You’ve heard of the Idaho Stop Sign Law? Well, get ready for the Paris Red Light law:
Parisian cyclists have won the right to go through red lights following a fierce debate over their claim that the move would reduce the risk of road accidents. A three-year campaign by cyclists’ associations — which say it is idiotic for them to stop at traffic lights — bore fruit when the Government published a decree authorising councils to change the rules.
Paris will be among the first major cities to try out the new system after councillors approved a plan to allow bicycles to turn right or to go straight at a T-junction even when the lights are red.
Thousands of cyclists are fined in the city every year for failing to stop at “un feu rouge”.
I think this is great.
IMO, one of the major reasons that cyclists have a reputation for breaking traffic laws is that, when you’re on a bicycle, you often realize that some of the laws in place are designed for cars and don’t make much sense for bicyclists, as in the example above.
For example, as an eastbound biker on Market at 12th, I frequently encountered a red light, when the pedestrian crossing immediately parallel and adjacent to my route had a walk signal. This made me wonder– what was the purpose of that red light, if no legal cross-traffic was permitted? In that situation, I saw many bikers simply continue, for which I don’t blame them.
This is compounded by the timing of the lights, which often results in cyclists hitting the illogical lights every time, which adds to the frustration.
Unfortunately, this leads to a habit of second-guessing every light and traffic-control device, which sometimes results in bad decisions being made, with tragic consequences.
In short, it’s difficult to get people to follow rules if the rules don’t seem to make sense.
Same logic could apply to cars driving in the right lane, though. Which is where this will always fall apart.
I do take your point. But I don’t think it falls apart. Considering a T-intersection, cars driving in the right lane would still have to deal with cars merging into that lane. Bicycles in a bike lane (or on the shoulder) would only have to deal with other bicycles, and that’s simply not a problem. Additionally, if they screw up they themselves pay the penalty rather than an innocent third party. (Of course none of this absolves the bicyclist of the responsibility to yield to pedestrians.)
More to the point, traffic control devices are often fairly crude. There’s no way to put up a sign that says “stop, unless you’re in the right lane, moving slowly, and you can see that no one’s coming”– the sign has to apply standards with broad strokes, leading to some situations which are underregulated and others which are overregulated. This is unavoidable and something we have to live with, and the difference is often taken into consideration by traffic enforcers, at least in ideal circumstances. When you apply the same standards to bicycles, however, you get a lot of circumstances which are wildly overregulated. The result of this is often either a total lack of enforcement, or absurdly punitive enforcement, depending on the culture of the police, because neither the police nor the cyclists have a good idea of what a reasonable standard of behavior is.
In short, cars are more highly regulated, and we accept this, because their destructive potential is much more severe. Additionally, traffic engineers are keenly aware of the need to avoid arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on auto travel, but are rarely aware of bikes as anything but an afterthought, leading to many more frustrating and illogical situations.
[…] Lights to Be Optional for Paris Cyclists: Systemic Failure points us to a story in the London Times about an experiment in Paris that will allow cyclists in […]