4 ms·

Running red lights is considerably more unsafe than speeding.

by sonnyblarney 8y ago

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.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    Fair points. I'm thinking about the net effects rather than per act.
- hibikir 8y ago
  You are misinterpreting the grandparent: Their claim is comparing an event of running a red light vs speeding once. Your statistics have the incidence of both behaviors already baked in. So with your numbers, you could say that all the speeding your average driver does in a year is riskier than all the red light running they do in a year. It's precisely the difference in the incidence of the behavior that matters here though. I don't have specific numbers, but I think it's a very safe claim that most drivers speed far more often than they run red lights. Many a commuter will be speeding a large percentage of the time they are not in a traffic jam. On the other hand, I don't see of any people in the US that just run any and all red lights as a matter of course. And why does it happen that way? Because we realize that running a red light in most circumstances is crazy dangerous. People tend to try to avoid extremely dangerous behavior if they can help it, so you will find few fatalities per year, but that's because almost nobody does it. How many Americans die each year to Russian roulette? Probably fewer than either red lights or speeding, although I'd say playing Russian roulette is far more dangerous than either. Given the numbers you found, running a red light would be just as dangerous as speeding if people ran a red light 13 times less often than they speed (for whichever time definition we choose for a unit of speeding). I suspect that people speed far more often than that, compared to running red lights. We are in a similar boat regarding people killed in traffic by cyclists. How many cyclist-hours do we see in US roads, vs cars? There's also probably very few people killed in the US by being killed by T-35 tanks running red lights, but that's not because T-35s are safe and we should just use them and then ignore traffic signals. Running someone over with a bicycle while running a red light is still probably far less dangerous than acting the same way in a car, or an old T-35, but we can't tell that just by looking at fatalities alone.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    I agree with your basic point; see firethief's comment. My larger point is this: If we want to minimize fatalities then we should focus on what causes the most fatalities. Speeding is a contributor to far more fatalities than cyclists running red lights, yet speeding is socially acceptable and cyclists running red lights is not. Neither should be socially acceptable.
  - gnopgnip 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.
- btrettel 8y ago
  Fair points. I'm thinking about the net effects rather than per act.
hibikir 8y ago
You are misinterpreting the grandparent: Their claim is comparing an event of running a red light vs speeding once. Your statistics have the incidence of both behaviors already baked in. So with your numbers, you could say that all the speeding your average driver does in a year is riskier than all the red light running they do in a year. It's precisely the difference in the incidence of the behavior that matters here though. I don't have specific numbers, but I think it's a very safe claim that most drivers speed far more often than they run red lights. Many a commuter will be speeding a large percentage of the time they are not in a traffic jam. On the other hand, I don't see of any people in the US that just run any and all red lights as a matter of course. And why does it happen that way? Because we realize that running a red light in most circumstances is crazy dangerous. People tend to try to avoid extremely dangerous behavior if they can help it, so you will find few fatalities per year, but that's because almost nobody does it. How many Americans die each year to Russian roulette? Probably fewer than either red lights or speeding, although I'd say playing Russian roulette is far more dangerous than either. Given the numbers you found, running a red light would be just as dangerous as speeding if people ran a red light 13 times less often than they speed (for whichever time definition we choose for a unit of speeding). I suspect that people speed far more often than that, compared to running red lights. We are in a similar boat regarding people killed in traffic by cyclists. How many cyclist-hours do we see in US roads, vs cars? There's also probably very few people killed in the US by being killed by T-35 tanks running red lights, but that's not because T-35s are safe and we should just use them and then ignore traffic signals. Running someone over with a bicycle while running a red light is still probably far less dangerous than acting the same way in a car, or an old T-35, but we can't tell that just by looking at fatalities alone.
- btrettel 8y ago
  I agree with your basic point; see firethief's comment. My larger point is this: If we want to minimize fatalities then we should focus on what causes the most fatalities. Speeding is a contributor to far more fatalities than cyclists running red lights, yet speeding is socially acceptable and cyclists running red lights is not. Neither should be socially acceptable.
- gnopgnip 8y ago