7 ms·

I don't run lights myself, but I don't agree with the theory of perfect symmetry of moving violations. The risk one poses to others by breaking traffic laws is

I don't run lights myself, but I don't agree with the theory of perfect symmetry of moving violations. The risk one poses to others by breaking traffic laws is different for a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car, a semi-trailer, and a jumbo jet. Insisting that all violations matter the same is nonsensical. In places, this recognition has actually been codified into law (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop).

vulcan01 6y ago
Oh wow that's interesting, I live in Washington State and I didn't know that we're getting the Idaho stop in October. It'll be an interesting change...
cgriswald 6y ago
I’m not really certain where I stand on that, but several thoughts come to mind. It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs it, he can kill the bicyclist. If the bicyclist runs it, the driver can kill the bicyclist. While the risk is not symmetrical the outcome is the same. One would think that the party with more risk would be less likely to run the stop sign but in my experience (which is probably not typical world wide) in the Bay Area the opposite is true. Although admittedly it seems the law just isn’t enforced here. Maybe unequal laws would more likely be enforced and some combination of personal risk plus enforcement would achieve the desired outcome. Additionally many bicyclists are also drivers. So it might be prudent to penalize them for the behavior equally so that it discourages the behavior in general and removes dangerous drivers more easily; assuming their behavior on different vehicles correlates.
- pmontra 6y ago
  I add another point. All cyclists are also pedestrians. Maybe not in the Bay Area but pedestrians often run traffic lights when there are no approaching vehicles. A cyclist feels closer to a pedestrian than to a driver in my experience. So, no traffic, no danger, run the traffic light. The same cyclist (and pedestria) will stop when driving a car.
  - Benji_San 6y ago
    As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my bike on the road I behave as a car. Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.
    - pmontra 6y ago
      Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years (roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    If there is no traffic then there is nobody to witness the cyclist, and nobody to get upset about 'bike culture'.
- ytpete 6y ago
  There are also pedestrians in the mix - so a cyclist running a red light can still pose a serious hazard to other people. In the Bay Area there have been cases of pedestrians killed, as well as serious injuries such as broken legs or arms. I'd also worry about bicycle-vs-bicycle collisions. Maybe density is too low to make this terribly likely, but it doesn't sound like a scenario that would go well either.
nwallin 6y ago
There's a problem with that. Lots of people who regularly drive cars but never cycle see cyclists flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis. It's easy to come to the conclusion that the reason cycling is so dangerous is because cyclists would rather throw themselves into oncoming traffic rather than dealing with the inconvenience of having to stop at stop lights. And when there are pushes for regulations to make cycling safer, they roll their eyes and vote against it, even when they're simple, effective, cheap measures. The seemingly widespread belief among cyclists that they don't need to follow the rules of the road is, in my opinion, a large part of the reason Americans are so opposed to changing said rules to make cycling safer. There are a very large number of Americans who believe the primary reason cyclists get hurt is because the cyclist was doing something dangerous.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > Lots of people who regularly drive cars but never cycle see cyclists flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis They also see many more cars flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis. On a normal late afternoon, I can stand outside the local supermarket and see 20+ cars jumping red lights, obstructing junctions, sitting on pedestrian crossings, etc. within half an hour. > cyclists would rather throw themselves into oncoming traffic rather than dealing with the inconvenience of having to stop at stop lights. Yes, as do a lot of car drivers.
  - pacala 6y ago
    I have seen maybe once or twice in a decade a driver running a red light. I see about 1 in 10 cyclists running a red light. The proportions aren't even close.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      Whereas in London, for example, I can see probably 80-110% of cyclists running a red light compared to cars on any given day depending where I stand.
      - 6y ago
mgraczyk 6y ago
I do not own a car and cycle every day in SF. I have seen 3 accidents and maybe 100 near misses involving cyclists and have been in a few myself. In all of them, it was the cyclists fault. Cyclists may have higher risks, but that doesn't seem to stop us from doing stupid dangerous things all the time. Although in fairness most near accidents I have seen are vagrants crossing a busy intersection without waiting for a green, seemingly with the intention of being run over.
- jamil7 6y ago
  The problem with these threads I find is they end up in anecdotes between cyclists and car drivers. I don't doubt you, I know there are idiots using all modes of transport but from years of cycling in different cities I can counter your points with a lot of my own involving car drivers acting incredibly irresponsibly and dangerously.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  When I drive in San Francisco I spend most of my effort watching out for bicyclists and pedestrians. Cars not as much, first they are easier to see. Lower percentage of stupid. Big enough that they tend not to come from unexpected places. I do that because I want to get out of this life without maiming or killing someone. I'm old enough to know it's long game and to know people that have accidentally killed people. And you don't want to go there. You might think that if it's not your fault it won't fuck with you. Trust me it will.

vulcan01 6y ago

Oh wow that's interesting, I live in Washington State and I didn't know that we're getting the Idaho stop in October. It'll be an interesting change...

cgriswald 6y ago

I’m not really certain where I stand on that, but several thoughts come to mind. It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs it, he can kill the bicyclist. If the bicyclist runs it, the driver can kill the bicyclist. While the risk is not symmetrical the outcome is the same. One would think that the party with more risk would be less likely to run the stop sign but in my experience (which is probably not typical world wide) in the Bay Area the opposite is true. Although admittedly it seems the law just isn’t enforced here. Maybe unequal laws would more likely be enforced and some combination of personal risk plus enforcement would achieve the desired outcome. Additionally many bicyclists are also drivers. So it might be prudent to penalize them for the behavior equally so that it discourages the behavior in general and removes dangerous drivers more easily; assuming their behavior on different vehicles correlates.

pmontra 6y ago
I add another point. All cyclists are also pedestrians. Maybe not in the Bay Area but pedestrians often run traffic lights when there are no approaching vehicles. A cyclist feels closer to a pedestrian than to a driver in my experience. So, no traffic, no danger, run the traffic light. The same cyclist (and pedestria) will stop when driving a car.
- Benji_San 6y ago
  As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my bike on the road I behave as a car. Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years (roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.
- hinkley 6y ago
  If there is no traffic then there is nobody to witness the cyclist, and nobody to get upset about 'bike culture'.
ytpete 6y ago
There are also pedestrians in the mix - so a cyclist running a red light can still pose a serious hazard to other people. In the Bay Area there have been cases of pedestrians killed, as well as serious injuries such as broken legs or arms. I'd also worry about bicycle-vs-bicycle collisions. Maybe density is too low to make this terribly likely, but it doesn't sound like a scenario that would go well either.

nwallin 6y ago

There's a problem with that. Lots of people who regularly drive cars but never cycle see cyclists flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis. It's easy to come to the conclusion that the reason cycling is so dangerous is because cyclists would rather throw themselves into oncoming traffic rather than dealing with the inconvenience of having to stop at stop lights. And when there are pushes for regulations to make cycling safer, they roll their eyes and vote against it, even when they're simple, effective, cheap measures. The seemingly widespread belief among cyclists that they don't need to follow the rules of the road is, in my opinion, a large part of the reason Americans are so opposed to changing said rules to make cycling safer. There are a very large number of Americans who believe the primary reason cyclists get hurt is because the cyclist was doing something dangerous.

zimpenfish 6y ago
> Lots of people who regularly drive cars but never cycle see cyclists flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis They also see many more cars flagrantly ignoring the law on a regular basis. On a normal late afternoon, I can stand outside the local supermarket and see 20+ cars jumping red lights, obstructing junctions, sitting on pedestrian crossings, etc. within half an hour. > cyclists would rather throw themselves into oncoming traffic rather than dealing with the inconvenience of having to stop at stop lights. Yes, as do a lot of car drivers.
- pacala 6y ago
  I have seen maybe once or twice in a decade a driver running a red light. I see about 1 in 10 cyclists running a red light. The proportions aren't even close.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    Whereas in London, for example, I can see probably 80-110% of cyclists running a red light compared to cars on any given day depending where I stand.
    - 6y ago

mgraczyk 6y ago

I do not own a car and cycle every day in SF. I have seen 3 accidents and maybe 100 near misses involving cyclists and have been in a few myself. In all of them, it was the cyclists fault. Cyclists may have higher risks, but that doesn't seem to stop us from doing stupid dangerous things all the time. Although in fairness most near accidents I have seen are vagrants crossing a busy intersection without waiting for a green, seemingly with the intention of being run over.

jamil7 6y ago
The problem with these threads I find is they end up in anecdotes between cyclists and car drivers. I don't doubt you, I know there are idiots using all modes of transport but from years of cycling in different cities I can counter your points with a lot of my own involving car drivers acting incredibly irresponsibly and dangerously.
Gibbon1 6y ago
When I drive in San Francisco I spend most of my effort watching out for bicyclists and pedestrians. Cars not as much, first they are easier to see. Lower percentage of stupid. Big enough that they tend not to come from unexpected places. I do that because I want to get out of this life without maiming or killing someone. I'm old enough to know it's long game and to know people that have accidentally killed people. And you don't want to go there. You might think that if it's not your fault it won't fuck with you. Trust me it will.