3 ms·
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 mos
by 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.
- btrettel 8y agoNowhere am I arguing that cyclists running red lights is acceptable or excusable. My argument is that drivers speeding is often seen as acceptable, but cyclists running red lights is not, and I'm trying to highlight the asymmetry in the effects. > 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 85th percentile rule is meant for highways to my knowledge, not every road. Edit: Here's a criticism of the 85th percentile rule: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/25/speed-kills-so-why-do-we-keep-designing-for-it https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/25/speed-kills-so...