[Benji_San]

As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my bike on the road I behave as a car.

Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.

[pmontra]

Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years (roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.