John F. Carr
In essence, motorists decided that it was inconvenient for them to obey their own laws, and so the motoring majority changed the law for their convenience.
Of course they would say that. It's impossible to enforce something that everyone ignores.
That's because the law that is ignored, speed limit, is ignored by the motoring majority by popular opinion (and probably a large dose of "money talks" to get the law written as such). On the other hand, the vast minority bicycle driver population which could benefit from a law enabling them to "skirt" lights cannot write their own laws, as can the motoring majority. So bicyclists flaut the law because their operational abilities (small size, maneuverability, ability to easily see and hear) readily enable it (just like motorists are able to exceed the speed limit) and there is typically no penalty. So, in essence bicyclists achieve what motorists have achieved; personal advantage.
They do it because the can. They do it because they don't want to be subject to motorist caused congestion. They do it because they don't want to be subject to fumes of stopped motor vehicles. They do it because the conservation of momentum is much more important to bicycles than motor vehicles in which the operator merely presses the gas. They do it because lights often are not tripped by bicycles. They do it to get a jump on the thundering herd which gets hostile if delayed by a slow accelerating bicycle.
Like I said previously, if motor vehicles didn't exist (I'm not advocating that), every intersection would be a roundabout and no one would have to stop. As it is, bicyclists are greatly penalized by the ubiquity of motor vehicles. So they compensate.
Wayne
