5 ms·

Motorists Break Law to Save Time, Cyclists Break Law to Save Lives (2020)

29 points by mpweiher 4y ago

where-group-by 4y ago
When cycling to the train station (as part of my commute) almost half of the way I use the sidewalk. Do I break the law? Yes. Do I care? No. The road next the sidewalk is busy and I'm relatively slow for a cyclist - both due to my personal fitness and due to the route being mostly up a hill.
- PaulRobinson 4y ago
  Cyclists on sidewalks are the reason why most non-cycling pedestrians despise cyclists. I’ve walked along a pavement in London, and a cyclist has come towards me at over 20mph when there is a cycle lane just 6 feet away - that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in public money to install - is completely empty and unobstructed, and it was utterly terrifying and very, very frustrating. I don’t want cyclists to be in danger - and I always give plenty of room to them when driving - but at the same time, I’ve yet to encounter a more selfish and tone-deaf community of road users in London, particularly the pavement riders. If you don’t feel safe cycling on the road, please don’t cycle at all: stop endangering pedestrians and making life worse for everyone (including other cyclists).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > stop endangering pedestrians and making life worse for everyone > it was utterly terrifying So you are terrified of a 15 kg bicycle, but you don't accept that maybe cyclists are terriefied of a 15,000 kg vehicle driven by a nutcase? I've beed cycling for 10 years, I have never hit a pedestrian and I dont know any cyclist who has. I've been hit by a car 3 times. London cycling experience, my wife was grazed by a motorbike in a cycle lane (!) going at proper 30 Mph+ I had a sportscar drive up to me and start swerving agressively threatening to hit me while the driver shouted obceneties. This was 11PM, I am cycling on a left side of the three-lane road, no-one else around. We are not talking about 'driver ran red light', we are talking of 'driver escaped a mental asylum'. When it's raining I cycle on pavement - the visibility is too poor and breaking path is too long if I meet another idiot, I am dead. Obviously you go slower on pavement, and usually pavements are empty in the rain. Some cycle paths are actually protected by a curb, but others are just a bit of paint of the ground, often used for parking or just plain driven in
    - PaulRobinson 4y ago
      Pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. Please don’t pretend that the dangers you have observed mean you are entitled to endanger others. It’s sad you’ve suffered this behaviour and come to injury, but this does not mean you get to behave terribly to other people and wave it away and say it’s motorists’ fault.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Are you aware many paths are shared use, some pavements, footpaths at the canal, etc? Do you avoid then? Zero pedestrians were killed last year, and the year before that. Stastically more people are killed by cheese. Cycling on the pavement considerately does not 'Inflict terror', but some people do speed and act incosiderately - mostly I see deliveroo drivers do this.
        PaulRobinson 4y ago
        Department for Transport figures for the UK suggest an average of ~4 deaths per year by cyclists killing pedestrians since 2010. It is little surprise this number dropped during lockdown restrictions. I can't find numbers for hospital admissions, but I'd wager it's a multiple, and some of those injuries will be life changing. I don't know why you think the employer of the cyclist has some bearing on the safety or otherwise of cyclists on pavements. It's illegal regardless of their job. I can not grasp any reason why anybody would argue that cycling on pavements is a good and fine thing. I doubt you see my point that is illegal for a reason, should be more vigorously enforced and is morally disgusting. As we'll never agree with each other, we should probably stop now.
        cassianoleal 4y ago
        > mostly I see deliveroo drivers do this. In my neighbourhood it's mostly teenagers. Sometimes speeding on e-bikes, those are actually terrifying. A lot of the time when the road is completely free. They are the minority though, and indeed even though I have seen and been on some close calls, I have never seen one of them actually crashing into a pedestrian. Bad, but yeah - not as bad as cheese. :D
  - where-group-by 4y ago
    I don't live in London. The route part I use the sidewalk is 0.6 miles long (checked on Google maps) and I go past maybe 10 people at the busiest of days.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
The fundamental issue is that cyclists and motor vehicles sharing the same roadway is a recipe for disaster. Cars, trucks, and SUVs are just so much bigger and faster than bicycles. Bicycles sharing the road is stressful for both the cyclist and the driver. We really need dedicated cycling infrastructure with cyclists physically separated from motor vehicles with barriers.
- ljf 4y ago
  I used to be quite against this and just felt that drivers needed to learn to live with cyclists (I as I had) - until I went to Holland and witnessed properly funded cycling infrastructure. Cycling in Holland is an absolute pleasure, and despite the weather being just as damp as Britain, people cycle year round.
  - AdamN 4y ago
    Yeah, the corollary would be roads where the pedestrian has to walk on the road and there is no separation. That does exist in extremely rural areas and very old town centers - both of which are mostly ok because they demand the car go extremely slow. Wherever there is a sidewalk there should also be a dedicated cycleway.
    - magicalhippo 4y ago
      When I was a kid I stayed at the family cabin with my grandparents, and we would routinely walk along the main road which had no sidewalk and barely any shoulder. It wasn't a problem at all, there weren't many cars and very few larger vehicles like trucks, trailers or busses. These days the road is super-busy, with large vehicles coming by all the time at full speed. I barely feel safe standing in the driveway. Back in the day there was no need for a sidewalk. These days I don't dare to walk to the "nearby" store without, hence I drive.
  - realworldperson 4y ago
    [dead]
  - 4y ago
ljf 4y ago
I cycled for 10 years in London, and for the first year I jumped lights until I decided against it one day. I just didn't want to give people a reason to be annoyed with me as the aggression people showed to cyclists was pretty high at the time. But I would always filter to the front of red traffic lights ready to take off. A number of taxis and dumper trucks used to jump red lights, either just running the light when it had just changed, crawling through, or just positioning themselves across the crossing and then going early or when they saw a gap. But most car drivers never spot this as they aren't at the front where they can see this happen daily. I stopped and watched a police fishing operation where they were looking for red light jumping cyclists, and I had to physically go over to the police to point out drivers that were also jumping reds in front of them, as they were so fixated on their 'job' of catching cyclists.
- AdamN 4y ago
  Red light jumping and 'creeping' into the crosswalk is a real sign of a reckless driver - so much more so than speeding.
- _Wintermute 4y ago
  It's amazing how temporary traffic lights at road works are treated as completely optional in London since motorists know there's no enforcement cameras. I've had a van driver lean on his horn and start harrassing me when I stopped at one when he was behind me.
- switch007 4y ago
  > I had to physically go over to the police to point out drivers that were also jumping reds in front of them, as they were so fixated on their 'job' of catching cyclists. Their boss likely knew. They just wanted to appease a certain group by tackling the cyclists. They can’t be accused of bias against cars if they spend money catching cyclists too. You have to be brain dead as a pedestrian or driver to not know that red light jumping by cars has been a big and increasing problem for a decade easily.
- alias_neo 4y ago
  Why were you jumping lights though, is that not causing yourself more danger? I've been a cyclist, motorcyclist and a driver. I've never jumped a red light on a bike. In the past 10 years of living in London I've seen hundreds of cyclists running red lights long after they've changed, or before they change back. I've seen plenty of motor vehicles run through a yellow-red, but never a long-red light (until yesterday actually). Just yesterday I did see a taxi cross a junction on a red as it was about to change back to green, but while still red (how impatient can you be)? I don't cycle anymore, I was hit by cars 3 times when I wasn't at fault before I moved to London, and decided not to take my chances there. I'm always aware of cyclists and motorcyclists around me and will go out of my way to accommodate them, too many road users are blind to them, but I can't agree with red light running; if someone comes across the junction while its red for you because you decided to cross, and kills you, it's very much your fault, but they'll take the blame, or at least the burden, and you'll be dead. As for police fishing operations, I've seen them sitting on one-way streets ticketing cyclists and scooter users, which personally I think is a bit silly (especially in the case of this particular street).
Hnrobert42 4y ago
I don’t see where the article supports the title. Did I miss something?
- gniv 4y ago
  Title is weird. I think the relevant passage regarding cyclists is this: "for cyclists, the most common reason was personal safety. Getting out of the way of larger, faster, often lethal motor vehicles was the main factor influencing bicyclists’ rule-breaking."
luckylion 4y ago
> (A Transport For London camera study of 7,500 cyclists at five junctions found in 2007 that, contrary to popular perception, most cyclists do not run reds: 84% of the cyclists stopped at red traffic lights.) Is 16% of cyclists running red lights considered low? I have nothing to compare this. Do 16% of cars run red lights? Other than that this sounds like the title isn't accurately describing the content. They cite a study saying > “The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless,” reported the daily newsletter for JSTOR, a digital library of academic journals, “they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others.” > “[Law breaking] bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them,” concluded the researchers. "function efficiently" means saving time, and they're breaking the law "when little harm could come to them and others". So just like everyone, they're mostly doing it to save time. But they also sometimes break the law for safety reasons. /sites/ is the "pay for publishing" part of forbes, right?
- mcv 4y ago
  I think people mostly break the law "when little harm could come to them", and care slightly less about others. For bicycles, this isn't a problem because they pose little risk to others and most of the potential harm would be for the cyclist. So they only break the law when it's safe to do so. Motorists, however, are safe, encaged in their steel cage with seat belts, air bags and crumple zones, so they're generally safe. Most of the risks of their law breaking goes to other people, and if they care slightly less about the safety of others, that means their law breaking poses a much more serious risk.
mcv 4y ago
I suspect this would vary a lot by country. In Amsterdam, many cyclists most definitely break the law to save time, whereas motorists are quite well-behaved. We also don't have news media demonising cyclists. Cyclists here are a lot safer than elsewhere, and motorists are much more aware of cyclists and their vulnerability (because they've also cycled much of their lives), and I've been wondering if maybe that's why I've even seen parents with children break the law in ridiculously dangerous ways. I don't. Ever since I got kids and got my driver's license, I've become a lot more well-behaved, also to set a good example for my kids. My kids seem to be growing up with a very good sense of how to behave in traffic and when to break the law.
okokwhatever 4y ago
Its so funny observing continuously the marketing campaign against cars everywhere in the world at the same time. And it's also funny to observe nobody is aware about the real issue here, the plan to revoke free mobility (yeah, it's quite easy to ride 40 kms daily to get to the office under any weather) It's gonna be very funny in a matter of decades, yeah... Remote work? No thank you, they'll say.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Maybe people are questioning why is 85% of every street dedicated to cars, why dont I deserve at least 10% for e-scooters, cycles, or even for just walking with a pram and my child
- mcv 4y ago
  What do you mean "revoke free mobility"? Apart from walking, all mobility has some sort of cost. And some sort of limitations, if you're talking about a different kind of free.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Personal ~ton cars are a rich people luxury (1.5G cars for 8G people), and it's likely to get worse in the future : peak oil seems to be about now unless there is another (even dirtier !) revolution like tight oil / oil sands, while electric cars can't be scaled up fast enough to even replace existing cars.
poulpy123 4y ago
Not in my experience
rhase 4y ago
I've been cycling for about 10 years in multiple cities (in Australia, Brazil and Portugal), all of which don't have proper infrastructure for cycling . I always tend to go as fast as I can, trying to ride with the traffic instead of being pushed over by cars trying to overtake me (and making drivers annoyed that they have to go slower). I find that jumping lights lets me to that way better, and that's mostly why I do it. Of course, it also makes me get to my destination faster which is always nice. When I tell this to people that drive only, they tend to disagree and get annoyed that I don't follow the law and can't really get penalized for it. I still think it's better for everyone when I jump lights - and they probably will also think that once they have to wait for a cyclist to slowly accelerate when the light turns green.
schlowmo 4y ago
(Disclaimer regarding traffic rules: I live and got my driver's license in Germany) > "[...] road safety would be improved for all if more motorists also cycled" While this statement seems quite trivial I think there's more truth in that than one might realize straight away. I would say that even if cyclists break the law (even to save time and not only to save lives as the title suggests), they often know that they're breaking the law. On the other hand many motorists who break traffic rules regarding cyclists doesn't even know that they're breaking them. It might seem that knowingly breaking the rules is even more morally reprehensible, but I think at the same time this leads to less entitlement - and in consequence to less road rage. Some examples of rules a lot motorists doesn't know about (mind German traffic rules): * it's not allowed to overtake cyclists if you can't keep at least 1.5m distance; this rules only works one way, cyclists may overtake without keeping that distance. The minimum distance even applies if the cyclist is in a marked bike lane on the road. * there's only an obligation to use bike lanes if they're explicitly marked with a distinct sign; there's another sign which indicates that it's allowed to use e.g. a sidewalk with a bike, but not an obligation * It's allowed to pass standing / slow moving cars on the right (this is especially usefull in front of red traffic lights); unfortunately there's no obligation to cars to leave space on the right if possible. If you know this rule as a (considerate) motorists, you can leave that space. * There's a sign which allows cyclists to use one-way streets in both directions; if this sign is posted, cyclists have the same rights of way as cars regardless of direction * Even if there is a obligatory bike-path, you're allowed to switch to a left-turn car-lane in front of crossings to make a left turn unless it's explicitly disallowed by signs. I could go on and on, but motorists not knowing these rules might come to the conclusion that cyclists are breaking the rules all the time, which in turn leads to more agression against cyclists. None of the rules above were mentioned during my drivers lessons - it was more like a general 'be careful regarding cyclists because they are weaker, behave unpredictable and don't know the rules'. When it fact it's ofentimes the other way around.

29 points by mpweiher 4y ago

When cycling to the train station (as part of my commute) almost half of the way I use the sidewalk. Do I break the law? Yes. Do I care? No. The road next the sidewalk is busy and I'm relatively slow for a cyclist - both due to my personal fitness and due to the route being mostly up a hill.

PaulRobinson 4y ago
Cyclists on sidewalks are the reason why most non-cycling pedestrians despise cyclists. I’ve walked along a pavement in London, and a cyclist has come towards me at over 20mph when there is a cycle lane just 6 feet away - that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in public money to install - is completely empty and unobstructed, and it was utterly terrifying and very, very frustrating. I don’t want cyclists to be in danger - and I always give plenty of room to them when driving - but at the same time, I’ve yet to encounter a more selfish and tone-deaf community of road users in London, particularly the pavement riders. If you don’t feel safe cycling on the road, please don’t cycle at all: stop endangering pedestrians and making life worse for everyone (including other cyclists).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > stop endangering pedestrians and making life worse for everyone > it was utterly terrifying So you are terrified of a 15 kg bicycle, but you don't accept that maybe cyclists are terriefied of a 15,000 kg vehicle driven by a nutcase? I've beed cycling for 10 years, I have never hit a pedestrian and I dont know any cyclist who has. I've been hit by a car 3 times. London cycling experience, my wife was grazed by a motorbike in a cycle lane (!) going at proper 30 Mph+ I had a sportscar drive up to me and start swerving agressively threatening to hit me while the driver shouted obceneties. This was 11PM, I am cycling on a left side of the three-lane road, no-one else around. We are not talking about 'driver ran red light', we are talking of 'driver escaped a mental asylum'. When it's raining I cycle on pavement - the visibility is too poor and breaking path is too long if I meet another idiot, I am dead. Obviously you go slower on pavement, and usually pavements are empty in the rain. Some cycle paths are actually protected by a curb, but others are just a bit of paint of the ground, often used for parking or just plain driven in
  - PaulRobinson 4y ago
    Pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. Please don’t pretend that the dangers you have observed mean you are entitled to endanger others. It’s sad you’ve suffered this behaviour and come to injury, but this does not mean you get to behave terribly to other people and wave it away and say it’s motorists’ fault.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Are you aware many paths are shared use, some pavements, footpaths at the canal, etc? Do you avoid then? Zero pedestrians were killed last year, and the year before that. Stastically more people are killed by cheese. Cycling on the pavement considerately does not 'Inflict terror', but some people do speed and act incosiderately - mostly I see deliveroo drivers do this.
      - PaulRobinson 4y ago
        Department for Transport figures for the UK suggest an average of ~4 deaths per year by cyclists killing pedestrians since 2010. It is little surprise this number dropped during lockdown restrictions. I can't find numbers for hospital admissions, but I'd wager it's a multiple, and some of those injuries will be life changing. I don't know why you think the employer of the cyclist has some bearing on the safety or otherwise of cyclists on pavements. It's illegal regardless of their job. I can not grasp any reason why anybody would argue that cycling on pavements is a good and fine thing. I doubt you see my point that is illegal for a reason, should be more vigorously enforced and is morally disgusting. As we'll never agree with each other, we should probably stop now.
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        > mostly I see deliveroo drivers do this. In my neighbourhood it's mostly teenagers. Sometimes speeding on e-bikes, those are actually terrifying. A lot of the time when the road is completely free. They are the minority though, and indeed even though I have seen and been on some close calls, I have never seen one of them actually crashing into a pedestrian. Bad, but yeah - not as bad as cheese. :D
- where-group-by 4y ago
  I don't live in London. The route part I use the sidewalk is 0.6 miles long (checked on Google maps) and I go past maybe 10 people at the busiest of days.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

The fundamental issue is that cyclists and motor vehicles sharing the same roadway is a recipe for disaster. Cars, trucks, and SUVs are just so much bigger and faster than bicycles. Bicycles sharing the road is stressful for both the cyclist and the driver. We really need dedicated cycling infrastructure with cyclists physically separated from motor vehicles with barriers.

ljf 4y ago
I used to be quite against this and just felt that drivers needed to learn to live with cyclists (I as I had) - until I went to Holland and witnessed properly funded cycling infrastructure. Cycling in Holland is an absolute pleasure, and despite the weather being just as damp as Britain, people cycle year round.
- AdamN 4y ago
  Yeah, the corollary would be roads where the pedestrian has to walk on the road and there is no separation. That does exist in extremely rural areas and very old town centers - both of which are mostly ok because they demand the car go extremely slow. Wherever there is a sidewalk there should also be a dedicated cycleway.
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    When I was a kid I stayed at the family cabin with my grandparents, and we would routinely walk along the main road which had no sidewalk and barely any shoulder. It wasn't a problem at all, there weren't many cars and very few larger vehicles like trucks, trailers or busses. These days the road is super-busy, with large vehicles coming by all the time at full speed. I barely feel safe standing in the driveway. Back in the day there was no need for a sidewalk. These days I don't dare to walk to the "nearby" store without, hence I drive.
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
- 4y ago

ljf 4y ago

I cycled for 10 years in London, and for the first year I jumped lights until I decided against it one day. I just didn't want to give people a reason to be annoyed with me as the aggression people showed to cyclists was pretty high at the time. But I would always filter to the front of red traffic lights ready to take off. A number of taxis and dumper trucks used to jump red lights, either just running the light when it had just changed, crawling through, or just positioning themselves across the crossing and then going early or when they saw a gap. But most car drivers never spot this as they aren't at the front where they can see this happen daily. I stopped and watched a police fishing operation where they were looking for red light jumping cyclists, and I had to physically go over to the police to point out drivers that were also jumping reds in front of them, as they were so fixated on their 'job' of catching cyclists.

AdamN 4y ago
Red light jumping and 'creeping' into the crosswalk is a real sign of a reckless driver - so much more so than speeding.
_Wintermute 4y ago
It's amazing how temporary traffic lights at road works are treated as completely optional in London since motorists know there's no enforcement cameras. I've had a van driver lean on his horn and start harrassing me when I stopped at one when he was behind me.
switch007 4y ago
> I had to physically go over to the police to point out drivers that were also jumping reds in front of them, as they were so fixated on their 'job' of catching cyclists. Their boss likely knew. They just wanted to appease a certain group by tackling the cyclists. They can’t be accused of bias against cars if they spend money catching cyclists too. You have to be brain dead as a pedestrian or driver to not know that red light jumping by cars has been a big and increasing problem for a decade easily.
alias_neo 4y ago
Why were you jumping lights though, is that not causing yourself more danger? I've been a cyclist, motorcyclist and a driver. I've never jumped a red light on a bike. In the past 10 years of living in London I've seen hundreds of cyclists running red lights long after they've changed, or before they change back. I've seen plenty of motor vehicles run through a yellow-red, but never a long-red light (until yesterday actually). Just yesterday I did see a taxi cross a junction on a red as it was about to change back to green, but while still red (how impatient can you be)? I don't cycle anymore, I was hit by cars 3 times when I wasn't at fault before I moved to London, and decided not to take my chances there. I'm always aware of cyclists and motorcyclists around me and will go out of my way to accommodate them, too many road users are blind to them, but I can't agree with red light running; if someone comes across the junction while its red for you because you decided to cross, and kills you, it's very much your fault, but they'll take the blame, or at least the burden, and you'll be dead. As for police fishing operations, I've seen them sitting on one-way streets ticketing cyclists and scooter users, which personally I think is a bit silly (especially in the case of this particular street).

Hnrobert42 4y ago

I don’t see where the article supports the title. Did I miss something?

gniv 4y ago
Title is weird. I think the relevant passage regarding cyclists is this: "for cyclists, the most common reason was personal safety. Getting out of the way of larger, faster, often lethal motor vehicles was the main factor influencing bicyclists’ rule-breaking."

luckylion 4y ago

> (A Transport For London camera study of 7,500 cyclists at five junctions found in 2007 that, contrary to popular perception, most cyclists do not run reds: 84% of the cyclists stopped at red traffic lights.) Is 16% of cyclists running red lights considered low? I have nothing to compare this. Do 16% of cars run red lights? Other than that this sounds like the title isn't accurately describing the content. They cite a study saying > “The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless,” reported the daily newsletter for JSTOR, a digital library of academic journals, “they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others.” > “[Law breaking] bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them,” concluded the researchers. "function efficiently" means saving time, and they're breaking the law "when little harm could come to them and others". So just like everyone, they're mostly doing it to save time. But they also sometimes break the law for safety reasons. /sites/ is the "pay for publishing" part of forbes, right?

mcv 4y ago
I think people mostly break the law "when little harm could come to them", and care slightly less about others. For bicycles, this isn't a problem because they pose little risk to others and most of the potential harm would be for the cyclist. So they only break the law when it's safe to do so. Motorists, however, are safe, encaged in their steel cage with seat belts, air bags and crumple zones, so they're generally safe. Most of the risks of their law breaking goes to other people, and if they care slightly less about the safety of others, that means their law breaking poses a much more serious risk.

mcv 4y ago

I suspect this would vary a lot by country. In Amsterdam, many cyclists most definitely break the law to save time, whereas motorists are quite well-behaved. We also don't have news media demonising cyclists. Cyclists here are a lot safer than elsewhere, and motorists are much more aware of cyclists and their vulnerability (because they've also cycled much of their lives), and I've been wondering if maybe that's why I've even seen parents with children break the law in ridiculously dangerous ways. I don't. Ever since I got kids and got my driver's license, I've become a lot more well-behaved, also to set a good example for my kids. My kids seem to be growing up with a very good sense of how to behave in traffic and when to break the law.

okokwhatever 4y ago

Its so funny observing continuously the marketing campaign against cars everywhere in the world at the same time. And it's also funny to observe nobody is aware about the real issue here, the plan to revoke free mobility (yeah, it's quite easy to ride 40 kms daily to get to the office under any weather) It's gonna be very funny in a matter of decades, yeah... Remote work? No thank you, they'll say.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Maybe people are questioning why is 85% of every street dedicated to cars, why dont I deserve at least 10% for e-scooters, cycles, or even for just walking with a pram and my child
mcv 4y ago
What do you mean "revoke free mobility"? Apart from walking, all mobility has some sort of cost. And some sort of limitations, if you're talking about a different kind of free.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Personal ~ton cars are a rich people luxury (1.5G cars for 8G people), and it's likely to get worse in the future : peak oil seems to be about now unless there is another (even dirtier !) revolution like tight oil / oil sands, while electric cars can't be scaled up fast enough to even replace existing cars.

poulpy123 4y ago

Not in my experience

rhase 4y ago

I've been cycling for about 10 years in multiple cities (in Australia, Brazil and Portugal), all of which don't have proper infrastructure for cycling . I always tend to go as fast as I can, trying to ride with the traffic instead of being pushed over by cars trying to overtake me (and making drivers annoyed that they have to go slower). I find that jumping lights lets me to that way better, and that's mostly why I do it. Of course, it also makes me get to my destination faster which is always nice. When I tell this to people that drive only, they tend to disagree and get annoyed that I don't follow the law and can't really get penalized for it. I still think it's better for everyone when I jump lights - and they probably will also think that once they have to wait for a cyclist to slowly accelerate when the light turns green.

schlowmo 4y ago

(Disclaimer regarding traffic rules: I live and got my driver's license in Germany) > "[...] road safety would be improved for all if more motorists also cycled" While this statement seems quite trivial I think there's more truth in that than one might realize straight away. I would say that even if cyclists break the law (even to save time and not only to save lives as the title suggests), they often know that they're breaking the law. On the other hand many motorists who break traffic rules regarding cyclists doesn't even know that they're breaking them. It might seem that knowingly breaking the rules is even more morally reprehensible, but I think at the same time this leads to less entitlement - and in consequence to less road rage. Some examples of rules a lot motorists doesn't know about (mind German traffic rules): * it's not allowed to overtake cyclists if you can't keep at least 1.5m distance; this rules only works one way, cyclists may overtake without keeping that distance. The minimum distance even applies if the cyclist is in a marked bike lane on the road. * there's only an obligation to use bike lanes if they're explicitly marked with a distinct sign; there's another sign which indicates that it's allowed to use e.g. a sidewalk with a bike, but not an obligation * It's allowed to pass standing / slow moving cars on the right (this is especially usefull in front of red traffic lights); unfortunately there's no obligation to cars to leave space on the right if possible. If you know this rule as a (considerate) motorists, you can leave that space. * There's a sign which allows cyclists to use one-way streets in both directions; if this sign is posted, cyclists have the same rights of way as cars regardless of direction * Even if there is a obligatory bike-path, you're allowed to switch to a left-turn car-lane in front of crossings to make a left turn unless it's explicitly disallowed by signs. I could go on and on, but motorists not knowing these rules might come to the conclusion that cyclists are breaking the rules all the time, which in turn leads to more agression against cyclists. None of the rules above were mentioned during my drivers lessons - it was more like a general 'be careful regarding cyclists because they are weaker, behave unpredictable and don't know the rules'. When it fact it's ofentimes the other way around.