rules aren’t neutral or grown out of the void. people with biases and maybe even ambitions create them for specific purposes
EDIT: To quote Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Rules governing bike traffic are generally quite reasonable though. It’s not like the enlightened traffic planners in the Netherlands went “you know what, cyclists don’t have to obey red lights” for example. So I’m not seeing the biases you’re talking about, at least in this example.
Comparing running red lights to sleeping under bridges or steal for survival seems, at best, hyperbolic. In any case I don’t think that quote supports the view that the law is intentionally biased
The lights often automatically changes to cyclists priority in many places in the Netherlands, and often provide underpasses to avoid conflict points in the first place. It is not a comparable situation. Traffic laws and infrastructure in the USA, for instance, are incredibly biased in favor of cars, so their comment is absolutely relevant.
When I bike in the USA often the safest time for me to cross an intersection is unrelated to whether I have a green light, but more related to if anyone else at the intersection does. The safest time for me to go is when no one else at the light has a green light, not when I do.
Often they will, but what about the circumstances where they haven’t? We’re talking about a bike-first country which still does this.
My whole point here is that pro-cycling rule-makers will try to make cycling work in various ways, but those ways do NOT include letting cyclists ride across junctions when there is crossing vehicle traffic. The bias the person above is talking about is not about traffic light rules; it’s about missing other bits of bike infrastructure. And if that infrastructure is missing it does not make it sensible or reasonable to break other rules as some kind of counterbalance.
It is perfectly legal in many places in the world to run a red light on a motorcycle or bicycle, provided you wait a reasonable amount of time. So your example is complicated. Simply because the magnetic strips that detects cars don’t detect them. But if run a red light after waiting, I guarantee the average person will think I’m the same as the person that flys through the intersection without slowing down. In my experience the average car driver has no idea why bicycles make the decisions they make.
And it is perfectly reasonable to break rules, if breaking them is what is keeping me alive. I really could give a shit what the law is. I care about getting to work alive. And I will make decisions to that end first and the law second.
Possibly I got distracted by your sentence implying there is no reason to run a red, because it shows you really don’t understand. I have multiple intersections on my morning commute where the safest time to cross the intersection is when I have a red light. Sometimes it’s legal for me to run them, sometimes it isn’t. That happens when intersections are designed for cars and not bicycles. If they were designed just as much for bikes, there would be a leading bike indicator at every intersection in America that has some type of bike infrastructure. You acted like that Anatole France quote wasn’t relevant when it unequivocally is. If the safest thing for me to do is break the law, then the law is wrong.
rules aren’t neutral or grown out of the void. people with biases and maybe even ambitions create them for specific purposes
EDIT: To quote Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Rules governing bike traffic are generally quite reasonable though. It’s not like the enlightened traffic planners in the Netherlands went “you know what, cyclists don’t have to obey red lights” for example. So I’m not seeing the biases you’re talking about, at least in this example.
Comparing running red lights to sleeping under bridges or steal for survival seems, at best, hyperbolic. In any case I don’t think that quote supports the view that the law is intentionally biased
The lights often automatically changes to cyclists priority in many places in the Netherlands, and often provide underpasses to avoid conflict points in the first place. It is not a comparable situation. Traffic laws and infrastructure in the USA, for instance, are incredibly biased in favor of cars, so their comment is absolutely relevant.
When I bike in the USA often the safest time for me to cross an intersection is unrelated to whether I have a green light, but more related to if anyone else at the intersection does. The safest time for me to go is when no one else at the light has a green light, not when I do.
Often they will, but what about the circumstances where they haven’t? We’re talking about a bike-first country which still does this.
My whole point here is that pro-cycling rule-makers will try to make cycling work in various ways, but those ways do NOT include letting cyclists ride across junctions when there is crossing vehicle traffic. The bias the person above is talking about is not about traffic light rules; it’s about missing other bits of bike infrastructure. And if that infrastructure is missing it does not make it sensible or reasonable to break other rules as some kind of counterbalance.
It is perfectly legal in many places in the world to run a red light on a motorcycle or bicycle, provided you wait a reasonable amount of time. So your example is complicated. Simply because the magnetic strips that detects cars don’t detect them. But if run a red light after waiting, I guarantee the average person will think I’m the same as the person that flys through the intersection without slowing down. In my experience the average car driver has no idea why bicycles make the decisions they make.
And it is perfectly reasonable to break rules, if breaking them is what is keeping me alive. I really could give a shit what the law is. I care about getting to work alive. And I will make decisions to that end first and the law second.
I don’t think this is really on-topic.
Possibly I got distracted by your sentence implying there is no reason to run a red, because it shows you really don’t understand. I have multiple intersections on my morning commute where the safest time to cross the intersection is when I have a red light. Sometimes it’s legal for me to run them, sometimes it isn’t. That happens when intersections are designed for cars and not bicycles. If they were designed just as much for bikes, there would be a leading bike indicator at every intersection in America that has some type of bike infrastructure. You acted like that Anatole France quote wasn’t relevant when it unequivocally is. If the safest thing for me to do is break the law, then the law is wrong.