Treating red lights as stop signs is sensible and safe - I'm even fine with not stopping if you have clear line of sight at all angles. One thing car owners like to forget is that cars make you mostly blind to your surroundings. While it feels incredibly unsafe to blow a red in a car, it's not the same on a bike- you can see so much more.

Cyclists who speed towards or through an intersection when they can't see what might come into conflict with their path are as stupid as drivers who run reds.

I've been cycling for transportation for over 10 years. I don't know anyone who advocates for running reds who has rode a similar amount of time or longer. I have heard that argument before, but I think it underestimates the damage to the reputation of cyclists involved. Also, more experienced cyclists tend to take the lane at intersections, which would be a better way to avoid jockeying for space.

Most of the cyclists I’m referring to have been cycling since childhood, so 15-20 years of experience, a lot of it in cities. Taking up the lane at the intersection is unrealistic in a lot of city scenarios, nobody I know advocates for getting in front of cars in the crosswalk or waiting in the middle of a long line of stopped cars at a red light.

> Taking up the lane at the intersection is unrealistic in a lot of city scenarios, nobody I know advocates for getting in front of cars in the crosswalk or waiting in the middle of a long line of stopped cars at a red light.

My understanding is that taking the lane at an intersection is often recommended, and some cities create special "bike box" infrastructure to encourage cyclists to do that, though few do.

I wouldn't recommend blocking the crosswalk, but my experience getting in a long line of cars is good.

I'm definitely not a veteran cyclist and almost always end up on the other side of the intersection faster than the first car. Cars have a lot of inertia. I don't believe going on red is necessary to be in front.