I run red robots.

[JJDT]

IMO it is with the recent lawlessness of everybody these days, that every person thinks that although he breaks the law it is fine. Laws are there for the protection of its citizens. Now just to clear the debate of the e-toll law (the aim of the law is to justify the income and this whole saga is another debate which is also currently on).

We spoke of taxi's, will not go there. As a matter of interest of breaking the law while doing it safely. Take this example that I see everyday; peak hour traffic on the N14 towards PTA and with recent time the one onramp to the freeway is congested. This is a dual lane road with a fairly wide "yellow lane" shoulder. You are in the car slowly moving forward in the left lane and as you wait there are many cars passing you slowly in the yellow lane with their hazards flashing. Ok so traffic is basically crawling along at 10km/h and the persons in the yellow lane thinks that it is safe because at the front somebody will give a gap so why do I have to wait the extra 10mins, I'm driving slowly and with my speed I can stop easily so no danger. Now this law breaking convenience started to be a right it is the right to do.

Our actions dictate what other people will do in the end, it takes a few people to see and witness and then everybody jumps on the wagon and justify (with very valid reasons on why) it should be done.

IMO it is not just a case of "If" but "When" just to many factors that could possibly go wrong.

[Pappa Bear]

I'm a MOTORIST who joined this site with a confession to make. I run red robots. Not just at night, not just when I'm in a hurry, but as a matter of course. Today a friend DRIVING behind me commented at how upset a carful of people got when I crossed halfway across Buitengracht over a red (as if I was a CYCLIST) because there was a left arrow and therefore I was not crossing anyone's legitimate path. This gave me some food for thought, so I've decided to consciously re-evaluate my attitude and spent a couple of hours on the net.

 

Mostly I'm not a culprit of the other MOTORING bugbears - I always DRIVE "single file", with traffic not against, and I don't DRIVE on pavements. But red light jumping by MOTORISTs is a topic that evokes extremely passionate feelings in people, even here in this country where babies are raped regularly. Why is this? I've asked a lot of people, both CYCLIST and law-abiding MOTORISTs, why they get so upset and the most common reply is along the lines of "it's the law", "MOTORISTs must respect the rules if we are to respect them", "red light jumpers give MOTORISTs a bad name" and "MOTORISTs are arrogant and think they're above the law".

 

But strangely, people don't argue that what the red-light-jumper is doing is dangerous. The consensus seems to be that these MOTORISTs are very careful to cross only when it's safe. That would make sense as most MOTORISTs are aware of their vulnerability and are conscious that a bump from cross-traffic at that intersection would probably be fatal. But almost never could a MOTORIST cause an accident that would hurt anyone other than him or herself.

 

Strangely also, people don't argue that what the MOTORIST is doing is inconveniencing anyone. When the MOTORIST jumps the robot, no one has to wait for them or move out of their way. So why does everyone care so deeply about this issue?

 

My guess is that CYCLIST get annoyed at having to share the road with slower-moving vehicles and point fingers at the law-breaking to justify their indignation. But daily I see drivers on their cellphones, cutting people off, drunk driving, speeding, joking about unpaid fines and even warning others about speed traps and roadblocks on Facebook as if speeding and drunken driving, which kills thousands, is a completely legitimate behaviour. MOTORISTs are almost incapable of speeding or killing anyone other than themselves. They are doing their bit to reduce congestion and pollution. What reason do drivers have to hate them other than their own impatience and self-righteousness?

 

I would argue, in fact, that red light jumping by MOTORISTs promotes both safety AND the convenience of other road users.

 

France has recently passed a law that allows MOTORISTs to turn right on red (the equivalent of turning left in South Africa). A study done in London showed that female MOTORISTs are more likely to be killed than male MOTORISTs, and states that this may be because they are also more likely to obey red lights, and then collide with vehicles pulling away from the lights: http://www.rudi.net/...16395��It's rather obvious when you think about it - a stable, moving MOTORIST behaving in a predictable way in front of you is safer than a MOTORIST taking off in their wobbly way, amongst three or four lanes of cars doing the same thing. Besides, what driver really wants to share that "go" moment at the robots with MOTORISTs? Do they not realise that having the queue by the robot free from MOTORISTs can only make it more convenient for them?

 

I would really like someone to give me a sensible reason for stopping at the red light. I'm not one who follows the law blindly. If a law is stupid I relish in breaking it. So simply saying that it is against the law is not enough to persuade me to do something. However I'm well aware of the passionate hatred towards MOTORISTs because of this - as irresponsible, unreasonable, misplaced, exaggerated, and downright spiteful as it may be. I still intend to turn left on red. I still intend to go straight at a red with a side street to the right. But as a result of my mini-research mission, I've decided to show some willing and start to stop at red lights whenever my path crosses a lane of traffic that has a green.

 

I'd like to hear some rational debate, or what everyone thinks about my attitude. For once I'd really like to hear people avoid suggesting running the offending MOTORIST down, opening the car door as he passes or slamming on brakes when he's behind you. If I have one take-home message: it's not an offence worth murdering someone over.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Pappa Bear

[madbradd]

IMO it is with the recent lawlessness of everybody these days, that every person thinks that although he breaks the law it is fine. Laws are there for the protection of its citizens. Now just to clear the debate of the e-toll law (the aim of the law is to justify the income and this whole saga is another debate which is also currently on).

We spoke of taxi's, will not go there. As a matter of interest of breaking the law while doing it safely. Take this example that I see everyday; peak hour traffic on the N14 towards PTA and with recent time the one onramp to the freeway is congested. This is a dual lane road with a fairly wide "yellow lane" shoulder. You are in the car slowly moving forward in the left lane and as you wait there are many cars passing you slowly in the yellow lane with their hazards flashing. Ok so traffic is basically crawling along at 10km/h and the persons in the yellow lane thinks that it is safe because at the front somebody will give a gap so why do I have to wait the extra 10mins, I'm driving slowly and with my speed I can stop easily so no danger. Now this law breaking convenience started to be a right it is the right to do.

Our actions dictate what other people will do in the end, it takes a few people to see and witness and then everybody jumps on the wagon and justify (with very valid reasons on why) it should be done.

IMO it is not just a case of "If" but "When" just to many factors that could possibly go wrong.

 

Convenience law abiding.... I like that.

 

Ok so off topic a little but similar lines. My company recently was purchased by a multinational corporate with lots of policies which are basically laws. Our travel policy states that we may not travel for business in a vehicle that is not rated 5 stars by the Euro NCAP system. I drive a BMW 3 series. Our company pool cars are toyota auris hilux or etios. None of these cars are rated 5 stars, but mine is definitely the safest so I choose to drive it rather than the company cars.

 

When I spoke to one of our international managers about it (tongue in cheek I asked if I could buy a new car on the company's account so that I could travel between offices), he spoke of something termed "Malicious adherence to policy". Basically I could tell my boss that I refuse to travel for business, or I could choose to understand the reasoning for the policy, and apply the principals of the policy accordingly.

 

Which would you do?

[MockTurtle]

Which would you do?

 

"That's why we need the Porsche 911 dear."

Hopefully then your wife will finally understand!

[Brogue]

Sat afternoon I went for a spin on my thin wheels. Coming out of the estate I stopped at the traffic light at the bottom of Helgarda Avenue in Hout Bay (intending to cross over into Victoria Road and left into Valley Road). Helgarda is a residential road, not a general thoroughfare. It was quiet, no cars behind me for some time. I waited, and waited (and waited), watching paint dry, grass grow and the cars opposite and to either side go on their merry way at least three times.

 

I'm good like that, coz I'm a law abiding sheep. There were times when there were NO cars at any of these traffic lights, yet I continued waiting. "My" lights didn't morph green until a car, eventually, stopped behind me. Traffic lights are designed to regulate VEHICLES. Cyclists should be empowered to use their common sense, but should equally take responsibility for the additional freedom

[G00SE]

Traffic lights are designed to regulate VEHICLES. Cyclists should be empowered to use their common sense, but should equally take responsibility for the additional freedom

 

Couldn't have said it better..

 

This debate reminds me of something similar; Motorcyclists splitting lanes.

 

Whilst it is apparently legal to lane split, it doesn't make it safe, in fact, it is the cause of many motorcyclists deaths. But people do it because they are allowed to, and I'm sure if they made it illegal many would still do it.

So just because its not illegal to lane split doesn't mean its a good Idea, just as riding through a red robot on a bicycle is illegal, doesn't always make it a bad idea.

 

Start taking responsibility for yourself and stop relying on silly laws to keep you safe, natural selection will prevail in the end...

[Blackbeard]

Couldn't have said it better..

 

This debate reminds me of something similar; Motorcyclists splitting lanes.

 

Whilst it is apparently legal to lane split, it doesn't make it safe, in fact, it is the cause of many motorcyclists deaths. But people do it because they are allowed to, and I'm sure if they made it illegal many would still do it.

So just because its not illegal to lane split doesn't mean its a good Idea, just as riding through a red robot on a bicycle is illegal, doesn't always make it a bad idea.

 

Start taking responsibility for yourself and stop relying on silly laws to keep you safe, natural selection will prevail in the end...

 

I was also under the impression that lane splitting by motor cyclists was permitted, but during a Talk Radio interview with Kieno Kummings this morning the ranking officer of the Cape Town Metro Police categorically stated that it was illegal. He claimed that the rule was not being enforced due to difficulties occasioned by the volumes of traffic. He further requested motorists to record the license plates of offending motor cyclists and forward these on to the Metro Police.

 

It appears that tension between motorists and motor cyclists is peaking. Its getting hot out there on the roads.

[DJR]

Sat afternoon I went for a spin on my thin wheels. Coming out of the estate I stopped at the traffic light at the bottom of Helgarda Avenue in Hout Bay (intending to cross over into Victoria Road and left into Valley Road). Helgarda is a residential road, not a general thoroughfare. It was quiet, no cars behind me for some time. I waited, and waited (and waited), watching paint dry, grass grow and the cars opposite and to either side go on their merry way at least three times.

 

I'm good like that, coz I'm a law abiding sheep. There were times when there were NO cars at any of these traffic lights, yet I continued waiting. "My" lights didn't morph green until a car, eventually, stopped behind me. Traffic lights are designed to regulate VEHICLES. Cyclists should be empowered to use their common sense, but should equally take responsibility for the additional freedom

 

Some traffic lights have a trigger plate and you and your bike is too light to set it off big boy.

[G00SE]

I was also under the impression that lane splitting by motor cyclists was permitted, but during a Talk Radio interview with Kieno Kummings this morning the ranking officer of the Cape Town Metro Police categorically stated that it was illegal. He claimed that the rule was not being enforced due to difficulties occasioned by the volumes of traffic. He further requested motorists to record the license plates of offending motor cyclists and forward these on to the Metro Police.

 

It appears that tension between motorists and motor cyclists is peaking. Its getting hot out there on the roads.

 

Oh dear! this is going to open up a whole new can of worms

 

Thanks for clearing that up though. I am now going to start cursing and judging every motorcyclist who illegally, but safely passes me in traffic.

[Slowbee]

Everyone to their own.

 

Do what you feel is right, its common sense, don't worry about the law. It is just a guide anyway.

 

But a lot of small windows broken, makes for one big one.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I was also under the impression that lane splitting by motor cyclists was permitted, but during a Talk Radio interview with Kieno Kummings this morning the ranking officer of the Cape Town Metro Police categorically stated that it was illegal. He claimed that the rule was not being enforced due to difficulties occasioned by the volumes of traffic. He further requested motorists to record the license plates of offending motor cyclists and forward these on to the Metro Police.

 

It appears that tension between motorists and motor cyclists is peaking. Its getting hot out there on the roads.

 

He's wrong, unless the law has changed that significantly. RObin Carlisle proposed a ban on lane splitting in Cape Town, but there was so much backlash it was shelved... But then, this oke interviewed is head of Metro. Not exactly a guy that has jurisdiction on TRAFFIC offences. Nor is it his area of expertise.

 

To quote another source:

 

 

So what does the law state about Lane-Splitting? Contrary to popular belief Lane-Splitting is actually legal in South-Africa, says Howard Dembovsky the National Chairman of Justice Project South Africa. Article 298 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999, allows a motorcycle to pass another vehicle in the same lane, either to the right or the left of the other vehicle, subject to certain provisions. Article 309 reiterates this, with the proviso that more than one motorcycle may not pass another vehicle at the same time.

[arendoog]

I like someboydy that can think for themself .Also in France cyclists are taught to ride abbrest .To own the road !! and not be sidelined like a nobody that can be run down like we do

[Brogue]

Some traffic lights have a trigger plate and you and your bike is too light to set it off big boy.

 

Exactly my point, one "law abiding" approach doesn't fit all. Common sense should prevail, rather than a blind obsession with red, green and everything inbetween.

[Capricorn]

I like someboydy that can think for themself .Also in France cyclists are taught to ride abbrest .To own the road !! and not be sidelined like a nobody that can be run down like we do

 

they do think for themselves in france too, and they ride along the edge of the road, cognisant that their speed will hamper drivers, and drivers in turn give them good space while passing them. In fact, groups of them were most considerate to drivers by not riding abreast when a car's attempting to pass them, even on country roads which was the general area I lived in. It was a good experience: all round consideration. There we of course odd ball moments of goSodYourselfness from both drivers and cyclists, but generally, it was pretty good.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Capricorn

[Wyatt Earp]

I run with my red robot at least once a week.

 

 

http://www.adafruit.com/adablog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Pasted_Image_1_23_14_10_38_AM-2.jpg

[Blackbeard]

He's wrong, unless the law has changed that significantly. RObin Carlisle proposed a ban on lane splitting in Cape Town, but there was so much backlash it was shelved... But then, this oke interviewed is head of Metro. Not exactly a guy that has jurisdiction on TRAFFIC offences. Nor is it his area of expertise.

 

To quote another source:

 

 

So what does the law state about Lane-Splitting? Contrary to popular belief Lane-Splitting is actually legal in South-Africa, says Howard Dembovsky the National Chairman of Justice Project South Africa. Article 298 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999, allows a motorcycle to pass another vehicle in the same lane, either to the right or the left of the other vehicle, subject to certain provisions. Article 309 reiterates this, with the proviso that more than one motorcycle may not pass another vehicle at the same time.

 

My initial impression was that he erred. The regs I had seen clearly stated that it was permissible, but I have not kept abreast of it as I do not ride a motor cycle. I personally have never had a problem with lane splitting.

 

The Metro chap was interviewed for the express purpose of bringing finality to the issue. I was particularly struck by the fact that motorists were requested to report "offenders" to the authorities.

 

The difficulty is that misinformation creates confusion and this also leads to an increase of the tensions between the various categories of road user. This impacts directly on all of us whether we think we can reason better than others or not. We may think it is safe to proceed through a red traffic light, but it may not be objectively speaking.

By way of example, I discovered this weekend that my vehicle has a blind spot if I approach a T-junction set at a certain angle. (To the cyclist rocking the ironic van dyke facial thatch - my profuse apologies again. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. We both got a fright and parted amicably).

 

My reasoning was therefore impaired by factors that I had not accounted for, despite my best efforts at the time. Traffic rules are there to give all road users a reasonable expectation regarding the conduct of others. The system is not infallible, merely the best in the circumstances until amended with proper communication to all road users.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Blackbeard