How can you say there is not “even the slightest possibility” of your not seeing a pedestrian or vehicle? Are you claiming to be infallible?
I would say the person has poor vision, bad judgement, or after the fact claimed that he looked everywhere when he actually didn’t.
I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying that cars are invisible? Or that the fact that it’s against the law to proceed through a red light somehow makes me unable to see with my own eyes? Or what?
It’s not a distinction in terms of safety. Either way, I proceeded into an intersection into the path of another vehicle.
If you consider infallible as being convinced that there are no other cars on the road AFTER LOOKING CAREFULLY DOWN EVERY ROAD, IN EXCELLENT VISIBILITY, WITH CLEAR SIGHT LINES, AND DETERMINING THAT IN FACT THERE WERE NO OTHER VEHICLES IN SIGHT, then yeah, I guess I’m infallible.
Tell me - is there a little green squirrel sitting in front of you? If you say no, are you sure? If you’re sure, are you saying that you are infallible? I mean, what if you just didn’t look carefully enough? :rolleyes:
In my house, we obey the laws of physics. If I look carefully down a road and see that there’s nothing on it, I’m pretty sure nothing will magically appear in the next few seconds.
Let me say this again: If there had been the SLIGHTEST chance that I couldn’t see well enough to know if there were vehicles coming, I wouldn’t have crossed.
This argument has become idiotic. If you’re really that scared that you need the law to tell you when to proceed safely because you don’t trust your own eyes, you’d better just give up driving and take the bus. Stop signs must terrify you. After all, even if it looks clear, what if you proceed into the intersection and you’re wrong? By the way, if you did that, even by accident, you would be just as guilty of breaking the law, because the law demands that you NOT enter the intersection when it’s unsafe to do so. Since you apparently think the only way you can make that determination is to be infallible, then either you’re infallible or you’re risking breaking the law every time you enter an intersection, since apparently you need laws to help you see, and in the case of stop signs, the law leaves it up to you.
Yeah. If your logic was a staircase, you missed about 6 or 7 steps. Ouch.
If you’re going 55 (just because of the limit) when everyone else is going 100 you’re putting yourself in danger. Your point was that Sam Stone wasn’t infallible, but the law isn’t infallible either. It’s made by people just as fallible as you and I with the intent to protect us. A lot of the time it’s right. Sometimes it’s impractical, and sometimes it’s downright goofy.
We’re not talking about magic; we’re talking about you not seeing something. In order for the dichotomy, “Either I saw it coming or it magically appeared” to hold true, it would have to be impossible for you to miss seeing something. In other words, you would have to be infallible with regard to seeing objects heading towards intersections. So again, do you believe you are infallible in that regard?
When did I say I was scared? You just made that up.
No, not at all. You just made that up out of thin air as well. Let’s just skip the ad hominem, o.k.?
I said nothing of the sort. I merely questioned your assertion that there isn’t “the slightest possibility” of you not seeing something. I have confidence in my own ability to see and react to traffic, but I do not consider it outside the realm of possibility that I could make a mistake. While it is unlikely, it is possible. One actually does risk breaking the law every time one enters an intersection from a stop sign, but since I know what I’m doing, the risk is low in my case, and it is necessary to do so.
I already pointed out how a stop sign differs from a solid red light, so your assertion that they are the same is false. I’m not questioning your decision to break the law, I’m only questioning your assertion that it is literally impossible for you to miss seeing a car or pedestrian coming into an intersection.
No, I consider “infallible” as being convinced that there are no other cars on the road after looking carefully down every road, in excellent visibility, with clear sight lines, and determining that in fact there were no other vehicles in sight, AND NEVER, EVER, BEING WRONG ABOUT IT.
Oh, but I do trust my own eyes.
It’s yours that I don’t trust. And you should not trust mine.
It’s like when the security people at the airport check me out, and they say they do it for my protection. Heck, no! I know that I’m not bringing any guns onto the plane. Checking me does nothing to make my trip safer. My trip is safer because they make sure that you aren’t bringing any guns. And that can’t happen unless they check everyone, and it is in that sense – namely, subjecting everyone to the same rules – that my trip is safer because they are checking my bags. So too, everyone’s driving is safer when we subject everyone to the same rules (in this case, not allowing individuals to decide for themselves when it is safe to cross certain intersections).
If you drive through the green light and hit someone you’ve still broken the law, as green means “proceed IF SAFE”.
If this is correct, then why bother having such lights at all?
My response would be that there is a difference between one who drives through the green and hits someone by mistake, and one who drives through the red with callous disregard to the consequences.
Then it’s a good thing I didn’t have a ‘callous disregard to the consequences’.
Well, if the intersection was blocked by some moron who pulled into the intersection even though the traffic was so heavy he couldn’t clear the intersection when the light changed, would you feel it was legal to just go ahead and plow into him? No, of course not.
Correct, of course I would not just plow into him. I’d wait until the light turned green, and then I’d go around him.
I suspect that I misunderstood your post. Could you rephrase it?
My point is this: If you cannot cross the intersection when it is unsafe (regardless of whether the light is green or red), and you can cross the intersection when it is safe (regardless of whether the light is green or red), then there’s no need for the light.
BUT: If you cannot cross the intersection when it is unsafe (regardless of whether the light is green or red), and you can cross the intersection only when it is both safe and green, then the light is useful.
I started a thread on the Car Talk message board on this subject, and I was surprised at the level of emotion the topic engenders.
My position, in a nutshell: my grandfather told me, when he was teaching me to drive, that the way to avoid accidents was to “always do what the other drivers expect you to do.” That rule, he said, was more important than traffic laws. So, if the other drivers expect you to drive at ten mph above the maximum speed limit, do it. If traffic is going ten mph below the minimum limit, do that.
In the Car Talk thread, I posited a thought experiment: Say there is a road with no posted speed limit. It is a well-traveled road, and the normal flow of traffic is 55 mph. At what speed should you travel the road? I say 55 mph.
The township through which the road travels passes an ordinance declaring the speed limit on the road will be 40 mph. Traffic continues to travel on the road at 55 mph. At what speed should you travel the road? I still say 55 mph.
Sua
What law would you have broken?
That concept is actually written into California law. If a city sets a speed limit lower than the actual prevailing speed, they are barred from using radar to enforce that artificially low speed limit. (Although last time I wanted to use that as a defense, I noticed someone pussed out and amended the law to reduce the prosecution’s burden of proof. grrrr…)
The law that says you have to drive safely. A green light is ultimately no different than a stretch of road with no intersections. You may drive down the road, there is no traffic control requiring that you stop.
However, the fact that you are allowed to drive down the road doesn’t mean you have the right to drive down the road any way you want, you still have to drive safely. If there is an obstacle in your way, you don’t get to plow into it and claim it’s not your fault.
If, in the minds of the police and whoever else decides these things, it was determined you were driving unsafely, the green light will not save you.
Many times you will come to an intersection late at night and know it would be safe to continue. It just puts you in jeopardy of undergoing cop shit. They do hide and wait. You have no defense. Just obey the damn law and you will be ok. Why take the risk? What is the cost of waitng a few seconds and risk a ticket that will increase your insurance rates.
The question was for Cryptoderk.
And again, I’m asking specifically which law you have broken if you “drive through a green light and hit someone.” The rest of your response is immaterial.
Hint: I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong; I’m asking specifically which law is broken.
I agree, although “a few seconds” is an understatement. With modern over-controlled intersections with seperate cycles for turn lanes and other nonsense, it can take up to a couple minutes.
We’ll see Crypto’s take on it when he gets back, whenever that is.
I don’t think it’s immaterial, my claim is that the answer is identical to - what law have you broken if you “drive down the street and hit someone.”
Whether or not you’ve broken a law, and which law that is will depend entirely on the situation, and can range from no law broken at all to a moving violation to first degree murder.