> If you cycle enough you'll know that often red lights are silly for bicycles.

I disagree. I have witnessed a large number of pedestrian collisions because fellow cyclists didn't want to stop. In london the large majority of traffic lights that "make no sense" are normally pedestrian crossings. This is why I stop at red lights, even though its more tiring.

I had to administer first aid to someone who was knocked over on london bridge by a cyclist and was rendered unconscious. The sniveling little shit fucked off and left the man in the middle of the road.

Yes Cyclists are smaller and more nimble, to a point. But that does not mean they are less dangerous to pedestrians.

The rules are there for all road users, or not at all. In the UK at least they are there to protect the most vulnerable: pedestrians.

The Idaho Stop doesn't mean you blast through red. You stop. Then proceed through if it's safe. This would be about as dangerous as accidentally walking into someone on the pavement.

There are idiots with no regard to others' safety everywhere, unfortunately. I'd rather they were riding bikes than driving cars.

I'm not sure if pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists. Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.

> The Idaho Stop doesn't mean you blast through red. You stop.

Aha, this make much more sense!

> Maybe marginally if the cyclist is wearing a helmet but they are both essentially as vulnerable as you can be.

Its more the point of impact, the pedestrian gets hit by the handlebars which are small and pointy. The cyclist will normally get cushioned by the pedestrian.

However I suspect that numbers and collisions are tightly coupled to country. the pavement layouts are different.

Red lights are sometimes silly for cars too. And sometimes they are upgraded with sensors that make them automatically go green when you approach an empty intersection, making them a little less silly.

They don't always work well; in my area some sensors seem to trigger too late, resulting in unnecessary braking, and others trigger too early and might encourage you to speed up for the intersection to avoid getting a yellow or even red just before you enter. Sometimes they give a green for the go-straight lane just when you're switching to the turn lane, which stays red even though there's no traffic..

One of my favorite solutions is simply turning the lights off altogether when there's not much traffic. They do that at quite a few intersections here.

In our town the trafic lights work perfectly. I seldom have to stop at anything that the first redlight, everything after that is in perfect flow as long as I keep on the straight path. Even left turn in empty crossings work fine, both left and straight goes green and when I enter the turn lane, the straight goes red and only the turn stays green. It's all about setting them up right.

I'm so used to this since I started driving 30+ years ago so I get pretty surpriced when I visit people in Germany and stand in an empty crossing with a redlight. Or have to stop at every single redlight thrugh the whole town.

It's interesting how train drivers treat signals compared to car drivers. Train drivers treat them more as a way to regulate their speed. The idea is not to ever have to stop at a red light because you would have already regulated your speed such that it's not red by the time you get there. Car drivers see green and immediately speed up to whatever the speed limit is and end up maximising the amount of time spent waiting at the next red light.

The difficulty is that traffic lights are rather unpredictable. Some actually require you to speed up to the limit if you want to keep up with the wave. And others won't light up until you pass a sensor so coasting and regulating speed far ahead doesn't work. Others still may be triggered by sensors on crossing traffic, whether you get a green or red is unknowable.

I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.

> I'm guessing the signals on railways are much more predictable.

Possibly, but it's mostly just a better system which works because railway lines are linear. On British railways at least (not sure about around the world), each signal informs the driver about the current state of the next two signals.

- Red (danger): absolutely do not enter the next piece of track (with serious consequences if breached),

- Single yellow (caution): the next signal is red,

- Double yellow (preliminary caution): the next signal is a single yellow,

- Green (clear): next signal is double yellow or green.

This way you can tell if you are catching up with the red and adjust speed accordingly (and I guess they would incorporate knowledge about the line, ie. if they know there is only one signal to the next station they wouldn't worry too much about a double orange).

I think the "smart motorway" variable speed limits are an attempt to implement this on the road. Unfortunately a large number of people think the temporary speed restrictions cause congestion and others think smart motorway simply means no hard shoulder.

You can't really treat current traffic signals like railways signals, but motorists would do well to learn to regulate their speed better and understand the concept of average speed.