I really hate the term "running the light" as it relates to this issue. However....
Here in Tennessee, our law is as follows:
"Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the driver of a motorcycle approaching an intersection that is controlled by a traffic-control signal utilizing a vehicle detection device that is inoperative due to the size of the motorcycle shall come to a full and complete stop at the intersection and, after exercising due care as provided by law, may proceed with due caution when it is safe to do so. It is not a defense to a violation of ยง 55-8-109 that the driver of a motorcycle proceeded under the belief that a traffic-control signal utilized a vehicle detection device or was inoperative due to the size of the motorcycle when the signal did not utilize a vehicle detection device or that the device was not in fact inoperative due to the size of the motorcycle."
I don't care for the "inoperative due to the size of the motorcycle" part. As I understand, the inductive loop systems commonly found here can be calibrated to detect bicycles without causing false positives. If the systems can be calibrated to accommodate bicycles, they can surely handle any motorcycle.
One of my riding friends was ticketed for running a light when he didn't wait for a specific number of light cycles. Rather than argue with the officer, he went to court. After presenting a copy of the law to the judge, the ticket was thrown out, and the officer was appropriately embarrassed.
The bottom line here is that we aren't required to wait for a specific number of light cycles (good since they may not cycle if we're the only ones at the light), nor are we required to wait for a specified time. I really like that we can wait until we are fairly sure the inductive loop isn't detecting our presence, confirm the light IS a traffic controlled signal, confirm that it's clear, and then proceed with caution. I see a parallel to treating it like it's a stop sign once I've confirmed it's not detecting me.