Obedience to traffic laws

On Apr 21, 6:48 am, Steve Ball wrote:


I guess the harm is that's what good for the goose has to be good for the
gander. If cyclists can decide which traffic signs to obey and when, why not
motorists? I mean, if I car goes through a red light when there's no traffic
on then intersecting road, where's the harm? Do you want to apply this to
speed limits too? (Cyclists - even me - regularly exceed the posted 30 kph
in Sydney's Centennial park; motorists get booked.)

From what I see here in America, what's good for the goose is indeed
good for the gander. That is, everyone violates traffic laws.

I have a stop sign less than 100 yards from where I'm typing this.
Only about half the motorists come to a complete stop. I regularly
see motorists going through red lights. That's most often by
squeezing through a fresh red before cross traffic starts up, but I
regularly see deliberate disobedience of a light that was long red
(including one memorable one by a cop - no siren or emergency lights;
he just didn't want to wait). I see a majority of motorists exceeding
speed limits, and neglecting turn signals before turning or changing
lanes. I regularly see motorists violating the laws in other ways as
well - the list could go on and on.

Bicyclists and pedestrians do the same, of course. I believe the
major difference is not in frequency of disobedience, but in
consequences of disobedience. Bicyclists and pedestrians almost never
injure anyone but themselves by their mistakes. Motorists in America
routinely kill tens of thousands per year.

(However, that's does NOT give credence to the "bicycling is
dangerous!!!" nonsense. Most of those killed by motorists are
motorists. Only a very few are cyclists.)

In summary: People will not be perfect in their obedience to laws,
whether they are on foot, on two wheels or on four (or more). Yes,
the legal system does generally concentrate on motorist violations,
but that's only logical, since motorist offenses are the ones that do
almost all the harm.

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 21, 11:29*am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:48 am, Steve Ball wrote:



I guess the harm is that's what good for the goose has to be good for the
gander. If cyclists can decide which traffic signs to obey and when, why not
motorists? I mean, if I car goes through a red light when there's no traffic
on then intersecting road, where's the harm? Do you want to apply this to
speed limits too? (Cyclists - even me - regularly exceed the posted 30 kph
in Sydney's Centennial park; motorists get booked.)

From what I see here in America, what's good for the goose is indeed
good for the gander. *That is, everyone violates traffic laws.

I have a stop sign less than 100 yards from where I'm typing this.
Only about half the motorists come to a complete stop. *I regularly
see motorists going through red lights. *That's most often by
squeezing through a fresh red before cross traffic starts up, but I
regularly see deliberate disobedience of a light that was long red
(including one memorable one by a cop - no siren or emergency lights;
he just didn't want to wait). *I see a majority of motorists exceeding
speed limits, and neglecting turn signals before turning or changing
lanes. *I regularly see motorists violating the laws in other ways as
well - the list could go on and on.

Bicyclists and pedestrians do the same, of course. *I believe the
major difference is not in frequency of disobedience, but in
consequences of disobedience. *Bicyclists and pedestrians almost never
injure anyone but themselves by their mistakes. *Motorists in America
routinely kill tens of thousands per year.

(However, that's does NOT give credence to the "bicycling is
dangerous!!!" nonsense. *Most of those killed by motorists are
motorists. *Only a very few are cyclists.)

In summary: *People will not be perfect in their obedience to laws,
whether they are on foot, on two wheels or on four (or more). *Yes,
the legal system does generally concentrate on motorist violations,
but that's only logical, since motorist offenses are the ones that do
almost all the harm.

- Frank Krygowski

I've thought we'd never agree on something.

What is it we disagree on? Oh, that riding a bike in traffic is safe.
But how can it be if drivers routinely ignore the laws, or simply
there are no good laws?

On Apr 21, 4:41 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
On Apr 21, 11:29 am, wrote:


From what I see here in America, what's good for the goose is indeed
good for the gander. That is, everyone violates traffic laws.

I have a stop sign less than 100 yards from where I'm typing this.
Only about half the motorists come to a complete stop. I regularly
see motorists going through red lights. That's most often by
squeezing through a fresh red before cross traffic starts up, but I
regularly see deliberate disobedience of a light that was long red
(including one memorable one by a cop - no siren or emergency lights;
he just didn't want to wait). I see a majority of motorists exceeding
speed limits, and neglecting turn signals before turning or changing
lanes. I regularly see motorists violating the laws in other ways as
well - the list could go on and on.

Bicyclists and pedestrians do the same, of course. I believe the
major difference is not in frequency of disobedience, but in
consequences of disobedience. Bicyclists and pedestrians almost never
injure anyone but themselves by their mistakes. Motorists in America
routinely kill tens of thousands per year.

(However, that's does NOT give credence to the "bicycling is
dangerous!!!" nonsense. Most of those killed by motorists are
motorists. Only a very few are cyclists.)

In summary: People will not be perfect in their obedience to laws,
whether they are on foot, on two wheels or on four (or more). Yes,
the legal system does generally concentrate on motorist violations,
but that's only logical, since motorist offenses are the ones that do
almost all the harm.

- Frank Krygowski

I've thought we'd never agree on something.

What is it we disagree on? Oh, that riding a bike in traffic is safe.
But how can it be if drivers routinely ignore the laws, or simply
there are no good laws?

You confuse disobedience with danger.

To evaluate disobedience of laws related to a given activity, you
observe people and see how often they disobey the laws applying to
that activity.

To evaluate the danger of an activity, you observe how much time
people spend in the activity, and you count how often they are killed
or seriously injured per unit time.

Bicyclists are very, very rarely killed or seriously injured. Again:
roughly fifteen MILLION miles of cycling per fatality. Alternately,
dedicated riders that do over 2500 miles per year, including commuting
in traffic, average 11 years between accidents that cost a mere $50.

Most people are pretty inept at cycling. But still, they don't get
seriously injured or killed. The most typical bike injury is a
skinned knee.

Even someone as fearful as you should be able to deal with the
occasional skinned knee. So again: quit whining.

- Frank Krygowski