Traffic lights and the attitude of the Police

[Sanx]

Why do some folk think that being over the line after the lights change to red is okay when the lights take say 2/3 seconds to change from Amber to Red when a vehicle travelling at 50kph should stop in 25metres or 6/7 (or 3/4 Holdens) car lengths............I suspect that 90% of drivers could stop if they cared, but sadly they do not yet this is probably worse than exceeding the speed limit.

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here, and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

[Grahameeboy]

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here, and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

Interesting because the LTSA obviously do not have confidence in their drivers because in the UK the stopping distance is 25 metres including thinking distance (maybe that is why the Ltsa extend the distance) and I have UK Police manuals that say that the Ltsa's 37 metres is way out.

Agreed on road surface, however, you and I know that a significant amount of drivers don't even know about wet roads or bother to even think about stopping although I would dispute the double argument.

37 Metres is a just a tad over 100 feet more than enough to pull up with time to order a latte.

[Ocean1]

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here, and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

Actually might work, especially if it was wet. Bikes generally don't stop in the distance a car can let alone an 18 wheeler. This fact used to be drummed into learner riders big time, my old man insisted on demonstrating it (dramatically) for me when I got my first bike. Not sure what the average distances are (anyone?) but it's significant and documented evidence to that effect might well influence a court (assuming the officer's report didn't indicate an extreme disregard of the signal).

[bell]

When you're travelling down a straight road at 100km/h and a vehicle wants to do a right turn from a side road across your path do you stop and let them out? If you don't you're trusting them to stay put while you pass. Unless you pass them at a much reduced speed there's little chance of avoiding them if they suddenly decide to come out at you.

Some of us might:
(a) roll off the throttle and drop back 5km/hr while checking the state of the traffic that might be around us (behind, ahead, beside, opposite the vehicle that wants to turn...),
(b) check what escape route/s might be an option if that vehicle does move out,
(c) some might cover their brake levers,
(d) some might be looking at the drivers head and seeing if they've turned toward us (and hopefully estimated our distance and speed and correctly decided to wait, or pull out as the case may be), and
(e) some of us might do all of that and then check the front wheels to see if there's been any movement (often precedes the person pulling out I believe).

And (f) some of us won't do any of that.

Best of luck to them. Maybe their road position was suitably 'lucky' for them to avoid the vehicle that did pull out after all...

(BTW try the Multiquote tool (the little "+ icon between the "Quote" button and the "QuickReply" button. It makes it easier to read a thread.)

[Ocean1]

Some of us might:
(a) roll off the throttle and drop back 5km/hr while checking the state of the traffic that might be around us (behind, ahead, beside, opposite the vehicle that wants to turn...),
(b) check what escape route/s might be an option if that vehicle does move out,
(c) some might cover their brake levers,
(d) some might be looking at the drivers head and seeing if they've turned toward us (and hopefully estimated our distance and speed and correctly decided to wait, or pull out as the case may be), and
(e) some of us might do all of that and then check the front wheels to see if there's been any movement (often precedes the person pulling out I believe).

I've gone over two cars having done all of the above, in both cases they later said they didn't see me. On one occasion I swear I had actual eye contact with the driver about 3 seconds before she pulled out.

There's some inherent deficit in the human brain that seems to allow us to "not see" things smaller than us. I've even noticed some evidence of it in myself when I'm in a car, and I like to think I'm usually very aware of what's around me no matter how many wheels I'm on.

Everyone's got their own way of assessing risk and their own level of acceptable risk but the older I get the less risk I find I'm prepared to accept (and I refuse to accept that as evidence I'm growing up ). That's probably a good thing because my skills have never been good enough to support the level of risk that tickles my "let's boogie" gland.

[scumdog]

Some of us might:
(a) roll off the throttle and drop back 5km/hr while checking the state of the traffic that might be around us (behind, ahead, beside, opposite the vehicle that wants to turn...),
(b) check what escape route/s might be an option if that vehicle does move out,
(c) some might cover their brake levers,
(d) some might be looking at the drivers head and seeing if they've turned toward us (and hopefully estimated our distance and speed and correctly decided to wait, or pull out as the case may be), and
(e) some of us might do all of that and then check the front wheels to see if there's been any movement (often precedes the person pulling out I believe).

And (f) some of us won't do any of that.

Best of luck to them. Maybe their road position was suitably 'lucky' for them to avoid the vehicle that did pull out after all...

(BTW try the Multiquote tool (the little "+ icon between the "Quote" button and the "QuickReply" button. It makes it easier to read a thread.)

My basic technique, worked for me so far.

[swbarnett]

Some of us might:

I do all of the above. This minimises the chances that they'll pull out unexpectedly and greatly improves your chances of survival. You are still, however, left with a small level of trust in the other driver that is unavoidable.

(BTW try the Multiquote tool

Thanks for the tip. Hadn't caught on to that one.

[InsaneFreak]

Someone earlier mentioned that you cant expect stupid drivers to think with common sense and for themselves. I think we should come right back to the beginning, getting a license. It nice to compare various nations road codes, but also compare the standard of driver they let on to their roads. I think this is the best and most fundamental of solutions, to fix red light running, and of course many other road issues.

[Max Preload]

Someone earlier mentioned that you cant expect stupid drivers to think with common sense and for themselves. I think we should come right back to the beginning, getting a license. It nice to compare various nations road codes, but also compare the standard of driver they let on to their roads. I think this is the best and most fundamental of solutions, to fix red light running, and of course many other road issues.

Exactly. This is the underlying problem - any idiot can get a license. And once they have one they never get retested.

[BMW]

good for you questioning it! I would have too.

[Toaster]

I reckon the wording for the charge careless driving:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be careless".

should be changed to:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be stupid".

[Ocean1]

I reckon the wording for the charge careless driving:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be careless".

should be changed to:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be stupid".

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

Half the reason we have over the top speed enforcement is because it's easily quantifiable behaviour. OK, don't like it much because there's only a marginal correlation between speed in general and safety, but I like having to anticipate and accommodate other peoples opinions on my behaviour even less.

And yes, it’s been said I’ve got a problem with authority, but it was a person in authority who said it, and he was wrong, OK?

[scumdog]

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

So far all judges have agree with MY 'considering'.

I guess they too know a loser when they see one.

[Max Preload]

I guess they too know a loser when they see one.

More like they wouldn't have a clue what the really constitutes careless. As above: unquantifiable and emotive is opinion and worthless. Just because it's in law doesn't mean it's right.

[Toaster]

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

Half the reason we have over the top speed enforcement is because it's easily quantifiable behaviour. OK, don't like it much because there's only a marginal correlation between speed in general and safety, but I like having to anticipate and accommodate other peoples opinions on my behaviour even less.

And yes, it’s been said I’ve got a problem with authority, but it was a person in authority who said it, and he was wrong, OK?

I get the feeling that person had a reason for saying that to you.

"Considered" comes from the fact the driver/rider crashed and its their fault, not the vehicle or conditions or anyone else, just the driver/rider being a dickhead.

This thread and my comment on careless driving are not specifically in relation to speeding. However, speeding is a matter of pure physics... the faster you go, the further and longer it takes to stop. Even dickheads know that.

I don't really care if individuals speed... but I do care when others have to pay for the mess when they crash or when they hurt other people/property.

Millions is spent on road crashes each year.... a complete waste of taxpayer money and lives.

I still recall seeing the mess from where bikers were doing huge speeds and hit a small truck coming out of a driveway... just horrific. 2 lives lost and many leves wrecked as a result of a cocky rider going too fast and unable to take evasive action when the unexpected happened because he was going too fast. Such a sad waste.

Mate, I hope this helps. Ride to survive.... please.