311

Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study (www.forbes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Some interesting stuff here, including links to more studies showing similar results in different countries.

The summary is that the reason motorists break more laws is that speeding is so common.

I don't think this is because motorists are all evil and cyclists are all saints. Probably, the reason motorists break speed limits is that it can be relatively difficult to keep cars below the speed limit. It's all too easy to absentmindedly speed up. It's also, perhaps becuase of this, widely seen as socially acceptable to break the speed limit (speaking anecdotally).

One interesting thing here, which may not surprise regular readers of Fuck Cars, is that better cycling infrastructure leads to less lawbreaking by cyclists. As is often the case, it's the design of roads and cities that changes behaviour, not abstract appeals to road users to be sensible!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So, your comments here are kind of confusing. If I understand you right, you're making a distinction between motorbikes (which as the name suggests have a motor) and pushbikes (AKA bicycles - the kind of thing you pedal). This study is about bicycles, not motorbikes.

As to licences, most jurisdictions do require motorcyclists to have a licence, either a full driving licence or a specialist motorbike licence (sometimes both).

Cyclists do not require a licence. While of course they do have the capacity to be 'annoying' (because they're human beings), bicycles are both much simpler to pilot and much safer than either motorbikes or cars. In other words, while cyclists are annoying, motorists are dangerous. There's a qualitative difference.

[+] zoe@infosec.pub -20 points 1 year ago

if cyclists dont have dedicated lanes somewhere, they need to have a license of some sort, 'specialist' cyclist, driving bicycle license, anything, to keep traffic in order

[-] jessta@aus.social 9 points 1 year ago

@zoe @frankPodmore Driving licences and traffic lights were invented because car drivers were too dangerous to safely mix with existing road traffic and we needed to restrain them. Bicycles have never been a significant danger to other road traffic. We don't require licences for people to ride bicycles for the same reason we don't require licences for pedestrians, it's a ridiculous idea that would do nothing useful.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think you've really engaged with this post properly at all.

Cyclists don't need a licence 'to keep traffic in order', because it isn't cyclists that cause the problems.

[-] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

A common argument raised around here, is how will kids cycle to school if licenses are needed? Their parents are likely to drive them instead, creating more traffic, and the kids lose out on that exercise and freedom of mobility.

If their parents can't drive them or afford to own a car it's tough luck, that kid loses out on an education 🤷‍♂️

[-] unfnknblvbl@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Lemme just check my state road rules.

Hmmmm... Now this is interesting!

It says right here in Article VI, Section 3, Paragraph 14 that you have no idea what you're talking about. Amazing!

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023

311 points (90.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9801 readers

8 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

uthredii@lemmy.ml

uthredii@beehaw.org