[john-h-k]

> 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.

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.

[consp]

I phrased it wrongly. My bad.

The point should have been: if you drive a machine which can result in deadly harm to others you should be more responsible and thus the fine heavier (no longer being allowed to use such machine). Try killing someone with a bike. Not impossible but more a challenge than with a car.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Being required to show up for court isn't a fine, it's a means to make sure that a fine can be enforced. Whichever vehicle you're using, running a red light is often* legally proscribed.

The severity of the penalty can be determined by legislators elected by the people. Some of those people may want to increase the fine amount for automobile drivers. That seems like an ok thing to want.

* - often, but not always -- I realize that some jurisdictions legalize varying forms of it for some vehicles