• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand the need to obey traffic laws on a bicycle, but treating them the same as a 2+ ton projectile that can turn humans into meat paste or cause tens of thousands of dollars in damage to a structure in seconds by effortlessly adjusting your right ankle by 25° is absurd.

    Fines should be proportional to the potential damage of the Infraction.

    • @minnow
      link
      21 year ago

      It’s not about if the cyclist hit something, it’s about the possibility of something hitting the bicyclist.

      If a car, following the law, took its right of way through the intersection and hit a cyclist who wasn’t following the law… Well it’s fine to say the cyclist was at fault, but he’s still been hit by a car.

      Traffic laws are there to protect everyone from each other.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Except, as others have pointed out in this discussion, it’s actually safer to let cyclists use stop signs as yield signs.

        • @minnow
          link
          11 year ago

          And it’s safest for everyone to behave predictably.

          With that in mind, I have two more points:

          One, I’m very much in favor of the Idaho stop, as long as it’s applicable law.

          Two, in my example the cyclist would still have needed to stop (yield) for the vehicle that was at the intersection already. At least, in my state they would.