Some worry that New York City’s crackdown on unsafe cyclists leaves them facing greater consequences than drivers, even though cars cause more fatalities.
Some worry that New York City’s crackdown on unsafe cyclists leaves them facing greater consequences than drivers, even though cars cause more fatalities.
It should be, because it’s actually less safe for bikes to come to a full stop at red lights and stop signs.
Your source says that bikes should still come to a full stop at red lights though?
Doesn’t mean you can’t proceed after stopping despite the light still being red. It says that is better than actually obeying the red light and stopping till it turns green.
Safer when it is legalized. If I as a driver know bikes are allowed to go through stops, then I expect it and adjust accordingly. If it’s not legal then I expect them to stop like everyone else and am surprised when they don’t.
You realize that stop signs and stop lights are two completely different traffic controls and are used in completely different traffic situations, right?
Did you have a point? Data shows it’s safer to cyclists to yield and not stop at both.
Very interesting and counterintuitive.
It is at first, but it makes sense when you consider that bikes take longer to come up to speed than cars do, and have a much more limited capacity to get out of the way when they’re not at speed. So if you make bikes lose and regain that speed many times while riding, multiplied by many bikers, eventually one of them is going to wind up encountering a driver that’s not paying attention while they’re leaving a stop sign.
I’m sure that’s not the only reason, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a reason.
These are E-bikes. Some are practically low power motorcycles. All that is also true for motorcycles, they have to obey traffic signals.
Where are motorcycles limited to 25 kph, the way bicycles (including e-bikes) are? There is also an inherent weight difference between a motorcycle and a bike, even an e-bike, which changes how dangerous they are.