Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonyedgecombe | Hacker News Reader

more frequently breaking traffic law

I can't find it right now but there was some research done in the UK recently that showed the opposite was the case.

Surprising. In London at least, when you cross at a crossing, you always have to check for cyclists skipping the lights.

Sure, but what % of the drivers habitually go faster than the listed speed limit? In the parts of the US I live in, the difference between that number and 100 is imperceptible, especially on the roads with speed limits on the lower end (~25 mph).

IIRC the two road users tended to break the rules in different ways, so it's unsurprising that as a pedestrians you might be more aware of one class than the other.

a counter point: when cycling in London you have to be aware that 30% of the time there will be be a vehicle stopped the protected bike zone in front of the lights...

When I'm in London, I check that the first car is going to stop at the crossing. That's by no means guaranteed.

Once the first car is stopped, the others have no choice. All cyclists reaching the crossing can pass on red if they choose, so the comparison needs to take that into account.

It's certainly routine to see cyclists running red lights in London. I'm sure cars do that sometimes, but I can't recall ever having seen a car do it while I was crossing the road.

Indeed. But if a car does it someone may die. Even a fast cyclist needs a lot of bad luck to run over and kill someone.

Finding a fair way to count these things is really difficult.

Sure, but cyclists can't use that as an excuse for bad behavior. I mean, if I punch someone, it's unlikely to kill them, but that doesn't mean I can just take a swing at someone whenever I feel like it.

Sure, it's in no way a valid excuse. But one act is much more dangerous than the other - a cyclist running a red light and a driver doing it are not morally equivalent, and it's slightly offensive to cyclists to claim that it is.

Of course it is just as dangerous. We‘re not talking about a cyclist killing a car driver, we‘re talking about a cyclist getting killed. That can easily happen with a cyclist running a red light.

I find it strange that cyclists love to discuss things as if bad outcomes to themselves didn‘t matter as long as they are the ones responsible. That‘s no way to sensibly talk about traffic safety.

At some UK junctions a cyclist riding through red will make virtually no difference to anyone; in the same way as motorist on some sections of motorway (ie freeway), in good conditions, driving over the speed limit will make virtually no difference.

A car jumping the light leaves no room for another car; a cyclist doing it leaves more than enough room.

Yes, if they're busting through a pedestrian crossing with pedestrians on, or going on to a narrow junction, etc.. then you're in to dangers similar to "not indicating" (something that puts me in danger as a pedestrian every day).

A cyclist hitting a car, it's extraordinarily unlikely to kill anyone including themselves. The contrary is not so. That's why cyclists don't worry as much about the possibility of hurting others on the roads. Of course interactions with pedestrians are bad all round, but much worse physically for cyclists than for vehicle drivers.

There are imbalances, ignoring them doesn't make anyone safer.

Are you really claiming that a car running a red light with speed v1 and crashing into a cyclist with speed v2 is more dangerous than a cyclist running a red light with speed v2 and crashing into a car with speed v1? That‘s ludicrous. The situations are perfectly symmetrical.

There’s a difference between reckless driving/cycling and running a red light. There are in fact many ways to safely or unsafely do so for both types of vehicles. This needs to be acknowledged first, because there are situations where it’s actually safer (getting out of the way of aggro drivers just as the light turns) or necessary (lights only triggered by sensor that doesn’t pick up a bike).

Sure, but who wouldn‘t acknowledge that? Nobody is talking about these edge cases.

The research I've read recently indicates (responsibly) running red lights and stop signs decreases a cyclist's chance of getting hit. When stopped, a cyclist is less visible and mobile. Vehicles can be less likely to see them, and they're less able to maneuver out of dangerous situations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... (I've seen other sources, but this is the first one I found first just now)

That's only a discussion on the probability of a crash. I'm talking about the effect, given a crash has occured.

Because people in this thread claim that it's virtually impossible for a cyclist to get killed when crashing into a car. Only a car crashing into a cyclist could possibly kill the latter.

And that's nonsense.

A cyclist can cause a swerve and crash, or just be the one killed. You can argue in the latter case that the cyclist is the only one hurt, but fault aside, most people will be devestated if they kill someone else.

But you can hit hard enough for lifelong suffering easily. There is no excuse for reckless driving even with a bike.

I upvoted this because I probably should've said it myself.

I said in another comment that I think it's really difficult to find a fair way to count. I meant that. I didn't mean "it's difficult to count such that I look like an angel and make that counting mode look fair".

But in this discussion, we're readily avoiding the daily mayhem and death that cars actually perpetrate. A new perspective is seriously in order. Which is most prevalent and presents the greatest risk in an urban environment?

Should bikes yield to pedestrians? Yes, absolutely. Is that equivalent to drivers speeding, swerving, texting, road-raging, etc? Not in the slightest.

I‘m really tired of this apology.

Yes, chances are slim you‘re killing a pedestrian. Chances are very real you severely hurt and injure him. Ask the pedestrian how much fun that is.

Those casual dismissals are evil, IMO.

Add to that the attitude that I just read again on Twitter unrelatedly, that pedestrians shouldn‘t blame bicyclists endangering them on pedestrian lanes, because it‘s ultimately the cars‘ fault.

Bicyclists most vocal about traffic issues often don‘t care about weaker participants in traffic when they are not the weaker ones.

There are different types of running red lights (and the dangers are country dependent). I myself frequently pull away at the lights while still red a second before they go green. I do it to get out ahead of the traffic for my own safety and to get clear of the traffic so I’m not in the way. This is in London, where all pedestrians are crossing at the same time and there are no cars moving.

The main danger in it is drivers becoming angry (totally irrationally) and reckless.

This chap ran over and killed a woman: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist...

You're proving his point. It's so rare that it makes national news (or international, when you're an idiot with no brakes). Cars kill dozens of people in the US a day. Bikes kill far less than one person a year.

I remember while I was cycling to work through Edinburgh (and always stopping for lights) a cyclist running through a red light outside a police station with a police car also waiting at the red light.

No idea what he was thinking - the police car did set off in pursuit.

Might be so statistically, but people do not experience statistics and build their perspective from it.

Emotionally seeing someone running a red light or making up their own lane has a higher impact than someone speeding in a car lane. I think it has to do with cultural acceptance.

It may plausibly depend on how you add your apples and oranges. How are you going to count a traffic accident with two deaths against a bicycle leaning against a shop's display window (that's a really extreme example, yes)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com