Roads not more dangerous when cyclists allowed to roll through stop signs, researchers suggest

Yes.
On my bike.
In my car.
In my artic.

Although, I'm in the UK and might have missed your point

I thought the "Idaho Stop" permitted cyclists to treat red lights as Stop signs, and Stop signs as Yield signs? So cyclists are permitted to proceed through a red light, provided they stop completely first (and obviously assuming it is clear to do so).

Yes indeed, that's my understanding, I was pointing out that people are in error when they justify cyclists in the UK riding through red lights without stopping as being simply enacting an Idaho stop when in fact to do so they would have to stop first and then proceed through the red. If every cyclist in the UK who wanted to ride through a red light stopped first and checked for pedestrians/traffic it would give a lot less ammunition to the haters, but I hardly ever see people doing that, most red light jumpers just proceed as if the light didn't exist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Yes indeed, that's my understanding, I was pointing out that people are in error when they justify cyclists in the UK riding through red lights without stopping as being simply enacting an Idaho stop when in fact to do so they would have to stop first and then proceed through the red. If every cyclist in the UK who wanted to ride through a red light stopped first and checked for pedestrians/traffic it would give a lot less ammunition to the haters, but I hardly ever see people doing that, most red light jumpers just proceed as if the light didn't exist.

It makes sense for cyclists to avoid stopping as it does waste a fair amount of energy to stop and then get back up to speed. It does depend on the layout of the junction, but I encounter a fair few lights that have excellent visibility of other lanes and so stopping wouldn't strictly be necessary (ignoring the actual law of course).

hawkinspeter wrote:

It makes sense for cyclists to avoid stopping as it does waste a fair amount of energy to stop and then get back up to speed.

Of course, but that should never be factored into safety considerations, should it? We might as well say that in order to avoid fossil fuel wastage and reduce pollution we'll allow car drivers to ignore red lights if it's clear because the fuel needed to get back up to speed after stopping is significantly more than is used if they just rolled through.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Of course, but that should never be factored into safety considerations, should it? We might as well say that in order to avoid fossil fuel wastage and reduce pollution we'll allow car drivers to ignore red lights if it's clear because the fuel needed to get back up to speed after stopping is significantly more than is used if they just rolled through.

However, if we want to encourage as many people to cycle as possible, then we should be looking at simple changes that can make a big difference to someone's commute. The best idea is to have separated infrastructure that can bypass the traffic lights, but the cheaper and easier option is to allow cyclists to go through red lights if safe to do so. I don't think we want to encourage more people to drive, so the same argument doesn't really work for drivers, plus it makes little difference to the average driver if they have to brake and accelerate - they're only moving their feet a bit.

Respectfully, HP, because I nearly always agree with what you say, I very much doubt anyone is put off cycle commuting because they have to stop at traffic lights! There are 34 sets of lights on my 24km (well Mrs H's on which I accompany her) and odds are half will be agin us, stopping for them doesn't put us off one iota (TBH at my age at 5.30AM a chance to have a quick breather is very welcome).

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, if we want to encourage as many people to cycle as possible, then we should be looking at simple changes that can make a big difference to someone's commute. The best idea is to have separated infrastructure that can bypass the traffic lights, but the cheaper and easier option is to allow cyclists to go through red lights if safe to do so.

"Commute" hmm...*

Disagree - not because "it's unsafe" so much but ultimately I think this works against where I hope we get to - mass cycling **.

Essentially sometimes it's not "perfect is the enemy of good enough" but " 'better than now' isn't always the friend of good enough".

For the safest, most convenient public infra designs a) there should be as few rules as necessary and b) the rules should be very clear / self-evident.  Plus the infra should naturally guide behaviour.  (This is what e.g. NL's Sustainable Safety philosophy suggests).

Here's where I think adding more "rules for some but not others" - especially around something fundamental (red light = stop) doesn't take things forward.

If nothing else it is a trigger for some parts of human nature - similar to why people don't like "cyclists" ("they're on the roads but not playing by the rules" / "why don't speed limits apply to them" / "should pay road tax" etc.)

For a transformation (e.g. mass cycling) there may not be a path of "continuous small improvement" - or rather some moves to "better" may lead to us being stuck at some point.  A bit like how the UK's method of improving "road safety" e.g. "move the vulnerable road users out of the way and make it safer for people to go fast in powerful vehicles" may take us to a place of diminishing returns.

*  If someone's already commuting or seriously considering it in the UK this is great ... but I'd suggest they've already overcome a few of the major psychological hurdles in the way of the bulk of the population who don't cycle.  So voluntarily not just driving (or possibly using public transport), being a "cyclist" (other), riding within traffic, putting up with all kinds of other inconveniences.  For this reason I think this "improvement" would only be "tempting" for a rather limited audience.

** I think it's possible in the UK but a very tall ask.  I doubt it could occur within my lifetime (even though I hopefully have some decades left) although locally significant changes are possible within a rather short time.

people are in error when they justify cyclists in the UK riding through red lights without stopping

The main justification for cyclists passing traffic lights at red is that when motorists do it, the police ignore the offence on the grounds that 'everyone does it'. DA21 SWW went on the pass these red lights at speed, and Lancashire Constabulary will ensure that he suffers no penalty. At least cyclists can judge the safety aspects better, because they're usually the ones who could be KSI'd

Are you sure about it? In Wikipedia it says red light is a stop sign for cyclists, and it is justified, beyond obvious cyclist promotion reasons, by the fact that  induction loops for car detection at traffic lights designed for motor traffic, will not detect cyclists.

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

"... the number of motorist vs. cyclist crashes at intersections went down."

http://rc-rg.com

"As cars and trucks get bigger and taller, lawmakers look to protect pedestrians"

That's against my constitutional rights !

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/nx-s1-5084276/pedestrian-protection-bill-...

Ha, you have to be kidding. The lawmakers of the UK are so convinced that they know better than any other country that has decades of experimentation and improvement, they simply go ahead and invent the square wheel. Look at cycling infra in general in countries that has significant numbers of people cycling compared to UK cycling infra. The Uk even manage to cock up roundabouts mainly because the designers desparately want to keep 'traffic' moving over tha safety of 'others'.

What works works ... although I am (probably irrationally) suspicious of "improvements" which come from places like the US where the philosophy and culture around transport are even further towards "cars" *.

Going the other way (UK compared with e.g. NL) we do appear to suffer from "not invented here".  So "reinvent" things and degrade them - or even miss the original point.

I think you're right that overall it's the philosophy / thought process / implicit assumptions which really mess it up **.  Your characterisation is a little unfair - our engineers, planners and councillors / politicians are trained / elected and obliged (for support, funding, or maybe legally) to maximise motor traffic flow.  That is not "at the expense of safety" exactly - they may have some responsibility there.  However adding "safety" features which make things unusably inconvenient for vulnerable road users isn't an issue.  Plus the small numbers of those users (who know "it's up to them to watch out") means don't have to think very carefully on this aspect.

* While I'm cautious about US exceptionalism they do have some patterns in the built environment which are e.g. prevalent there but much less so here.  Though they do still have very similar environments in places.

** We do apparently have some rules which may get in the way of simple "just copy that" - which isn't to say we couldn't change the rules.  The Ranty Highwayman is often good at checking the ins and outs of that for particular designs.

MrTom wrote:

Hi pal could we please do a article on the affected state of safety on the road and pathway along all public walkways? Most delivery riders don't have a helmet on and have never done a skills test on electric bikes so how are we going to ensure that the safety of the public and the cyclists are ensured at all times?

Most delivery riders that I see are riding unlicensed electric motorbikes that are modified bicycles. The standard road licensing laws already cover them, but the police don't want to crack down on them as they're less dangerous than licensed motorists in cars.

And the safety of the road and pathway along all public walkways - millions of drivers are not insured, over half a million unlicensed vehicles are being driven each year, plenty are intoxicated, lots have never done a driving test or are banned (37,500 caught in 2023) on highly powered heavy motor vehicles which I see them driving there every day despite it being illegal so how are we going to ensure the safety of the public...

We could definitely do with getting serious about the illegal electric motorbikes on our streets, and the delivery sector as a whole could use some muscular law-making (especially the "they're not employees" food delivery companies).

To ensure the safety of the public though? Start by looking at where the danger is coming from, I'd suggest.

https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/just-one-year/

We could definitely do with getting serious about the illegal electric motorbikes

We could do with it, but we won't get it- not without a complete new set of police forces. Last night I was at 'Ride the Lights' at Blackpool. There were numerous un-pedalled illegal electric motorbikes (although fewer than last year, owing to the rain) travelling in gangs at discordant speeds and zooming in and around all the children, going past all the uninterested police and PCSOs.

I came across a tweet about an electric unicycle yesterday and thought 'how the hell does that work'  ( HP ?) only to find they should be called Private Light Electric Vehicles (PLEVs).

Have seen a few monowheels about which looked ... not as safe as Segways and in the "electric scooter" bracket.  But as usual "progress has occured" because selling stuff and I think "single wheel motorbike" is probably the phrase.  (I suspect this is going to be niche.  Well, maybe I hope it is, despite as usual wanting to try...)

Hirsute wrote:

I came across a tweet about an electric unicycle yesterday and thought 'how the hell does that work'  ( HP ?) only to find they should be called Private Light Electric Vehicles (PLEVs).

The principle is simple enough. It needs some kind of tilt sensor and if it's starting to fall forwards, then put more juice into going forwards and if it's starting to fall backwards, then slow down the wheel a bit.

That is presumably the simplified Segway specification, but unicycles can fall laterally also - or like bikes is that managed by the rider ?  (EDIT apparently so)

(Also I imagine they gain lateral stability as the wheel picks up speed, and of course you can then steer into falls for stability)?

For the smaller types of electric unicycle* where you're stood up presumably control is also easier as there's a longer inverted pendulum e.g. you can move your own bodyweight more effectively / with longer lever?

Curious but not terribly tempted (even though they're touted as the pinnacle of transport energy efficiency for low-speed applications in some places)...

* I was incorrect before - apparently "monowheel" properly refers to the pictured amusing machine.  I meant the smaller electric unicycles with no seat e.g. you're just stood on foot rests. Personal transporter?  Aargh I fell into the rabbit hole!

chrisonabike wrote:

That is presumably the simplified Segway specification, but unicycles can fall laterally also - or like bikes is that managed by the rider?  (Also I imagine they gain lateral stability as the wheel picks up speed)?

For the smaller types of monowheel where you're stood up presumably control is also easier as there's a longer inverted pendulum e.g. you can move your own bodyweight more effectively / with longer lever?

Curious but not terribly tempted (even though they're touted as the pinnacle of transport energy efficiency for low-speed applications in some places)...

I'd guess that lateral stability is a job for the rider as the unicycle has no way to impart lateral force as far as I can see.