Should cyclists run red lights?

Ghost Rider

Honestly, I think you missed it. I'm not trying to wind you up.

I quoted a bit from a post you made in which you strongly implied that if changing the rules re traffic lights resulted in no safety improvements, then there was no need to change the rules. My point was that there are other conceivable reasons to change the rules e.g. to improve traffic flow.

Your response to that was to state that traffic lights DO regulate traffic flow - for motorists. But this whole discussion is about the implications of traffic lights for cyclists, not motorists, and it is clear that they often regulate traffic flow for cyclists quite badly.

doozerie wrote: »

I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it completely.

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

There are no strong arguments that this is to create greater safety for anyone, so this is simply an approach aimed at causing less delay to cyclists.

I think I mentioned it in this thread, maybe another- but I break the law almost every single day. I break a red light on the N11 that is right infront of a garda station. The gardai have often seen me doing it and have never stopped me once. A mate of mine was ranting about cyclists and went off the head when I told him UNTIL he heard why. At many junctions there will be a "cyclebox" for bikes only. The lights only go green for a few seconds. If I obeyed the law I would wait and take off slowly, leading the cars behind to have to wait for me. In the past they were a danger to me since they would come right up your arse to make the lights. My "predicitve" takeoff allows more cars to turn at the junction, they cannot see the changing light which I can see. So in fact it assists them in that way too- they see me looking and taking off so know it is going to be green soon. As a motorist at junctions I like seeing cyclists do this, and I presume others would too, bar the irritated pedantic arseholes.

On my other old commute route I also broke the law almost everyday in view of cops, by going slowly up a uphill path dismounting the path or stopping if a pedestrian came allong. Again gardai saw me and did nothing, it was for my own safety to stop close overtaking, and assisted the flow of traffic too.

In most cases my law breaking is for my own safety, a lot of the times this just happens to speed up my journey AND motorists journeys too.

If a garda did warn me I would stick to the law in case he got me again. And I would love if he was behind me again, I would stick to the letter of the law and he would be there thinking "christ, my mother reared a prick, why did I stop that lad for that"

DirkVoodoo

Slunk wrote: »

I always slow down, scan and proceed through unless its a really busy junction.

Me too, I think its safer if you can get out in front of the traffic behind you. Wasnt there some statistic that women are more likely to be crushed by trucks at junctions because they dont break red lights (with due care) or am i blowing smoke out of an orifice?

Hermy

No, cyclists should not run red lights. I'm surprised that this question needs to be asked. I suppose it highlights perfectly the contempt Irish road users have for the rules of the road.

SerialComplaint

rubadub wrote: »

Then some motorists go mental at all the wasted money on "perfectly good" cycletracks not being used, by "bloody cyclists who dont even pay road tax", oblivious to the fact that road tax is a drop in the ocean as to what roads cost, and all PAYE workers are paying their share for these useless cycletracks.

Just to point out that many bloody cyclists DO pay bloody road tax, as they also happen to be motorists who cycle by choice, not because they can't afford a car.

blorg

Good point SerialComplaint, although it must be recognised that it all goes into the central fund- "road tax" is in no way earmarked for the roads any more than excise duty goes into cancer research.

John_C

Hermy wrote: »

No, cyclists should not run red lights. I'm surprised that this question needs to be asked. I suppose it highlights perfectly the contempt Irish road users have for the rules of the road.

Or the contempt the rules of the road have for some Irish road users.

My guess is that it's a little bit of both.

daymobrew

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Just to point out that many bloody cyclists DO pay bloody road tax, as they also happen to be motorists who cycle by choice, not because they can't afford a car.

To be pedantic, the 'road tax' you are talking about is 'vehicle tax'. All tax payers contribute to 'road tax'.

DITTKD wrote:

The car-centric attitude of the general public

In Tuesday's Irish Times there was a diary-type article from a young immigrant student. She was saving some 'child benefit' that she gets so she could buy a car to get to school/college. It seems that she currently walks but doesn't like the weather. Some quality rain/windproof gear would be considerably cheaper.

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote:

Honestly, I think you missed it. I'm not trying to wind you up.

I quoted a bit from a post you made in which you strongly implied that if changing the rules re traffic lights resulted in no safety improvements, then there was no need to change the rules. My point was that there are other conceivable reasons to change the rules e.g. to improve traffic flow.

Your response to that was to state that traffic lights DO regulate traffic flow - for motorists. But this whole discussion is about the implications of traffic lights for cyclists, not motorists, and it is clear that they often regulate traffic flow for cyclists quite badly.

Traffic lights are not just for motorists, they are for everyone.

Do they regulate traffic well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Do they regulate traffic flow for cyclists well? The answer to that is frequently the same as when the question is applied to motorists, with some exceptions (e.g. merging traffic where as a cyclist you end up between two lanes of cars wrestling for space on a narrowing road, right-turning junctions where a bicycle can't trigger the sensor buried in the road).

Quite often on my commute I encounter cyclists that ignore red lights when turning left onto the road/cycle lane in front of me. I have two main options in that case - slam on the brakes and hope that I stop before colliding with them; or swerve out to avoid hitting them, which puts me into the path of the cars in the lane beside me. Are cyclists like that considerate road users that are generously easing the flow of traffic, or are they selfish and dangerous gob****es who don't care about the consequences of their actions as long as they shave a few seconds off their journey? You tell me. Chances are, those same cyclists would happily cycle off even if they caused a crash behind them, choosing to believe that any such crash was not their responsibility.

doozerie

rubadub wrote:

I think I mentioned it in this thread, maybe another- but I break the law almost every single day. I break a red light on the N11 that is right infront of a garda station. The gardai have often seen me doing it and have never stopped me once. A mate of mine was ranting about cyclists and went off the head when I told him UNTIL he heard why. At many junctions there will be a "cyclebox" for bikes only. The lights only go green for a few seconds. If I obeyed the law I would wait and take off slowly, leading the cars behind to have to wait for me. In the past they were a danger to me since they would come right up your arse to make the lights. My "predicitve" takeoff allows more cars to turn at the junction, they cannot see the changing light which I can see. So in fact it assists them in that way too- they see me looking and taking off so know it is going to be green soon. As a motorist at junctions I like seeing cyclists do this, and I presume others would too, bar the irritated pedantic arseholes.

On my other old commute route I also broke the law almost everyday in view of cops, by going slowly up a uphill path dismounting the path or stopping if a pedestrian came allong. Again gardai saw me and did nothing, it was for my own safety to stop close overtaking, and assisted the flow of traffic too.

In most cases my law breaking is for my own safety, a lot of the times this just happens to speed up my journey AND motorists journeys too.

If a garda did warn me I would stick to the law in case he got me again. And I would love if he was behind me again, I would stick to the letter of the law and he would be there thinking "christ, my mother reared a prick, why did I stop that lad for that"

I see (a minority of) car drivers break the law almost daily by driving in bus lanes and cycle tracks, sometimes driving right past a garda. Does this mean that all drivers should feel entitled to do the same thing? After all, they improve the flow of traffic by removing cars from the legal lane. Or does precedent only apply to the actions of some cyclists?

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

I see (a minority of) car drivers break the law almost daily by driving in bus lanes and cycle tracks, sometimes driving right past a garda. Does this mean that all drivers should feel entitled to do the same thing? After all, they improve the flow of traffic by removing cars from the legal lane. Or does precedent only apply to the actions of some cyclists?

Well the precedent appears to apply to motorists too in some places. On the turn up from whites cross, coming from foxrock going up to Sandyford it is a regular garda "checkpoint". They pull in some drivers from the bus lane and fine them. At this junction I see the majority of drivers breaking the law, and the gardai let the majority of them through. In this case all drivers do seem to feel entitled to do so, and it does improve taffic flow. They are pulling in about 10-20 yards before they should. Cars that have gone up the entire way get pulled in. Once again common sense prevails, and before you ask I have no legal definition or formula for common sense.

Your previous remarks were

There are no strong arguments that this is to create greater safety for anyone, so this is simply an approach aimed at causing less delay to cyclists

It seemed you could see no reason to break the law other that a cyclist not wanting to be delayed. My previous post was just highlighting some other reasons, they may be plenty more reasons people do it. I break the laws mainly for my own safety. I know women who jaywalk rather than go on a dark desolate flyover, thinking the danger the cars is less than the danger of being attacked. Some people might think such a woman should be put in prison if she refused to pay the jaywalking fine.

Ghost Rider

Of course they're inconsiderate - selfish, even. I've never argued (and I'm not sure anyone else has either) that cyclists should disregard red lights whenever they feel like it. That position would be completely indefensible from any point of view - road safety OR traffic flow.

The point is, very simply, that there are occasions when cyclists should be allowed to disregard red lights.

doozerie wrote: »

Quite often on my commute I encounter cyclists that ignore red lights when turning left onto the road/cycle lane in front of me. I have two main options in that case - slam on the brakes and hope that I stop before colliding with them; or swerve out to avoid hitting them, which puts me into the path of the cars in the lane beside me. Are cyclists like that considerate road users that are generously easing the flow of traffic, or are they selfish and dangerous gob****es who don't care about the consequences of their actions as long as they shave a few seconds off their journey? Y

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote:

The point is, very simply, that there are occasions when cyclists should be allowed to disregard red lights.

And the counter to that point is that habitual offenders don't care whether they are "allowed to" disregard red lights or not. By changing the existing rules of the road to make it legal to break red lights in some (undefined, and probably undefinable) circumstances, it is likely to have the effect of actively encouraging people to break the lights in almost any circumstances, which will lead to greater danger for all road users and pedestrians.

There is enough dangerous behaviour on the roads already without encouraging an even more casual attitude. If we were all mature enough, and considerate enough, to put social responsibility ahead of our own personal priorities, then broadening the laws would be "safe", but I would be amazed to find anyone that genuinely believed that, as a society, we are so trustworthy.

Ghost Rider

Afraid I don't have time to repeat what I've said before on this - sorry. In general, my position is that the status quo should be preserved - the law should stay as it is, the flexible approach to enforcement of it vis-a-vis cyclists should continue, and cyclists should continue to use their judgement vis-a-vis red lights.

In other words, if I'm a cop and a cyclist safely breaks a red light, I should leave them be. If they do so dangerously, I should stop them and let law enforcement takes its usual course (whether that means cautioning, prosecuting or whatever).

Of course, as a cop I'll have to exercise my judgement as to what's dangerous and what's not - but there's nothing unusual or regrettable about that.

doozerie wrote: »

And the counter to that point is that habitual offenders don't care whether they are "allowed to" disregard red lights or not. By changing the existing rules of the road to make it legal to break red lights in some (undefined, and probably undefinable) circumstances, it is likely to have the effect of actively encouraging people to break the lights in almost any circumstances, which will lead to greater danger for all road users and pedestrians.

There is enough dangerous behaviour on the roads already without encouraging an even more casual attitude. If we were all mature enough, and considerate enough, to put social responsibility ahead of our own personal priorities, then broadening the laws would be "safe", but I would be amazed to find anyone that genuinely believed that, as a society, we are so trustworthy.

Bicyclegadabout

doozerie wrote: »

There is enough dangerous behaviour on the roads already without encouraging an even more casual attitude. If we were all mature enough, and considerate enough, to put social responsibility ahead of our own personal priorities, then broadening the laws would be "safe", but I would be amazed to find anyone that genuinely believed that, as a society, we are so trustworthy.

Just to go back to the OP....

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/10/22/should-cyclists-run-red-lights/

Should cyclists stop at red lights? Bike riders generally are required to obey traffic signals, but some treat lights as advisories, cruising through intersections while watching for cars. It sounds risky, but in fact cyclists might be doing their best in the face of poorly designed traffic laws, Alex Marshall writes on Streetsblog, which advocates more pedestrian-friendly streets. Making cyclists stop at lights can trap bikes in a dangerous swarm of automobiles, while proceeding through a red light separates bikes from car traffic.

Instead, says Mr. Marshall, what’s needed is a separate system of traffic laws. In particular, cyclists could be allowed to cross intersections a few seconds before cars at some lights, as happens in Montreal. Another school of thought says that cyclists should act like motorists and take up entire traffic lanes. While that might make sense occasionally, bikes would be safer with an entirely different and looser set of regulations than cars, says Mr. Marshall. – Wendy Pollack

There's nothing there that's too wild or crazy. It'd be better to actually have a different set of *defined* regulations than to expect the Gardaí to do their job (keep traffic moving) by not doing their job (ignoring certain illegal acts)


PS: Hi everybody, I used to post here under a different name, but decided to come up with a cycling specific persona. It made sense.

Ghost Rider

What was your old name?

I'm thinking of going the other way and ditching "Ghost Rider". It sucks and I hate it.

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

PS: Hi everybody, I used to post here under a different name, but decided to come up with a cycling specific persona. It made sense.

Bicyclegadabout

Ghost Rider wrote: »

What was your old name?

I'm thinking of going the other way and ditching "Ghost Rider". It sucks and I hate it.

DITTKD, which was just a thing to talk about TKD in the Martial Arts forum and I shall continue to use it over there. Didn't make much sense to be using that name to talk about traffic lights!

Membrane

Ghost Rider wrote: »

In other words, if I'm a cop and a cyclist safely breaks a red light, I should leave them be. If they do so dangerously, I should stop them and let law enforcement takes its usual course (whether that means cautioning, prosecuting or whatever).

Of course, as a cop I'll have to exercise my judgement as to what's dangerous and what's not - but there's nothing unusual or regrettable about that.

Fully agreed. Not sure if it has been mentioned already, but one of the major advantages of the current situation is that prosecution is easy if a cyclist is acting the maggot. Prosecution would become much more complicated if the rules were relaxed to allow cyclists to break lights. The current system works fine if the cops on the whole apply good judgement in their enforcement, which in my experience they do.

fenris

If as a cyclist I break a red light and get knocked down, the car driver will be in the wrong and will end up paying for my bike, hospital visit and his own damages. If somebody runs into the back of him when he slams on the brakes to avoid killing me as opposed to giving me a minor maiming, that driver then has to shell out for damages and insurance.

While we can say tough luck for having to drive a car you evil earth murderer, the bottom line is that to enjoy equal status with other road users, or as is being mooted extra rights above and beyond other road users, then there should be at least the same level of responsibility for our actions and the consequences of those actions. Otherwise why would anybody in their right mind even consider sanctioning officially any change in status for cyclists?

We are either in the game or not, if we are in then we should be fully in, aware and responsible for the decision that we make when we throw our collective leg over a bicycle, otherwise we have no business playing on the street.

zorkmundsson

fenris wrote: »

If as a cyclist I break a red light and get knocked down, the car driver will be in the wrong and will end up paying for my bike, hospital visit and his own damages. If somebody runs into the back of him when he slams on the brakes to avoid killing me as opposed to giving me a minor maiming, that driver then has to shell out for damages and insurance.

While we can say tough luck for having to drive a car you evil earth murderer, the bottom line is that to enjoy equal status with other road users, or as is being mooted extra rights above and beyond other road users, then there should be at least the same level of responsibility for our actions and the consequences of those actions. Otherwise why would anybody in their right mind even consider sanctioning officially any change in status for cyclists?

We are either in the game or not, if we are in then we should be fully in, aware and responsible for the decision that we make when we throw our collective leg over a bicycle, otherwise we have no business playing on the street.

*cuts out, keeps*
totally. a day or so cycling in town and you'll quickly learn the sequences for most traffic lights- get this down, and you'll be across junctions quickly and safely ahead of the rest of the traffic. i do get kinda annoyed when i overtake cyclists pootling along at a snail's pace, only for me to stop at a traffic light for 30 seconds and have them oblivously breeze through the red. gives cyclists a bad name, it really does.

however, that scenario comes with the added benefit of a nice dollop of self-righteousness, and who doesn't like self-righteousness, eh?

blorg

fenris wrote: »

If as a cyclist I break a red light and get knocked down, the car driver will be in the wrong and will end up paying for my bike, hospital visit and his own damages. If somebody runs into the back of him when he slams on the brakes to avoid killing me as opposed to giving me a minor maiming, that driver then has to shell out for damages and insurance.

This is crap though, cyclists can actually be held liable for accidents if it is their fault.

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote:

Afraid I don't have time to repeat what I've said before on this - sorry. In general, my position is that the status quo should be preserved - the law should stay as it is, the flexible approach to enforcement of it vis-a-vis cyclists should continue, and cyclists should continue to use their judgement vis-a-vis red lights.

In other words, if I'm a cop and a cyclist safely breaks a red light, I should leave them be. If they do so dangerously, I should stop them and let law enforcement takes its usual course (whether that means cautioning, prosecuting or whatever).

Of course, as a cop I'll have to exercise my judgement as to what's dangerous and what's not - but there's nothing unusual or regrettable about that.

The main issue that I have with this is where you state that a garda "should leave [cyclists] be" when they break the lights in a way that is perceived as safe. This scenario, I believe, encourages such cyclists to view other traffic laws as somehow being less stringent when they are riding a bike. This is already the perception that many people have of cyclists, that as a group we don't care about the rules of the road except when it suits us. And this perception creates a dangerous environment for all cyclists.

Personally, I think that any cyclist who breaks a red light should be subject to the penalty that that action incurs. As is currently the case, most people who do break a red light will not be caught, but for those that are caught they should accept the fine without complaint 'cos they knew what they were doing when they decided to break the red light.

If people believe that red lights are truly a serious problem for cyclists, then they should do something about it. That means proposing, or supporting, a solution that addresses the problem safely and reasonably. One example of a reasonable solution might be a light that changes green for cyclists first, as mentioned above (not like the current such lights which show green for pedestrians and cyclists to cross a single road at the same time, and which some cyclists treat as a green for lashing on through an entire junction and thereby cutting up pedestrians on two crossings). There have been quite a few posts in this thread which support the approach of simply ignoring red lights when it suits, and that is not a solution.

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

If people believe that red lights are truly a serious problem for cyclists, then they should do something about it..

From reading the posts here most people do not think it the rules are that bad, because the gardai tend to enforce them in a sensible manner. Just like the gardai do not fine every person they see tipping ash on the ground or wiping dandruff off their shoulder, even though it might (not sure) technically be littering.

doozerie wrote: »

for those that are caught they should accept the fine without complaint 'cos they knew what they were doing when they decided to break the red light.

A judge might complain for wasting court time on a technical offence where the action just happened to fall under the law yet was completely obviously not the true intention of the law. That is all I was really proposing, I am not sure if a gardai can be charged or otherwise reprimanded for wasting police/court time even though they might have followed the letter of the law- in my mind they are an unsuitable person for the job with poor judgement if 99%+ of people in the court would have done otherwise..

one of the major advantages of the current situation is that prosecution is easy if a cyclist is acting the maggot. Prosecution would become much more complicated if the rules were relaxed to allow cyclists to break lights. The current system works fine if the cops on the whole apply good judgement in their enforcement, which in my experience they do.

I agree with this. The very odd time a garda "acts the maggot" is the only time it can fall down a bit.

In my job I could follow the letter of all the procedures and instructions in place, I know my boss could not technically reprimand me for certain actions, but in the back of his head would be thinking "what a tosser, no cop on", if I was to do certain things by the book. I would hope most gardai would not be arseholes for the sake of it, rubbing the judges or garda superiors nose it in "I only did what the law told me, nah nah na-nah na" like a stupid little kid.

doozerie wrote: »

traffic laws as somehow being less stringent when they are riding a bike. This is already the perception that many people have of cyclists, that as a group we don't care about the rules of the road except when it suits us. And this perception creates a dangerous environment for all cyclists.

I also find this odd. I keep making the point that I find pedestrians to be by far the biggest offenders of traffic laws, I dont think anybody disputed this yet. Cyclists here keep saying how disappointed or pissed off they get seeing other cyclists break the laws, "giving them all a bad name". I have been in cars with people or out walking with people and have seen motorists making a crazy dangerous illegal move, or a pedestrians running out infront of cars- but never once have my driving/walking partners got upset and made statements like "jesus that pedestrian/driver is giving us all a bad name- what a prick, ruining it for all of us." Not sure why it should be so different for cyclists...

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

This is already the perception that many people have of cyclists, that as a group we don't care about the rules of the road except when it suits us. And this perception creates a dangerous environment for all cyclists.

Drivers may get angry about it, but that anger doesn't result in a more dangerous environment for us cyclists. At most it may result in being shouted at.

Ghost Rider

Indeed. Cyclists can't be held responsible for drivers being wrong about them.

Membrane wrote: »

Drivers may get angry about it, but that anger doesn't result in a more dangerous environment for us cyclists. At most it may result in being shouted at.

doozerie

Membrane wrote:

Drivers may get angry about it, but that anger doesn't result in a more dangerous environment for us cyclists. At most it may result in being shouted at.

Being shouted at = aggression. Where there is aggression directed at you, you are in danger of the aggressor doing more than just shouting.

Neither as a pedestrian nor as a car driver have I ever experienced the same kind of aggression directed at me by drivers as I have had while on the bike, regardless of whether I have been at fault or not. Most drivers are also pedestrians at least some of the time, and it seems like they reserve their anger for those groups that they don't in any way belong to, such as cyclists, motorbikers, taxi drivers, etc., in the same way that people in a community might fear (and hate) "outsiders".

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote:

Indeed. Cyclists can't be held responsible for drivers being wrong about them.

In the same way that people who wear shiny tracksuits should not be immediately seen as toerags. And the same way in which not all taxi drivers should be labelled as ignorant road users. etc.

However, human nature being what it is, we like the easy option of tarring everyone with the same brush, so the actions of few idiots of any particular group will reflect badly on all of that group.

TheThing!

I was stopped by a motor cyclist cop for breaking the lights a few weeks back. He said I would have to go to court.

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

Being shouted at = aggression. Where there is aggression directed at you, you are in danger of the aggressor doing more than just shouting.

Within the context being discussed, i.e. avoiding breaking the rules merely because it annoys or angers others (causing hinder or danger is a different scenario), in my experience drivers may verbally vent their frustration or anger at you for not following the rules, but if you don't take them up on it, that is the end of it. It would be nice to be without this type of annoyance or aggression, but I see it as a mood spoiler, cases where it results in danger are difficult to imagine.

Situations where a driver cuts accross a cyclist or pulls out in front are IMO not the result of aggression that has built up against rule breaking cyclists, but due to general poor driving skills, poor knowledge of the ROTR or general disrespect for a smaller vehicle than theirs.

I think that generally people who adhere to a certain set of rules find it difficult to see others not adhering to those rules. It triggers a feeling of unfairness and they may call out to "get back in line". It is hard to counter such an emotion with a rational argument, but that doesn't mean that emotion should win out over rationality if the consequence is limited to a slightly more sour mood amongst drivers.

Neither as a pedestrian nor as a car driver have I ever experienced the same kind of aggression directed at me by drivers as I have had while on the bike, regardless of whether I have been at fault or not.

There are various reasons why cyclists are subject to aggression, but most are beyond the context of this thread.

doozerie

Membrane wrote: »

Within the context being discussed, i.e. avoiding breaking the rules merely because it annoys or angers others (causing hinder or danger is a different scenario), in my experience drivers may verbally vent their frustration or anger at you for not following the rules, but if you don't take them up on it, that is the end of it. It would be nice to be without this type of annoyance or aggression, but I see it as a mood spoiler, cases where it results in danger are difficult to imagine.

If that has been your experience, then you are lucky. I have been on the receiving end of a few rants, while commuting and on training spins, which were peppered with phrases like "you cyclists ignore all the rules and yet you expect us drivers to adhere to them" - except such phrases were uttered with less coherence and with a lot more spittle and throbbing veins in the forehead of the ranter. On occasion this has been accompanied by the car veering towards me as the driver felt the need to impress upon me the extent of their feelings on the matter.

And incidentally, with the very odd exception I was following the rules of the road in each of those extreme cases, but for some people the only just rule is one that allows them exclusive access to whatever road they find themselves on and anyone else occupying the same space becomes a valid target of aggression in their eyes.

Membrane wrote:

Situations where a driver cuts accross a cyclist or pulls out in front are IMO not the result of aggression that has built up against rule breaking cyclists, but due to general poor driving skills, poor knowledge of the ROTR or general disrespect for a smaller vehicle than theirs.

I have experienced all of those things. That's the thing about aggression, it can take over those that are prone to it and make them do things that under normal circumstances they would never consider. Rationality goes out the window, and something that might normally be a minor irritant can fuel completely irrational actions. And if the media are to be believed, road rage is an increasing problem rather than something that is going away any time soon.

Membrane wrote:

I think that generally people who adhere to a certain set of rules find it difficult to see others not adhering to those rules. It triggers a feeling of unfairness and they may call out to "get back in line". It is hard to counter such an emotion with a rational argument, but that doesn't mean that emotion should win out over rationality if the consequence is limited to a slightly more sour mood amongst drivers.

Fundamentally, I believe that breaking a red light is stupid because of the danger that is poses to other road users (I'm not overly concerned about the dangers that it poses to the person breaking the red light, as if they wish to remove themselves from the gene pool by their own actions who am I to stop them). However, one other consequence of such actions is to earn cyclists as a group a bad reputation, which does nothing to further the cause or appeal of cycling.

Membrane wrote:

There are various reasons why cyclists are subject to aggression, but most are beyond the context of this thread.

As you rightly infer, some of these reasons fall within the context of this thread, hence its discussion here.