|
|
|
|
|
by consp
375 days ago
|
|
It's also misleading as there is a natural penalty asymmetry. The penalty for crossing though red and getting hit by a car is death for any cyclist and a likely accident but very survivable for a car. Around here the fines are equal in money but you can lose your license to drive a murder machine. (Sarcasm) It might be worse if the allowed speeds around intersections and cultural preference to speed though red are higher. And by allowed speeds I mean natural speed through traffic calming. |
|
But the legal penalty is nothing to do with what risks you took. You could have the view that the state should punish making mistakes that can kill your (in which case the bike penalty would be higher), but I (and I assume most) people wouldn't say this.
The reason the penalty exists is to disincentivise the action. If people were truly rational with all these risks, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
It would be incredibly odd to suggest, say, that burglars should have lower sentences if they risked their lives while doing the burglary.