4 ms·

I am surprised to hear you assert that there is no time saving to be had in running red lights. In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are w

I am surprised to hear you assert that there is no time saving to be had in running red lights. In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are welcome to join us. What angry drivers usually don't get is that the equation is much different for cyclists. Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car. Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium. Wheeeee!!!

vroombaprime 10y ago
"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car." By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  I appreciate what seems to be a sincere sentiment, but at the same time I don't feel like it's my place to point out to a stranger that her, say, sedentary lifestyle or drinking habit is a health risk.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  The article disagrees with you. >> Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
"Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium" Therein is the real reason for many cyclists doing it - not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences. There's no licensing, registration or insurance to cycle on the roads. Many cyclists, and I cycle too, behave accordingly with no consideration for other road users, or pedestrians. Hence many cyclists now cycling on footpaths (illegally) and some getting irritated when they encounter a pedestrian on it! Most "annoyed drivers" aren't annoyed by a cyclist carefully crossing an empty junction - the annoyance comes in rush hour when others are inconvenienced or it's plain reckless.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  "not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences" But it does make sense a lot of the time. The lack of consequences is a contributing factor for this. Car 'ownership' of the roads is debatable: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

vroombaprime 10y ago

"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car." By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.

TheLarch 10y ago
I appreciate what seems to be a sincere sentiment, but at the same time I don't feel like it's my place to point out to a stranger that her, say, sedentary lifestyle or drinking habit is a health risk.
hermannj314 10y ago
The article disagrees with you. >> Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

"Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium" Therein is the real reason for many cyclists doing it - not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences. There's no licensing, registration or insurance to cycle on the roads. Many cyclists, and I cycle too, behave accordingly with no consideration for other road users, or pedestrians. Hence many cyclists now cycling on footpaths (illegally) and some getting irritated when they encounter a pedestrian on it! Most "annoyed drivers" aren't annoyed by a cyclist carefully crossing an empty junction - the annoyance comes in rush hour when others are inconvenienced or it's plain reckless.

TheLarch 10y ago
"not because it makes sense (a lot of the time it doesn't) but because there are no consequences" But it does make sense a lot of the time. The lack of consequences is a contributing factor for this. Car 'ownership' of the roads is debatable: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/