Cyclists far less likely to break traffic laws than motorists finds study

froze wrote:

my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  

That may be your observation where you've lived, but the research referred to in the article shows the opposite.

froze wrote:

With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles... except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist...  With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

Yup, cyclists have to obey the rules of the road in the UK too, and occasionally they don't. I don't condone that at all, but the article makes some useful points.
1) Rule breaking by cyclists may be more visible than rule breaking by motorists (e.g. a car exceeding the speed limit may not be so obvious as a cyclist jumping a red light), so be aware that subjective observations may get a bit distorted.
2) In the Danish study, when cyclists disobeyed rules it was often for safety reasons, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) when the road is intimidating. To quote: "while just 4.9 per cent of cyclists broke road rules when riding on cycleways, 14 per cent did so when there was no cycling infrastructure present. The most common transgression was pavement cycling." So the absence of proper infrastructure for cyclists actually causes the behaviour you complain about.
3) Transgressions by cyclists are generally far less dangerous to others than those by motorists.

And finally -- roads were built for cars? Oh dear! Your history needs a refresher! Please see http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ or https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history
Perhaps you meant that roads are designed for cars rather than cycles these days -- well, that is just what we're complaining about!

arowland wrote:

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles... except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist...  With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

Yup, cyclists have to obey the rules of the road in the UK too, and occasionally they don't. I don't condone that at all, but the article makes some useful points.
1) Rule breaking by cyclists may be more visible than rule breaking by motorists (e.g. a car exceeding the speed limit may not be so obvious as a cyclist jumping a red light), so be aware that subjective observations may get a bit distorted.
2) In the Danish study, when cyclists disobeyed rules it was often for safety reasons, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) when the road is intimidating. To quote: "while just 4.9 per cent of cyclists broke road rules when riding on cycleways, 14 per cent did so when there was no cycling infrastructure present. The most common transgression was pavement cycling." So the absence of proper infrastructure for cyclists actually causes the behaviour you complain about.
3) Transgressions by cyclists are generally far less dangerous to others than those by motorists.

 

And finally -- roads were built for cars? Oh dear! Your history needs a refresher! Please see http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ or https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history
Perhaps you meant that roads are designed for cars rather than cycles these days -- well, that is just what we're complaining about!

No, you found some obscure website and ran with it.  Roads were invented a long time ago for horses and oxen, later Romans made roads for their horses and chariots, then came horse and carriage, and those carriages were the same design that cars originally took which is why the first cars were called horseless carriages.  So no, roads were not designed for bikes, bikes came along later and the riders simply rode them on whatever surface was available that was conducive for cycling on.  So no, it's you that needs the history refresher.

froze wrote:

arowland wrote:

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles... except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist...  With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

Yup, cyclists have to obey the rules of the road in the UK too, and occasionally they don't. I don't condone that at all, but the article makes some useful points.
1) Rule breaking by cyclists may be more visible than rule breaking by motorists (e.g. a car exceeding the speed limit may not be so obvious as a cyclist jumping a red light), so be aware that subjective observations may get a bit distorted.
2) In the Danish study, when cyclists disobeyed rules it was often for safety reasons, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) when the road is intimidating. To quote: "while just 4.9 per cent of cyclists broke road rules when riding on cycleways, 14 per cent did so when there was no cycling infrastructure present. The most common transgression was pavement cycling." So the absence of proper infrastructure for cyclists actually causes the behaviour you complain about.
3) Transgressions by cyclists are generally far less dangerous to others than those by motorists.

 

And finally -- roads were built for cars? Oh dear! Your history needs a refresher! Please see http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ or https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history
Perhaps you meant that roads are designed for cars rather than cycles these days -- well, that is just what we're complaining about!

No, you found some obscure website and ran with it.  Roads were invented a long time ago for horses and oxen, later Romans made roads for their horses and chariots, then came horse and carriage, and those carriages were the same design that cars originally took which is why the first cars were called horseless carriages.  So no, roads were not designed for bikes, bikes came along later and the riders simply rode them on whatever surface was available that was conducive for cycling on.  So no, it's you that needs the history refresher.

 

I think you've got that a bit wrong: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

Quote:

The hard, flat road surfaces we take for granted are relatively new. Asphalt surfaces weren't widespread until the 1930s. So, are motorists to thank for this smoothness?

No. The improvement of roads was first lobbied for – and paid for – by cycling organisations.

In the UK and the US, cyclists lobbied for better road surfaces for a full 30 years before motoring organisations did the same. Cyclists were ahead of their time.

You should read http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ - Carlton Reid made an excellent job of research and it's a good read (I helped KickStarter it). He recently emailed about it  being used as a textbook:

Carlton Reid wrote:

PhD scholar Megan Sharkey reminded me of this the other day when she tweeted:

"Currently using your book to understand a bit more missed policy turns during the pre WW2 period and help with archives research."

hawkinspeter wrote:

froze wrote:

arowland wrote:

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles... except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist...  With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

Yup, cyclists have to obey the rules of the road in the UK too, and occasionally they don't. I don't condone that at all, but the article makes some useful points.
1) Rule breaking by cyclists may be more visible than rule breaking by motorists (e.g. a car exceeding the speed limit may not be so obvious as a cyclist jumping a red light), so be aware that subjective observations may get a bit distorted.
2) In the Danish study, when cyclists disobeyed rules it was often for safety reasons, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) when the road is intimidating. To quote: "while just 4.9 per cent of cyclists broke road rules when riding on cycleways, 14 per cent did so when there was no cycling infrastructure present. The most common transgression was pavement cycling." So the absence of proper infrastructure for cyclists actually causes the behaviour you complain about.
3) Transgressions by cyclists are generally far less dangerous to others than those by motorists.

 

And finally -- roads were built for cars? Oh dear! Your history needs a refresher! Please see http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ or https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history
Perhaps you meant that roads are designed for cars rather than cycles these days -- well, that is just what we're complaining about!

No, you found some obscure website and ran with it.  Roads were invented a long time ago for horses and oxen, later Romans made roads for their horses and chariots, then came horse and carriage, and those carriages were the same design that cars originally took which is why the first cars were called horseless carriages.  So no, roads were not designed for bikes, bikes came along later and the riders simply rode them on whatever surface was available that was conducive for cycling on.  So no, it's you that needs the history refresher.

 

I think you've got that a bit wrong

To be fair most of their points so far have been wrong, firstly using anecdote and confirmation bias as counterpoints to actual evidence-based research and then misquoting and misrepresenting another poster's comment about traffic light-based cameras as the basis for their roads-built-for-cars argument.

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.

Cycling discussion rule no. 1: Anecdote is not evidence. Your observations will be very much determined by circumstances, prejudices, confirmation bias and more.

froze wrote:

No, you found some obscure website and ran with it.

It's not obscure, Carlton knows far, far more about roads and transport than you realise.

Whether roads were invented for horses is not the point, the vast majority of the ones we use today were NOT built for cars so it is you that was wrong. We all get things wrong, it will be better for everyone involved if instead of arguing you simply grow up and admit it. You then would be able to digest other contributions properly and may learn something.

froze wrote:

arowland wrote:

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA ... my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles... except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist...  With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

Yup, cyclists have to obey the rules of the road in the UK too, and occasionally they don't. I don't condone that at all, but the article makes some useful points.
1) Rule breaking by cyclists may be more visible than rule breaking by motorists (e.g. a car exceeding the speed limit may not be so obvious as a cyclist jumping a red light), so be aware that subjective observations may get a bit distorted.
2) In the Danish study, when cyclists disobeyed rules it was often for safety reasons, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) when the road is intimidating. To quote: "while just 4.9 per cent of cyclists broke road rules when riding on cycleways, 14 per cent did so when there was no cycling infrastructure present. The most common transgression was pavement cycling." So the absence of proper infrastructure for cyclists actually causes the behaviour you complain about.
3) Transgressions by cyclists are generally far less dangerous to others than those by motorists.

 

And finally -- roads were built for cars? Oh dear! Your history needs a refresher! Please see http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ or https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history
Perhaps you meant that roads are designed for cars rather than cycles these days -- well, that is just what we're complaining about!

No, you found some obscure website and ran with it.  Roads were invented a long time ago for horses and oxen, later Romans made roads for their horses and chariots, then came horse and carriage, and those carriages were the same design that cars originally took which is why the first cars were called horseless carriages.  So no, roads were not designed for bikes, bikes came along later and the riders simply rode them on whatever surface was available that was conducive for cycling on.  So no, it's you that needs the history refresher.

 

Most of what you confidentaly assert above is factually wrong.  Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

froze wrote:

I'm a cyclist and a motorists and here in the USA where have I lived in several cities in the US over my 50 years of being a cyclist and a motorist; my observations are that cyclists break more laws than motorists, sorry fellow cyclists but that's been my observations.  One poster mentioned that traffic lights were invented for cars not bicycles...except in the US the cyclist must obey the rules of the road just as a motorist, and if there is a stop sign or light or whatever traffic control device or sign the cyclist must obey that law UNLESS the sign excludes cyclist or that city or state has allowed exceptions.  The same is true with horse riders!   Even speed limits can be enforced especially in school zones if a cyclist is exceeding the limit and the cop deems it as unsafe for children being out and about, but typically a cyclist is not going to exceed the speed limit because they can't!  There are laws that pretain to cyclists only like you must ride to the far right as possible, you must be in bike lane if there is one, etc, etc. With that kind of logic about traffic lights were made for cars then you also that roads were made for cars, so cyclists need to stay off the roads!

I can't be bothered going through the multiple ways you get this wrong.  You don't seem to have grasped the point.  What you say is a mixture of not true, anecdotal, and completely irrelevant to the topic.

  But it's interesting that you sound like a stereotypical US-style motor-centric Franklinist elitist 'cyclist'.

Anyway, your entire country is disastrously dependent on motor vehicles and planes (and air-conditioning), it's a lost cause, so I don't really care what you do. 

  Get back to me when your country has attained some sort of reasonable population density so can have some sort of normal politics and environmentally-sane transport policy.  At the moment the US is, to a first approximation, empty - nobody lives there.  The average population density rounds down to zero (if you use the right units). 

Ergo you don't exist, so I don't have to listen to you.  Even if you do, you are liable to disappear at any moment in a freak mathematical rounding-error.