8 ms·

When I think of "normalization of deviance" I focus more on mundane things like speeding. I'm a cyclist. People often ask me why cyclists break the law so freq

When I think of "normalization of deviance" I focus more on mundane things like speeding. I'm a cyclist. People often ask me why cyclists break the law so frequently. The studies I've looked at don't suggest cyclists break the law any more frequently than drivers do, but they do break different laws. (To my knowledge I follow every applicable traffic law.) When I ask the driver I'm speaking with if they speed I frequently get a justification of speeding as if it's perfectly safe because "everyone does it". In terms of problems people should focus on, cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves (e.g., running a red light), while drivers break laws in ways that tend to harm others in addition to themselves (e.g., speeding, failure to yield, etc.). The fact that drivers vastly outnumber cyclists also makes the priorities even more clear.

GordonS 8y ago
> cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves (e.g., running a red light) Running a red light could easily harm others - a driver could swerve to avoid you, crashing in the process; if a driver hits you because you ran a light, that could also cause a chain of accidents; and if a driver killed you because you ran a red light, that could seriously harm their wellbeing.
- computerfriend 8y ago
  They said "mostly" and, while your comment is undoubtedly true, it is a little bit disingenuous to suggest those things as likely when cyclists are the most vulnerable road users.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    > disingenuous to suggest those things as likely when cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Why is it disingenuous? Cyclists can be jerks too
    - nitrogen 8y ago
      As a pedestriab I've been nearly hit by a cyclist way more often than nearly hit by a car. Running red lights on a bike in a city is very dangerous to people crossing the street.
      - tomc1985 8y ago
        I live in an area where cycling is really only done by the poor and certain enviro-progressives and unfortunately it seems like many of these folks don't seem to give a shit about cars -- blowing through four-way stops, occupying the entire lane of a two-lane country road, and just generally being a nuisance. It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here but it really is the best thing some of these people can/should do (at cruising speeds, anyway)
        btrettel 8y ago
        > It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here but it really is the best thing some of these people can/should do (at cruising speeds, anyway) Riding bikes on the sidewalk is known to be more dangerous than riding on the road: http://bicyclesafe.com/#crosswalk http://bicyclesafe.com/#crosswalk
      - megaremote 8y ago
        Cool. Now, how many pedestrians do you think were killed by cars last year, and how many by cyclists? Or does dying not really worry you?
        GordonS 8y ago
        One does not excuse the other.
        tomc1985 8y ago
        There are way more cars than cyclists
    - lmm 8y ago
      Because the harm done by cyclists is a tiny fraction of that done by drivers. Jerk cyclists very occasionally kill pedestrians, whereas jerk drivers kill pedestrians all the time. So it's disingenuous to equate them.
- coding123 8y ago
  Seriously, we should install governors and bike control software on all bikes because they are killing 102 (1) people per day!! 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...
- btrettel 8y ago
  As computerfriend pointed out, I said mostly. There are many possible ways a cyclist running a red light could go wrong, but I think the majority of them involve harm going primarily if not exclusively to the cyclist.
  - bartread 8y ago
    Not at a pedestrian crossing. I see this all the time in Cambridge. If you run a red light at a pedestrian crossing the most likely thing that could go wrong is that you hit a pedestrian. Hopefully they won't be badly injured, but they might be. Please don't do this.
    - btrettel 8y ago
      > Please don't do this. Was this advice intended for me? I don't run red lights or stop signs, and am particularly careful in pedestrian heavy areas. Cyclists have killed pedestrians before, e.g., Chris Bucchere: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicyclist-convicted-in-SF-pedestrian-s-death-13131019.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicy...
      - bartread 8y ago
        > Was this advice intended for me? No, all cyclists.
  - escape_goat 8y ago
    Your claim was that "cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves", and you cited running a red light, although I suspect running a stop-sign is much more commonplace. As I am sure you know, these are considered to be quite dangerous and serious traffic violations when performed by a car, to the extent that most drivers would not even run a red light if stopped at an intersection with no opposing traffic visible. By comparison, it is difficult for cyclists to speed on most roads, but there is no evidence to suggest that they would be any less inclined to do so than drivers were the speed attainable and were it to seem subjectively reasonable. These are "different laws" in the sense that one is a violation of a safety margin designed to allow prompt braking under all circumstances and the other is an unexpected, unpredictable violation of the rules governing patterns of traffic behaviour. This makes me think that the "difference" you cite is less a matter of which laws the cyclist chooses to break, and rather more due to the vehicle with which the cyclist chooses to break them. Were cyclists likewise equipped with an exterior body and 1-2 tonnes of mass they would be responsible for a wholesale slaughter. Unlike the selfish car driver, of course, the cyclist at least has the ethical honesty to knowingly commit to breaking specific laws, secure in the knowledge that they will only harm themselves, their loved ones, and the driver of the car that kills them.
- btrettel 8y ago
  > if a driver killed you because you ran a red light, that could seriously harm their wellbeing While there are people who would be seriously bothered if they inadvertently contributed to a cyclist's death, I think the number of such people is smaller than the number of people who claim they would be bothered. One only needs to look at their revealed preferences to show this. Given the choice between waiting a minute or two (estimated 95th percentile; the median is likely around 15 seconds) to safely pass a cyclist, many drivers instead choose to pass a cyclist very closely and dangerously. If they actually would be bothered if they killed a cyclist, why do they do this? My life is not worth a minute of someone's time. Of course, the bad drivers could claim that they didn't know passing a cyclist closely was dangerous, but in my experience few drivers claim that. I've spoken to many drivers when stopped at stop lights, trying to understand their perspective. Often they imply that I deserve to be passed dangerous because I broke some rules of the road. So they can't claim ignorance. (The "rules" I broke are not actually rules. For example, I've had people tell me that I was going far below the speed limit when I was going 17-18 mph in a 15 mph zone. I intentionally picked that road because of the low speed limit, yet some people want to drive 40+ mph there and apparently that makes me a jerk who deserves to be run over.)
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    You cannot use driver behavior in the absence of an accident to infer the emotional impact of killing someone...
    - btrettel 8y ago
      Why? These drivers often show no remorse for their actions, as I stated. I don't doubt I'd be a victim of a hit-and-run if any of those drivers actually did cause a collision. I've seen arguments that people are "different" when driving, so perhaps they're a jerk when behind the wheel but a normal person otherwise. I haven't seen any clear evidence for this but it would indicate that the emotional impact would be different.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
- wongarsu 8y ago
  In all those examples the cyclist is still the one with the highest stakes by far. When a cyclist runs a red light it's vastly more probable that he get killed than that some innocent pedestrian gets killed by a swerving car (and the chances that the driver of a car gets killed are basically 0). While that doesn't absolve them of all responsibility it is morally much more justifiable than for example a car speeding.
josephorjoe 8y ago
I know someone who hasn’t driven since a cyclist ran a red light and crashed right into the middle of the passenger side front door (which had to be replaced for >$500 of which the cyclist paid $0). There was also a kid in the back seat who was pretty upset for a long time. And the cyclist had a pretty bad day too. Running a red light is dangerous and can have plenty of collateral damage.
- btrettel 8y ago
  My point wasn't that bad things can't happen when cyclists run red lights, and nowhere in my post did I justify running red lights. Again, when a cyclist runs a red light the potential harm is mostly on the cyclist. You can find plenty of real world examples of cyclists harming others from running stop signs or red lights, e.g., the Chris Bucchere case comes immediately to mind: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicyclist-convicted-in-SF-pedestrian-s-death-13131019.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicy... The number of these cases where bad cycling caused harm to others is much smaller than the number of cases where bad driving caused harm to others. That's my point.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    You are technically correct, but it is the worst kind of correct. Because you are arguing a losing case with a valid point. That most of the time they will mostly only harm themselves does not actually make the law breaking excusable. Contrast this to speeding. Speed limits by law should be set to the 85th percentile speed, based on the evidence backed notion that drivers will predominantly pick a speed which is safe based on the road conditions, and that it’s most safe when drivers are all proceeding at the same speed. The vast majority of every day speeding that I witness, and that I participate in, is of the kind where the limit is set illegally low due to political pressure or other factors, and the predominant and safest speed is higher than the limit. This is true, for example, for many highways in MA which have limits of 55 mph. That’s not to say that I never truly speed, which I shouldn’t do, and is entirely unjustified.
    - 8y ago
pdonis 8y ago
Speeding doesn't cause harm. Having an accident causes harm. And traffic engineers say that speed limits are set in the expectation that the average speed on the highway will be 5 to 10 percent higher than the posted limit, which means that the posted speed limit itself is not supposed to be a hard limit such that exceeding it is "deviance".
- fenwick67 8y ago
  If the posted limit wasn't supposed to be a limit then why do you get a ticket for exceeding it?
  - bitdivision 8y ago
    Of you're going <10% over the limit you normally won't get a ticket in my experience.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    As bitdivision points out, mostly you don't if you're going within the range the traffic engineers gave (less than 10 percent over the posted limit). But what that really means is that enforcement is at the discretion of the police--which in turn means that, for example, many localities have speed traps where they all of a sudden enforce the posted limit strictly in order to increase their revenue. Or police have a quota of a certain number of tickets per month, and if it's towards the end of the month and they're having trouble meeting quota, they pick some locations and decide to strictly enforce the speed limits there until they have enough tickets for the month. All of this just reinforces my point that the posted speed limit is not set on the basis of preventing accidents, but for other reasons.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Artificial arbitrary limits. There's no question that many jurisdictions decrease speed limits to below what the road sustains, primarily for taxation without representation (speeding tickets). The road's natural limit is what the road should be. Of course, there's souped up muscle cars and the like that can run 150mph all day.. But those kinds of cars are outliers. I'm talking about the 2 lane road that used to be 45 near our house, that got shoved to 35. Or 55->30->55 within a half mile for bumfucksville... but that cop is sitting right there on the 30.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> To my knowledge I follow every applicable traffic law. Don't hedge it. Either you follow the laws or you don't. There are no irrelevant laws. Too many bikes think certain laws are not applicable to them, the biggest example being speeding. The laws are applicable to all.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Lots of traffic laws on the books are irrelevant to actual safe use of the road. -No attachments like dashcams on the windshield in NJ. Fine if you attach it to the dash instead and it goes to the same spot. Arbitrary and useless. -Technically illegal to turn left across a solid yellow in many states. Universally ignored. -Speed limits often too low, sometimes too high. -Can't go through yellow lights in some states
- btrettel 8y ago
  That's an uncharitable reading of my post. By applicable I meant laws that apply where I am, e.g., I am in Texas right now so I don't follow the laws of another state.
ehnto 8y ago
I commute by bicycle from the burbs to the city, and whenever I break a rule it's almost always to get out of the way to help cars out, or to keep myself safer in some way. Sometimes I'll get ready for a hook turn by using the pedestrian crossing lights and footpath instead of blocking the turning lane for instance. It probably looks like I'm jumping the red because I'm impatient, but I'm just saving everyone some time and making my day a bit safer. Another example, I tend to pull over the stop line at stop lights, so that cars don't accidentally creep into me. It happens even in designated "cycle boxes", which cars are supposed to stop behind to increase visibility of cyclists. Sometimes you can get into a situation where you're in more exposure than you originally bargained for as well, when new cars show up or the situation changes, and I'll sometimes abandon the original plan and bail off the road when it's safe. Often breaking some laws when doing so, but I'm going to take responsibility for my own safety when I need to. What I dislike seeing is cyclists just flying through reds, darting over crosswalks when pedestrians are still crossing, or weaving in out of moving cars so they can feel like an NYC bike messenger for a minute. It's not without consequence to others, you just don't notice that people had to jump out of the way or slow down so they didn't hit you. That makes it bad sportsmanship in my eyes.
- firethief 8y ago
  > Another example, I tend to pull over the stop line at stop lights, so that cars don't accidentally creep into me. It happens even in designated "cycle boxes", which cars are supposed to stop behind to increase visibility of cyclists. On top of that, I have encountered lights where if you don't do this, you will hold up traffic indefinitely because the light only changes when something bigger (heavier? more metallic?) than a bike is at the stop line
username223 8y ago
> People often ask me why cyclists break the law so frequently. At least where I've ridden in the States, cyclists tend to be treated as something between cars and pedestrians. For example, a driver often squeezes by you on a 2-lane road with oncoming traffic. In these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that cyclists make up their own rules. I regularly break the laws for cars on a bike, because I am more maneuverable, and I'm the one who's toast if either of us makes a mistake. When deviance is normal, you have to adapt.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tomc1985 8y ago
" harm only themselves " would apply to lots of violations when you're not driving a moving, multi-ton brick-on-wheels
- btrettel 8y ago
  And? If there's an asymmetry in the risk, that means you should account for the asymmetry. Over the years I've noticed some people seem to think that merely categorizing an argument is enough to refute it, but you need to explain why arguments in a particular category are bad. (Yes, I am aware this post may be perceived as an example of the bad argument I just mentioned, though I did justify it.)
billfruit 8y ago
I think matters are complicated in this regard, I have heard that cyclists count as pedestrians (and not as vehicular traffic) in some jurisdictions/countries, so in such cases they can even and should ride on the opposite side of the road from vehicular traffic. I thought it was safer if cycling on roads, to ride forward on to the one coming traffic, rather than have traffic come up from behind you.
- btrettel 8y ago
  http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway Wrong way cycling is much much more dangerous than right way from what I understand.
JackFr 8y ago
> cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves Clearly you're not a pedestrian in Manhattan.
- scottlegrand2 8y ago
  Or SF... https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for...
  - btrettel 8y ago
    I mentioned Chris Bucchere in several other posts. You and the poster above you also miss the point: Drivers cause much more harm than cyclists in total, yet drivers speeding is deemed much more acceptable than cyclists running red lights. I don't doubt that cyclists can harm pedestrians or others, and I don't believe that cyclists breaking the law is acceptable. Just that when cyclists break the law the amount of potential damage is much more limited than when drivers do.
    - scottlegrand2 8y ago
      I think you ought to compare a driver running a red light vs a cyclist running a red light to make this point. I might even agree with you, but speeding is conceivably even safer than going the speed limit if everyone else around you is doing the same thing no matter what the law says. Running traffic signals on the other hand is just plain stupid and self-centered no matter what you're piloting at the time.
      - btrettel 8y ago
        I can compare drivers running red lights to cyclists running red lights based on my experience. I don't believe there's any hard data on this. From what I can tell, drivers tend to run red lights either because the light just changed and they couldn't stop in time or because they're distracted. In contrast, cyclists who run red lights tend to wait for traffic to clear. I didn't realize the difference until I tried talking to cyclists who run red lights (not recommended by the way; they tend to be jerks). So in that sense the two are not comparable. Plus, as bikes tend to weigh less and travel less fast than cars, the potential for harm for a cyclist running a red light is greatly reduced compared against a driver running a red light. Here are some helmet cam videos that I took that show red light running drivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv_3D-1ehA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv_3D-1ehA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JispW0pTQGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JispW0pTQGA After the first video, I saw that the driver stopped nearby, so I went to speak with them. They admitted they were distracted. I have no idea what happened in the second video. If I were not paying attention in both cases I would not be writing this post now. In contrast, if a cyclist did the same then I'd probably be here. That's not to say that all cyclists who run red lights look carefully. Here's a helmet cam video that I took which shows a cyclist brazenly running a red light in a way that I think is particularly dangerous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRA4060C-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRA4060C-k And here's a more recent video of mine showing a Bird scooter rider running a red light: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Bl1ZhMvxbLliIyNkNe_Aj3QWDbPznzp https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Bl1ZhMvxbLliIyNkNe_Aj3QWD... (Apologies for the language.) This last one was probably the most dangerous time someone ran a red light that I've personally seen. I was wearing a high-viz jacket at the time and find it hard to believe they would not see me if they looked. They might have been blinded by the sun. As for speeding being safer, sure, that's true sometimes, but what's the net effect? Just focusing on the good isn't representative. I also sometimes see people bring the time saved from speeding into consideration, but in my experience speeding doesn't save much time unless you're on the highway. If you're in a more densely populated area with traffic lights, your speed is more limited by the traffic lights than anything else. I know this as a cyclist because it's not uncommon for me to see the same people at each light during my commute. The effective traffic speed is doable for a cyclist. Speeding won't get you there faster.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Running red lights is considerably more unsafe than speeding.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago
  Both completely depend on circumstances. So much so that it's pointless to compare them without specifics.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    No, it's not. Running a red light is pretty dangerous in almost any context. Running red lights consistently will 100% yield accidents. Speeding is normative, it's something that everyone does, every single time they drive. For speeding up to 20K above limit, you often don't get a ticket. Doing 120 on a 100 km/h road is normative. If it was 'very dangerous' the police could easily enforce a 100 cap. Running red lights consistently will probably kill you, and if a cop sees you doing it, you will 100% get pulled over.
- btrettel 8y ago
  Not true. In the US, running a red light contributes to 700-800 traffic fatalities per year [1]. In contrast, speeding contributes to about 10,000 fatalities per year [2]. [1] https://www.autoaccident.com/statistics-on-intersection-accidents.html https://www.autoaccident.com/statistics-on-intersection-acci... [2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding You might want to look at something other than fatalities, sure, but this simple analysis suggests that speeding is more than an order of magnitude worse. Edit: And if we look at the total number of people killed in traffic by cyclists each year, I don't even know where to start, because it seems to occur so infrequently that no one keeps statistics on it. I'd be very surprised if it were more than 5 per year.
  - firethief 8y ago
    That shows that speeding it's a greater source of unsafety, but I wouldn't be surprised if running a red light is less than 7/100ths as common as speeding, in which case that statistic would support running a red light being the more dangerous act.
Swenrekcah 8y ago
People are responding angrily to your comment about running a red light. That’s understandable as it can be extremely dangerous for everyone involved. There is however a good rule I heard was in use somewhere: Cyclists can regard stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs.
- btrettel 8y ago
  To reiterate a point I've made several times here: I'm not advocating for running red lights. Quite the contrary. I think all cyclists should stop at stop signs and wait for red lights. My broader point is that cyclists running red lights gets a lot of attention, but ultimately drivers speeding causes much more harm, yet that is accepted by society at large.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    Motorists run red lights differently to cyclists, because you are at the front of the lights you just don't see it. However, watch any lights in the UK and you will be shocked at how many motorists waltz through after the lights have gone red, waaay after the amber light has gone out. As a cyclist you filter to the front so you just don't see this as often as it happens. Statistically there are more cars on the roads than bicycles so the majority or red light jumping is almost certainly by cars. On a bike it is just a bit more blatant with turns on left (UK) made that motorists would never do if there was a red light stopping them. Jumping pedestrian crossings - 'pelican crossings' - is another thing. Cyclists get this wrong but there is also a lot of common sense, if people have crossed already, why stop? Plus if the traffic was cyclists and buses then these crossings would not be needed. Funny the flack you have got here.

GordonS 8y ago

> cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves (e.g., running a red light) Running a red light could easily harm others - a driver could swerve to avoid you, crashing in the process; if a driver hits you because you ran a light, that could also cause a chain of accidents; and if a driver killed you because you ran a red light, that could seriously harm their wellbeing.

computerfriend 8y ago
They said "mostly" and, while your comment is undoubtedly true, it is a little bit disingenuous to suggest those things as likely when cyclists are the most vulnerable road users.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  > disingenuous to suggest those things as likely when cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Why is it disingenuous? Cyclists can be jerks too
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    As a pedestriab I've been nearly hit by a cyclist way more often than nearly hit by a car. Running red lights on a bike in a city is very dangerous to people crossing the street.
    - tomc1985 8y ago
      I live in an area where cycling is really only done by the poor and certain enviro-progressives and unfortunately it seems like many of these folks don't seem to give a shit about cars -- blowing through four-way stops, occupying the entire lane of a two-lane country road, and just generally being a nuisance. It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here but it really is the best thing some of these people can/should do (at cruising speeds, anyway)
      - btrettel 8y ago
        > It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here but it really is the best thing some of these people can/should do (at cruising speeds, anyway) Riding bikes on the sidewalk is known to be more dangerous than riding on the road: http://bicyclesafe.com/#crosswalk http://bicyclesafe.com/#crosswalk
    - megaremote 8y ago
      Cool. Now, how many pedestrians do you think were killed by cars last year, and how many by cyclists? Or does dying not really worry you?
      - GordonS 8y ago
        One does not excuse the other.
      - tomc1985 8y ago
        There are way more cars than cyclists
  - lmm 8y ago
    Because the harm done by cyclists is a tiny fraction of that done by drivers. Jerk cyclists very occasionally kill pedestrians, whereas jerk drivers kill pedestrians all the time. So it's disingenuous to equate them.
coding123 8y ago
Seriously, we should install governors and bike control software on all bikes because they are killing 102 (1) people per day!! 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...
btrettel 8y ago
As computerfriend pointed out, I said mostly. There are many possible ways a cyclist running a red light could go wrong, but I think the majority of them involve harm going primarily if not exclusively to the cyclist.
- bartread 8y ago
  Not at a pedestrian crossing. I see this all the time in Cambridge. If you run a red light at a pedestrian crossing the most likely thing that could go wrong is that you hit a pedestrian. Hopefully they won't be badly injured, but they might be. Please don't do this.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    > Please don't do this. Was this advice intended for me? I don't run red lights or stop signs, and am particularly careful in pedestrian heavy areas. Cyclists have killed pedestrians before, e.g., Chris Bucchere: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicyclist-convicted-in-SF-pedestrian-s-death-13131019.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicy...
    - bartread 8y ago
      > Was this advice intended for me? No, all cyclists.
- escape_goat 8y ago
  Your claim was that "cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves", and you cited running a red light, although I suspect running a stop-sign is much more commonplace. As I am sure you know, these are considered to be quite dangerous and serious traffic violations when performed by a car, to the extent that most drivers would not even run a red light if stopped at an intersection with no opposing traffic visible. By comparison, it is difficult for cyclists to speed on most roads, but there is no evidence to suggest that they would be any less inclined to do so than drivers were the speed attainable and were it to seem subjectively reasonable. These are "different laws" in the sense that one is a violation of a safety margin designed to allow prompt braking under all circumstances and the other is an unexpected, unpredictable violation of the rules governing patterns of traffic behaviour. This makes me think that the "difference" you cite is less a matter of which laws the cyclist chooses to break, and rather more due to the vehicle with which the cyclist chooses to break them. Were cyclists likewise equipped with an exterior body and 1-2 tonnes of mass they would be responsible for a wholesale slaughter. Unlike the selfish car driver, of course, the cyclist at least has the ethical honesty to knowingly commit to breaking specific laws, secure in the knowledge that they will only harm themselves, their loved ones, and the driver of the car that kills them.
btrettel 8y ago
> if a driver killed you because you ran a red light, that could seriously harm their wellbeing While there are people who would be seriously bothered if they inadvertently contributed to a cyclist's death, I think the number of such people is smaller than the number of people who claim they would be bothered. One only needs to look at their revealed preferences to show this. Given the choice between waiting a minute or two (estimated 95th percentile; the median is likely around 15 seconds) to safely pass a cyclist, many drivers instead choose to pass a cyclist very closely and dangerously. If they actually would be bothered if they killed a cyclist, why do they do this? My life is not worth a minute of someone's time. Of course, the bad drivers could claim that they didn't know passing a cyclist closely was dangerous, but in my experience few drivers claim that. I've spoken to many drivers when stopped at stop lights, trying to understand their perspective. Often they imply that I deserve to be passed dangerous because I broke some rules of the road. So they can't claim ignorance. (The "rules" I broke are not actually rules. For example, I've had people tell me that I was going far below the speed limit when I was going 17-18 mph in a 15 mph zone. I intentionally picked that road because of the low speed limit, yet some people want to drive 40+ mph there and apparently that makes me a jerk who deserves to be run over.)
- nitrogen 8y ago
  You cannot use driver behavior in the absence of an accident to infer the emotional impact of killing someone...
  - btrettel 8y ago
    Why? These drivers often show no remorse for their actions, as I stated. I don't doubt I'd be a victim of a hit-and-run if any of those drivers actually did cause a collision. I've seen arguments that people are "different" when driving, so perhaps they're a jerk when behind the wheel but a normal person otherwise. I haven't seen any clear evidence for this but it would indicate that the emotional impact would be different.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
wongarsu 8y ago
In all those examples the cyclist is still the one with the highest stakes by far. When a cyclist runs a red light it's vastly more probable that he get killed than that some innocent pedestrian gets killed by a swerving car (and the chances that the driver of a car gets killed are basically 0). While that doesn't absolve them of all responsibility it is morally much more justifiable than for example a car speeding.

josephorjoe 8y ago

I know someone who hasn’t driven since a cyclist ran a red light and crashed right into the middle of the passenger side front door (which had to be replaced for >$500 of which the cyclist paid $0). There was also a kid in the back seat who was pretty upset for a long time. And the cyclist had a pretty bad day too. Running a red light is dangerous and can have plenty of collateral damage.

btrettel 8y ago
My point wasn't that bad things can't happen when cyclists run red lights, and nowhere in my post did I justify running red lights. Again, when a cyclist runs a red light the potential harm is mostly on the cyclist. You can find plenty of real world examples of cyclists harming others from running stop signs or red lights, e.g., the Chris Bucchere case comes immediately to mind: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicyclist-convicted-in-SF-pedestrian-s-death-13131019.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicy... The number of these cases where bad cycling caused harm to others is much smaller than the number of cases where bad driving caused harm to others. That's my point.
- zaroth 8y ago
  You are technically correct, but it is the worst kind of correct. Because you are arguing a losing case with a valid point. That most of the time they will mostly only harm themselves does not actually make the law breaking excusable. Contrast this to speeding. Speed limits by law should be set to the 85th percentile speed, based on the evidence backed notion that drivers will predominantly pick a speed which is safe based on the road conditions, and that it’s most safe when drivers are all proceeding at the same speed. The vast majority of every day speeding that I witness, and that I participate in, is of the kind where the limit is set illegally low due to political pressure or other factors, and the predominant and safest speed is higher than the limit. This is true, for example, for many highways in MA which have limits of 55 mph. That’s not to say that I never truly speed, which I shouldn’t do, and is entirely unjustified.
  - 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

Speeding doesn't cause harm. Having an accident causes harm. And traffic engineers say that speed limits are set in the expectation that the average speed on the highway will be 5 to 10 percent higher than the posted limit, which means that the posted speed limit itself is not supposed to be a hard limit such that exceeding it is "deviance".

fenwick67 8y ago
If the posted limit wasn't supposed to be a limit then why do you get a ticket for exceeding it?
- bitdivision 8y ago
  Of you're going <10% over the limit you normally won't get a ticket in my experience.
- pdonis 8y ago
  As bitdivision points out, mostly you don't if you're going within the range the traffic engineers gave (less than 10 percent over the posted limit). But what that really means is that enforcement is at the discretion of the police--which in turn means that, for example, many localities have speed traps where they all of a sudden enforce the posted limit strictly in order to increase their revenue. Or police have a quota of a certain number of tickets per month, and if it's towards the end of the month and they're having trouble meeting quota, they pick some locations and decide to strictly enforce the speed limits there until they have enough tickets for the month. All of this just reinforces my point that the posted speed limit is not set on the basis of preventing accidents, but for other reasons.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Artificial arbitrary limits. There's no question that many jurisdictions decrease speed limits to below what the road sustains, primarily for taxation without representation (speeding tickets). The road's natural limit is what the road should be. Of course, there's souped up muscle cars and the like that can run 150mph all day.. But those kinds of cars are outliers. I'm talking about the 2 lane road that used to be 45 near our house, that got shoved to 35. Or 55->30->55 within a half mile for bumfucksville... but that cop is sitting right there on the 30.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> To my knowledge I follow every applicable traffic law. Don't hedge it. Either you follow the laws or you don't. There are no irrelevant laws. Too many bikes think certain laws are not applicable to them, the biggest example being speeding. The laws are applicable to all.

jimmaswell 8y ago
Lots of traffic laws on the books are irrelevant to actual safe use of the road. -No attachments like dashcams on the windshield in NJ. Fine if you attach it to the dash instead and it goes to the same spot. Arbitrary and useless. -Technically illegal to turn left across a solid yellow in many states. Universally ignored. -Speed limits often too low, sometimes too high. -Can't go through yellow lights in some states
btrettel 8y ago
That's an uncharitable reading of my post. By applicable I meant laws that apply where I am, e.g., I am in Texas right now so I don't follow the laws of another state.

ehnto 8y ago

I commute by bicycle from the burbs to the city, and whenever I break a rule it's almost always to get out of the way to help cars out, or to keep myself safer in some way. Sometimes I'll get ready for a hook turn by using the pedestrian crossing lights and footpath instead of blocking the turning lane for instance. It probably looks like I'm jumping the red because I'm impatient, but I'm just saving everyone some time and making my day a bit safer. Another example, I tend to pull over the stop line at stop lights, so that cars don't accidentally creep into me. It happens even in designated "cycle boxes", which cars are supposed to stop behind to increase visibility of cyclists. Sometimes you can get into a situation where you're in more exposure than you originally bargained for as well, when new cars show up or the situation changes, and I'll sometimes abandon the original plan and bail off the road when it's safe. Often breaking some laws when doing so, but I'm going to take responsibility for my own safety when I need to. What I dislike seeing is cyclists just flying through reds, darting over crosswalks when pedestrians are still crossing, or weaving in out of moving cars so they can feel like an NYC bike messenger for a minute. It's not without consequence to others, you just don't notice that people had to jump out of the way or slow down so they didn't hit you. That makes it bad sportsmanship in my eyes.

firethief 8y ago
> Another example, I tend to pull over the stop line at stop lights, so that cars don't accidentally creep into me. It happens even in designated "cycle boxes", which cars are supposed to stop behind to increase visibility of cyclists. On top of that, I have encountered lights where if you don't do this, you will hold up traffic indefinitely because the light only changes when something bigger (heavier? more metallic?) than a bike is at the stop line

username223 8y ago

> People often ask me why cyclists break the law so frequently. At least where I've ridden in the States, cyclists tend to be treated as something between cars and pedestrians. For example, a driver often squeezes by you on a 2-lane road with oncoming traffic. In these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that cyclists make up their own rules. I regularly break the laws for cars on a bike, because I am more maneuverable, and I'm the one who's toast if either of us makes a mistake. When deviance is normal, you have to adapt.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

tomc1985 8y ago

" harm only themselves " would apply to lots of violations when you're not driving a moving, multi-ton brick-on-wheels

btrettel 8y ago
And? If there's an asymmetry in the risk, that means you should account for the asymmetry. Over the years I've noticed some people seem to think that merely categorizing an argument is enough to refute it, but you need to explain why arguments in a particular category are bad. (Yes, I am aware this post may be perceived as an example of the bad argument I just mentioned, though I did justify it.)

billfruit 8y ago

I think matters are complicated in this regard, I have heard that cyclists count as pedestrians (and not as vehicular traffic) in some jurisdictions/countries, so in such cases they can even and should ride on the opposite side of the road from vehicular traffic. I thought it was safer if cycling on roads, to ride forward on to the one coming traffic, rather than have traffic come up from behind you.

btrettel 8y ago
http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway Wrong way cycling is much much more dangerous than right way from what I understand.

JackFr 8y ago

> cyclists tend to break laws in ways that mostly harm only themselves Clearly you're not a pedestrian in Manhattan.

scottlegrand2 8y ago
Or SF... https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for...
- btrettel 8y ago
  I mentioned Chris Bucchere in several other posts. You and the poster above you also miss the point: Drivers cause much more harm than cyclists in total, yet drivers speeding is deemed much more acceptable than cyclists running red lights. I don't doubt that cyclists can harm pedestrians or others, and I don't believe that cyclists breaking the law is acceptable. Just that when cyclists break the law the amount of potential damage is much more limited than when drivers do.
  - scottlegrand2 8y ago
    I think you ought to compare a driver running a red light vs a cyclist running a red light to make this point. I might even agree with you, but speeding is conceivably even safer than going the speed limit if everyone else around you is doing the same thing no matter what the law says. Running traffic signals on the other hand is just plain stupid and self-centered no matter what you're piloting at the time.
    - btrettel 8y ago
      I can compare drivers running red lights to cyclists running red lights based on my experience. I don't believe there's any hard data on this. From what I can tell, drivers tend to run red lights either because the light just changed and they couldn't stop in time or because they're distracted. In contrast, cyclists who run red lights tend to wait for traffic to clear. I didn't realize the difference until I tried talking to cyclists who run red lights (not recommended by the way; they tend to be jerks). So in that sense the two are not comparable. Plus, as bikes tend to weigh less and travel less fast than cars, the potential for harm for a cyclist running a red light is greatly reduced compared against a driver running a red light. Here are some helmet cam videos that I took that show red light running drivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv_3D-1ehA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv_3D-1ehA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JispW0pTQGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JispW0pTQGA After the first video, I saw that the driver stopped nearby, so I went to speak with them. They admitted they were distracted. I have no idea what happened in the second video. If I were not paying attention in both cases I would not be writing this post now. In contrast, if a cyclist did the same then I'd probably be here. That's not to say that all cyclists who run red lights look carefully. Here's a helmet cam video that I took which shows a cyclist brazenly running a red light in a way that I think is particularly dangerous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRA4060C-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRA4060C-k And here's a more recent video of mine showing a Bird scooter rider running a red light: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Bl1ZhMvxbLliIyNkNe_Aj3QWDbPznzp https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Bl1ZhMvxbLliIyNkNe_Aj3QWD... (Apologies for the language.) This last one was probably the most dangerous time someone ran a red light that I've personally seen. I was wearing a high-viz jacket at the time and find it hard to believe they would not see me if they looked. They might have been blinded by the sun. As for speeding being safer, sure, that's true sometimes, but what's the net effect? Just focusing on the good isn't representative. I also sometimes see people bring the time saved from speeding into consideration, but in my experience speeding doesn't save much time unless you're on the highway. If you're in a more densely populated area with traffic lights, your speed is more limited by the traffic lights than anything else. I know this as a cyclist because it's not uncommon for me to see the same people at each light during my commute. The effective traffic speed is doable for a cyclist. Speeding won't get you there faster.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Running red lights is considerably more unsafe than speeding.

nothrabannosir 8y ago
Both completely depend on circumstances. So much so that it's pointless to compare them without specifics.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, it's not. Running a red light is pretty dangerous in almost any context. Running red lights consistently will 100% yield accidents. Speeding is normative, it's something that everyone does, every single time they drive. For speeding up to 20K above limit, you often don't get a ticket. Doing 120 on a 100 km/h road is normative. If it was 'very dangerous' the police could easily enforce a 100 cap. Running red lights consistently will probably kill you, and if a cop sees you doing it, you will 100% get pulled over.
btrettel 8y ago
Not true. In the US, running a red light contributes to 700-800 traffic fatalities per year [1]. In contrast, speeding contributes to about 10,000 fatalities per year [2]. [1] https://www.autoaccident.com/statistics-on-intersection-accidents.html https://www.autoaccident.com/statistics-on-intersection-acci... [2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding You might want to look at something other than fatalities, sure, but this simple analysis suggests that speeding is more than an order of magnitude worse. Edit: And if we look at the total number of people killed in traffic by cyclists each year, I don't even know where to start, because it seems to occur so infrequently that no one keeps statistics on it. I'd be very surprised if it were more than 5 per year.
- firethief 8y ago
  That shows that speeding it's a greater source of unsafety, but I wouldn't be surprised if running a red light is less than 7/100ths as common as speeding, in which case that statistic would support running a red light being the more dangerous act.

Swenrekcah 8y ago

People are responding angrily to your comment about running a red light. That’s understandable as it can be extremely dangerous for everyone involved. There is however a good rule I heard was in use somewhere: Cyclists can regard stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs.

btrettel 8y ago
To reiterate a point I've made several times here: I'm not advocating for running red lights. Quite the contrary. I think all cyclists should stop at stop signs and wait for red lights. My broader point is that cyclists running red lights gets a lot of attention, but ultimately drivers speeding causes much more harm, yet that is accepted by society at large.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Motorists run red lights differently to cyclists, because you are at the front of the lights you just don't see it. However, watch any lights in the UK and you will be shocked at how many motorists waltz through after the lights have gone red, waaay after the amber light has gone out. As a cyclist you filter to the front so you just don't see this as often as it happens. Statistically there are more cars on the roads than bicycles so the majority or red light jumping is almost certainly by cars. On a bike it is just a bit more blatant with turns on left (UK) made that motorists would never do if there was a red light stopping them. Jumping pedestrian crossings - 'pelican crossings' - is another thing. Cyclists get this wrong but there is also a lot of common sense, if people have crossed already, why stop? Plus if the traffic was cyclists and buses then these crossings would not be needed. Funny the flack you have got here.