I run red robots.

[RocknRolla]

BTW, the word traffic light is an oxymoron in JHB when it's raining and in the morning, and afternoons, and lunchtime and fridays

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Well to answer what Slowbee asked:

 

For me, personally I have decided to obey all the traffic rules to the T.

 

I came to this conclusion that if I wanted to see a change, I have to be part of the change, and not wait for every-one else to change first because then we would regress, specifically on the roads.

 

When I am a pedestrian, I cross at an intersection if it is within 50m of where I want to cross. I only cross said intersection if there is a green signal (where a traffic light) and only when safe to do so. At a stopstreet, only when safe to do so.

 

When I am on my bicycle on the road, I stop at the traffic lights, use hand signals etc...

 

and in my car, I dont drive in the yellow line, obey the speed limit (even late at night or early in the morning)

Stop when the light turns amber, wait to pass cyclists safely. Give pedestrians right of way.

Keep left and pass right. etc etc ad nauseum.

 

It take s a lot of restraint and concentration, but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I also hope it sets some kind of example for other users to follow.

 

when something does go wrong, at least i know i have made every effort to minimise the risk to myself, my family and other road users as mutch as possible.

 

Please excuse me, I have to go hug a tree now.....

 

Dude, You should see the reaction I get when I stay behind the pedestrian crossing line when the light is green, and the opposite side is stationary... Fingers, vloeking, JMSP this, whitey that... And then the okes on the perpendicular (entry road) just block the intersection anyway....

[DJR]

Dude, You should see the reaction I get when I stay behind the pedestrian crossing line when the light is green, and the opposite side is stationary... Fingers, vloeking, JMSP this, whitey that... And then the okes on the perpendicular (entry road) just block the intersection anyway....

 

You talking of Woolsack & Main in Rondebosch? The bane of my daily life! But I bite my tongue, grind my teeth and do it right!

[Paulst12]

I find this point of view extremely myopic. I guess this sort of thinking (or lack thereof) is the reason why stupid laws like apartheid were tolerated for such a long time. If legislated law is what defines your moral compass, then friend, you have bigger issues. You're probably the sort of person who would turn Anne Frank in to the Nazis. But hey that was the law, so its all legit.

 

Laws are implemented, changed and revoked all the time. ie. the rule Capricorn mentioned above sounds a good idea... so how do we get the law amended to be more inclusive of cyclists? Jumping red lights willy-nilly is just plain stupid and dangerous, and stopping at every light regardless in my view would be a final supplication and admission that a motorist's time is more important than mine...

 

In my view by simply a friendly wave, being visible, being courteous and being considerate goes way better than token obedience to road laws that are clearly designed for motor cars. Wishful thinking perhaps but just maybe then motorists will start to recognise cyclists as human beings and not just mobile road blocks.

You find that statement myopic? Clearly you do not understand to defining principles behind law.... without law you would have anarchy. You can debate the moral compass of society versus the implimentation of law all you want, and welcome to legal 101 if thats the case.... i suggest you read

http://www.law.harva...con_Rev_227.pdf

 

If you feel that not jumping a red robot goes against your moral compass, then you have bigger issues at hand!!

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paulst12

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

You talking of Woolsack & Main in Rondebosch? The bane of my daily life! But I bite my tongue, grind my teeth and do it right!

Milner and Kromboom...

[dogma 60.1]

I will forever jump a red at 5 in the morning when its safe and clear. I see no point in sitting at a red in the cold vulnerable to the Mexicans of this world that prey on us bikers.

[G00SE]

You find that statement myopic? Clearly you do not understand to defining principles behind law.... without law you would have anarchy.

 

If you feel that jumping a red robot goes against you moral compass, then you have bigger issues at hand!!

 

You say that like anarchy is a bad thing. Remember there are more than one accepted definitions of the word!

 

I guess I don't have any big issues at hand then, as jumping a red robot (given the right circumstances) doesn't go against my moral compass at all!

[Corvus]

annica,

 

wow, you've raised an interesting topic which has certainly awoken the ghetto philosopher in me.

 

Here are my thoughts, but first let me clarify a couple of things with some distinctions

 

1. There's a difference between moral and legal. It seems you agree.

2. Skipping red lights is illegal. You've admitted this.

 

So really the question seems to be one of morality. Is jumping red lights immoral or not.

I don't think there's an intrinsic immorality in skipping a red light, so it's not comparable to something like murder. But having said that, just because an act isn't immoral in itself doesn't mean it's not immoral for another reason.

 

Consider the law in certain countries being that one should drive on the right hand side of the road, and in other countries one should drive on the left hand side of the road.

 

Whatever a country chooses is entirely arbitrary and morally irrelevant. One cannot say that countries that prefer to drive on the right are morally wrong and countries that prefer to drive on the left are morally superior in virtue of the side they drive. But there is a moral motivation behind picking a side, and that is to maintain order and to avoid confusion which in turn reduces accidents. So while the specifics of the law (left side or right hand side) is arbitrary and morally empty, the motivation is not arbitrary and is morally good.

 

Now if you decide to drive on the wrong side of the road it's not only illegal but immoral too. It's not immoral because the side is intrinsically moral/immoral but because you're defying the principle behind the law, which is maintaining order.

 

So the second distinction is:

 

1. Some laws directly address a moral obligation, such as do not murder.

2. Other laws indirectly address a moral obligation, such as drive on the left hand side so that order may be maintained.

 

As such merely showing that breaking the law causes no harm isn't sufficient to justify breaking it, because abiding by the law in and of itself is more virtuous than breaking it, because all laws at the very least are for maintaining order.

 

One is only justified in breaking the law if the law violates some fundamental human right or some weightier moral principle, but you've not demonstrated that obliging you to stop at a red right violates a fundamental human right or weightier moral principle, and that is your burden of proof. The burden of proof is not upon us do defend the law with an argument that you would consider convincing.

 

One last thing. There's a rule in politics which states, "Hard cases make bad policy", which is to say that good laws aren't rooted in rare exceptions, but are rooted what's best for most people in most cases. So while you may name a few exceptions to the red light rule such as bike jackings or wobbling when you ride off at a busy intersection those exceptions do not seem to negate the general prudence of stopping at a red light.

 

In other words, in terms of policy making, "Stop at a red light" is an example of good policy making.

 

Bad policy making would be "Stop at a red light except when: you feel unsafe and/or are a really good rider and/or are really observant and/or you're sure there are no cars etc."

 

So to summarise this longer than I had hoped post:

 

1. While you may not see an intrinsic virtue in a law, the law may have a virtue behind it.

2. All things considered keeping the law is a virtue in and of itself because all laws at the very least maintain order.

3. Being legally obliged to stop at a red light doesn't violate any fundamental human right or weightier moral principle, though I'm sure you'll try to come up with some, in which case 4.

4. Hard cases make bad policy

Edited March 17, 2014 by Corvus

[G00SE]

annica,

 

wow, you've raised an interesting topic which has certainly awoken the ghetto philosopher in me.

 

Here are my thoughts, but first let me clarify a couple of things with some distinctions

 

blah, blah, blah...

 

First post for stopping at red lights that actually makes sense..

 

Although I will still skip a red light if I feel its 100% safe to do so. I am also prepared to face the consequences of my actions should I be caught skipping said light.

[MockTurtle]

You find that statement myopic? Clearly you do not understand to defining principles behind law.... without law you would have anarchy. You can debate the moral compass of society versus the implimentation of law all you want, and welcome to legal 101 if thats the case.... i suggest you read

http://www.law.harva...con_Rev_227.pdf

 

ooh harvard. tldr.

 

If you feel that jumping a red robot goes against you moral compass, then you have bigger issues at hand!!

 

wtf are you on about? its clearly against yours.

 

this is extremely myopic:

laws are set in place to prevent us from harming others, protection from being harmed, to prohibit self harm, to keep us morally upright as most are rooted in religion and to prevent unfair government advantage.

yep. apartheid certainly didn't harm others. its the law, certainly made you morally upright. go pull the other one. you even mentioned religion. now that's another oil tanker's worth of worms. now which of the thousands of religions do you seem is right?

 

so are we back in the dark ages yet?

[Stoffies1]

Next time I jump a red light and a car has word with me, I will politely ask him for his email address and cut & paste your email and patiently await his response.

 

Thanks for an amazing email...

Edited March 17, 2014 by Stoffies1

[DJTerblanche]

For me this is quite an interesting topic and I salute everybody who stops at red robots even when there is no car in sight. I must confess that I have jumped red robots when it is safe to do so.

Sometimes you have to wait for it to become safe.

I always jump a certain robot when I turn left at that robot and there is a huge shoulder which I turn into, only a taxi would try to stop there so I watch out for them.

I will think about not jumping red robots, like the OP is intending to do.

[marko35s]

Milner and Kromboom...

Try Prince George & Military. It's an education.

[Paulst12]

ooh harvard. tldr.

 

 

 

wtf are you on about? its clearly against yours.

 

this is extremely myopic:

 

yep. apartheid certainly didn't harm others. its the law, certainly made you morally upright. go pull the other one. you even mentioned religion. now that's another oil tanker's worth of worms. now which of the thousands of religions do you seem is right?

 

so are we back in the dark ages yet?

Most laws are rooted in religion... do a little research or maybe those topics are also tltr. for you? Then I better keep it short...

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paulst12

[MockTurtle]

Most laws are rooted in religion... do a little research or maybe those topics are also tltr. for you? Then I better keep it short...

etruscan religion < roman law < western Law. no argument from me there. so you can quit the finger wagging. just because a law is based on religion doesn't necessarily give it more crediblity nor does it make it more 'moral'. it also doesn't validate a particular religion either. unless you'd rather we be executing those burger flippers at McDonalds just because they work on a sunday. that's just insane.

[Cellar]

unless you'd rather we be executing those burger flippers at McDonalds just because they work on a sunday. that's just insane.

 

Mormons would do that