[brnt]

I agree, I have lived abroad in such circumstances for a number of years. Local cyclists were hard to convince that they were not very good at advocating the bicycle as a mode of daily transport.

Getting cars under control is certainly the first thing that must happen, but cyclists running red lights and being worried about their 'gear' are a nuisance everywhere. They are no more tolerated in the Netherlands than outside.

[maccard]

As a cyclist and driver in a city, cyclists running red lights is one of those things that people talk about like it's a massive problem. It's not cyclists blowing red lights at busy junctions, if they did that they would be killed here instantly. It's cyclists trying to go when there isn't any traffic going, or they're competing with pedestrians. Yeah you get the occasional asshat, but you get them in cars too, and they're way more dangerous there.

The focus needs to be on getting cars under control, period.

[riversflow]

>it’s cyclists trying to go when there isn’t any traffic going.

Bingo, the safest time to cross on a bike is when there aren’t any moving vehicles in the intersection, and your senses tell you there aren’t going to be any more, regardless of the color of the light. Apparently I’m that asshat and will continue to be as long as I’m sharing the roads with large steel blocks. I also advocate for anyone else cycling in the US to be an asshat too, because I don’t want them to die.

I drive too, but I seriously don’t get why people care about bicyclists running a red, what’s going to happen? You have a much better ability to hear and see on a bike. You can’t accelerate anything like a car. It’s safer for everybody for them get away from the cars at the light.

The last thing I want to do is accelerate alongside a bunch of high powered steel blocks with flesh bags at the controls.

[brnt]

I have steen many (near) accidents with cyclists who wanted tot conserve momentum, which really only sporty types do.

Like I said, all problems stem from that misconception. You're right that crossing 5 secs before the light turns green is one of the safest moments, but as I will happily demonstrate if you'd make it to the Netherlands, intersections need not be traffic arenas. Those solutions are halfbaked and still within an ill conceived approach to traffic.

Reducing speeds is essential, increasing predictability too, and naturally cyclists are no exception.

[anfilt]

Sigh in my state of Idaho cyclists are allowed to go through red lights. They function as stop signs for cyclists. Also stop signs are yield signs for cyclists. This was done to get cyclists out intersections faster. You cant accelerate as fast a car. Also most collisions with cyclists happen with cars at intersections. So this was done to reduce the time cyclists interact with cars. As well as reduce technical violations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[donjoe]

That's interesting. Reducing overall traffic speed would render most traffic lights obsolete. Traffic lights are only necessary in order to allow heavy machinery going >30mph in dense areas.

I think we will have to ask ourselves the question in the future: do we want heavy machinery at high speed in populated areas including red lights for all other means of transportation - or do we want populated areas with no/almost no traffic lights and faster traffic for foot/cycling traffic?