running red lights

[Digital_Cowboy]

The only other I can think of is if by stopping you would cause an accident eg being tailgated by an idiot.

Agreed, and it is my understanding that (at least in America) if one encounters a "defective" traffic light and after waiting a "reasonable" amount of time proceeding through is not "breaking the law." As the light is "defective." Of course for those cities/counties/states that don't require one to wait for two cycles (or some other predefined amount of time) before what is a "reasonable" amount of time to wait? Also if a particular light on a person's normal route is a "defective" light and they know this do they still have to wait a "reasonable" amount of time before they proceed?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Are you seriously suggesting that is a mitigating circustance?
"Well Officer I was doing 150Mph on the motorway as it was quiet and I wanted to get home faster......"

Methinks that they would get laughed out of court if they tried that "defense."

 

[John the Monkey]

Even though their actions are illegal, if the person who is going through the green light has the ability to stop and avoid the crash that they have to.

It happens all the time here - busier junctions often end up with cars across them between phases. Granted, they've not jumped the light to arrive there, but no one is under the impression that they have the right to plough through them to cross the junction.

 

[martint235]

Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? Yes, there are. Does that mean that we can/should break those laws? I don't know. What I like to see happen is this: starting at the local level and working up review ALL of the laws that are on the books. And any that are no longer enforceable either repeal them or amend them so that they are enforceable. Next again starting at the local level working up is to review all the laws that are on the books and if there are any laws that are duplicated at the next higher level then repeal the lower law and repeat working up to the highest level law.

An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.

I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?

I agree totally. However we have several levels of law in this country. I'm not an expert on them but what I can say is that primary legislation ie on the statute requires primary legislation to remove it and sorry, as a civil servant, we really don't have the time. Priority is given to bringing in NEW primary legislation. You then have secondary legislation, which IIRC a judge can change or certainly challenge. Again they kind of have enough to do.

It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I agree totally. However we have several levels of law in this country. I'm not an expert on them but what I can say is that primary legislation ie on the statute requires primary legislation to remove it and sorry, as a civil servant, we really don't have the time. Priority is given to bringing in NEW primary legislation. You then have secondary legislation, which IIRC a judge can change or certainly challenge. Again they kind of have enough to do.

It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.

Sadly, I think over here on this side of the pond that we have the same sort of problem. As not too long ago one of our local TV stations ran a story about the "dumb laws" that are still on the books. As part of that story they interviewed an legal expert from Stetson University. And according to her it would be "too expensive" to conduct such a review of the existing laws.

I'm sorry don't see how it could be "too expensive," as correct me if I'm not mistaken, but isn't it "too expensive" not to? I mean couldn't a good defense attorney use as part of their defense to get their client off is: "Well your honor we still have the law on the books that requires all drivers of an automobile to pull over to the side of the road, dismantle their car and 'hide' it behind the bushes," or "Your honor we still have on the books a law that requires the operators of a motor vehicle to stop every so many feet/yards and fire a shotgun/rifle/pistol into the air to warn any livestock that a car is coming." And neither law is enforced today so way should my client be charged with violating the speed limit? Or "Your honor, as you know we still have on the books laws prohibiting 'unnatural sex acts, yet I'd be willing to bet that EVERYONE in this courtroom today has commited an 'unnatural sex act.'"

The real irony is that a lot of the old/"dumb" laws that are still on the books the LEO's(Law Enforcement Officals)/Bobbies would have to break the law themselves in order to enforce them. And as I think we all know "the ends do NOT justify the ends.

That is a very good idea, a 5 (or whatever period) year review of the laws to repeal those that are no longer enforceable/effective/enforced.

 

[YahudaMoon]

What could we call the RLJ (red light jumper). I was thinking somthing we could shout at them as they wizz pass as we are stuck at the red lights.

 

[martint235]

What could we call the RLJ (red light jumper). I was thinking somthing we could shout at them as they wizz pass as we are stuck at the red lights.

If you want to call them something, how about "b*****d"? I usually just overtake them, clicking down a gear as I do so. If I'm feeling really chatty I say "If you want to get to work/home faster why don't you just pedal quicker rather than jumping red lights". They rarely see the funny side.

 

[benb]

Not worth its own thread, but got this on video yesterday. Saved him all of 10 seconds.
[media]

]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8URNSDBtf3k[/media]

 

[jack the lad]

Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? ...

An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.

I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think this summarises the issue neatly as I see it. I don't think, to be fair, that we can really state that traffic signals exist due to a 'bad law' it is more, as you say here, a bad implementation of the law in SOME instances. In those instances I think that I am justified in breaking the law PROVIDED THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO AND DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE OTHER PEOPLE.

If other people want to sit like a lemon waiting for a red light to change on an otherwise deserted road - then that is their right and I'm sure they can feel just as smug doing that as I would cycling past them and through the red! If you want to catch me and pass me to prove a point, you can feel even more smug if that makes you happy. I would just have been even slower if I had made a pointless stop and restart!

 

[Dan B]

It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.

You mean something like the Statute Law Repeals Team does?

 

[martint235]

You mean something like the Statute Law Repeals Team does?

Yep although as you can see from their website they've only found time for 18 bills to be passed repealing 2,500 acts of parliamentin the last 46 years . It's this finding time for the passage of the Bill that will hold things up.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think this summarises the issue neatly as I see it. I don't think, to be fair, that we can really state that traffic signals exist due to a 'bad law' it is more, as you say here, a bad implementation of the law in SOME instances. In those instances I think that I am justified in breaking the law PROVIDED THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO AND DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE OTHER PEOPLE.

If other people want to sit like a lemon waiting for a red light to change on an otherwise deserted road - then that is their right and I'm sure they can feel just as smug doing that as I would cycling past them and through the red! If you want to catch me and pass me to prove a point, you can feel even more smug if that makes you happy. I would just have been even slower if I had made a pointless stop and restart!

That's great. Can I do the same? In my opinion driving up and down your street at 70mph with open exhausts and doing donuts is safe and inconveniences no one. In fact many find it highly entertaining as a spectator sport. You may disagree of course but what the heck everyone is to entitled to take this self regulatory cafeteria approach and decide what laws to follow and which to ignore.

Welcome to anarchy. What you propose is the very definition of uncivilised behaviour.

 

[jack the lad]

That's great. Can I do the same? In my opinion driving up and down your street at 70mph with open exhausts and doing donuts is safe and inconveniences no one. In fact many find it highly entertaining as a spectator sport. You may disagree of course but what the heck everyone is to entitled to take this self regulatory cafeteria approach and decide what laws to follow and which to ignore.

Welcome to anarchy. What you propose is the very definition of uncivilised behaviour.

If one's opinion is wrong and others disagree, with good reason - then there has, arguably, been inconvenience and/or danger to others - in which case you take the consequences of your choice to break the law. If everyone in the vicinity and earshot of your car stunt is happy with it and entertained by it - then your judgement was right and there will be no consequence. A policeman standing nearby might give you a ticking off, but probably no more. If you are frightening children and old ladies - he'll throw the book at you.

Everywhere in English law there are discretions exercised whether to enforce a breach or not. All the surrounding circumstances are relevant - there will be very few examples where every breach is prosecuted in every circumstance - it would be neither desirable nor practicable. The law is there to prevent harm, not to turn us into unthinking compliant morons.

Do you remember Clive Ponting? He was a civil servant who broke the Official Secrets Act to reveal goverment lies about the sinking of the General Belgrano. He completely admitted the breach but still pleaded not guilty. His only case was to invite the jury to acquit him on the ground that he had, in the circumstances, a moral right to break the law - and they did. This is not anarchy - it is widely regarded that the ability of juries to subvert authoritarian laws gives greater strength and legitimacy to the rule of law.

 

[Cosmicned]

Nope- but I can understand the temptation- like this morning having got the roadie up to cruising speed around 24mph with empty road ahead (bloody miracle) a bunch of knuckle draggers decide to piss me off by pressing the button on a Pelican & them not bothering to cross... Arse!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

When you eventually get done for RLJ try the Ponting defence, I dare you.

If one's opinion is wrong and others disagree, with good reason - then there has, arguably, been inconvenience and/or danger to others - in which case you take the consequences of your choice to break the law. If everyone in the vicinity and earshot of your car stunt is happy with it and entertained by it - then your judgement was right and there will be no consequence. A policeman standing nearby might give you a ticking off, but probably no more. If you are frightening children and old ladies - he'll throw the book at you.

Everywhere in English law there are discretions exercised whether to enforce a breach or not. All the surrounding circumstances are relevant - there will be very few examples where every breach is prosecuted in every circumstance - it would be neither desirable nor practicable. The law is there to prevent harm, not to turn us into unthinking compliant morons.

Do you remember Clive Ponting? He was a civil servant who broke the Official Secrets Act to reveal goverment lies about the sinking of the General Belgrano. He completely admitted the breach but still pleaded not guilty. His only case was to invite the jury to acquit him on the ground that he had, in the circumstances, a moral right to break the law - and they did. This is not anarchy - it is widely regarded that the ability of juries to subvert authoritarian laws gives greater strength and legitimacy to the rule of law.