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!

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s also a level of absurdity to cycling laws. E.g., in the UK if I:

    • Approach a red light
    • Dismount
    • Wheel my bike just over the stop line
    • Remount and cycle away

    That’s legal. But! If I:

    • Approach a red light
    • Stay on my bike
    • Cycle very slowly over the stop line
    • Continue to cycle away

    That’s a crime.

    The ‘Stop on red’ rule was obviously designed for cars and then slapped onto bicycles, a category of vehicle for which it makes very little sense.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ‘Stop on red’ rule was obviously designed for cars and then slapped onto bicycles, a category of vehicle for which it makes very little sense.

      Proof: intersections of multi-use paths don’t have stop signs and don’t need them.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        intersections of multi-use paths don’t have stop signs and don’t need them.

        We have a few municipalities around here that are adding stop lights for cyclists where multiuse paths meet intersections (to control the cross rides).

        It’s more of a safety thing, but I’ve almost been run over several times while crossing them on a WALK/BIKE green, since motorists really don’t care at all.

        You will often get a motorist committing to a left turn going into the cross ride, and since they didn’t look first and didn’t give themselves any time before the oncoming traffic arrives, they’ll plow through the cross ride/cross-walk. To say that I see this happening all the time is not an exaggeration.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A place where two multi-use paths cross is entirely different from a place where a multi-use path crosses a street. The signal for the latter is still because of the cars, not the bikes, even if it’s directing the latter.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A place where two multi-use paths cross

            That’s a really rare sight to see in my region. I wish we had enough multi-use paths to actually have them cross! LOL

    • EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a UK cyclist I can see that stopping at a red light definitely does make sense. I don’t want to hit pedestrians and other road users who have been given a green light to cross my path.

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re no more dangerous cycling at 3kph than you are wheeling your bike at 3kph, but one of those things is illegal if you do it over a stop line, regardless of anything else you do once you’re over the stop line. That’s the absurdity.

        • NotYourSocialWorker@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that one will force you to actually stop, if even for just a moment. That can give you enough time to actually see oncoming traffic.

      • Boxtifer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t get this. You slow down if you don’t want to hit people. You also have a set of eyes. Are people not able to go “person walking in front, let’s slow down and go behind them”. If it’s a wall of people, then of course you stop.

        • EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So then the pedestrians trying to cross the road have to judge whether the cyclist is going to stop, rather than assuming they will. Why not make the same rules apply to everyone on the road to be more predictable?

          • Boxtifer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good point. Can’t win them all. If life was perfect then a simple communication could be used if need be. If only people didn’t wanna hit other people all the time or something.

          • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The solution is to design roads where these conflicts and confusions don’t happen. For example, you can have a lighted pedestrian crossing for car lanes adjacent to a raised, unlighted crossing for the cycle lane.