45 min listen
Here's why cyclists who skip red lights aren't bad people
FromThe Morality of Everyday Things: An Everyday Philosophy Podcast
Here's why cyclists who skip red lights aren't bad people
FromThe Morality of Everyday Things: An Everyday Philosophy Podcast
ratings:
Length:
41 minutes
Released:
Nov 10, 2021
Format:
Podcast episode
Description
Is it justifiable to blatantly break one of the most basic rules of the road?
In this episode, Jake and Ant discuss the morality of skipping red lights on a bike. They begin by chatting about unexpected outcomes of laws that are designed to improve safety and the possibility that running reds is actually safer for cyclists. They discuss the “Reverse Peltzman effect'' and how by making a behaviour more risky, people compensate by being more careful, which may be enough to outweigh the increased risk.
They also talk about whether the laws applied to cyclists on the road are justified, the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, as well as musing about what changes may be beneficial for road safety.
Thanks so much to the people who've left reviews! We read them all and the words of encouragement mean the world to us. If you could spare the time, leaving a review on Apple Podcasts would help us a lot. If you don't have Apple Podcasts, feel free to rate using whatever service you use. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode, Jake and Ant discuss the morality of skipping red lights on a bike. They begin by chatting about unexpected outcomes of laws that are designed to improve safety and the possibility that running reds is actually safer for cyclists. They discuss the “Reverse Peltzman effect'' and how by making a behaviour more risky, people compensate by being more careful, which may be enough to outweigh the increased risk.
They also talk about whether the laws applied to cyclists on the road are justified, the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, as well as musing about what changes may be beneficial for road safety.
Thanks so much to the people who've left reviews! We read them all and the words of encouragement mean the world to us. If you could spare the time, leaving a review on Apple Podcasts would help us a lot. If you don't have Apple Podcasts, feel free to rate using whatever service you use. Sign up to our newsletter here to receive a breakdown of the arguments presented, some memes and updates on future episodes: https://moedt.substack.com/ If you'd like to support the show, checkout our patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/moedt
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Released:
Nov 10, 2021
Format:
Podcast episode
Titles in the series (90)
Was Joe Biden wrong to pull out of Afghanistan?: <strong>In this episode, Jake and Ant look at the ethics of the Western abandonment of Afghanistan after decades of support.</strong><br><br><strong>We begin by chatting about some necessary context on the history of Afghanistan, both cold war era and post 9/11. Ultimately, we discuss the limits of one person's moral agency (can the president be personally blamed? Was there any winning decision to be made?), when it may be just to invade or 'nation-build' and the limits of respecting sovereignity and self-determination. Specifically, we also discuss the concept of a 'just war' and Mill's self help test in the context of war. Factcheck timeline here: </strong>https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/<br><br><strong>What are your thoughts, should Biden have put his foot down and managed the pull out differently, or even cancelled it? Do let us know and chat to us on our facebook page, insta or email ant by The Morality of Everyday Things: An Everyday Philosophy Podcast