Apparently I've been jumping red lights forever
Discussion
Jonnny said:
My 60hp Polo takes more than the Amber>Green time to even start moving.. I start lifting the clutch, off brake at Amber.
What's this "off brake" thing?Anyway, the re-and-amber phase is for the following (to answer my own question):-
- to re-apply the indicator signal which you cancelled just after you stopped (no point in keeping it clicking all the time you've stopped if there's no-one new arrived to see it, also no need to wear out the bulbs);
- to select the gear, by moving the lever from neutral (in a manual I mean) (because you have of course selected neutral soon after you stopped, for safety and car sympathy).
Both of these things help reduce fatigue on your journey.
By the time you've done this and got the biting point, the green will be just clicking on. Perfect.
Roofless Toothless said:
Being at the front of the queue at a red light is such a situation. I never assume there will be nobody coming the other way just because my light has gone green. In fact, if there are two lanes waiting, I hold back when the lights change and let the car next to me go across in advance. If one of us has to collect a red light jumper I would rather it wasn't me.
This makes no sense. I presume you’re talking about blind junctions where you can’t see the crossing traffic? Because obviously it’s easier just to look, rather than guessing?
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
roadsmash said:
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
You can't see the benefit yet, can you!!!!!!! If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
The likelihood is that the other car will be visible to the red light jumper and cause them to realise what they're doing and slow down.
M4cruiser said:
Jonnny said:
My 60hp Polo takes more than the Amber>Green time to even start moving.. I start lifting the clutch, off brake at Amber.
What's this "off brake" thing?Those of us (myself included in one of my cars) whom have got auto-hold/hill-hold etc might just have forgotten about this step 🤣
M4cruiser said:
roadsmash said:
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
You can't see the benefit yet, can you!!!!!!! If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
The likelihood is that the other car will be visible to the red light jumper and cause them to realise what they're doing and slow down.
mac96 said:
It's quite clear really- green means go; red and amber means it will soon be green so wake up,but stay stopped.
Nevertheless at many junctions with good visibility, starting to creep on red and amber may not actually matter- but why take the risk, it will save you, what, 2 seconds?
OP's example from the dashcam thread showed someone accelerating firmly away on red and amber to deliberately create a near miss for dash cam footage, or for the fun of scaring the other driver. Looked like dangerous driving, not just light running.
Green does NOT mean "go". Green actually means "you may proceed if it is safe to do so". Something more than a few drivers need to wake up to.Nevertheless at many junctions with good visibility, starting to creep on red and amber may not actually matter- but why take the risk, it will save you, what, 2 seconds?
OP's example from the dashcam thread showed someone accelerating firmly away on red and amber to deliberately create a near miss for dash cam footage, or for the fun of scaring the other driver. Looked like dangerous driving, not just light running.
If a cyclist crosses the stop line just as a green light goes amber (all of the bike over all of the line before the light changes), and is not particularly quick, then some retard "unleashing all the horses" on red/amber from the other direction is likely to cause a conflict. Or if traffic that entered a junction on a green light is still there, due to delays ahead, then there is every chance that you'll see one or more full phases of the lights pass before it is safe to proceed. The whole point of the red/amber phase is for you to wake up, stop picking your nose, engage a gear, and prepare to release the handbrake, while making all-round observations to ensure there's nothing to obstruct your way when the light goes green. If you've satisfied yourself that it's safe to proceed as part of the red/amber phase, then as soon as the light goes green, release the handbrake and pull away smoothly.
At least that's how I drive, and 90% of the time I'm away before the idiots who are rocking back and forth on the clutch, or who have (incorrectly) anticipated the green light. It's hardly difficult, and not at all emasculating. Maybe try it, see how it works out for you, OP...?
roadsmash said:
M4cruiser said:
roadsmash said:
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
You can't see the benefit yet, can you!!!!!!! If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
The likelihood is that the other car will be visible to the red light jumper and cause them to realise what they're doing and slow down.
markyb_lcy said:
M4cruiser said:
Jonnny said:
My 60hp Polo takes more than the Amber>Green time to even start moving.. I start lifting the clutch, off brake at Amber.
What's this "off brake" thing?Those of us (myself included in one of my cars) whom have got auto-hold/hill-hold etc might just have forgotten about this step ??
Roofless Toothless said:
roadsmash said:
M4cruiser said:
roadsmash said:
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
You can't see the benefit yet, can you!!!!!!! If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
The likelihood is that the other car will be visible to the red light jumper and cause them to realise what they're doing and slow down.
Roofless Toothless said:
If one of us has to collect a red light jumper I would rather it wasn't me.
The point you were making is that a red light jumper could hit you if you went first. You’d rather let the other lane go in front of you so that the red light jumper would hit them, not you.
This logic is flawed as you could easily let the other lane go in front of you and still get hit by a red light jumper. So you might as well just go!
The red light jumper seeing you and slowing down is a moot point because in modern day society these types of people would usually flick the birdie at you and blame you for somehow being in the way anyway!
xjay1337 said:
ndreaw said:
I was in the middle of the road almost got ran over by a woman in a leased AMG trim A class. I gave the car a good whack though.
1) wow. You're hard.2) who cares what car it is
3) how do you know it's leased
4) you just commited criminal damage.
Furthermore, call the police if you want to. Then explain to them how the damage occurred. I'll be doubled over when they arrive, begging for an ambulance. I'm pretty sure the police will be more interested in pursuing the driver for failing to stop at a zebra/light controlled crossing, and driving inconsiderately/dangerously after an injury collision with a pedestrian. Roll the dice and try your luck.
And commited? FYI it's a double 't' - Committed.
Your welcome.
nonsequitur said:
Or, for us oldies, handbrake / neutral at any stop of more than a few seconds. Moribund currently, it would seem.
If you have a manual then that's the way.If you have an automatic with a conventional handbrake then leaving in drive but applying the handbrake is the answer.
Rospa said:
When stationary in traffic, even for many minutes, it is not necessary to move the gear lever into neutral because the torque converter absorbs the engine’s propulsion force but does not transmit it all to the gearbox. No wear is taking place. In fact, more wear will take place if you engage neutral then engage a drive gear when it is possible to move off.
Auto hold & or the latest is the same as above without the handbrake but with the added security of all 4 wheels being held in the event of shunt. yellowjack said:
xjay1337 said:
ndreaw said:
I was in the middle of the road almost got ran over by a woman in a leased AMG trim A class. I gave the car a good whack though.
1) wow. You're hard.2) who cares what car it is
3) how do you know it's leased
4) you just commited criminal damage.
Furthermore, call the police if you want to. Then explain to them how the damage occurred. I'll be doubled over when they arrive, begging for an ambulance. I'm pretty sure the police will be more interested in pursuing the driver for failing to stop at a zebra/light controlled crossing, and driving inconsiderately/dangerously after an injury collision with a pedestrian. Roll the dice and try your luck.
And commited? FYI it's a double 't' - Committed.
Your welcome.
yellowjack said:
I've slapped cars, and even kicked a bus when they've nearly run me over while I'm crossing a road (properly, legally, on a crossing). It doesn't make anyone "hard", it's instinctive, fight-or-flight stuff, your primeval brain knows it can't outrun the threat, so it lashes out in defence. Which makes it an involuntary reaction, not premeditated, and therefore easy enough to defend a charge of criminal damage.
Furthermore, call the police if you want to. Then explain to them how the damage occurred. I'll be doubled over when they arrive, begging for an ambulance. I'm pretty sure the police will be more interested in pursuing the driver for failing to stop at a zebra/light controlled crossing, and driving inconsiderately/dangerously after an injury collision with a pedestrian. Roll the dice and try your luck.
And commited? FYI it's a double 't' - Committed.
Your welcome.
The primeval lash out instinctively etc. has been tried many times in assault claims. It doesn't stand up to any scrutiny with science. It only partially holds true for muscle memory with highly trained individuals. The rest of the world has a flinch reaction that needs a conscious decision to then go on the attack. That's why, when people bump into one another in the street there are not bodies everywhere. What you are confusing it with is lack of control. Furthermore, call the police if you want to. Then explain to them how the damage occurred. I'll be doubled over when they arrive, begging for an ambulance. I'm pretty sure the police will be more interested in pursuing the driver for failing to stop at a zebra/light controlled crossing, and driving inconsiderately/dangerously after an injury collision with a pedestrian. Roll the dice and try your luck.
And commited? FYI it's a double 't' - Committed.
Your welcome.
The doubling over and feigning injury etc is also known as being dishonest. Since you are willing to glibly admit you would do that, where it might have serious ramifications for yourself and others, why should anything you write here be believed?
roadsmash said:
Roofless Toothless said:
roadsmash said:
M4cruiser said:
roadsmash said:
Even so, even at a blind junction where you can’t see the crossing traffic, letting the other car from the other lane go in front of you doesn’t guarantee safety whatsoever because you can’t be sure as to how late the red light jumper is going to be!
If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
You can't see the benefit yet, can you!!!!!!! If you went first you might actually miss the red light jumper when they collide into the car behind you!
The likelihood is that the other car will be visible to the red light jumper and cause them to realise what they're doing and slow down.
Roofless Toothless said:
If one of us has to collect a red light jumper I would rather it wasn't me.
The point you were making is that a red light jumper could hit you if you went first. You’d rather let the other lane go in front of you so that the red light jumper would hit them, not you.
This logic is flawed as you could easily let the other lane go in front of you and still get hit by a red light jumper. So you might as well just go!
The red light jumper seeing you and slowing down is a moot point because in modern day society these types of people would usually flick the birdie at you and blame you for somehow being in the way anyway!
The point is that I am reducing risk, which is all that one can do. It is not a case of 'might as well just go'.
Your last paragraph is hyperbole and conjecture. I don't know how to go about responding to that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff