- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Traffic Light Tree licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 by Christopher HiltonColorado approves bill to let cyclists ride through red lights
Legislators in Colorado have approved a bill which will allow cyclists to ride through red traffic lights, with the new law aimed at increasing the safety of people on bikes by reducing the number of interactions with motorists at junctions.
The Safety Stop Bill was this week passed by both houses of the state legislature and is now due to be signed into law by Democratic Party Governor Jared Polis, reports Jalopnik.com.
The law which besides cyclists applies to anyone using what is termed a “low-speed conveyance,” such as electric scooters, skateboards and wheelchairs.
The new legislation – already adopted by some cities within the state, including Aspen – means that cyclists and other road users within that definition can approach stop signs as though they were yield signs, and red lights as stop signs, with different rules applying depending on which it is.
At a stop sign, cyclists are required to “slow to a reasonable speed” and give way to any motor traffic or pedestrians at the junction before proceeding.
By contrast, on encountering a red traffic light, they have to stop at the junction and give way to any vehicles or pedestrians there before continuing on their way – even if the lights haven’t changed.
Bicycle Colorado, which has campaigned for the introduction of the new law, has highlighted that almost three in four reported road traffic collisions between a cyclist and a motorist – 72.2 per cent – happen at, or are related to, junctions.
The group's director of communications and policy Jack Todd said: “Intersections are by far the most dangerous places for cyclists, people walking, people using wheelchairs, and so this legislation would allow them to get out of the intersection faster and avoid that conflict.
It says that research shows that by reducing the number of potential interactions between drivers and cyclists at junctions, the Safety Stop Bill will in turn lead to a drop in the number of such collisions, not only because cyclists will spend less time waiting there, but also because their visibility will be increased.
During the bill’s passage through the state legislature, Representative Matt Gray said: “We wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't going to make people safer.
“We're not inventing something new, and not a single state that's implemented this has reported higher accident rates. In fact, they've all reported lower accident rates.”
Representative Edie Hooton added: “We have inconsistent laws, from county to county, on how to treat intersections. What this bill does is it creates uniformity around the state on how a cyclist may proceed through an intersection.”
The concept of allowing cyclists and other vulnerable road users to be allowed to treat stop signs and red traffic lights differently to drivers is popularly known as the “Idaho Stop,” after the state that was the first to enact such a law, back in 1982, although it is only in the past five years that other states have begun to follow suit.
Arkansas, in 2019, and Oklahoma, last year have introduced similar legislation, while a more limited form of the law, which does not permit cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign but does allow them to view a stop sign as a yield sign, was introduced in Delaware in 2017 and subsequently in Oregon, Washington state, Utah and North Dakota.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- pockstone 11 min 14 sec ago
"Due to the increasing speed of bicycles..., we have to expect that such accidents will happen more often.”...
- mdavidford 1 hour 37 min ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 2 hours 49 min ago
Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant...
- RoubaixCube 3 hours 50 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 4 hours 11 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- Geoff H 4 hours 25 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 4 hours 36 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 5 hours 38 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 5 hours 48 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
Add new comment
10 comments
I'm becoming more convinced that red light jumping cyclists are just a symptom of poor junction/crossing design. (Note that drivers jumping red lights are almost always due to impatience and likely a symptom of too much congestion).
What I'd like to see is pedestrian crossings designed with small 'zebra' sections at the ends so that cyclists can go through legally when there's no foot traffic (often due to the design of mandatory delays for the 'beg' buttons). So many junctions could be improved by having separate traffic lights for cyclists that allow them to go through when there's no crossing traffic (e.g. cyclists can usually turn left safely even when it isn't safe for drivers to do so).
Traffic lights are there for motor vehicles so it's almost axiomic that these junctions will not work well for others. (Obviously if we have grade-separated crossings - or with the best junction designs - cyclists and pedestrians don't wait at all). Motor vehicles are "fast" but take up plenty space and so throughput at junctions is limited. So yeah, design. Obviously no-one likes to wait a long time regardless of mode of transport. The reason for the length of wait is still motor vehicles though.
There are some other Dutch ideas for avoiding long waits at lights for cyclists ([1], [2]) and also (straying off topic) increasing cyclist throughput when you have lots ([1], [2]). Nice problem to have!
Interesting idea. Does the "having to go through at the edges" bit merit more examination? This is where "unexpected" pedestrians (e.g. you didn't spot them) are most likely to appear. Also if you were in primary approaching it you're having to go left then right again.
I suspect the idea will be derided not because it's necessarily not workable but because people will say "why not cars then?" and "not safe for the blind" and shut down discussion. Or it may be too fiddly given the arcane law (lore?) of pedestrian crossings. I can hear kerb-nerds thumbing rule-books and sketching paint schemes as i type.
My thinking is that if you're filtering on the inside of traffic, then the edges make most sense. If the zebra bit (which only really needs to be a bit of paint) goes elsewhere then it can easily be blocked by cars. I reckon we should just change the laws, but the UK seems to have a lot of difficulty doing anything other than just appeasing drivers (and big oil companies).
Hmm - so we're talking basically a cycle lane (not path) version of one of these then (green arrow for bike movement - it's The Netherlands so opposite side to UK)?
I like the thought and I'm sure responsible riders like us 'ere on road.cc would be fine with it. However where you have a cycle lane rather than separated cycle path as in the Dutch example above I see the issues as:
a) it's effectively another lane for pedestrians to cross (albeit the two "central" lanes - with cars - should be stopped). They've now got to watch out for movement when crossing even though they've got a green.
b) crossing pedestrians may be screened from any cyclists filtering through behind vehicles on the far side of the crossing. Filtering cyclists in turn should be able to see pedestrians clearly on the near side (their left in UK) but people crossing from their right may be hidden.
Obviously if there are clearly no people on your side of the crossing / no cars to your right it's no big deal as a cyclist to proceed, but again I suspect that the very people most likely to want a crossing in the first place are not going to be keen on "green means clear to go - but also watch out".
What this would do is effectively make a mini cycle path at a crossing. It would be really cheap to do the paint. Cyclists would - probably - like it.
On the other side it puts cyclists and pedestrians into conflict. Not always bad (e.g. Dutch example - pedestrians cross cycle paths all the time). But "how this looks" is going to trigger both pedestrians and drivers ("hey - not fair! I have to stop!").
On being workable in use - ideally you deal with one "crossing" at a time and you have "rests" / "protected parts between these. Also - keep crossings short. (EDIT Not a traffic light one so not directly comparable but a video shows the principles). That's why it's no bother to cross even busy cycle paths and you don't need lights.
This idea gets part of that - only crossing one "lane" (moving cyclists) at a time and only needing to deal with one direction at a time (break in the middle). That's good. The differences from the Dutch model is there isn't a true "refuge" where you can stop. So you could be caught on the far side waiting for a stream of cyclists (I know - this is theoretical) and then the lights could change.
Final mining of BicycleDutch today, I promise... cyclists getting annoyed that they have to wait for too long, police ticketing red light jumpers and then it backfiring.
What's the word for when everyone else finally comes round to what you've been doing for years, and you've been vilified for?
I think the term we red-light-jumpers are looking for is 'vindication'.