4 ms·

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 involv

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
  > 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. It's the net effect of both. From a consequentialist perspective it does not make much sense to focus so heavily on cyclists running red lights. Drivers speeding is much more dangerous and occurs at a much higher frequency, yet it is much more socially acceptable than cyclists running red lights.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > Drivers speeding is much more dangerous and occurs at a much higher frequency, yet it is much more socially acceptable than cyclists running red lights. Unless you're on a road which was designed and marked with the expectation of mild speeding, which as far as I understand is most of them. In that case it puts you at the target level of danger, not an increased level of danger.
- megaremote 8y ago
  Everything cyclists do generally only harms themselves, everything cars do generally harm others. Not sure why this is so complicated to you. Cars are killing machines, which kill 40,000 people a year in the US, more than guns.

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
> 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. It's the net effect of both. From a consequentialist perspective it does not make much sense to focus so heavily on cyclists running red lights. Drivers speeding is much more dangerous and occurs at a much higher frequency, yet it is much more socially acceptable than cyclists running red lights.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > Drivers speeding is much more dangerous and occurs at a much higher frequency, yet it is much more socially acceptable than cyclists running red lights. Unless you're on a road which was designed and marked with the expectation of mild speeding, which as far as I understand is most of them. In that case it puts you at the target level of danger, not an increased level of danger.
megaremote 8y ago
Everything cyclists do generally only harms themselves, everything cars do generally harm others. Not sure why this is so complicated to you. Cars are killing machines, which kill 40,000 people a year in the US, more than guns.