What’s unsafe about waiting for a green light, then scanning as you proceed through? Seems pretty clear and straight-forward. Certainly more predictable than a law which suddenly makes cyclists the red light runner.
What’s unsafe about stopping at a stop sign, scanning for cross traffic, yielding (if there is any), and then proceeding when it’s clear?

Seems safer than the “stop light optional”, “blow off stop sign” proposal. That many bicyclists like to do it, doesn’t make it any safer.

If you want cycling friendly laws, how about:
-Explicit language that allows cyclists to take full traffic lane.
-Elimination of mandatory use of bike lane laws.
-Safe minimum passing distance laws for motorists.

Too bad more people weren’t concerned when the financing of the 2000-04 and 2005-09 MTA Capital plans was arranged, when it might have made a difference. Actually, the transit union, the Straphangers, the business community, just about everyone was screaming “no!” and the legislature just went ahead and did it anyway.

“It’s a good thing I’ve started cycling.”

Me too.

Hear! Hear! I dont think enough riders, nor peds nor drivers understand this point. Once ped and car traffic is clear, to run that light is, I strongly believe, essential to cyclist safety.

I am deeply concerned that without a massive influx of resources and dramatically better management, we will no longer be able to afford to maintain our subway system and it will completely fall apart.

It’s a good thing I’ve started cycling.

We could use that law here, too. Most cyclists already treat stop signs as yield signs and stop lights as stop signs. Making it legal would help de-criminalize a practice that often helps protect cyclists (by allowing them to negotiate intersections more safely).

“I haven’t actually made a formal study of the Land Rover’s gas mileage. I’ve simply stopped driving the car to anywhere other than our metro stop (1.5 miles; about a quarter tank of gas) or the supermarket (.88 miles, maybe an eighth of a tank of gas) or the gas station.”

How wasteful! Can’t she walk or ride a bicycle to the metro stop and supermarket?

Clearly the Your Nabe version of the events is not necessarily the full, accurate story, but going by it, since it’s the only public version of the story, the taxi driver is definitely at fault!

“she was clipped by a taxi cab as it swerved to avoid her”???

I wish there were more details available, but if that’s all that happened, then that’s the taxi driver’s fault.

Taxis improperly “swerve to avoid” me ALL THE TIME–while I’m riding in a straight, predictable line. What they’re doing is pretty much passing me, way too close. It’s reckless and dangerous, and if one of them were ever to “clip” me, it would be COMPLETELY their fault. If that’s anything like what happened to Young, then the authorities were wrong to let the driver off the hook. But WTF else is new.

The News head and lead are better, concentrating on the positive side of the changes. The other side of the story is duly given but the overall presentation is more balanced.