What would you have done in this situation?

In My Humble Opinion
101

But which can be caused to move rather easily - as simply as having a distracted driver’s foot slip off the brake (or a sleepy one…I missed that originally…red lights are NOT the place to take a nap!).

Were a car to be rear-ended, the driver who stayed alert and had his or her hands on the wheel still has some control and might be able to steer the car into a safer direction (perhaps away from pedestrians). A driver reading a magazine wouldn’t have time to react and the situation could be worse because of it.

Honestly, if you can’t see the risk here, you probably should never drive a car. :smack:

102

And some people, when reading Harry Potter at a stop light, get so engrossed that they think they are Harry Potter and attempt to fly their car over the intersection.

That being said, I was assuming that for this discussion we are basing our arguments on people who have control of their body parts and are of sound mind.

Depends on how you define driver, I guess. Point being, if they are stopped, as far as safety to others is concerned, what does it matter if they are distracted?

That is for purposes of enforcing the drunk driving that they don’t actually see, I imagine. The assumption being that in order to get in that position, the driver would have to illegally operate his vehicle. Or do you actually think that someone sleeping in a parked car presents a danger?

All of which, if you are stopped, affect you how?

103

Mm, right. Like when a foot slips off a pedal or someone rear-ends you hard enough to drive your car forward. My husband avoided consequences of the latter by staying aware at a red light and scanning the environment, plus observing proper stopping distance. The car stopped behind us was driven into our rear bumper by a car that did not even slow for the stopped line of traffic ahead. My husband happened to see the car coming up fast in a glance in the rear view, said “hold on” while temporarily taking his foot off the brake at impact, then reapplying. Because of this, he feels we were the last car in the chain reaction rather than the second-last. If he’d been snug up against the next car, we’d have hit it. If he hadn’t been paying attention, we might have hit it.

If a pedestrian collapsed in front of the OP’s car or a little kid ran out to grab something that went into the street, he’d never have noticed.

104

I hope you know that no jury in the world would convict the guy who runs over someone actually doing this. In fact, they may build him a statue that reenacts the scene.

105

Who is arguing for taking a nap at red lights?

Or, if you are unable to explain the risks without resorting to people’s body parts suddenly acting independently or people losing their mind and stomping on the gas pedal, perhaps you should reexamine your position.

I think many of you are so caught up in the somewhat ridiculous image that someone who stops their car in the crosswalk and then proceeds to pull out a book presents that you are going overboard on your claims of the actual dangers presented.

106

Honestly? When startled, you never, ever jerk your arms or legs? If you reach for something, your weight stays completely distributed the same way, each and every time? If you are tired and close your eyes (the OP said he does that sometimes), it’s not possible at all for you to actually fall asleep and have your tensed muscles relax?

Then the only conclusion I can come up with is that you aren’t, in fact, human.

These things can happen.

107

This is a woosh, right? You’ve played video games and eaten rice with chopsticks while in a vehicle you were supposed to be driving? You really don’t understand why people are uncomfortable with this?

I don’t care if you’re stopped or in motion - a car is NOT the right place for a driver to be doing things like this. I think you’re overestimating your ability to multitask.

And with respect to the guy in the crosswalk, I don’t think he was wrong at all. Think about it from his perspective: as far as he can see, you’re reading. He doesn’t know how long you’ve been reading, only that you are doing so in a vehicle. A vehicle that is blocking his path in a crosswalk. He assumes you’re distracted and is worried that you will continue to be distracted and potentially injure someone (him or someone else). Sure, he’s probably also pissed that yet another jerk driver is doing something in his car besides driving. So he lets you know by tapping on your car, “Dude, you’re in my way and you should pay attention to what you’re doing.” Now if he had been hopping around on your car like a chimp throwing bananas, then yeah, that’s a little over the top. But getting your attention when you’re acting like a stereotypical entitled driver? Nope, not at all. This one’s on you.

108

Maybe you don’t walk a whole lot, but it is not at all uncommon to see drivers either creep or lurch forward at a stop light. Sure, maybe you won’t, but a pedestrian doesn’t know that. You’re assuming that because you know what you’re thinking and doing, everyone else does too. As a pedestrian you can’t assume that drivers know what they’re doing and are in perfect control, because there is ample evidence that a large number of drivers should never have been given a licence in the first place. When your unsure of what a driver is doing (ie. when they’re in the middle of a crosswalk and you’re not sure what they might do next), making eye contact with them is one very good way to try and make things a bit safer, and a driver who you can’t make eye contact with is a driver you should be wary of.

You want an actual risk of being heavily distracted at a red light? What if a pedestrian is carrying groceries, drops something and stoops to pick it up? What if a pedestrian has a slow, old dog on a leash that is trailing behind them? What if they have a small kid who trips and falls in front of your car? When you look up from your magazine/cell phone/whatever and see that the light is green, are you going to know any of those things are in front of your car? No, you’re just going to hit the gas and be on your merry way.

But perhaps more than anything else, the practice of reading a magazine at a red light is just an indicator that you don’t take the entire process of driving very seriously. If you are honestly so easily bored that you need a distraction to get through the extremely minor tedium of sitting for 2 minutes at a traffic light, then I think maybe you’re just a little too flighty to be entrusted with 2 tons of moving steel.

Bad drivers are annoying, but bad pedestrians aren’t helping anything. This is just jerkish behaviour.

109

If the car is in drive (or reverse, or neutral), then you are a driver. Even if your sole “driving” at that point is to simply keep pressure on the brake pedal, you should be paying attention to your surroundings.

110

I’m reminded of an episode of some cop show I saw in the 90’s. No idea what the name of it was but it was about LA cops and didn’t last very long.

The pilot episode had a scene where a cop was parked behind someone at a red light. Not moving. The officer saw the driver in the car in front of him pick his nose (through the mirror, I think, or maybe the officer was walking by - it’s been a long time and the details are beyond fuzzy.)

Anyway, long story short, the officer wrote the driver a ticket for distracted driving because he was picking his nose. The purpose of the scene was to show what an asshole the cop was, but it always stuck with me.

111

Yog?

Bull.

Take a second or two to look at directions you have writen down? OK. Reading a freaking magazine? How often do people honk at you?

112

Sounds to me like you’re just another oblivious shitty driver who thinks he’s entitled to do as he pleases and gets butt hurt when someone calls him out about it. What should you have done? Made the the universal “mea culpa” “shrug and wave” and kept it to yourself.

113

I timed a light that I thought was insanely long one time, and if I recall correctly, it was 90 seconds long. This was the longest light I ever encountered - I think most lights are 30 seconds or less.

I agree with this. As a frequent pedestrian and driver, I make efforts to get out of the way of drivers as quickly as possible. We’re all just trying to get around - no one needs to be making it more difficult for anyone else.

114

Can’t recall ever having that reaction while driving.

Obviously not. If you are getting at whether it is a physical challenge to maintain pressure on a brake pedal while turning the page of a magazine, then I would hope that that is well within any driver’s capabilities. If you aren’t confident that that is within your capabilities, I’d feel much more comfortable crossing the street in front of the OP with his chinese take out and playboy than yours – despite your claimed constant vigilance of surrounding conditions.

That one I won’t try to defend.

115

Who said anything about blame? The fact that that driver was paying attention averted a hideous outcome. Regardless of whether the driver was “blamed” if EmAnJ got plastered onto the front of a truck, don’t you think she might have wished she had been paying attention instead of reading a magazine? And don’t you think the possibility of averting such an outcome is worth foregoing reading half a page of the National Enquirer at a stoplight?

116

Well, I had asked for examples of specific ways that someone who reads at a stop light is putting others in danger. This incident was brought forth.

You would think so, if you put them up against each other like that – ie the possibility of being a hero and saving someone’s life vs. doing some little distracting thing.

But that’s not really a fair comparison. Maybe you – kathmandu – will have a chance to save someone’s life if you don’t ever talk to your passenger again, adjust the radio, adjust your seatbelt, check out the cute guy or girl across the street, or any of the countless distracting but perfectly safe things to be doing at a stop light. Are you going to do any of those things again? Of course you will.

And lets not make this out like everyone was yelling to the pedestrian to watch out. One person noticed. I bet the rest of the drivers and bystanders weren’t reading, either.

The point being, I can certainly think of better things to be doing at a stop light than reading. For one thing, you are bound to look like an ass when the light changes. But this is not the compelling safety issue that so many of you are making this out to be.

117

What about this:

An unseen object in front of your car doesn’t seem like a far-fetched scenario to me. If you’ve had your nose in a magazine for the duration of the red light, you have no idea what’s in front of you.

118

Or the example I gave above, about being able to steer your vehicle after a rear-end collision, both in order to regain control of it but also to avoid hitting pedestrians if possible. You don’t think that’s a safety issue?

119

I’ll respond to the thread in a bit, maybe not tonight, there’s like 70 posts go to through and the link in the paragraph won’t be kind to my argument. However, I will concede that my previous assumption about reading the magazine was illegal. I wanted to prove a point, so I went Googling specifics I could use in my argument, but came upon this. Its an article that doesn’t support me. Its about a man who was pulled over while at a red for using his phone. His arguments were similar to mine, that if the car was stopped, its not a threat. The court disagreed. I am in the wrong

Though I suppose if I wanted to be semantic about it, I could say that technically, what I was doing was legal. There is no provision against magazine reading, only against certain electronic communication devices. But I’m not going to go there as the intent of the law was obviously violated here, so the law does not support my argument

Some of you will rightly chastise me for continuing my defense, however, because this is an instance where I disagree with the law. I believe the government has an obligation to protect people, and in trying to cast the widest net, may catch something that doesn’t belong. In this case, I am not saying I’m a judge or an arbiter of the law or anything, but I disagree with their ruling and feel they are mistaken. I feel that it would rightly be too onerous to conceive of every single instance where one is stopped and make a separate law about that. Like the article says:

“Any mom or dad driving kids to school can expect to stop while parents in cars in front of them are unloading their kids,” Justice James A. Richman wrote in a concurring opinion. “A shopper driving to a store near Lake Merritt in Oakland may have to stop while a gaggle of geese crosses the street. A couple going for a Sunday drive in West Marin County may have to stop for a cattle crossing. And, of course, all of us are expected to stop for red lights, stop signs, crossing trains, and funeral processions. In short, all drivers may, and sometimes must, stop. But they do so while ‘driving.’ Just like defendant.”

I wouldn’t want laws to cover all those because it would just be a legalistic nightmare. However, I still disagree that once stopped fully at an intersection’s red light, a light that is red for at least a minute, there is no significant safety violation if a person should take his attention away from driving. I simply don’t find their arguments convincing.

And please don’t play the “You’re not a lawyer are you saying you’re smarter than they are?” card. One doesn’t have to be well versed in law to disagree with it. Hell, there are plenty of cases that’s been reasoned for decades such as abortion, gay marriage, or campaign financing that most of us hold strong views of in one way or another, and we disagree with lawyers and judges who have been practicing laws for years on the other side. So please, none of that, ok? I simply feel its not unsafe to read while at a red light.

If it was a cow crossing or whatever, maybe. But like the example the man gave, if you were stuck in traffic, lets say at a train crossing, for 5 minutes, do you really think its unsafe if you take your eyes off the non-moving road for a few seconds? Its just different degrees of the same thing. My main objection to most of you is the utter black and white clarity of the situation to you, as if you cannot conceive of one second ever, in the entire country, where taking your eyes off the road at a stopped intersection is ok. To me, that speaks more of an emotional response than a reasoned argument.

120

A well-thought out post, but my response is that previously you brought up the question of whether the pedestrian was breaking legal and social norms.

Regardless of the laws that you may argue about, it is clearly not a social norm to read magazines while at stop lights. I can think of instances where I’ve seen someone whip out a newspaper while stuck in traffic or something, but those events are so rare that they are remarkable. You have to give us at least this much: regardless of the legality, it is extremely uncommon to read while in the drivers’ seat.