4 ms·

That's a sad anecdote. It doesn't seem to address the argument or actual safety data presented in the article.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Actually it does. If there is a 1% chance of a cyclists fatality for a certain illegal behavior, you might be that 1%. You will be 100% dead.
kordless 10y ago
It's a data point and was used as such. The effects of breaking moving vehicle laws can be rationalized away when the mass of the vehicle moving is low. That doesn't preclude other incidences, such as this one, where someone who's job it is to drive a truck has to wrangle with the fact they killed someone. They guy who died could give two shits about the situation. I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing with people in it on his side of the road at the intersection at the end of my street. I rolled up to him in my car at the next light and told him he was breaking the law. He asked "but is it safe?". The implication is, with this leading question, is that he thought it was safe to do. What he didn't observe was the car behind him not slowing down for the pedestrians because they were watching him. Stopping at a crosswalk, or yielding right of way, is an important rule because it gives VISUAL indicators to other drivers of nearby vehicles. It's a backup mechanism for safety at times. Rationalizing laws don't apply to oneself because they cause delay do not include the fact it the action may also be the difference between life and death - for someone else. Are we really going to rationalize away the fact driver may float lights more if they see bikes doing it as well? The way Davis, CA handles this is to install special lights for bikes. I would assume they thought through it and decided floating lights is bad. For the last 4 years, up until a few months ago, I had been riding at least 5-6 hours a day on fairly busy roads. I've seen a lot of shit that people do as a result of other's actions, including bikes, and I do NOT think bikes should be precluded from obeying traffic laws, especially when the only point to it might be to speed up a bike commute or "save energy". Whatever that means.
- cmyr 10y ago
  Here's an explanation from a physics professor (cited in the original article) that might help explain what "save energy" means. http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.-Curry.-2001..pdf http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.... In case you can't be bothered to read this either: > He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get back to full speed.
  - kordless 10y ago
    > In case you can't be bothered to read this either: My entire comment was based on someone else's comment in these threads, not the article. And, not that I give a shit what you think, I actually did read the article and don't have to agree with it regardless of whether I "bothered" or not.

Actually it does. If there is a 1% chance of a cyclists fatality for a certain illegal behavior, you might be that 1%. You will be 100% dead.

kordless 10y ago

It's a data point and was used as such. The effects of breaking moving vehicle laws can be rationalized away when the mass of the vehicle moving is low. That doesn't preclude other incidences, such as this one, where someone who's job it is to drive a truck has to wrangle with the fact they killed someone. They guy who died could give two shits about the situation. I saw a cyclist roll through a pedestrian crossing with people in it on his side of the road at the intersection at the end of my street. I rolled up to him in my car at the next light and told him he was breaking the law. He asked "but is it safe?". The implication is, with this leading question, is that he thought it was safe to do. What he didn't observe was the car behind him not slowing down for the pedestrians because they were watching him. Stopping at a crosswalk, or yielding right of way, is an important rule because it gives VISUAL indicators to other drivers of nearby vehicles. It's a backup mechanism for safety at times. Rationalizing laws don't apply to oneself because they cause delay do not include the fact it the action may also be the difference between life and death - for someone else. Are we really going to rationalize away the fact driver may float lights more if they see bikes doing it as well? The way Davis, CA handles this is to install special lights for bikes. I would assume they thought through it and decided floating lights is bad. For the last 4 years, up until a few months ago, I had been riding at least 5-6 hours a day on fairly busy roads. I've seen a lot of shit that people do as a result of other's actions, including bikes, and I do NOT think bikes should be precluded from obeying traffic laws, especially when the only point to it might be to speed up a bike commute or "save energy". Whatever that means.

cmyr 10y ago
Here's an explanation from a physics professor (cited in the original article) that might help explain what "save energy" means. http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.-Curry.-2001..pdf http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.... In case you can't be bothered to read this either: > He also calculated that a cyclist who rolls through a stop at five miles per hour instead of stopping fully needs to use 25 percent less energy to get back to full speed.
- kordless 10y ago
  > In case you can't be bothered to read this either: My entire comment was based on someone else's comment in these threads, not the article. And, not that I give a shit what you think, I actually did read the article and don't have to agree with it regardless of whether I "bothered" or not.