Travelling around I am often horrified at how many drivers just drive over red lights as if they arn't there !
Are there really that many drivers that are uninsured , no licence and really don't care ? & if so they ought to start locking them up !
Driving along the A27 towards a red set of lights I was approaching at 50mph and was overtaken up the inside by an Audi doing 80+ and he went through the lights 6 seconds after they had been red ! still doing a good 60+ if some family had been joining that road at that moment they could of been wiped out !
There was a traffic camera and it did flash twice but if the cars not registered what good does it do.
They were tall lights and were well red on the approach 300yrds + before the Audi was in full view of them.
The worrying thing is this is becoming a regular occurance !
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 9 Aug 11 at 10:31
|
|
I saw two cars go through a red light, side by side, yesterday. It was a pedestrian crossing, no pedestrians left on the road fortunately. But they still both obviously thought it was OK to progress. A van driver and me stopped at the lights after they had crossed, looked at eachother and gave a shrug. The behaviour of cyclists seems to be spreading to drivers.
|
Local plod have taken to setting up mobile CCTV on zebra crossings where cars don't stop with an unmarked car just round the corner.
Something that I totally agree with as the crossings tend to be used by kids getting to the local school and I even witnessed some arrogant drivers revving up and pushing forward when there was a lollipop man there and to be honest, he was very good in getting the kids to wait until there were 10 or so to cross at a time.
Now the Lollipop mans budget has gone, the kids need to cross by themselves and the cars just don't bother stopping.
What would happen if someone killed someone by aggressive driving, a few years in prison and a feeling by everyone that they were hard done by?
The law was changed when drivers were charged with manslaughter were not convicted by juries because of the belief that accidents happen. Accidents do happen, but when it is aggressive driving that causes a fatality, it is not an accident and the law needs to be changed back to allow convictions for manslaughter and potentially life in prison as imho it is no different from flaying around in the street with a knife.
Attitudes have also changed and on the whole I think drivers are becoming more aggressive. Its time policing and laws caught up with the changes.
|
posted a link to photo bucket, my in car camera captured the distance and clearly there is no excuse ! this was just blatant and arrogant driving ! extremely dangerous !
couple of pics are out of correct order
s739.photobucket.com/albums/xx33/injectiondoc/
|
|
After a nasty experience at red lights once, I did wonder on the practicality of fitting pop up crocodile teeth at traffic lights. Cross them when red, no tires!
|
|
Top idea zippy but the headline, the second time it is used, saying "5 people killed in Fireball Horror when tyres punctured by Police" is going to put people off.
|
>>The worrying thing is this is becoming a regular occurance !
>>
I happens every day many many times a day in both directions on the A309 near me.
IMO there are few accidents there because the crossing traffic has to climb up to cross the dual carriageway and this tends to ensure no rapid get aways thus allowing the jumpers to survive.
There has been a red light camera in place at the most dangerous direction but I have not seen it flash for years.
Us locals know not to go on the green.
|
Maybe the flip side is it's time to start getting rid of red lights. I'm in gdansk just now and save for large junctions, it's just 4 way cross roads with zebra crossings across each.
Pedestrians get priority, no one sits waiting at an empty junction for a light to change, it does seem a bit chaotic when it's very busy during the day but no one seems to mind and no one waits long.
|
I'm a bit 'old school' and actually stop for amber lights if at all possible. I've lost count of times cars behind me think I'm going to keep going and screech to a halt inches from my bumper when they discover the error of their judgement...
Maybe I need a bumper sticker saying...
Amber means STOP
or
RED IS NOT OPTIONAL
|
And the first time the driver behind notices it will be when you pick up the shard of bumper it's attached to and hand it to him.
So if we all stop for red lights, who is going through them? It can't be just a minority because on my way home through the J4 roundabout under the M4 at Heathrow, when the lights controlling the exit from the airport spur onto the roundabout go red (which I can see from my vantage point at the lights on the roundabout) as many as seven vehicles still come through. There's at least one every time, and since we all get a turn at being the first driver that ought to stop, doesn't this mean just about everyone is doing it?
|
Obviously I hold no brief for those who drive through red lights and endanger others, but there are places where one can see where the provocation comes from.
In Reading, for example, there are far too many traffic lights and too much priority given to side roads and pedestrians (there are some crossings where the lights go red a soon as a pedestrian pushed the button, and some where the flashing amber light doesn't work). If these systems were fairer to the majority of motorists, maybe there would be less reckless driving by the few.
Basingstoke and Milton Keynes would win no prizes for beauty, but there the traffic mostly keeps going with roundabouts, only the busiest of which are controlled by lights.
Last edited by: Avant on Tue 9 Aug 11 at 23:44
|
And of course driving across a red light isn't necessarily dangerous at all. There are many junctions where visibility is good in the relevant directions. It may be a technical infraction without being a risk to anyone.
There should be more traffic lights that only function at peak hours. It makes you look a wally waiting for three or four minutes because a light tells you to when you can see that it's just being stupid. Inefficient waste of time and fuel too.
|
|
I would rather see more traffic light cameras than speed cameras.
|
|
Be careful what you wish for, in Edinburgh many are dual function.
|
|
I consider traffic lights on roundabouts are there for my guidance, not an absolute restriction.
|
|
Sadly for you, the Police and traffic cameras don't share your view. Expect more points or fines to go alongside your recent bus lane incursion.
|
>> Sadly for you, the Police and traffic cameras don't share your view. Expect more points
>> or fines to go alongside your recent bus lane incursion.
Actually not. Been doing it for years. Part of the observation to do that safely includes seeing if there are red light cameras (usually never on roundabouts they are poor at photographing round bends) or policemen. If they can see me I can see them.
|
|
Glad to hear you're infallible. Carry on.
|
Not infalible, but careful in how I break the law.
And morally I think I am right. Roundabout were designed not to, and shouldn't have, traffic lights.
|
|
Super. You carry on. But don't get cross when you upset someone who deliberately rams you with their company car.
|
>> Super. You carry on. But don't get cross when you upset someone who deliberately rams
>> you with their company car.
You do know how roundabouts work?
|
You may recall that it's one of my favourite subjects.
Would asking you the same question about traffic lights seem curlish?
|
>> You may recall that it's one of my favourite subjects.
>>
>> Would asking you the same question about traffic lights seem curlish?
Yes, I have already indicated that it is not only safe and practical to do so, but it is a form of protest. Nay a Crusade even.
|
|
I'd love to see you tell that to the copper you didn't notice. Make sure you film it for us.
|
|
I often don't stop for 'delay gates' or lights on empty roads that have been phased as a 'red cascade'. The council hates us and I hate them right back. I often exploit the phantom phases where lights are red for me and green for a road which can only be empty as the crossing vehicles are held up and a delay gate 50 yards away.
Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Wed 10 Aug 11 at 10:53
|
|
The best solution is to reduce your speed to 20 mph when approaching lights (bit of an inconvenience in a 60 zone but there you go) so you don't have to perform an emergency stop when the lights change every ten seconds. Or less.
|
I'll bet that there's one sort of traffic restriction that Zero always stops for - even if there are no police around.
I'm talking about a railway crossing when the barrier comes down.
Only a madman would still ignore that! Oh! Wait .....
|
>> I consider traffic lights on roundabouts are there for my guidance, not an absolute restriction.
>>
I treat them all as give ways - the ones that stop you turning left when it's clearly safe to do so are bonkers (thought the Tory's were going to adopt the American practise of allowing this)?
There's no way in a million years I'd barrel through a set on a main road as the OP described, but around town, with the traffic doing 20MPH you can often see it's still clear to go, I don't see an issue. It wastes fuel and damages the environment to keep stopping and starting un-neccessarily.
|
I agree, Bill. And I shall start turning left on red when the UK law changes to allow that manoeuvre.
Until then, if you do so, and you are caught, or if you're involved in an accident, it's your neck on the block. I'm not taking that chance.
Passing a red light is reckless, irresponsible and unlawful, at the moment. We berate cyclists loudly enough for such behaviour, drivers should comply with the law also.
|
|
I am surprised that so many people are admitting to being crap drivers. most folk think they are above average. :-)
|
Chalk this one up as the 2nd time in as many months that common sense has failed to prevail.
Safely jumping a red light is just common sense.
|
|
A totally irresponsible attitude. I'm glad none of you red light jumpers live in my neck of the woods.
|
>> I am surprised that so many people are admitting to being crap drivers. most folk
>> think they are above average. :-)
>>
Well, I passed the RoSPA advanced test at Gold.
I wouldn't dream of going though a red light at a junction I was unfamiliar with, or in the dark, or if I didn't have clear sight of the other roads and footpaths around the junction.
Or if there was a camera on the junction or a marked or unmarked police car in sight.
|
>> I wouldn't dream of going though a red light at a junction I was unfamiliar
>> with, or in the dark, or if I didn't have clear sight of the other
>> roads and footpaths around the junction.
>> Or if there was a camera on the junction or a marked or unmarked police
>> car in sight.
>>
But you haven't got the self discipline to obey the law when you think you are unobserved. Don't complain about the surveillance society.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 10 Aug 11 at 17:15
|
>> But you haven't got the self discipline to obey the law when you think you
>> are unobserved. Don't complain about the surveillance society.
Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves.
|
|
Sometimes I wonder about that.
|
>> Passing a red light is reckless, irresponsible and unlawful, at the moment. We berate cyclists
>> loudly enough for such behaviour
I don't. At least not since I read this article.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
|
|
This wind up is becoming boring.
|
How I wish that I lived in a place where drivers had a brain and wanted to get on with it, like Zero and all too few others here.
But no, I'm afraid I live in a place filled with self-important but naive twozzers who think that just because they obey piffling road regulations even when it isn't necessary they are respectable, law-abiding citizens.
Actually most of them are obviously aggressive self-righteous mimsers who get in the way and delight in doing so. You can tell by their silly, sanctimonious posts, bad cess to the carphounds.
|
|
Wouldn't risk it myself, but doesn't bother me that BP and Zero would/do in certain circumstances.
|
|
I just hope I am not "making progress" legally when they decide to prove how good a driver they think they are.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 10 Aug 11 at 17:32
|
>> I just hope I am not "making progress" legally when they decide to prove how
>> good a driver they think they are.
Going by BP's description of the circumstances in which he passes a red light, which I assume is what you mean, do you think that's likely?
|
I certainly do.
The fact that some drivers think they are above the law, and don't need to obey the rules of the road shows exactly the mind set they have in other things.
I certainly don't want to risk meeting them on the road...unfortunately, I don't have that choice to make.
Pat
|
>> The fact that some drivers think they are above the law, and don't need to
>> obey the rules of the road shows exactly the mind set they have in other
>> things.
As I said, some of us are capable of using some judgement and common sense
Anyway you are so up the backside of the lorry in front (because you think your lorry stops sooner than a car) that you wont see me or the red light.
|
^^^^What she says +1
(and forgive us our mistakes, which we do make, but at least they are not intentional)
|
>> The fact that some drivers think they are above the law, and don't need to
>> obey the rules of the road shows exactly the mind set they have in other
>> things.
>>
Relevant to this thread, a friend of mine had a crash just before he joined the Police - he swore blind the taxi that hit him came through a red light. Taxi driver denied it.
Attending Police officer told him that it was very difficult to prove without witnesses, but my mate could be prosecuted for going through a green light when it wasn't safe to do so! The Police didn't take action against either driver.
|
|
Ever heard of "I didn't see you". A common statement after a collision.
|
>>Anyway you are so up the backside of the lorry in front (because you think your lorry stops sooner than a car) that you wont see me or the red light. <<
And this is where I make an exit and leave you to put any chance of the thread continuing to bed Zero, the floor is all yours. *shakes head in disgust*
Pat
|
Again YOU started it YOU start the personal stuff Pat, Like you ALWAYS do and then dont like it when it comes back.
As in
The fact that some drivers think they are above the law, and don't need to obey the rules of the road shows exactly the mind set they have in other things.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Aug 11 at 18:43
|
Pat,
Z was personal to me on Vol.3 of the summer rioting thread. Pot calling the kettle black. No apology. Understand your frustration. I even invited him to meet up. Amazing how brave some people are from behind a keyboard. :-)
|
He doesn't like being ignored though, Mr Ecs;)
I did notice he didn't take up your offer!
Pat
|
|
There you go with the personal stuff AGAIN Pat, you gonna go off in a huff AGAIN if I have a go back at you?
|
>> There you go with the personal stuff AGAIN Pat, you gonna go off in a
>> huff AGAIN if I have a go back at you?
>>
And you lorry driving comment wasn't personal? Or even relevant to the thread?
I seem to remember that you are the one who 'flounces' and has made their last post more than once:)
>>if I have a go back at you<<
I think that implies that you DID intend to have a go back at me.
There's a little story of a child in a school playground who wants to be popular but also wants to be top dog.
He fights all the other children to show how good he is and then finds there is no-one left to play with....
Pat
|
>> And you lorry driving comment wasn't personal? Or even relevant to the thread?
Yes it was personal because thats the way you turned the thread.
>> I seem to remember that you are the one who 'flounces' and has made their
>> last post more than once:)
As have you.
>>
>> >>if I have a go back at you<<
>>
>> I think that implies that you DID intend to have a go back at me.
Giving you the option is all, I will if you want.
>> He fights all the other children to show how good he is and then finds
>> there is no-one left to play with....
And then you pop up. Just like me.
Now I don't mind you Having a pop at me, or even being personal, just don't moan about it when I retaliate OK?
|
Edit,
And you have my home email address, if you want to carry this on there you can.
|
Can you show me where I made it personal to you?
I commented on 'some' drivers and you were one of at least three others who had condoned going through red lights.
Over the years I've seen the consequences more than once of 'some' drivers doing that and when I'm sitting up high in a lorry they don't prove much of a threat to me personally, but now more often than not I'm in a car, they do.
Could it be your guilty conscience jumped the gun a bit?
Once again it's the reason that I read all the posts on here but comment on only a very few.
Judging from the emails I've had in the past from other (now gone) forum members I'm not the only one either.
Pat
|
Look,
If you want to carry on with your bloodyness I told you to do it via email.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 09:15
|
>>
>> Z was personal to me on Vol.3 of the summer rioting thread. Pot calling the
>> kettle black. No apology. Understand your frustration. I even invited him to meet up.
Mr X, You missed the part where I withdrew my comment then?
Also, why should I want to meet with someone with who's view I disagree?
|
|
For goodness sake - stop arguing ! :-)
|
|
Damn vigilante, Keep your nose out!
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Aug 11 at 09:29
|
>> For goodness sake - stop arguing ! :-)
I suggest we confiscate their manbag and handbag.
|
Dare I say that if we had some proper unbiased moderation none of these spats would arise.
I made a perfectly valid comment on a forum thread not aimed at any particular person on this forum, just as many had done before me, without attracting Zero's irrational accusations.
If it wasn't against my staunchest principles I'd be claiming sexual descrimination (TIC)
Pat
|
>> Dare I say that if we had some proper unbiased moderation none of these spats
>> would arise.
Oh I see! Its the Moderators fault! Not yours! Oh well done - thats a cracker. Unbiased? you claiming they are also horrid to you as well?
>>Just as many had done before me, without attracting Zero's irrational
Oh I am now irrational? And you still want to play this out in a public arena I see, despite my requests to turn this into private email.
>> If it wasn't against my staunchest principles I'd be claiming sexual descrimination (TIC)
Or even an attack on the working class.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Aug 11 at 10:35
|
|
I'll take that as a personal attack (again) Pat. It takes two to argue and you do your share.
|
Would you care to list the personal attack please PU?
Would you then list the same from Zero.
It's essential that all the forum members know where the guidelines are and that they are applied equally.
It might make for more harmony if I can understand how my post agreeing with ON (I think it was) wasn't acceptable as a very valid view.
Zero, the reason I won't take this to email with you is that it was never about you, so why should I discuss any of my posts with you?
However you have my phone number should you disagree.
Pat
Edit: It was Focus not ON
Last edited by: pda on Thu 11 Aug 11 at 11:23
|
Can we drop the red mist and get back to discussing red traffic lights please.
Else I'll let loose the water cannon and rubber bullets ;o)
|
>>Else I'll let loose the water cannon and rubber bullets ;o) <<
Hopefully accompanied by a reply to my perfectly reasonable and polite request above.
Pat
|
I’ve thought this thread over for a while and have decided that, even though it may not be the wisest thing I have ever done, I do have to defend myself on this occasion.
When I posted this
>>certainly do.
The fact that some drivers think they are above the law, and don't need to obey the rules of the road shows exactly the mind set they have in other things.
I certainly don't want to risk meeting them on the road...unfortunately, I don't have that choice to make.
Pat<<
I had deliberately waited until more than Zero had indicated that they did in fact pass a red light simply because I knew I would be accused of starting a personal argument with him if I’d posted sooner.
I wanted to post far earlier as I’ve seen so many different scenarios of this during my time on the road, and in some cases spoken to those involved when being asked to be a witness or call the emergency services. I felt I had a valid contribution to make to the thread.
Just 15 minutes after my post, Zero replied with this:
>>As I said, some of us are capable of using some judgement and common sense
Anyway you are so up the backside of the lorry in front (because you think your lorry stops sooner than a car) that you wont see me or the red light.<<
The second statement completely discourages any further input from me and results in the Mods publicly castigating me for being argumentative and making a public attack on Zero, no matter how I try and explain that I carefully tried to avoid that.
There has been no clarification of where the personal attack occurred despite my request to the mods and no criticism whatsoever of Zero for his assumption that I was talking exclusively about him.
There followed a succession of thumbs up for the mods and Zero in subsequent posts as a direct result of the mods stance taken on this.
I feel that I have been treated rather badly over this.
I could of course just walked away for this forum as many have done before me, but why should I?
During recent months I have posted less and less, dreading the hounding by Zero of any post I make, the constant lorry driver digs and even worse the ‘poor downtrodden working class’ accusations which simply serve to detract from any sensible post I try and make.
I realise now to walk away is not the correct thing to do for my self respect
I won’t be walking away, I will be posting far more often and despite some others best efforts I will be enjoying car4play again.
I would like to think that I can do this on a fair and level playing field, with some support from the moderators, however if that isn’t forthcoming it will serve to make me more determined.
Now, I’m off for a long weekend in leafy North Yorkshire in the new caravan and dongle permitting will post as and when I can.
Pat
|
Pat: no one wants you to go away I'm sure.
There's an element of wind-up which you must be used to. I doubt if your fellow truckers are always as suave and courteous as they can be when they try. I bet some of them have enjoyed teasing you until you got quite annoyed.
It's just the same here, only worse and more complicated. Respect, girl!
Hope the weather stays decent for you in Yorkshire.
Just off to bed now. XX
|
AC, my fellow truckers don't really tease, we have banter between us but they are happy to take it back from me too.
They would never accuse me of taking the female stance, they'd just tell me it's time I grew a set of danglies and took it on the chin:)
By the same token they treat me as an equal, so perhaps I expect it here and they also know that I will champion their cause if I feel they're being unfairly treated.
That's why I'm looking after the underdog here...me.
I hate being misunderstood and I hate unfairness.
Above all I hate those stupid thumbs and scowling faces.
They breed internet warriors who don't have either the ability or courage to speak their mind.
I hate all those who have complained about this when it's happened to them and have walked away, never to be seen again.
Why not stay and try and put it right?
Car4play would be a far better place if they had....rememer Bellboy, to name one whi I miss.
I also hate Osteopaths who charge you nigh on £50 and still can't get you able to lie down and go to sleep!
And before anyone says I'm tetchy 'cos it hurts, I'm not, so there.
Pat
|
>> I hate those stupid thumbs and scowling faces.
Green thumbs are applause, Pat. It's ungrateful of you to complain about them because you seem to get a lot.
Scowling faces are the real badge of honour though. They mean you have made a point that someone resents in their tiny little mind, because they can't think of an answer for it or get their head round whatever point you have made, accept that it has some truth and either develop their argument or capitulate in an honourable manner and change their opinion. Of course sometimes it is an expression of great disgust. But not usually.
I feel you should strive to earn more of those.
Bell Boy is a great loss to this site, I agree. And I agree about osteopaths too. Here is a short verse called 'Osteopath':
Quack! Quack!
Thump! CRACK!
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 15:54
|
>> There has been no clarification of where the personal attack occurred despite my request to
>> the mods and no criticism whatsoever of Zero for his assumption that I was talking
>> exclusively about him.
FWIW I didn't think your original comment was personal Pat when I read it, whereas Z's did and seemed OTT to me. I can understand your frustration.
Last edited by: Focus on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 08:48
|
I would reply, and I would explain it. But this is not the place to carry on this argument.
|
Edit
Expect an email from me.
|
>> I feel that I have been treated rather badly over this.
I'm temped to call you a drama queen, but you might get the wrong idea and think it was a personal attack ;o)
>> I could of course just walked away for this forum ....
IIRC, you've criticised others for playing the "I'm thinking of leaving" sob story.
No offence Pat, but I do feel sometimes you make mountains out of molehills just for the sake of it.
|
>> Now, I’m off for a long weekend in leafy North Yorkshire in the new caravan and dongle permitting will post as and when I can.
Are you still with us Pat, or has your dongle let you down?
Hopefully, mostly a bit of forum banter and leg pulling (IMHO) hasn't driven you away? I'd like to think you're thicker skinned than that. Water off a ducks back and all that.
|
I'm still here in leafy Nth Yorkshire with the dodgy dongle (and the bad back!)
Back home tomorrow and broadband again....I mean today now.
Pat
|
Think about this ON.
It takes a concious decision and effort to go on a red light. We are not talking "jumping" here - a gamble, but stopping at a red light, then checking the situation and deciding it safe to go. Sitting stupidly at a red light when its safe to go is a waste of time.,
This is far safer manoeuvre than blindly driving on auto pilot.
|
>>Sitting stupidly at a red light when
>> its safe to go is a waste of time.,
>>
>> This is far safer manoeuvre than blindly driving on auto pilot.
>>
Sorry I forgot that your time is more important than the law. I assure you I do not drive blindly on autopilot. Are you always aware of the last warning road sign (or red light) you passed?
|
Yes of course I am aware of the last red light I passed, Because if I have it was done deliberately.
Are you aware of every last warning sign you passed? Dont tell me you never drive on autopilot, because it means one of two things, a: your telling porkies, or b: you don't realise it.
You still havent grasped the fact that it takes a concious effort to proceed on a red light, you are still getting it mixed up with jumping red lights or amber gambling.
|
I don't think you can choose what law to obey and what one not to obey and I am not naive enough to suggest that I don't occasionally speed.
Red means stop. That is the convention. There may be someone relying on that red to make a maneuver that you cannot see, for example a pedestrian may see you stop at a red and take it as an indication that it is safe to cross. There is a chance you will move off before rechecking, because you did once and it was clear and end up running someone over.
If you don't like the current law, feel free to campaign against it. There are alternatives elsewhere such as turn left on red or flashing amber which mean proceed with caution.
At least by following convention every road user has a fair change of anticipating what you are going to do.
|
>> I don't think you can choose what law to obey and what one not to
>> obey and I am not naive enough to suggest that I don't occasionally speed.
>>
>> Red means stop. That is the convention. There may be someone relying on that red
>> to make a maneuver that you cannot see, for example a pedestrian may see you
>> stop at a red and take it as an indication that it is safe to
Nope. Because again you are not accepting the risk assessment and concious effort involved in moving off on a red. If you see the pedestrian, if they are there at all don't do it because they make shop you.
Because you know you are making an illegal move you are ultra careful.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Aug 11 at 18:53
|
>> Because you know you are making an illegal move you are ultra careful.
They never do though Zero. That's why they don't have to be careful, and why so few of them are. They just 'make progress' and go blinding recklessly across green lights in defiance of the laws of probability.
Yes, it takes someone of deeply criminal and immoral outlook to show a bit of care on the roads. These respectable people are a menace because they will always think it was someone else's fault. Fat lot that matters when you're dead or maimed.
Idiots, all of them.
Heh heh...
|
>> Idiots, all of them.
>>
>> Heh heh...
>>
>>
Troll.
|
>> Troll.
And some even more idiotic than others.
|
What is the general view of overtaking across double white lines ?
As a rider of a fast motorcycle, there are many occasions where my superior power to weight ratio means I could overtake cars in complete safety, so should I ?
As an aside, I had a BMW S1000R come up behind me the other week and kept station with me for a few miles until I turned into a not so built up area, which was a thirty but I was doing maybe 36 gently slowing down.
The bike overtook me, braked, and stuck 3 fingers up, the relevance of which escaped me until he turned around and shouted "30 MILES AN HOUR". All became clear when I then spotted the legend POLICE written on his helmet. Suitably chastised I rode on my way.
For those not into motorcycles, the BMW S1000R is the fastest, meanest bike available at the moment, so watch out for one when you next break the law.
|
>> For those not into motorcycles, the BMW S1000R is the fastest, meanest bike available at
>> the moment, so watch out for one when you next break the law.
I think some police have Hayabusa's on the cat and fiddle, but it's not their official bike.
|
|
I avoid crossing DWLs on my bike, I stick to all signed speed limits, mainly as I respect my licence and also to avoid myopic car and van drivers, lorries are generally safer than the latter.
|
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less
Ok thats the law. I broke it. I was behind a tractor doing 15 mph. I overtook.
Now how many of you "laws must never be broken" people will follow a tractor at 15 mph for a mile or two, when you have the chance to safely overtake?
|
Zero is absolutely right. Rules are made for fools, and of course all of us here are not fools and are perfectly capable of making sensible risk assessments and ignoring red lights or white lines when appropriate. We have all broken some rules - some only the 15 mph tractor situation, some the double white line at 85 on a powerful bike.
But the fallacy behind making it official that rules may be broken if you use commonsense is that 95% of people are not capable of exercising that judgement. I am, you are, naturally; it's everyone else who is the problem.
|
Of course people can make good judgements whilst breaking the law.
The Audi A4 driver I met head on on the wrong side of a blind corner made the right choice.. he decided to get back onto the correct side of the road.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 11 Aug 11 at 11:39
|
"For those not into motorcycles, the BMW S1000R is the fastest, meanest bike available at
>> the moment, "
I thought the MTT Turbine Super bike Y2K was the fastest production bike with 320BHP and top speed of 227 mph ?
|
|
Not really a mass produced bike though is it , and it probably goes around a corner like a piano on an ice rink .
|
Zippy>> I don't think you can choose what law to obey and what one not to
>> obey and I am not naive enough to suggest that I don't occasionally speed.
So YOU ARE choosing which law to obey and which not to???!
|
>>>So YOU ARE choosing which law to obey and which not to???!
I never denied it! I am far from perfect!
Point being by being a bit absent minded and creeping over the limit rather than out right this is a 30 zone and I am deliberately going to do 50!
|
>> Point being by being a bit absent minded and creeping over the limit
And that is the most dangerous form of law breaking. Its autopilot syndrome. Everyone does it from time to time, because much of driving is repeated so much it becomes an almost subconcious act.
|
Possibly,
but you should consider these examples:
This is deliberate: tinyurl.com/3jkn5v8
This probably isn't: tinyurl.com/3nevn78
|
|
Sorry zippy, that's really not worthy of reply is it.
|
I have been known to ignore red traffic lights controlling a couple of narrow bridges near here in the dead of night when there's quite obviously no oncoming traffic, and also the odd set of temporary lights which are only there to alternate priority and mean nothing when there's only one car present.
I would nevertheless be uncomfortable saying that I can decide when to ignore signals because I'm clever, but others aren't capable of using judgement properly (so presumably should always stop at a red).
If their judgement isn't good enough, how are they going to know they are in the second category?
The answer must be to quietly get on with it and keep schtum.
|
>> also the odd set of temporary lights which are only there to alternate priority and mean nothing
>> when there's only one car present
I read somewhere that the greatest percentage of crashes at traffic lights actually occur at temporary set-ups in rural areas.
I always stop at these, even if the road is deserted and I can see the glow from the green light at the other side of the roadworks. If I were to go through on a red light and something were to happen (a pedestrian stepping out from the hedge, perhaps, or a police car approaching from behind me) I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, legally.
|
Have noticed this in Manchester - quiet road, no police, red lights routinely ignored.
Think the biggest danger though is people stepping on it as it turns amber. The junction with Palatine Road and the A5103 is particularly bad, with it not uncommon for traffic proceeding on a green light to end up giving way to cars running the red lights several seconds after they've been red.
More police!
|
|
Spot on AF. They wouldn't like you driving their aeroplane to Tenerife with that attitude!
|
>> Spot on AF. They wouldn't like you driving their aeroplane to Tenerife with that attitude!
>>
I have to deal with the traffic police at work, too. Yesterday:
ATC: ALFA1234, make your speed 250 knots.
ALFA: 250 knots.
Some minutes later...
ATC: ALFA1234, I thought I asked for 250 knots?
ALFA (innocent as a cherub): We are doing 250.
ATC: Then why does your Mode S show that you've set 340 knots?
Rumbled. You wait 'til your car does it too.
Last edited by: Alfa Floor on Sat 13 Aug 11 at 15:38
|
>> Its autopilot syndrome. Everyone does it from time to time,
Speak for yourself Zeddo. My autopilot has been deliberately set to drive, when possible, five or ten mph over the limit at all times (depending on the limit). When I override it it is either to slow down for a hazard of some sort - usually some fool in a small car wobbling about dangerously in the way - or to go even faster.
I agree that cud-chewers are a tremendous hazard on the roads though. Them and uptight twozzers who think dead on the speedometer limit makes them respectable, not the resentful passive-aggressive mimsers and dangers to life and limb they actually are.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 15 Aug 11 at 02:11
|
>> cud-chewers
Came across one yesterday (Sunday) evening. Went to the garage for some shopping and to put a bit of air in the tyres two of which lose a bit and need pumping every few days. There was a red small Peugeot parked in front of the tyre pump with a twit sitting in it.
I went in the shop and did my shopping, seven or eight minutes. Came out, got in the car, drove not without difficulty round the forecourt and back to the pump. The red Peugeot was still there, cud-chewer at the wheel. I gave a toot. Cud chewer, mouth open, thick glasses, got out and looked at me. I opened a window and said: 'I want to do my tyres'.
The prat then said in what I think was a Mancunian accent: 'I'm doing mine'.
With great difficulty I restricted myself to saying in a disgusted voice: 'You've been sitting there for twenty minutes', before driving off. I felt like giving him a real mouthful - and you should know that I can - but the thought of wasting breath on a pathetic bovine of that sort was so disgusting that I didn't. Put me in quite a bad temper for a minute or two though.
|
What a tremedous spat on here....i'm sorry i've ignored this thread for a while.
My pennies worth is:
Laws are there for a reason. In this case road safety, to stop the masses having accidents when using their judgement at those junctions if there were no red lights.
However, some countries allow right turn only at red lights (when they drive on the right) and it's perfectly safe enough...so why don't we allow left turn only?
Now if the intention of the law i.e. road safety, is negated by circumstance e.g. early hours of the morning and no traffic (either pedestrian of vehicular), then the purpose of the law is not breached if someone chooses to ignore it..albeit the law is still broken.
Same principle as speeding in some circumstances.
IMO those people that equate all breaking of that law as being dangerous are being somewhat short sighted...otherwise how could emergency service drivers sail through them..legally. If an emergecny service driver went through one legally in the work vehicle...then finished his/her shift and it being say 0500 in the morning and an empty road, did the same thing in their private vehicle, would one be automatically safe and the other automatically dangerous?...I think not. One would be legal and the other illegal though...and any enforcement action should not have any bleating, it would be 'bang to rights'.
The other thing is, Zero is saying that a careful consideration of all the facts and an aware approach can negate the dangers...whereas an auto pilot approach to general driving can be far more dangerous..and he's right.
The careful red light driver could easily be more safe than the unaware green light driver, albeit the former is acting illegally and the latter not.
|
Cost me three points and 60 pounds two and a halve years ago.
Went through orange light no traffic,cops followed me for two miles stopped me blue lights flashing.They said you went through red a few miles back.I said no orange have you got proof maybe camara in car?Reply our word against yours.Never mind.
|
Another angle.
If red lights are stuck on red, presumably, at some point, the driver will give up and drive through them....and that scenario would apply to everyone.
What makes them any different (safety wise) to the person that decides to do that because there's no traffic and they deem it safe enough, when the lights are in fact working?
In both cases, you'd need to take care..then drive through.
I think some folk are mixing up morals with safety, then declaring it unsafe to win their moral arguement.
|
|
Are there any head doctors on the forum,can't spell the other word.:)
|
>> Are there any head doctors on the forum,can't spell the other word.:)
>>
Trick cyclist.
|
>>>If red lights are stuck on red, presumably, at some point, the driver will give up and drive through them....and that scenario would apply to everyone.
Modern lights are as I understand it, from an electronics manufacturer that makes them, designed to fail in an off position so that drivers proceed with caution as if the junction were not controlled by lights.
Not all lights will be of this type yet.
|
>>I think some folk are mixing up morals with safety, then declaring it unsafe to win their moral arguement.
Man firing a silenced gun in a street at a target. Its safe. Its moral, he is not aiming at anyone, just the target and he is hitting the target repeatedly.
Its, both safe and moral. What's the betting that an armed police squad will be there as soon as?
I can understand the sentiments and arguments made. I just think it is safer not to take the risk, and there is always a risk at every junction, even at the dead of night, so why potentially compound the problem by crossing a red light when there is no need to for the sake of a few moments?
|
>> I can understand the sentiments and arguments made. I just think it is safer not
>> to take the risk, and there is always a risk at every junction, even at
>> the dead of night, so why potentially compound the problem by crossing a red light
>> when there is no need to for the sake of a few moments?
>>
Oh don't get me wrong...there's a fair amount of 'devil's advocacy' in my arguement...and I wouldn't want a free for all where everyone can treat a red light as discretionary...
....but, to say a red light at 0300 where someone does a careful and considered left turn... is dangerous, is patently not necessarily accurate.
|
|
The emergency services driver has specific training to drive through red lights. Tom, Dick and Harry don't.
|
Zippy, they're not answers!
|
Bad incident here about ten years ago.Police car went through red on a emergency call.
They hit a pregnant woman in a car she either didn't see or could't get out the way quick enough.
Ambulance driver and assistant had to clear the mess what was left of the woman.
Specific training did not work that day.
|
>> The emergency services driver has specific training to drive through red lights. Tom, Dick and
>> Harry don't.
So what would you do if the light was stuck on red at 3am? Would you sit there until you died of starvation? The ambulance and police services "yes, he must have sat there for some time, but at least he was safe".
|
|
Its the law corax you will obey.;)
|
It's not actually
Rule 186
If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
|
>> It's not actually
>>
>> Rule 186
Confusing the HC (it is a great code and where sensible to do so, should be complied with for the benefit of all road users - but as above if one driver deviates from it often the easiest way to minimise impact to traffic is for you not to comply with another rule) with the law, section 361 of the road traffic act.
Tut tut CGN, a law breaker :-P
|
Not quite sure what you are saying there Skoda - probably me, but can you clarify.
|
Its a criminal offence (road traffic act, section 36.1) to cross a red light.
The highway code can't be used to prosecute someone by itself, you need to break a law.
|
But not an offence to cross a light that is not working. A traffic light that is not working cannot be be of the proscribed type. The HC is not the law but it is a good enough guide.
|
>>The HC is not
>> the law but it is a good enough guide.
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
Funnily enough, in the recent discussion about undertaking the highway code states
268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
Which means its not an offence to undertake. There is no Must/Must Not in the rule.
|
>> Rule 186
>>
>> If the traffic lights are not working
Rule 186 is about signaling and lane selection on roundabouts...you mean Rule 176
|
Chaps, really.
As any fule kno ALL motorists are criminals. And increasingly so.
That being the case, might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, surely?
Indeed it is the duty of all whateve-colour-it-is-blooded croaking amphibians to stretch the envelope whenever reasonable, as our sporting police colleagues so clearly understand.
Enough of this Livingstonian nature's-goddam-mimser ideology! More and faster automobiles, driven with stylish gusto!
Poop-poop!
|
|
Traffic lights are designed to fail in the off position.
|
|
I recently sat at a set of light that failed on red.
|
I stopped at a red light once and got a telling off from SWMBO.
I didn't say it was a traffic light .... ;-)
|
The sad truth, clear from this thread, is that the creeping-control-freakery-nanny-knows-best groupthink has sucked in a great many who consequently tend to condemn any application of what used to be called common sense.
I seem to recall there were many completely unmarked four way junctions in towns at one time, and the majority of out-of-town roads were derestricted or later NSL. Sensible (most) people managed quite well. Insensible ones are a chuffing menace regardless.
Now that every other piddling junction or hump back bridge has a traffic light and every rural road in some counties has a 50 limit, individual thought, observation and decision-making has fallen into disrepute.
I am not going to apologise (unless in court of course) for passing a red light when unobserved and when it is undeniably safe to do so. If a police officer wishes to hide in the bushes to catch me doing it and bring a prosecution then I shall not bleat and my conscience will be clearer than his.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 16 Aug 11 at 22:42
|
>> Traffic lights are designed to fail in the off position.
And if that part of the design fails?
|
|
If stopped you are in the doo doo.!
|
red traffic lights mean nothing ??? - Alanovich
