3 ms·

> I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers I think it's likely that many c

> I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers I think it's likely that many cyclists blatantly violate traffic rules because they aren't even required to remotely know traffic rules before riding There is no training or licensing required to cycle Car drivers are required to be both licensed and insured I would guess some percentage of cyclists, the very serious cyclists, will know the traffic rules better than almost anyone on the road. The rest will be on par or worse than your average driver

Mawr 2y ago
No, it's because roads are designed with cars in mind and bicycles are not cars. It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. Somehow we understand motorcycles aren't cars so we allow them to lane split but a cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Not that this matters; we're discussing a local maxima of vehicular cycling. These issues largely disappear once you build separated cycling infrastructure.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Much like a deer running in front of traffic, cyclists behaving unexpectedly is a danger of causing other people to wreck in reaction to their behavior > It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. It actually does because the rules define how we use the space not how we drive our vehicles
Symbiote 2y ago
I think most cyclists who ignore rules do so because they feel unnecessary: the cyclist has an excellent view (compared to a car), and can easily see there's very little danger in turning right past a red light, or crossing a side street with no other traffic. Exactly the same reasons in some countries it's common for pedestrians to walk against a red light.
evandale 2y ago
Bike licensing has never and will never work. Plenty of cities have tried it and it doesn't make a difference. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicyc...

Mawr 2y ago

No, it's because roads are designed with cars in mind and bicycles are not cars. It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. Somehow we understand motorcycles aren't cars so we allow them to lane split but a cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Not that this matters; we're discussing a local maxima of vehicular cycling. These issues largely disappear once you build separated cycling infrastructure.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
> cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Much like a deer running in front of traffic, cyclists behaving unexpectedly is a danger of causing other people to wreck in reaction to their behavior > It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. It actually does because the rules define how we use the space not how we drive our vehicles

Symbiote 2y ago

I think most cyclists who ignore rules do so because they feel unnecessary: the cyclist has an excellent view (compared to a car), and can easily see there's very little danger in turning right past a red light, or crossing a side street with no other traffic. Exactly the same reasons in some countries it's common for pedestrians to walk against a red light.

evandale 2y ago

Bike licensing has never and will never work. Plenty of cities have tried it and it doesn't make a difference. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicyc...