Red Light Jumping: Always Unsafe?
Discussion
I have read many a time on this forum statements such as "Speeding can be done safely but jumping red lights is always bad and the barstewards deserve what they get". While I agree on the speeding part and I can see the thinking behind the red light part, I don't agree that jumping red lights is always bad. In fact (flameproof suit etc) I reckon there are times when it can be done in complete safety.
There are a lot of junctions where jumping reds is indeed a no-no, full stop, all the time. But there are others where I don't believe that is the case. Consider a large signalised roundabout which you're waiting at a red to enter. It's quiet, there are no pedestrians (as usual) and no other visible vehicles whatsoever. You can see right round the roundabout. There's not the slightest risk of a collision should you jump the red. Surely it's safe, if not legal?
There are other situations where this is also the case. Temporary lights where two lanes go into one for a few metres and you can see that there is no oncoming traffic. Pedestrian crossings where the only pedestrian has already crossed. In fact, most situations other than four-way intersections, and even then in some cases.
Drivers are always judging when it's safe to go; it's an essential and well-honed skill, just like deciding on a safe speed for the conditions. I believe it can be applied safely in situations like the aforementioned. Therefore, as with speed cameras, I think there are people who have been caught by a red light camera while driving completely safely (nothing like as large a percentage, but they exist all the same). And no, I've never had a TS10....
One thing the scamera debacle has taught me is how dangerous and counterproductive it is to hysterically condemn safe behaviours. I'm not equating speeding and red light jumping; I still think speeding is fundamentally more acceptable. I just don't think that jumping lights is automatically dangerous.
Finally: how many here can honestly say they've never jumped a red?
There are a lot of junctions where jumping reds is indeed a no-no, full stop, all the time. But there are others where I don't believe that is the case. Consider a large signalised roundabout which you're waiting at a red to enter. It's quiet, there are no pedestrians (as usual) and no other visible vehicles whatsoever. You can see right round the roundabout. There's not the slightest risk of a collision should you jump the red. Surely it's safe, if not legal?
There are other situations where this is also the case. Temporary lights where two lanes go into one for a few metres and you can see that there is no oncoming traffic. Pedestrian crossings where the only pedestrian has already crossed. In fact, most situations other than four-way intersections, and even then in some cases.
Drivers are always judging when it's safe to go; it's an essential and well-honed skill, just like deciding on a safe speed for the conditions. I believe it can be applied safely in situations like the aforementioned. Therefore, as with speed cameras, I think there are people who have been caught by a red light camera while driving completely safely (nothing like as large a percentage, but they exist all the same). And no, I've never had a TS10....
One thing the scamera debacle has taught me is how dangerous and counterproductive it is to hysterically condemn safe behaviours. I'm not equating speeding and red light jumping; I still think speeding is fundamentally more acceptable. I just don't think that jumping lights is automatically dangerous.
Finally: how many here can honestly say they've never jumped a red?
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 21:54
vonhosen said:
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
Absolutely, it's disgusting that reasonable people are locked up or have their freedoms constrained by the utter
wittery of a minority. But I think that this is the basis of almost any law (paticularly if it involves the words "possession", "duty of care", "road traffic act", "statutory duty" etc), so dunno who to blame. vonhosen said:
Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
Traffic lights? Manage traffic flow? If, by that, you mean "completely
up the traffic flow", then I'd agree. Certainly around Trafford; the lights here seem to be deliberately set to force you into stop-start driving (or break the speed limit to get a series of greens) by introducing far too many of them and having no discernible sequencing.vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
There is no law against carring a licensed firearm. Under the Firearms Act 1968, amended by CJA 1972, there are restrictions as to its carrying and implications if you are carrying and commit, or are arrested for, an offence under Sch 1 of the Act. Thus, carrying a gun is not as absolute an offence as crossing a double white line, driving through a red traffic signal or speeding. However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 21:54
Streaky
streaky said:
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
There is no law against carring a licensed firearm. Under the Firearms Act 1968, amended by CJA 1972, there are restrictions as to its carrying and implications if you are carrying and commit, or are arrested for, an offence under Sch 1 of the Act. Thus, carrying a gun is not as absolute an offence as crossing a double white line, driving through a red traffic signal or speeding. However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 21:54
Streaky
Well if we want to get into pedantry mode crossing the solid white line isn't absolute, you can legally cross it to pass a pedal cyclist who is traveling under 10mph. The point stands though that there are laws in relation to both, in your case you are going to have to have applied for a licence and adhered to it's requirements. People aren't free to do as they wish with either, even if they have no malicious intent.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 9th April 09:53
Major Bloodnok said:
Traffic lights? Manage traffic flow? If, by that, you mean "completely
up the traffic flow", then I'd agree. Certainly around Trafford; the lights here seem to be deliberately set to force you into stop-start driving (or break the speed limit to get a series of greens) by introducing far too many of them and having no discernible sequencing.I totally agree, try getting through Urmston now, they have re set the lights at the railway to make it impossible to get through in one, result? traffic backing up the whole length of the town centre. I wrote to Bev whassername the mp and asked why, got no reply, typical Labour. MMPB.
ipsg.glf said:
I've only jumped one by mistake or when I thought it was defective.
That goes for me too. There was one instance I can recall from about 20 years ago, somewhere around Wilmslow. I approached a junction in an area I didn't know, lights were on red, then a green appeared so I went through at a lowish speed without having stopped. Just as I crossed the line I realised to my horror that what I'd seen was a right filter arrow, and it was still red for SO traffic, which was me! Anyhow there were no other vehicles in sight, so no danger, but it's so easy to do if you don't look carefully enough.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
That sort of preventive legislation is fundamentally different from speed limits and solid lines, for two reasons:
- Handguns and flick knives were invented and are carried for one principal reason: because they can harm another person.
Whether the person carrying the gun intends to harm someone else, or only expects to threaten to harm someone else, he's carrying it specifically because of the human damage that it can do.
Motor vehicles, just like bricks and cricket bats and pillows, were invented for and have always had a completely innocent purpose, although if misused they all can be killers.
- A driver has the most powerful incentive never to violate a traffic law if doing so would endanger other people: by driving so badly that he endangers other people's lives, he is endangering his own life most of all.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
That sort of preventive legislation is fundamentally different from speed limits and solid lines, for two reasons:
- Handguns and flick knives were invented and are carried for one principal reason: because they can harm another person.
Whether the person carrying the gun intends to harm someone else, or only expects to threaten to harm someone else, he's carrying it specifically because of the human damage that it can do.
Motor vehicles, just like bricks and cricket bats and pillows, were invented for and have always had a completely innocent purpose, although if misused they all can be killers.
- A driver has the most powerful incentive never to violate a traffic law if doing so would endanger other people: by driving so badly that he endangers other people's lives, he is endangering his own life most of all.
You could legitimately want to have a gun for hunting & you could legitimately want a flick knife where you need to open it one handed because of the work you do. You can't however get them without satisfaction of the law.
The articles themselves are not dangerous to other people, only when they are in the hands of people who intend to use them for that purpose or a negligent towards it.
The powerful self preservation incentive you speak of for drivers, doesn't stop lots of drivers neglecting to wear a seatbelt despite the proven reduction in risk of doing so. Of course again they are breaking the law where they don't (save where legally exempt).
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 21:54
The issue is far, far, wider than this.
Example. Throughout the country we have traffic lights on roundabouts where, for 20 hours of the day, there is absolutely no need for them. When they were introduced first, many of them were ostensibly labelled “part time signals.” They didn’t stay “part time” for long. Result? Sitting at a red light with nothing else around at 2am in the morning.
Just have a read of this (from www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.asp?mc=hijack&nc=protect if anybody is interested) – road safety advice in South Africa:-
"If any person or vehicle in a high-risk area arouses your suspicions, treat it as hostile and take appropriate action, e.g. when approaching a red traffic light, slow down, check for oncoming traffic and if clear, drive through the intersection. A fine will be preferable to an attack."
I wonder how long it will be before similar advice is given in the UK, especially in some of the less salubrious parts of it?
rs1952 said:
The issue is far, far, wider than this.
Example. Throughout the country we have traffic lights on roundabouts where, for 20 hours of the day, there is absolutely no need for them. When they were introduced first, many of them were ostensibly labelled “part time signals.” They didn’t stay “part time” for long. Result? Sitting at a red light with nothing else around at 2am in the morning.
Example. Throughout the country we have traffic lights on roundabouts where, for 20 hours of the day, there is absolutely no need for them. When they were introduced first, many of them were ostensibly labelled “part time signals.” They didn’t stay “part time” for long. Result? Sitting at a red light with nothing else around at 2am in the morning.
This one is going the way of speed limits.
These lights are being installed increasingly in areas where they’re really not needed (especially roundabouts). All many of them end up doing is creating needless congestion; hence I find myself wondering if these things are now being abused for the purposes of justifying congestion charging motorists - just like setting of speed limits and enforcing them for netting off. Now, just like speed limits, contempt of RLCs are being bred into society.
I admit to jumping reds (not routinely, some are indeed always a no-no, pedestrian lights for example) – in complete safety of course (for myself and other road users). I’ve even jumped a red in plane view of a police station, many times
Interestingly, I always check to see if my way is clear when legally pulling out of a traffic light controlled junction, doing so has saved me from several rather scary crashes – so what good are these lights?
American drivers can turn right on red........
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 21:54
The issue is far, far, wider than this.
Example. Throughout the country we have traffic lights on roundabouts where, for 20 hours of the day, there is absolutely no need for them. When they were introduced first, many of them were ostensibly labelled “part time signals.” They didn’t stay “part time” for long. Result? Sitting at a red light with nothing else around at 2am in the morning.
Just have a read of this (from www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.asp?mc=hijack&nc=protect if anybody is interested) – road safety advice in South Africa:-
"If any person or vehicle in a high-risk area arouses your suspicions, treat it as hostile and take appropriate action, e.g. when approaching a red traffic light, slow down, check for oncoming traffic and if clear, drive through the intersection. A fine will be preferable to an attack."
I wonder how long it will be before similar advice is given in the UK, especially in some of the less salubrious parts of it?
I have done exactly that on one occasion in the UK when some BFO* was approaching ym car with me and the Mrs in it...and I'd do it again - far better to scarper onto a roundabout than hang about waiting to be stabbed . shot!
BFO = big f**king oaf
smeggy said:
I’ve even jumped a red in plane view of a police station, many times
You're implying that the BiB don't care. More likely imo nobody has noticed it who has been in a position to do anything about it. Perhaps one day they will be. Personally I don't ever knowingly drive through red traffic lights. I guess in principle I would be willing to if I was convinced that the lights were stuck, but that's never happened to me yet. I don't know whether traffic is the same where you are, but around here I don't find traffic lights particular intrusive, here are not a huge number of them and each set rarely causes more than thirty seconds delay. I'm willing to tolerate that to maintain the principle that you don't drive through red lights.
smeggy said:
"This one is going the way of speed limits.
These lights are being installed increasingly in areas where they’re really not needed (especially roundabouts).
All many of them end up doing is creating needless congestion; hence I find myself wondering if these things are
now being abused for the purposes of justifying congestion charging motorists - just like setting of speed limits
and enforcing them for netting off. Now, just like speed limits, contempt of RLCs are being bred into society. "
Similarity is surprisingly similar.
smeggy said:
"Interestingly, I always check to see if my way is clear when legally pulling out of a traffic light controlled
junction, doing so has saved me from several rather scary crashes – so what good are these lights? "
The lights are ok - it's the drivers ,mis reading/selectively reading the HC
They correctly read the bit about red and amber, then only see Green as go , prehaps it's the ASSumption that
if red =unconditional stop,
then green =unconditional go, when in fact the go has
a rider ==GREEN means you may go (on only if the way is clear).
The thing that really annoys me about pedestrian lights is the idiot, usually kids/teenagers that push the button ,and walk on to the next set -no intention of crossing, just doing it as a game---no ticket for them .
GreenV8S said:
You're implying that the BiB don't care.
Not really, just sharing the funny side of it
GreenV8S said:
I don't know whether traffic is the same where you are, but around here I don't find traffic lights particular intrusive
The lights where I am are bloody awful. 5 years ago I could get from Portsmouth uni straight out of the city, all lights green, all dual carriageway. At around about the same time as when the London CC came into force all the phasings were changed. Now just waiting at all the lights (no queue) would usually add another 5 minutes to the journey. Now every morning take a 'long cut' through Fratton (yes from the uni) because it is quicker!!!!! That's taking the p*ss!
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Lot's of road traffic laws can be broken safely.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
However what the law does in some cases is identify risky behaviour & try to control/limit that risk. Another facet of what it will attempt to do is to try & manage traffic flow.
If you break the law, even where there isn't danger, you risk prosecution. Whether that be through speeding with no-one else around, overtaking against solid white lines with nothing towards or contravening a red light where there is no cross flow traffic.
We get these rules because people have messed or there have been problems previously.
This type of preventative legislation is not only seen in traffic law.
Not everyone who carries a gun would seek to harm others with it.
Not everyone carrying a flick knife would seek to harm others with it.
That sort of preventive legislation is fundamentally different from speed limits and solid lines, for two reasons:
- Handguns and flick knives were invented and are carried for one principal reason: because they can harm another person.
Whether the person carrying the gun intends to harm someone else, or only expects to threaten to harm someone else, he's carrying it specifically because of the human damage that it can do.
Motor vehicles, just like bricks and cricket bats and pillows, were invented for and have always had a completely innocent purpose, although if misused they all can be killers.
- A driver has the most powerful incentive never to violate a traffic law if doing so would endanger other people: by driving so badly that he endangers other people's lives, he is endangering his own life most of all.
You could legitimately want to have a gun for hunting & you could legitimately want a flick knife where you need to open it one handed because of the work you do. You can't however get them without satisfaction of the law.
The articles themselves are not dangerous to other people, only when they are in the hands of people who intend to use them for that purpose or a negligent towards it.
The powerful self preservation incentive you speak of for drivers, doesn't stop lots of drivers neglecting to wear a seatbelt despite the proven reduction in risk of doing so. Of course again they are breaking the law where they don't (save where legally exempt).
You could legitimately have a flick knife to spread butter on your toast, and you could legitimately have a loaded pistol as a paperweight on your desk; it doesn't matter. The reason that these weapons were invented and are purchased is almost always in order to harm or to threaten to harm another person.
At the same time, how many people would use a pistol for hunting if it were legal to do so? Handguns are no good for hunting.
Similarly, you can open packaging one-handed with a Stanley knife as well as or better than with a flick knife.
As you say, the articles themselves are dangerous only when they are in the hands of people with a malicious intent. The point is, however, that in the overwhelming majority of instances the only reason that someone would carry a flick knife or pistol would be precisely because of their usefulness as weapons. This is why preventive handgun and flick knife laws are fundamentally different from preventive speeding laws.
The very reason for the existence of the weapon is to harm someone else - a malign purpose. The reason for the existence of a motor vehicle is to transport its operator safely without incident - a benign purpose.
As for the effectiveness of the self-preservation instinct, the fact that for every RTA there are literally hundreds of millions of instances of incident-free speeding demonstrates that, almost always, when people speed they know their own and the car's limits and they are driving safely.
That seems to me to be very effective self-preservation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff