3 ms·
> 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 neit
by 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.