> The red-light-running bicyclist blows past the stopped traffic that just had to safely navigate getting around the bicyclist occupying a vehicular travel lane, only to be forced to do it all over again.

The entitlement of calling it a vehicular travel lane probably means you have a strong bias against cyclists, but I'll try anyway: Doesn't this just prove that it's moot to overtake cyclists in the city? Whenever a car pushes past me (quite often dangerously) I'll overtake them next time they hit a red light anyways. And there I'll filter to the front of the queue (not cycling on red), and be on my way while the car might have to wait a cycle or two more to get through.

So why do it? Just relax and drive slow, you'll get there in the same time eventually, without risking someone's life.

Blowing through lights on a bike, when everyone else obeys them, then claiming it's destiny that you're back in front is brazen illicit entitlement.

I just want the lights to apply to everyone in travel lanes equally. I don't care if you are in a clown car, a bus, on rollerblades, dragging a surfboard, etc. Just obey the frigging light.

Did you skip the part where I said I'll be ahead of you even though I don't "blow through" a red light? Yes, you might be faster at a short stretch of road. But through the city a bike will almost always win. So just relax, no need to push past me when there is no room, or honk because I'm in the "vehicular lane".

I'd also like the lights to apply to everyone: by removing them. Lets all yield to pedestrians, and then bike through intersections otherwise without waiting. Then cars can sort their own mess out. The lights are for them, an implicit prioritization of cars over humans. I'd like to remove that.

The Idaho stop is explicitly not running red lights. You stop at the red light, and proceed when it's clear. No "blowing past".

And we're talking about areas with dedicated and often physically separated bike lanes. We don't interact with you except at intersections.

This is running a red light. If a car stops first then proceeds through on red it would be a red light violation. That's why it's a light not a stop sign. I don't care what special lanes are present. You're running the intersection and increasing the complexity for everyone else who is obeying their green light.

The only vehicles that get to blow red lights are emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. Everyone else should be waiting their turns, including pedestrians and bicycles. And, maybe, rights on red (but not in NYC you'll note).

Have you ever been a pedestrian or bicyclist?

That safest thing for a pedestrian to do is often avoid lighted intersections all-together and cross in the middle of the road when its clear. Crossing at an intersection is a great way to get a car doing a right turn or worse, a left turn right into you.

>That's why it's a light not a stop sign. I don't care what special lanes are present. You're running the intersection and increasing the complexity for everyone else who is obeying their green light.

The Idaho stop has you treat red-light as a stop-sign, you are not increasing complexity for the green-light drivers, because if there are ANY green-light drivers, you shouldn't be in the intersection. And if there were drivers with the green light, and you go thru, you are not doing the Idaho stop.

>Blow red light

Please, "blowing a red light" might not be a well defined term, but most accept it as going thru a red light, without stopping, at some speed. That is not the Idaho stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Yeah, in a city a bike and a car are about the same speed -- until you have to find parking, and then the bike is faster.

Do you feel so strongly about pedestrians crossing when it is safe regardless of whether they have the walk signal? The risk profile is similar, in that the risk is mostly to the pedestrian or cyclist themselves.