IME it's not that uncommon for humans to do this, but we should expect better from robot cars :)
In NZ technically the local-road speed limit is 50kph, but normal accepted practice is to drive at 60. Anecdotally, I get stuck behind someone driving at 40 at least once a week. It's really annoying.
Banning cyclists on roads should be done based on road usage, not speed. There are lots of 60-80 kph roads that are perfectly safe to ride on and where you won't obstruct car traffic.
To be silly, I could turn the question around. How do you feel about cars on roads that are slower than 60 kph? We could ban cars on all residential roads and have wonderful walking/cycling communities. When I was living in the UK I was amazed at how many high streets have gone pedestrian. It has reinvigorated small towns.
Of course the problem is, "What happens if I can't get from A to B in my car?" I think for car drivers the idea of banning cars on residential roads makes this point very clear. The same thing happens with bicycles. In many cities it is impossible to get from point A to point B without a car. This encourages/forces cyclists to use inappropriate roads. As the sibling post notes, we need to do a better job of designing our cities.
I hate seeing cyclists on the very same road in question (El Camino Real in Mountain View). There is a substantial bike 'boulevard' network of side streets made safer for bicyclists, so it's mostly ignorance that brings people to bike down El Camino.
Check out the line of red dots in this accident map:
Considering that cyclists are expressly encouraged to use other roads, this thoroughfare is MUCH more dangerous to a cyclist than most of the rest of the city.
There is a substantial bike 'boulevard' network of side streets made safer for bicyclists
NOT that is segregated from through traffic (as opposed to Bryant St, in Palo Alto, on which car through-traffic is blocked every couple of blocks.
Best route I found parallel to El Camino was Church/Latham to the Palo Alto border, then a slight jog over to the pedestrian/bike bridge behind the shopping center (was Tower Records for years, forgot what it is now). Then, work your way to Bryant.
Yeah, actually, the bike route network for Mountain View is really terrible in comparison to Palo Alto! But that's a different discussion... I see bicyclists on El Camino in Palo Alto at night without lights all the time!
I'm really excited that the towns around here are contemplating making the bicycle boulevard network easier to use AND making El Camino safer to bicycle on.
Right now there's often an unpleasant choice when traveling by bicycle: take stressful main streets or spend 50% more time navigating complicated winding side streets. Making the main streets less stressful and making the side streets more direct should make both choices better.
It'll probably take many years but the local governments are really starting to think about it a lot and there's even some funding appearing.
I am a cyclist myself (2 mtbs, 1 roadie, 1 cx commuter); take a guess. Hint: It's a lot easier to overtake a considerate cyclist than it is to overtake a slow moving car.
Also: A cyclist will ride at the speed the cyclist can ride. No beef there. The lethargic, social network distracted drivers, however...
FWIW I also have a full motorcycle license, although I gave up my 600 many years ago; I miss doing Phillip Island at 180km/h leaned over. I like to believe that having used multiple modes of transport broadens my horizons.
Living in Germany, I never heard about anyone ticketed for this. The only case really covered by this rule is, that one drives extremely slow under good conditions. Otherwise, in many situations "safety" would be a good reason. And in general, you cannot be asked to drive faster than your car can go. With the exception of the Autobahn and a very few similar streets, the Google car would be legal to drive speed-wise, most tractors are even slower and road-legal.
I'm guessing it's intended as a liability law, like jaywalking laws are. Nobody will ticket you for jaywalking; instead, it'll just serve as the defense of whoever ended up hitting you. "They just ran out onto the freeway right in front of me!"
I was ticketed for jaywalking in Germany. It’s a €5 fine.
Police was hiding in an unmarked car, watching a traffic light in front of a supermarket with the singular purpose of catching jaywalkers. I was crossing the street (definitely not a busy one, more of an access road, mostly to just that supermarket and the old center of town, decidedly not exciting on a weekday at 10pm) while the light was red.
The officer was actually running (jogging, I guess) after me because I had my headphones on and didn't hear him asking me to stop. I thought it was quite ridiculous, but, if I'm honest to myself, this experience actually did make me think twice about jaywalking. I think I'm less likely to do it now.
The fine is not a big deal, though, it's basically the mildest possible punishment.
Crossing on red is not jaywalking as per the American definition. Jaywalking is crossing the street where there isn't a crosswalk or pedestrian traffic light.
Americans introduced me to this concept using pedestrian traffic lights … so I'm not sure how universal your definition really is? (I know it just as any non-legal crossing of a street by pedestrians.)
In NZ technically the local-road speed limit is 50kph, but normal accepted practice is to drive at 60. Anecdotally, I get stuck behind someone driving at 40 at least once a week. It's really annoying.