He hasn't really convinced me that cyclists shouldn't be fined for breaking the law the same as drivers. He has however convinced me that the speed limit on that bridge is laughably too low.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (10 children)

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?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 3 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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?

[–] red_one@lemmy.probabilitydegeneration.xyz 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)