Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephorjoe | Hacker News Reader

I know someone who hasn’t driven since a cyclist ran a red light and crashed right into the middle of the passenger side front door (which had to be replaced for >$500 of which the cyclist paid $0). There was also a kid in the back seat who was pretty upset for a long time.

And the cyclist had a pretty bad day too.

Running a red light is dangerous and can have plenty of collateral damage.

View on HN

My point wasn't that bad things can't happen when cyclists run red lights, and nowhere in my post did I justify running red lights. Again, when a cyclist runs a red light the potential harm is mostly on the cyclist.

You can find plenty of real world examples of cyclists harming others from running stop signs or red lights, e.g., the Chris Bucchere case comes immediately to mind:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bicy...

The number of these cases where bad cycling caused harm to others is much smaller than the number of cases where bad driving caused harm to others. That's my point.

You are technically correct, but it is the worst kind of correct. Because you are arguing a losing case with a valid point. That most of the time they will mostly only harm themselves does not actually make the law breaking excusable.

Contrast this to speeding. Speed limits by law should be set to the 85th percentile speed, based on the evidence backed notion that drivers will predominantly pick a speed which is safe based on the road conditions, and that it’s most safe when drivers are all proceeding at the same speed.

The vast majority of every day speeding that I witness, and that I participate in, is of the kind where the limit is set illegally low due to political pressure or other factors, and the predominant and safest speed is higher than the limit. This is true, for example, for many highways in MA which have limits of 55 mph.

That’s not to say that I never truly speed, which I shouldn’t do, and is entirely unjustified.

Nowhere am I arguing that cyclists running red lights is acceptable or excusable. My argument is that drivers speeding is often seen as acceptable, but cyclists running red lights is not, and I'm trying to highlight the asymmetry in the effects.

> Contrast this to speeding. Speed limits by law should be set to the 85th percentile speed, based on the evidence backed notion that drivers will predominantly pick a speed which is safe based on the road conditions, and that it’s most safe when drivers are all proceeding at the same speed.

The 85th percentile rule is meant for highways to my knowledge, not every road. Edit: Here's a criticism of the 85th percentile rule: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/25/speed-kills-so...

The point is that drivers speeding is responsible for 10k+ deaths a year, and it is largely accepted by society. But cyclists running stop signs or red lights is responsible for a negligible amount, and most people would say this is a much bigger problem than speeding

Equally, I know a cyclist who started running red lights because he was hospitalised by somebody whose defence was "but you're a cyclist and you stopped for the red light, how was I supposed to expect that?"

Not defending bad behaviour here, just observing how it can be incentivised.

Do you drive?

Drivers kill over 40,000 people every single year, more than gun deaths? And many, many more seriously injured.

Now, are you just pretending to care, or are you going to stop driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com