal controls on behavior, and how well they hold up
under varying degrees of laxity. Does smoking pot lead to harder stuff?
Does wealth lead to corruption? Does the willingness to run red lights
under restricted conditions lead to running red lights under less
restricted conditions?
(1) No doubt we all have differing opinions about the moral quality of
people in general and specific individuals. A person may not fully know
what his/her beliefs are in this regard, but these beliefs shape his/her
views anyway.
(2) We each have some sense of our own internal controls, and no doubt
some willful ignorance as well. Development of these internal controls
is, in my opinion, something that traffic safety training ought to help
do. So I have an interest in how people set up and maintain these
controls, but that is a pretty deep topic. I doubt we will ever see much
good data to work with, or if we would know what to do with such data
once we had it.
(3) An additional hazard is that we cyclists do not want motorists (that
is, present motorists) to judge us as having poor morals, because we are
counting on these motorists to regard us as legitimate road users. It is
not hard for a competent cyclist to get motorists to respect him/her,
and a given motorist needs only to hold this opinion for a few seconds
to make one's encounter with them nice and restrained. But one needs to
get that respect. Granted, this is only a consideration with present
motorists, but I think we can all recognize that the main problem is
with cyclists who run red lights into the face of busy traffic (that is,
many present motorists).
(4) Particular to the conditions of the list, a reader may think that
the willingness of a writer to admit to or to defend the act of running
red lights signifies some laxity of moral restraint in this regard.
Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but it may influence the
assumptions that one writer may make about another. I suspect that there
is a large population of list members who have run reds under some very
restricted conditions but would not want to discuss it. It may be that
even I, Mr. Safety, may brazenly run a red when truly nobody was around,
but if I then told you about it, wouldn't I be bringing you onto the
scene somehow? Have I at that point began to bend my own limits?
(5) The value of internal controls needs to be weighed against the value
of "the law," however that is determined. I think there is an assumption
that those who accept conditional violations of the law will slide,
under the weight of their own sin, or whatever, into doing it more.
There is some value to this assumption, and folks have been operating on
it for a long time. I would suggest that experience, if properly used,
will serve to set a firm limit within an individual, even if that limit
is in some violation of the law. But that is just me.

I would mainly argue that this last subtopic should be kept in mind. I
do not know how it is most relevant to the topic.

--
Mike Librik
Easy Street Recumbents
512-453-0438
45th and Red River St., thereabouts
Central Austin
info
www.easystreetrecumbents.com
www.urbancycling.com