5 ms·

> Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. If

by m0nty 10y ago

> Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. If you'd been hit by cars this year, you would have suffered far more serious injuries and possibly death. That hardly ever happens with bikes. My figures for KSI are possibly a little out of date, there are actually 180,000 of them each year in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great... > 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? I think it's clear I was talking about pollution there. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-k... > 'There had previously been a focus on pollution from solid fuel burning, such as coal – which, as a result, fell dramatically. However, this has been replaced by concerns about exposure to pollutants from transport sources, especially cars. Even the "cleanest" of engines can produce nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulates – small specks of matter, such as soot. All three may have a potentially harmful effect on health.'

vertex-four 10y ago
> As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. Hell, I've seen buses run red lights and once almost kill somebody in my city. Nobody complains, nobody does fuck-all about it. Deaths from road vehicles are seen as normal, having a bruise for a couple of days on the very rare occasion a bicycle runs into you is the end of the world.
manarth 10y ago
> > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the most? Would you expect one to significantly outnumber the other, and by what proportion?
- m0nty 10y ago
  > Which would you expect to have the most? Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. But what I would "expect" is neither here nor there. (You can find examples of both kinds of law-breaking if you look on youtube, for example.) The main point is: when bikes do this, it is obnoxious but far less dangerous than when motor vehicles do it. This is reflected in KSI statistics. It has been pointed out that the way cyclists and motorists jump red lights is different: some motorists tend to be "amber gamblers" or last-second red-light jumpers, whereas some cyclists tend to go right through regardless of the light phase. This looks worse and leads to confirmation bias when discussing this subject. The thing where motorists jump red lights is so commonplace we simply edit it out of our daily experience. If you look, you will see all kinds of motor vehicles going through red lights at just about every opportunity. Another point is that cars get fewer opportunities to run red lights when there is a car in front, since if the guy at the front stops, usually everyone behind him has to as well. Bikes can move along the line of traffic and go through the red light at just about every time. So a very small number of law-breakers on bikes gives the impression that everyone is doing it. Another experiment for you: wait at an intersection and see how many cyclists obey the law all the time. One of them might be me, which is one reason I get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as a minority of cyclists. We usually don't do this for motorists, and it's not the result of "experiment" but bias and prejudice.
  - manarth 10y ago
    > > Which would you expect to have the most? > Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. Personally, I would expect bikes, based on what I routinely see whilst walking to and from work. There are factors which make it less likely for motorised vehicles to jump red lights. Firstly, they're identifiable (number-plate) and can be tracked down after the incident without needing to immediately chase them down. This increases the likelihood that they're held accountable. Secondly, as you pointed out, it only takes one motorist to obey the law, and the others are forced to follow suit, whilst it's easy for cyclists to filter to the front, then break the law. I understand when you point out that the consequences of a motorist jumping the lights are much more severe, and I do agree with that, but I disagree with the idea that motorists jump red lights as often or more often than cyclists. Whether cyclists should be permitted to jump red lights, cycle the wrong way on a one-way road, and be exempted from similar traffic controls is another question. There's a lot to suggest that the anger at cyclists is the routine brazen law-breaking, so exempting them from the law would go some way to defuse that anger. As the regulations were aimed at the more serious consequences of vehicular impact, exempting cyclists wouldn't have the same level of risk.

by m0nty 10y ago

vertex-four 10y ago

> As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. Hell, I've seen buses run red lights and once almost kill somebody in my city. Nobody complains, nobody does fuck-all about it. Deaths from road vehicles are seen as normal, having a bruise for a couple of days on the very rare occasion a bicycle runs into you is the end of the world.

manarth 10y ago

> > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the most? Would you expect one to significantly outnumber the other, and by what proportion?

m0nty 10y ago
> Which would you expect to have the most? Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. But what I would "expect" is neither here nor there. (You can find examples of both kinds of law-breaking if you look on youtube, for example.) The main point is: when bikes do this, it is obnoxious but far less dangerous than when motor vehicles do it. This is reflected in KSI statistics. It has been pointed out that the way cyclists and motorists jump red lights is different: some motorists tend to be "amber gamblers" or last-second red-light jumpers, whereas some cyclists tend to go right through regardless of the light phase. This looks worse and leads to confirmation bias when discussing this subject. The thing where motorists jump red lights is so commonplace we simply edit it out of our daily experience. If you look, you will see all kinds of motor vehicles going through red lights at just about every opportunity. Another point is that cars get fewer opportunities to run red lights when there is a car in front, since if the guy at the front stops, usually everyone behind him has to as well. Bikes can move along the line of traffic and go through the red light at just about every time. So a very small number of law-breakers on bikes gives the impression that everyone is doing it. Another experiment for you: wait at an intersection and see how many cyclists obey the law all the time. One of them might be me, which is one reason I get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as a minority of cyclists. We usually don't do this for motorists, and it's not the result of "experiment" but bias and prejudice.
- manarth 10y ago
  > > Which would you expect to have the most? > Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. Personally, I would expect bikes, based on what I routinely see whilst walking to and from work. There are factors which make it less likely for motorised vehicles to jump red lights. Firstly, they're identifiable (number-plate) and can be tracked down after the incident without needing to immediately chase them down. This increases the likelihood that they're held accountable. Secondly, as you pointed out, it only takes one motorist to obey the law, and the others are forced to follow suit, whilst it's easy for cyclists to filter to the front, then break the law. I understand when you point out that the consequences of a motorist jumping the lights are much more severe, and I do agree with that, but I disagree with the idea that motorists jump red lights as often or more often than cyclists. Whether cyclists should be permitted to jump red lights, cycle the wrong way on a one-way road, and be exempted from similar traffic controls is another question. There's a lot to suggest that the anger at cyclists is the routine brazen law-breaking, so exempting them from the law would go some way to defuse that anger. As the regulations were aimed at the more serious consequences of vehicular impact, exempting cyclists wouldn't have the same level of risk.