is it ok to jump a red when there are no cars or traffic around

brat

prowla wrote: »

The law is not always right,

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Not necessarily disagreeing, just interested in your views on where breaking the law might make things better.

RichardD1970

prowla wrote: »

If visibility is good and it is absolutely clear that there is nobody coming the other way, then it is fundamentally safe to go through that red light.

Until you meet the person doing 100mph, who wasn't in view 5 seconds ago when you started your maneuver.

brat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Until you meet the person doing 100mph, who wasn't in view 5 seconds ago when you started your maneuver.

Like that happens...

RichardD1970

brat wrote: »

Like that happens...

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, people do speed excessively, especially in the small hours of the morning, which, coincidentally, is when people would think about jumping a red light.

brat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, people do speed excessively, especially in the small hours of the morning, which, coincidentally, is when people would think about jumping a red light.

Do you ever emerge from a give way at night?

The thought of it must terrify you, just incase...!

kerby_crawler

The 'psychology' of road safety is fascinating...

Most people accept that a red light represents a total stop on further progress, and will have huge problems with the idea of jumping the light.

However, a speed limit of, say, 30mph seems to represent a far more 'flexible' set of options (even though none of the options requires the road user to stop completely).

Many people will happily (unknowingly?) exceed speed limits by quite large amounts, but would be horrified by the idea of jumping a red light.

prowla

brat wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Not necessarily disagreeing, just interested in your views on where breaking the law might make things better.

That is a good question, and I couldn't produce an exhaustive list.

The most obvious one is homosexuality, where you could be sent to prison for it not so long ago, but now it is perfectly legal.

In the case of red lights, I think the USA's turn on red rule is a good one; it is illegal here though.

A while back we had a thread where somebody was cautioned for littering when they threw away an apple core; I will throw apple cores, banana skins, etc. into the bushes, on the basis that they will return to the earth naturally.

As I say, it would be impossible to produce an exhaustive list, but hopefully they would suffice.

kerby_crawler

brat wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Not necessarily disagreeing, just interested in your views on where breaking the law might make things better.

Breaking the law will almost never make things better, but some laws are much better than others...

skivenov

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Until you meet the person doing 100mph, who wasn't in view 5 seconds ago when you started your maneuver.

If they're doing 100mph approaching a traffic light, I'd question if they'd stop if their light was red and yours green anyway.

brat

prowla wrote: »

That is a good question, and I couldn't produce an exhaustive list.

The most obvious one is homosexuality, where you could be sent to prison for it not so long ago, but now it is perfectly legal.

In the case of red lights, I think the USA's turn on red rule is a good one; it is illegal here though.

A while back we had a thread where somebody was cautioned for littering when they threw away an apple core; I will throw apple cores, banana skins, etc. into the bushes, on the basis that they will return to the earth naturally.

As I say, it would be impossible to produce an exhaustive list, but hopefully they would suffice.

Thanks. The examples you have provided are good. IMO The most important laws that have been changed through social disobedience are those that have lingered as a consequence of an out of date, usually religious, moral code. Equality, homosexuality, blasphemy, discrimination would all fit that broad frame. The embracing of a secular society has allowed us to catch up with most of these anomalies now, I'm not sure there are so many left in the UK.

I was actually thinking more of the narrower parameter of road traffic law. One of the difficulties for the legislators is that the law needs to be fairly 'broad stroke' to cover all situations, but, clearly there will be situations where discretion can add value to the law.
The red light example is good. I would extend that for cyclists being allowed to go through reds at certain traffic lights. I'd also like to see more tolerance in law for cyclists to use quiet pavements. I'd also like to see the removal of fear from speed limits. I think that low speed enforcement margins has had a negative impact on the quality of driving, so I would prefer to see active discretion applied based on perception of risk, rather than a numerical percentage.

In general though, I think that most of our criminal law (including road traffic law) is pitched about right. The levels of punishment will always be a thorny issue, but that is another debate.