4 ms·

Sure, it's in no way a valid excuse. But one act is much more dangerous than the other - a cyclist running a red light and a driver doing it are not morally equ

Sure, it's in no way a valid excuse. But one act is much more dangerous than the other - a cyclist running a red light and a driver doing it are not morally equivalent, and it's slightly offensive to cyclists to claim that it is.

Tomte 8y ago
Of course it is just as dangerous. We‘re not talking about a cyclist killing a car driver, we‘re talking about a cyclist getting killed. That can easily happen with a cyclist running a red light. I find it strange that cyclists love to discuss things as if bad outcomes to themselves didn‘t matter as long as they are the ones responsible. That‘s no way to sensibly talk about traffic safety.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  At some UK junctions a cyclist riding through red will make virtually no difference to anyone; in the same way as motorist on some sections of motorway (ie freeway), in good conditions, driving over the speed limit will make virtually no difference. A car jumping the light leaves no room for another car; a cyclist doing it leaves more than enough room. Yes, if they're busting through a pedestrian crossing with pedestrians on, or going on to a narrow junction, etc.. then you're in to dangers similar to "not indicating" (something that puts me in danger as a pedestrian every day). A cyclist hitting a car, it's extraordinarily unlikely to kill anyone including themselves. The contrary is not so. That's why cyclists don't worry as much about the possibility of hurting others on the roads. Of course interactions with pedestrians are bad all round, but much worse physically for cyclists than for vehicle drivers. There are imbalances, ignoring them doesn't make anyone safer.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Are you really claiming that a car running a red light with speed v1 and crashing into a cyclist with speed v2 is more dangerous than a cyclist running a red light with speed v2 and crashing into a car with speed v1? That‘s ludicrous. The situations are perfectly symmetrical.
- dasil003 8y ago
  There’s a difference between reckless driving/cycling and running a red light. There are in fact many ways to safely or unsafely do so for both types of vehicles. This needs to be acknowledged first, because there are situations where it’s actually safer (getting out of the way of aggro drivers just as the light turns) or necessary (lights only triggered by sensor that doesn’t pick up a bike).
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Sure, but who wouldn‘t acknowledge that? Nobody is talking about these edge cases.
- Fishkins 8y ago
  The research I've read recently indicates (responsibly) running red lights and stop signs decreases a cyclist's chance of getting hit. When stopped, a cyclist is less visible and mobile. Vehicles can be less likely to see them, and they're less able to maneuver out of dangerous situations. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... (I've seen other sources, but this is the first one I found first just now)
  - Tomte 8y ago
    That's only a discussion on the probability of a crash. I'm talking about the effect, given a crash has occured. Because people in this thread claim that it's virtually impossible for a cyclist to get killed when crashing into a car. Only a car crashing into a cyclist could possibly kill the latter. And that's nonsense.

Tomte 8y ago

Of course it is just as dangerous. We‘re not talking about a cyclist killing a car driver, we‘re talking about a cyclist getting killed. That can easily happen with a cyclist running a red light. I find it strange that cyclists love to discuss things as if bad outcomes to themselves didn‘t matter as long as they are the ones responsible. That‘s no way to sensibly talk about traffic safety.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
At some UK junctions a cyclist riding through red will make virtually no difference to anyone; in the same way as motorist on some sections of motorway (ie freeway), in good conditions, driving over the speed limit will make virtually no difference. A car jumping the light leaves no room for another car; a cyclist doing it leaves more than enough room. Yes, if they're busting through a pedestrian crossing with pedestrians on, or going on to a narrow junction, etc.. then you're in to dangers similar to "not indicating" (something that puts me in danger as a pedestrian every day). A cyclist hitting a car, it's extraordinarily unlikely to kill anyone including themselves. The contrary is not so. That's why cyclists don't worry as much about the possibility of hurting others on the roads. Of course interactions with pedestrians are bad all round, but much worse physically for cyclists than for vehicle drivers. There are imbalances, ignoring them doesn't make anyone safer.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Are you really claiming that a car running a red light with speed v1 and crashing into a cyclist with speed v2 is more dangerous than a cyclist running a red light with speed v2 and crashing into a car with speed v1? That‘s ludicrous. The situations are perfectly symmetrical.
dasil003 8y ago
There’s a difference between reckless driving/cycling and running a red light. There are in fact many ways to safely or unsafely do so for both types of vehicles. This needs to be acknowledged first, because there are situations where it’s actually safer (getting out of the way of aggro drivers just as the light turns) or necessary (lights only triggered by sensor that doesn’t pick up a bike).
- Tomte 8y ago
  Sure, but who wouldn‘t acknowledge that? Nobody is talking about these edge cases.
Fishkins 8y ago
The research I've read recently indicates (responsibly) running red lights and stop signs decreases a cyclist's chance of getting hit. When stopped, a cyclist is less visible and mobile. Vehicles can be less likely to see them, and they're less able to maneuver out of dangerous situations. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-getting-around-20161211-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... (I've seen other sources, but this is the first one I found first just now)
- Tomte 8y ago
  That's only a discussion on the probability of a crash. I'm talking about the effect, given a crash has occured. Because people in this thread claim that it's virtually impossible for a cyclist to get killed when crashing into a car. Only a car crashing into a cyclist could possibly kill the latter. And that's nonsense.