For the past 30 years, Idaho has had a law which allows cyclists to roll through stop signs once they yield to oncoming vehicles. They are also permitted, after stopping, to proceed through a red traffic light, if there is no oncoming traffic. As more bicycles have begun to use the roads, several other states have proposed similar laws.
Such laws have generated quite a bit of controversy. Some drivers see these laws as giving cyclists preferential treatment. They want all vehicles to play by the same rules, and don’t understand why, if bicycles are vehicles, they shouldn’t behave like vehicles.
Even some cyclists are against amending traffic laws to allow cyclists to roll through stop signs and red lights. From their perspective, cyclists have fought hard to be regarded as vehicles. Asking to be treated differently seems like a step in the wrong direction because it sends the message that while bicycles are vehicles, they aren’t really equal to motorized vehicles. This brings us back to a position of inequality on the roads. Either all vehicles are equal or they’re not.
The idea of changing the rules of the road to accommodate one group is problematic. It brings us to the virtually untenable position of arguing that two classes of things, vehicles in this case, are different but equal.
Whenever things are presented as different, people regard them as unequal because it is human nature to equate equality with identical things. This concept of equality has been challenged when minor differences were cited, such as between human males and females. Both are members of the species Homo sapiens, but have different physical characteristics.
Despite previous opposition to the idea of different but equal, in today’s world, most people acknowledge that minor differences between the same class of things can be disregarded because those differences are not essential to the nature of the thing. But, if they are classified as the same class of things, they are expected to be treated the same. And, there’s the rub.
When equal but different members of a class ask for special treatment, due to a difference, a great deal of arguing commences. The group which is denied the special treatment feels discriminated against, even if they don’t need the accommodation the other members are asking for. This is the position cyclists find themselves in if they ask for special accommodations on the road.
It’s true that bicycles and motor vehicles are different. As many cycling advocates have already pointed out, cyclists rely on momentum to ride efficiently. Stopping and starting uses a great deal of energy and slows them down considerably. This is particularly true in urban areas where there is a stop sign or traffic light at nearly every intersection.
Motor vehicles, of course, don’t have this problem. Stopping and starting is a matter of pressing pedals, which requires little expenditure of energy. And stopping at stop signs and traffic lights is crucial for motor vehicles because of the massive amount of harm they can cause to pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers if they fail to yield at an intersection.
Still, does this mean that cyclists should be allowed to roll through stop signs and go through red lights just because they are only risking injury to themselves?
To the untrained eye, it might seem wise to allow cyclists to injure themselves if they place momentum and efficiency above optimal safety. After all, in highly trafficked areas, cyclists are primarily risking their own lives, not the lives of others. So, what this view boils down to is personal choice.
This is the same personal choice that anti-helmet zealots cite when they want to ride in dangerous environments without a helmet. While it should be a personal choice, it may not be a wise one. And, the same is true of cycling through red lights.
To the trained eye, this picture looks different because the problem is far more complex than just personal risk-taking. There are legal ramifications to consider, as well.
Cyclists have been fighting for years to get drivers held accountable for killing cyclists. They are tired of watching negligent and reckless drivers get away with murder, just because they killed a cyclist with their car.
To prove that the driver is negligent, or at fault in the accident, everyone must be playing by the same rules. If, with respect to traffic laws, bicycles and cars are allowed to follow different rules, this could work against cyclists when determining fault in an accident.
What if, for instance, a cyclist decides to enter an intersection, when she has the red light, and a car comes flying out of nowhere and strikes her? Who is at fault?
In every state, drivers are expected to be in control of their vehicles at all times. Therefore, it isn’t permissible to strike anything that is in their way. They must stop, even if they have a green light. However, the matter becomes complicated if the cyclist is seriously injured or killed.
If the driver can prove that the cyclist entered the intersection against the red light, the cyclist will be partly at fault, even if a driver is expected to be in control of his vehicle. Even if the laws are strengthened to protect cyclists from negligent and reckless drivers, it will be difficult to convict a driver if the cyclist was partially at fault in causing the accident.
This is why it would be best to carefully consider the value, benefit, and long-term consequences of creating laws which allow cyclists to enter intersections against a red light. Just as with the often cited example of wearing a helmet to deflect accusations of irresponsible riding — irrespective of whether the helmet protects one’s head or not — coming to a complete stop and waiting for a green light may outweigh the benefit of maintaining momentum, should a car arrive at an intersection too quickly to stop for the crossing cyclist.
Although a stop sign will be less problematic, particularly if there is a four-way stop, the value of preserved momentum should again be weighed against the idea of assigning fault in an accident. By looking at the issue this way, the complexity of the problem becomes more clear.
One way to avoid the problem of increasing the cyclist’s liability, in the event of an accident, is to eliminate the idea of momentum as essential to efficient riding and replace it with more practical problems, such as the difficulty of triggering lights when there are wires in the road. Bicycles are often too light to cause the light to change, and therefore, have trouble traveling through the intersection.
In cases where the cyclist would be unable to navigate the intersection, it would be fair to enact laws allowing a cyclist to go through a red light after waiting a reasonable amount of time for the light to change. A law of this type would not be a case of preferential treatment, it would address a physical difference between vehicle types, with respect to how roads are constructed.
While there is probably no harm in passing laws to allow cyclists to make rolling stops and pass through red lights after slowing down or stopping to look for traffic, we must be cognizant of the legal ramifications of placing the burden of when to enter the intersection on the cyclist’s judgment, rather than the changing of the light.
Any cyclist who chooses to follow such a law, and makes a regular practice of going through red lights, must consider that this will work against him/her in the event of a serious accident. Just because something is a law, doesn’t mean it has to become a regular practice of a particular cyclist.
In any event, if we are going to pass laws to allow cyclists to yield at stop signs and traffic lights, then such laws should be enacted throughout the country. It is too confusing to have these laws in a handful of states, since people travel by car, and won’t know about the change in laws. As it stands now, most states require bicycles to obey all of the rules of the road as if they were cars.
Maybe it’s best to leave things that way, so as not to muddy the waters, and instead to have lenience, in terms of enforcement, when a cyclist must go through a red light due to an inability to trigger a green light. Placing the emphasis on enforcement, rather than the passage of special laws, may allow cyclists to have the best of both worlds — the ability to go through a red light when it’s impossible to get a green light, and the ability to avoid liability by obeying the same laws as motor vehicles do, when sharing the road.
