3 ms·

As a cyclist, I see a lot of dangerous driving, and a lot of hypocrisy with regards to the law on the roads. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of that hypocrisy in

As a cyclist, I see a lot of dangerous driving, and a lot of hypocrisy with regards to the law on the roads. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of that hypocrisy in the comments here. Here's a good example of the hypocrisy: A lot of drivers speed and will tell you that speeding is safe, even a victimless crime. To them the real problem are people like cyclists who run red lights. Yet I have watched probably hundreds of cyclists run red lights and few did so without first checking that the road was clear. Fact is, unless one is brazenly stupid, running red lights in practice is almost always safe. Note that I'm not saying someone should run red lights or that doing so is always safe! (I don't run reds.) The problem with both speeding and running red lights is that the even though most of the time nothing bad will happen, I think people who do such things underestimate the chances that a bad thing will occur, and don't make a good cost-benefit analysis for that reason. Wishful thinking explains why both happen. The small amount of time saved from speeding or running red lights isn't worth the carnage in my view. And the amount of time saved from speeding is indeed small, particularly given how much time one spends at stoplights. As a cyclist I'd see a lot of drivers speed to the next stoplight... only for me to catch up with them so in practice they weren't going much faster than a cyclist. The bottleneck frequently is not speed when in motion. (Factor in time spent finding parking and the comparison to cyclist is frequently worse, as cyclists can usually park much closer.) To be clear, I follow the law in my local jurisdiction to the letter. I have no patience for speeding drivers or cyclists who run red lights, for example. And in my experience the only people who don't like misbehavior on the road from any road users are cyclists, particularly the ones who wear hi-viz clothing.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yeah no, this is not how roads works. I don't care if you're a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, if you're following the letter of the law you are causing problems for the other two. All three of these groups routinely ignore laws on a situation specific basis and with local variations. And that selective compliance with the law is what constitutes normal traffic flow. To robotically follow the law in spite of this is ill-advised because it makes your actions less predictable to every other traffic participant. Cyclists (unfairly, IMO, but that's beside the point) catch shit for rolling signs and lights because it's a toss up whether they will or not and that really inhibits the ability of everyone else around to plan accordingly. Cars don't get crap for speeding because their actions are still predicable allowing everyone else to plan accordingly. Likewise nobody cares when pedestrians jaywalk as long as they don't surprise other traffic when they do it. And nobody cares when cyclists roll stop signs when they time it so that their actions are compatible with the other traffic in the stop. Frankly, I think the cyclist expectation problem will solve itself when cycling becomes a normal way of commuting and not a lifestyle and fitness thing.
- hbrav 5y ago
  > All three of these groups routinely ignore laws This is a lot more common when the local traffic laws are kind of insane. It sounds from later in your post that you're thinking of a North American context. In the UK there's no such thing as jaywalking. It's not illegal, but also it's also not even a word. The proliferation of stop signs is also a very North American thing. I live in Canada and 4-way stops are almost everywhere. In London, I would be hard pressed to find 4 stop signs along the entire length of my commute. We don't need less enforcement of traffic laws, we need more sensible traffic laws (and highway engineering).

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Yeah no, this is not how roads works. I don't care if you're a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, if you're following the letter of the law you are causing problems for the other two. All three of these groups routinely ignore laws on a situation specific basis and with local variations. And that selective compliance with the law is what constitutes normal traffic flow. To robotically follow the law in spite of this is ill-advised because it makes your actions less predictable to every other traffic participant. Cyclists (unfairly, IMO, but that's beside the point) catch shit for rolling signs and lights because it's a toss up whether they will or not and that really inhibits the ability of everyone else around to plan accordingly. Cars don't get crap for speeding because their actions are still predicable allowing everyone else to plan accordingly. Likewise nobody cares when pedestrians jaywalk as long as they don't surprise other traffic when they do it. And nobody cares when cyclists roll stop signs when they time it so that their actions are compatible with the other traffic in the stop. Frankly, I think the cyclist expectation problem will solve itself when cycling becomes a normal way of commuting and not a lifestyle and fitness thing.

hbrav 5y ago
> All three of these groups routinely ignore laws This is a lot more common when the local traffic laws are kind of insane. It sounds from later in your post that you're thinking of a North American context. In the UK there's no such thing as jaywalking. It's not illegal, but also it's also not even a word. The proliferation of stop signs is also a very North American thing. I live in Canada and 4-way stops are almost everywhere. In London, I would be hard pressed to find 4 stop signs along the entire length of my commute. We don't need less enforcement of traffic laws, we need more sensible traffic laws (and highway engineering).