running red lights

[SportMonkey]

I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......

What in my argument makes no sense? Don't call abuse, or say something makes no sense without reason. Actually, you're neither an idiot or an anarchist if you are not so willing to stick to the rules of another blindly.

And my signature is humour.

 

[Buddfox]

I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......

What doesn't make sense in what's being argued here? It seems clear at least to me, and pretty well reasoned.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

What in your argument makes no sense? Your assertion that it is ok to break a law that makes no sense (to you). Also your assertion that road traffic lights are discrimimatory to cyclists. It is harder for a HGV driver to get back up to speed than a cyclist so they should run red lights when they see fit should they? Many aspects of British Law make little sense but until such time as those laws are changed the majority of people will happily comply with them. Those who do not will at ond point or another feel the weight of the Law.

What in my argument makes no sense? Don't call abuse, or say something makes no sense without reason. Actually, you're neither an idiot or an anarchist if you are not so willing to stick to the rules of another blindly.

And my signature is humour.

 

[RedRider]

Traffic light rules pertaining to cyclists should be changed. There's no obvious reason why riders should not be trusted to make left turns on a red if the way is clear, for example.

If such a change does take place then those who currently break the law will rightly claim they played a part.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

and will they claim continued discrimination if the law does not change?

Traffic light rules pertaining to cyclists should be changed. There's no obvious reason why riders should not be trusted to make left turns on a red if the way is clear, for example.

If such a change does take place then those who currently break the law will rightly claim they played a part.

 

[Andy_R]

Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.

Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36

 

[Buddfox]

What in your argument makes no sense? Your assertion that it is ok to break a law that makes no sense (to you). Also your assertion that road traffic lights are discrimimatory to cyclists. It is harder for a HGV driver to get back up to speed than a cyclist so they should run red lights when they see fit should they? Many aspects of British Law make little sense but until such time as those laws are changed the majority of people will happily comply with them. Those who do not will at ond point or another feel the weight of the Law.

We're rapidly moving off topic here compared to the OP, so apologies for continuing this line of debate (not entirely unexpected in a conversation on the emotive topic of RLJs).

If it's not OK for an individual to break a law that makes no sense to them, doesn't that suggest the individual has abdicated their decision making processes to law-makers? We're all free to do what we want - you're quite right that if we break a law and we are caught we should be punished: that's part of our social contract. On the (rare) occasions I RLJ, I'm not going to argue with a police officer that stops and fines me - that's all part of the decision making process in doing it.

I may not think it's OK if someone else breaks a particular law, but if they think it's OK then that's their prerogative. We have structures in society to control this - the police, the courts, parliament - and I'm happy to leave it to them to do that. Through various democratic means I can engage with those bodies to ensure my views are represented. But I don't think you can say it makes no sense if people choose to exercise their free will, however much you may not like the consequences of their actions?

 

[martint235]

Both shotgun and red light jumping are similar in that they are equally illegal. I've never argued whether the law is morally right or not. It's not relevant.

And the poll tax was on the statute book as primary legislation and therefore was a law.

Sent while following my Garmin's instructions

 

[SportMonkey]

Those two assertations that you refer to were by another author, so if that's the reason for you being abusive I'd quite like an apology.

 

[SportMonkey]

Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36

And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?

 

[Buddfox]

Both shotgun and red light jumping are similar in that they are equally illegal. I've never argued whether the law is morally right or not. It's not relevant.

But in different situations, they are not equally dangerous, neither do they have the same consequences. That's why different crimes have different punishments. Ignoring these factors when considering whether or not to break a law seems very strange to me. I'm fairly sure most court cases take into consideration mitigating circumstances, the consequences of someone's actions etc. That's why you can get different punishments for the same crime. So saying you shouldn't RLJ simply because it's illegal misses the point when it's being used to criticise people that do. There are other factors at play in the decision making process.

 

[Buddfox]

And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?

I believe - though others more qualified than me will correct this if I'm wrong - that a traffic light counts as a traffic sign in exactly the same way as a Give Way sign does, for example.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

In Post #52 you state you can break laws. I appologise for attributing the 2nd assertion to you.

Those two assertations that you refer to were by another author, so if that's the reason for you being abusive I'd quite like an apology.

 

[martint235]

We're getting there. Yes there are different punishments for breaking different laws and even for breaking the same law. But they are equally illegal, it's the mitigating factors that govern the seriousness.

Now provide situations where there are mitigating factors for jumping a red light. The only one I can think of is to allow an emergency vehicle to pass





Edited to add the following:

As I'm not interest in starting any kind a flame war I'd better add my actual thoughts about this. I'm playing devils advocate to an extent but I do believe the law is the law and should be obeyed. The law is nothing to do with what is morally right or even on occasions what is common sense but should still be obeyed whilst working for change.

Now from a personal point of view, if you go through a red light past me and then stay well in front of me for the rest of my journey, I don't really care one way or the other. Don't bleat if you get caught though.

If however you get in front of me by RLJing and then travel more slowly than I am doing, you are inconveniencing me as I now need to assess risks and choose a safe place to pass you and frankly that will p**s me off.
Sent while following my Garmin's instructions

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No a traffic light is like a solid white stop line. Very few people treat those as law.

I believe - though others more qualified than me will correct this if I'm wrong - that a traffic light counts as a traffic sign in exactly the same way as a Give Way sign does, for example.