Jumping red lights

[gaz]

Er yes. Take it as read that in future statements that is implicit unless otherwise stated.

I thought i would put it in there before someone else tries to imply that your action was dangerous.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

They are two different things, often you can't clearly see everything around a crossing all the time - people and animals accelerate quickly. I'd argue moving out to allow even a clear slip road is the same as slowing for a green light - you're allowing for everything. Moving out for a slip road is taught to be done whenever.

Also, how do you know, if you don't retard, that the lights aren't going to change. Running constant speed at a green light may actually cause you to be an amber gambler or to screech to a halt, meaning you are out of control of your car.

We can argue this many ways as our perceptions are different, and that is the essence of the whole RLJ debate.

If moving away from a slip road is taught regardless of traffic conditions then it is a retrograde step in my opinion. It is not teaching you to read the road.

I have never come to a screeching halt at lights even though I don't slow when they are on green. Maybe the brakes in the cars I have had are at fault.

It is different to the RLJ debate in that currently going through a green light is legal where as it is not for a red.

 

[benb]

I think you have me wrong. What I dislike is usage of statistics or other proofs used in isolation. Rather like an Ivory Tower academic making comments about the London riots when the real answers come from those who took part in them and who were policing the front lines.

Science hand in hand with experience is the way forward. I understand how scientific method works but it does not make it flawless in the same way the personal experience is not flawless.

I apologise for misunderstanding you.
My point was that sometimes reality disagrees with our personal experience - sometimes our personal experience is just wrong.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If you hit a pedestrian on a green light crossing that you'd not slowed for after deciding it was clear what would happen to you?

I didn't say it was taught regardless, but it is the default motion. Whilst you are reading the traffic conditions you are taking every possible precaution to not hit someone, which is sensible. You not slowing for a green crossing is not taking every possible precaution, and therefore not sensible in my opinion, it is in yours.

The law and prosecution with driving are two different things, the charge is generally driving without due care and attention. Now if you can justify to yourself and are happy that not letting off a bit for a set of lights is a good idea it's your choice, I wouldn't do it myself. I don't jump red lights anymore myself, haven't for a while, I think I grew up. I do however see it as the same choice for jumping a red light or not as running through a green without erring.

Lets face it, humans aren't designed by evolution to process things at that speed.

As you approach green lights you look to see if the road ahead is clear if it is you proceed with care. That does not necessary mean a need to slow down but can simply mean greater observation. If I drop to 25 instead of 30 and hit a ped who runs out of nowhere onto a crossing through the red man then I am pretty sure the result would be the same as if I hit him/her at 30. 30+ would be a different story.

Moving away from a slip road by default is fine as long as you are taught why you are doing it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I apologise for misunderstanding you.
My point was that sometimes reality disagrees with our personal experience - sometimes our personal experience is just wrong.

Undoubtedly. What I was trying to get at is if I had to pick one source only I would pick experience. Sometimes personal experiences disagree with presented reality. eg a newsletter posted to all members of the housing association I am a member of paints a very rosy picture of life in the estates. The reality is very different (I use that as an example as have not long returned from a meeting about that very subject).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The result to the pedestrian isn't the same though.

So why don't road have 20 mph speed limits one the approach to all ped crossings?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Because the law, and your judgement as a licensed driver, covers it. People don't need a million signs, and there are studies - I've not got the link - that suggest fewer signs (and markings) promote safer driving.

Judgement and the law. Thank you. Thus if the crossing is clear and it is obvious there is no one with the potential to step onto it there is no need to slow.

 

[benb]

Undoubtedly. What I was trying to get at is if I had to pick one source only I would pick experience. Sometimes personal experiences disagree with presented reality. eg a newsletter posted to all members of the housing association I am a member of paints a very rosy picture of life in the estates. The reality is very different (I use that as an example as have not long returned from a meeting about that very subject).

I don't think a newsletter would count as evidence.

If compelling evidence contradicts personal experience or common sense, then evidence wins.

Luckily you don't have to pick one source, but do try and be more open to proper evidence, even when it contradicts your experience. It's very healthy to question your own beliefs.

 

[benb]

hmmmm .... Thompson, Rivara, Thompson springs to mind

You saw the word minority in my post, right?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I don't think a newsletter would count as evidence.

If compelling evidence contradicts personal experience or common sense, then evidence wins.

Luckily you don't have to pick one source, but do try and be more open to proper evidence, even when it contradicts your experience. It's very healthy to question your own beliefs.

I come from an IT background and so science was my Bread and Butter for a long while. I am open to evidence. It is hard to accept however when what you have seen is contradicted by statistics. It is very possible that my personal experience has been to one side or the other of the bell curve but it does not make it any less valid.

My biggest issue is with people who seem to speak solely from a statistical evidence platform without any personal experience to back it up. They seem to be like people who engaged in T and M studies and told workers they could do their jobs better. When challenged to do said task themselves they were unable to do so.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

How far back are we talking, because you should be anticipating the change to amber/red also. How many times do you see a perfectly clear crossing, that from 100 metres at 30mph (limit, not target) that someone can't definitely not be in the middle of when you cruise through it without any regard? The answer is none, even with clear vision the eye can play tricks and most of the time crossings are there in built up areas, which means street furniture, bins, walls, front doors, the lot. And if you hit a child in your Audi because you didn't ease off you'd blame them right? You're a scary man, preaching law abidance, but sticking to something that has the potential for far worse damage than that which you are railing against. You've seen the statistics for red light jumping earlier, it'd be interesting to know crossing strikes on green. From this thread I can see no-one has been hit RLJ'ing, but someone has hit a pedestrian going through a green light without letting off. What does that tell you?

If I hit somebody in my imaginary Audi (I no longer own a car) I would feel terrible. That said in the 20 years I have been driving I have never done so. Only once has a ped even come into contact with a car of mine and that was whilst I was crawling through a town centre at pub closing time and a drunk fell off a pavement onto the side of my car. Faster or slower he would have hit the tarmac instead.

As for the remaining question - It tells me that of the people on this thread no one has been hit RLJ'ing, but someone has hit a pedestrian going through a green light without letting off. Nothing more than that.

 

[benb]

I come from an IT background and so science was my Bread and Butter for a long while. I am open to evidence. It is hard to accept however when what you have seen is contradicted by statistics. It is very possible that my personal experience has been to one side or the other of the bell curve but it does not make it any less valid.

My biggest issue is with people who seem to speak solely from a statistical evidence platform without any personal experience to back it up. They seem to be like people who engaged in T and M studies and told workers they could do their jobs better. When challenged to do said task themselves they were unable to do so.

I do see your point, but you also need to bear in mind that what you have seen or experienced might be an anomaly.

To analogise: the sum of the evidence shows that homeopathy works no better than a placebo. But if someone is suffering from an illness, sees a homeopath and subsequently improves, their experience could now be that "there must be something in it". It doesn't matter if they may have got better anyway, or were responding to the placebo effect - the evidence now contradicts their experience. In that situation, their experience is simply wrong.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I do see your point, but you also need to bear in mind that what you have seen or experienced might be an anomaly.

To analogise: the sum of the evidence shows that homeopathy works no better than a placebo. But if someone is suffering from an illness, sees a homeopath and subsequently improves, their experience could now be that "there must be something in it". It doesn't matter if they may have got better anyway, or were responding to the placebo effect - the evidence now contradicts their experience. In that situation, their experience is simply wrong.

I take that point as well. I think I may not have expressed myself as well as I could have. It has been a good while since I have had a chance to debate anything interesting and I am a little rusty.

Also just to play Devils Advoctae - Maybe the placebo effect actualy proves that the human brain is more powerful and capable of far more than we realise.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Just to pedantic philosophical point, personal experience is not 'wrong' - it simply is. It may not conform with the norm but that does not invalidate it or make it wrong.

The risk is reading to much into personal experience without placing it in the wider context of others' experiences.

But as you were...

Just to make a surely?

 

[benb]

Also just to play Devils Advoctae - Maybe the placebo effect actualy proves that the human brain is more powerful and capable of far more than we realise.

I don't think anyone would dispute that. The placebo effect is mysterious and fascinating.
Luckily for us, we require medical interventions to perform better than placebo.