Comment

Comment on Why cyclists should NOT get the same fines as motorists | Car Culture 6 - Motonormativity

He hasn’t really convinced me that cyclists shouldn’t be fined for breaking the law the same as drivers

Yeah the video didn’t really focus as much on that point as it probably should have to earn its title. It made a few points in that regard, but the focus was more on that specific speed limit.

But I would ask, very simply: why should the punishment be the same? That’s really the most relevant way of framing it, because that’s the positive claim being made, and you can’t really prove a negative other than to suggest that there’s no evidence in favour of the positive. (I can’t prove “there’s no yeti”, but I can say “well there’s no evidence on which to justify believing in a yeti.”) It shouldn’t be on cycling advocates to justify why the punishment should be less, but on the car-brained to explain why they should be the same.

So why should the punishment be the same? The risk is drastically less, as evidenced by the crash rates and crash severity. So what is it?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

But I would ask, very simply: why should the punishment be the same?

For the same reason we don’t fine drivers $10 for driving like idiots. If cyclists can ride around town with no regard for safety and the law, because the worst they’ll face is a $10 fine, then why should they be safe riders?

source
- Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That’s the car brain talking. It’s not a cogent explanation.
  
  Why, when cyclists factually do not cause anywhere near the same level of harm as drivers, should the fine be the same?
  
  source
  - Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s nothing to do with that. It’s about lack of consequences. A $10 fine is no deterrent at all for obeying the law. For any road user.
    
    source
    Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s well-known that severity of punishment has very little bearing on deterrent effectiveness. What works is likelihood of facing that punishment at all.
    
    But again, enforcing speed limits on bikes just makes no sense. It’s responding to a risk that basically doesn’t exist, and any resources that could be spent on it would be far better spent ensuring drivers don’t break the law.
    
    Of course, that would require cops doing the right thing in the interest of actual safety. But the truth is, cops don’t give a fuck about that. They’re as car-brained as our politicians, if not more so. They’ll spend heaps of resources enforcing these nonsense speed limits, while they refuse to enforce laws like the minimum passing distance for cyclists even when they’re literally handed the evidence needed.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- red_one@lemmy.probabilitydegeneration.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Because riding around unsafely is a good way to end up in the back of an ambulance.
  
  It’s not about the $, it’s about the survivability of an accident.
  
  source
  - Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Sitting here, that sounds like a reasonable argument. Yet experience shows us that people are idiots. They go around with the mentality of ‘It will never happen to me.’
    
    Have a look at this on the ABC today. Specifically the bit about the lack of road rules in the late 60’s:
    
    In the 1960s, seatbelts weren’t mandatory, speed cameras hadn’t yet been introduced and drink driving went virtually unchecked. It was a time of carnage on our roads. In 1970, the worst road toll year on record, 3,798 people lost their lives. That’s more than three times higher than the figure for last year, when 1,194 people died.
    
    There you are - evidence that laws about road safety save lives. That’s no statistical outlier. Road deaths plummeted after the introduction of safety laws. Yes, they have reduced even further in the past 20 years with the introduction of better vehicle safety features, but that doesn’t come close to explaining all of it.
    
    I know we’re not literally talking about removing the laws for cyclists. Yet, my argument remains: If the fines for cyclists are negligible, they will be disregarded. They may as well be removed.
    
    source
abhibeckert@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

The risk is drastically less, as evidenced by the crash rates and crash severity.

Is it? Vic Roads claims you are up to 10x more likely to be killed if you travel by bicycle vs car. And it would make sense to me that you’re more likely to be killed if you ride fast.

Certainly all of my own bicycle crashes have involved speed - I’ve never suffered any injury at all, not even a bruise, when I was riding slowly.

But anyway, I generally reject your assertion that the punishment should be matched to the level of risk. For me the punishment should be set at whatever level is necessary to encourage the majority of riders to ride safely. And it’s not up to the police to determine what speed is “safe”. That determination is up to the town planning contractors who set the speed limit on the bridge.

If it was a slap on the wrist fine, everyone would ignore the speed limit. That doesn’t seem right to me at all.

source
- Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  Vic Roads claims you are up to 10x more likely to be killed if you travel by bicycle vs car
  
  Yes, that’s caused by the cars. It’s a different conversation.
  
  We’re talking about the risk to pedestrians caused by cars versus cyclists.
  
  source