“If you go hurtling through it as a bicyclist while all the cars stop because you think it’s safe enough and one of them hits you, or is distracted and hits someone else because you were careless, that wouldn’t be too great.” Really, I do agree with you. Again, good judgment. I wish when people discuss with me cyclists obeying traffic laws, they wouldn’t bring up this very very minor percentage of the population that, like I’ve said before, deserve their own Darwin Award. When I talk about rolling through a stop sign, that doesn’t include when a pedestrian is crossing the street or cars approaching in the cross direction (nor stopping in front of me). Same occurs with treating a stop light as a stop sign. In fact, there are plenty of lights I just sit and wait for: too big to scurry across safely(I’m not a scurrier, pretty slow rider actually); overly complex; can’t see oncoming traffic; etc.

Laws get in the way of people using good judgment.

Spencer, no dependents yet. Maybe I will start wearing one then because that would change the odds/repercussions equation that happens subconsciously. The odds just seem to stack up enough obviously. I mean, we could all wear bullet proof vests and have gas masks on us at all times…just in case, but the odds just don’t warrant such behavior, eh?

Critical Mass, to me, serves no purpose in terms of getting cyclists any rights. I think it serves the purpose of getting a bunch of people together that choose a marginalized mode of transportation so that they can meet others, talk, and have some fun. The whole idea of corking came from San Fran where the monthly rides are 5,000 deep and the streets are just filled with traffic. I think there are only a couple hundred riders here in Seattle, which means that those leading the pack could choose to create a situation where corking is not needed, maybe just for the last dozen to get through the intersection. Instead, the leaders might be running yellows, creating the situation where the entire pack has to run the red.

I’ve gone through a few lights in my time so I’m not going to say your logic is wrong. I only know I do it when I’m in a god-awful hurry because I left late. SO I’m wrong on two points (and human).
I just don’t advocate doing it if you don’t absolutely have to and if the intersection is absolutely clear. By absolutely clear there are no (not a singe car) in the intersection. When I ride I make absolutely no assumptions about any car with a person inside it. I just say yesterday someone make a right turn from the left turn lane across two lanes of traffic just before the light turned. Had I ventured out even two feet I would have been under or over this guys car.
As for the helmet. I don’t see any excuse. but it’s your life. I hope you have no dependents.

While I can understand your rationale, I don’t necessarily think you are right. Wearing a helmet like wearing a seat belt isn’t only to cut down on healthcare costs not only to you but to the state but also to keep you safe. I for one don’t want to either watch someone slam their head into either the road (bicyclist) or a windshield (motorist…or bicyclist, for that matter). You choosing to not be safe is only part of the equation although I understand it; wanting to ride your bike like when you were a kid with your hair flying behind you down a hill…well, I get that.

As for laws being built so cars can go faster, I think that’s perception. A four way stop is for safety. If you go hurtling through it as a bicyclist while all the cars stop because you think it’s safe enough and one of them hits you, or is distracted and hits someone else because you were careless, that wouldn’t be too great.

If what you are proposing is one set of laws for cars using the streets and a second set for bikes, I’d vote against it even as a bicyclist. Seattle motorists can barely remember the laws as they stand now (yes, you can make a u-turn provided it’s safe; stop honking at me, you moron) so adding a second more complicated layer doesn’t seem prudent. Hell, they can’t remember that you are supposed to stop at a crosswalk so how would they function if bicyclists didn’t have to stop at 4 way stops? (I personally don’t care if they stop at a signal, look both ways and proceed if no one is coming but don’t quote me on that one…)

It’s not a matter of logistics or what would be easier for bikes; it’s reality and consistency, sadly.

Even as a daily bicycle commuter, I’m not sure I agree with you. How do you see our traffic regulations inhibiting bicycle movement? Why is standing at a light for a few extra seconds a burden to you? I can understand wanting to get away from car exhaust if that’s your reason.

Also, I’m probably beating a dead horse here, but why no helmet? What’s the point? Is it uncomfortable? Is it not fashionable? Do you get pimples from it? It seems to me, and I’m sure someone has said this to you, it’s such a small investment for arguably your most important organ. Why take the added risk? I understand it won’t help you in a serious collision with a car but, in my experience, most accidents with bikes have to do with objects in the road and not cars. In my 8 years of riding in Seattle I’ve never been hit by a car (with only a handful of close calls)but have been toppled over by objects either in the road or next to the road (potholes, fence covering, grates,etc.) Even the smallest accident can have the the most serious results when you hit your head wrong on the ground.

And I’d like to add one brief bit that IMHO distills it down for me: the fraction that blows stop signs and does what they want make ME look bad and makes it harder for me to get where I’m going. I have to do extra work to look worthy to share the road.

That’s human nature. We can wishwishwish it didn’t exist, or we can sack up, admit it does, and act appropriately. Then we would have fewer reasons to need Critical Mass.