In an earlier post I made reference to a finding that cyclists who obey traffic lights are more likely to be killed or maimed.
There are many thought provoking findings in the study. The question going through my mind is if motorized vehicles and non-motorized vehicles should be subject to the same laws.
The study found:
Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot....It suggests that some cyclists who break the law by jumping red lights may be safer...There is something wrong if the only way you can survive on a bike is to skip the lights.
It is easy to lump motorized and non-motorized vehicles into the same bucket, however, this study, and casual observations, states that there is a big difference between a cyclist and, lets say, a 16-wheeler. The difference comes down to a non-motorized vehicle's vulnerability to damage and a motorized vehicle's potential to cause damage.
Stop signs and traffic lights are designed to slow down traffic--because of it's potential to cause damage--and allow pedestrians and other traffic to safely cross. Non-motorized vehicles are subjected to laws that were designed for much more dangerous vehicles, but the laws do not sufficiently protect the vulnerable vehicles from the much more dangerous ones.
The apparent answer is no-- non-motorized vehicles should not be subject to the same laws designed for motorized vehicles.
