[const_cast]

If you design your streets for pedestrian safety that means pedestrians will be more safe. The reason we have so many pedestrian limitations is because we design streets for cars first, and put everything else to the side, making those everything else incredibly endangered.

More curves, lower limits, more stops. Cities that implement more bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly design are safer for everyone, cars included.

[pandaman]

I am sorry, I don't see how is this explaining how running red lights and stop signs makes bicycles safer. Another example - trains don't take much damage from the cars yet cars suffer catastrophic damage from trains, should cars be allowed to run through train crossing gates for more safety? If we put everything other than cars to the side, it means trains too, right? So why cars have to stop at the crossing gates, should not it be safer to remove any gates and/or traffic signals from the railroad crossings?

[tstrimple]

The excuse I've heard is that because cyclists need more energy to get back up to speed it's more acceptable for them to roll through lights / stop signs. Seems like pretty weak reasoning to me. But as long as it's a "rolling stop" I think there should be leeway given. It's very different to roll up to an empty 4 way stop and decide to roll through and deciding your "energy needs" trump everyone else trying to leverage an intersection. I'm of a similar belief with cars. A full two second pause at an empty 4 way stop is stupid. There is no safety issue with slowing down, seeing the path is clear and then proceeding.

I've personally run two red lights in the last month or so. Both were late at night where I'm literally the only visible vehicle on the road at a timed (no sensor) intersection where I was waiting for over a minute for the light to change. That's obviously a very different scenario than when you have to interact with other drivers on the road.

[pandaman]

Yes, I don't find the "energy to start moving" explanation very rational too but whatever is the reason cyclists want to blow stops and reds, I am just confused how somebody can believe that it makes cycling safer. Especially the one given, that bikes are more fragile than cars, it just does not follow. I would not run a red light in a car for the fear of a side collision and my chances to survive one in a car are so much greater than on a bike.

[const_cast]

They don't, my point is that if we design cities to be more friendly to bikes then those incidents go way down. The reason this is a problem is that we hyper-optimize for cars, so pedestrians and bikers are forced into worse situations.

Like, the reason pedestrians jay walk isn't that they're selfish, it's that the streets aren't designed for them and we put far too little crosswalks, with far too little protection. We can make the situation safer for everyone, a win-win.

It's not an us versus them type thing which is where I think most car design conversations go. When we de-prioritize cars, it helps everyone, including the cars.