Traffic lights and the attitude of the Police

[swbarnett]

This morning I was dutifully waiting at the lights at the corner of Fanshawe and Halsey streets facing east. My light changes to green and, as happens every morning at that intersection, two cars are still crossing perpendicular to me heading into Halsey St.

The unusual thing about this morning was that there was a bike cop sitting on his bike in a prime position to have seen them enter the intersection. He did nothing. I executed a u-turn further up Fanshawe St. and pulled up beside him. I pointed out what I've described above and his answer was that if the light turns red after you have crossed the white line you're legal. I pointed out that you're technically supposed to stop on a yellow if you can do so and he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland (fair enough to a point).

Now, If I'm not mistaken there's a 2 second pause between one light changing to red and the other changing to green. At 50km/h you travel approximately 28m in 2 seconds. Considering that lanes are between 2 and 3m in width and there were 3 lanes to cross to cross before they reached my side of the road this would be a time of at most approximately 0.6 seconds. Surely this means that the light was red before they crossed their white line?

If the police are going to ignore this sort of blatant infraction it's only going to get worse.

Also, he seemed miffed at the fact that I'd been bold enough to question him. I think the police need to remember who they work for.

[janno]

I sincerely hope you just came across a dud copper, because that sort of behaviour is how bikers get killed!!

And car drivers, and pedestrians . . .

[Gremlin]

...and he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland (fair enough to a point).

whats the bloody problem with that? its an offence... you don't see them not targeting 111kph... Its that sort of attitude that lets these people get away with it, and the problem gets bigger and bigger.

Pity Bykey Cop has apparently moved from patrol to SCU or something... I used to see him in action at intersections out east. It was fantastic. He would wait for the phase, and as it went orange, down went visor, bike was started, someone ran the red, and he was after them

[Macktheknife]

Also, he seemed miffed at the fact that I'd been bold enough to question him. I think the police need to remember who they work for.

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

Still would have thought that a bike cop would know the dangers that red light runners cause for bikes though, maybe he was just having a bad start to the day.

[craigs288]

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

And the government is there to work for 'us' and to serve our interests, theoretically. But they don't. In reality they serve their own interests.

What makes you think a government that doesn't serve our interests is going to put the police to work doing it??? The police are made to serve the government's interests, not ours. Sometimes though, there is a small effort made by the government to give the appearance of doing something for the public good.

Like um,.... um,.... um,... wait, I've got it. Passing legislation for less than 2% of the country so that gay people can feel more normal by getting hitched. No wait, more than 2% of the politicians are gay. Does that make them over-represented. Perhaps they only did it to serve their own interest so they could get hitched.

Bring on the insults about homophobia. Unless there are no gay kiwibikers. Does that mean we under-represent these people. That would make this website politically incorrect.

P.S. Not trying to offend anyone. Except maybe the government.

[Sanx]

Like um,.... um,.... um,... wait, I've got it. Passing legislation for less than 2% of the country so that gay people can feel more normal by getting hitched. No wait, more than 2% of the politicians are gay. Does that make them over-represented. Perhaps they only did it to serve their own interest so they could get hitched.

That's a genuine-enough example. Sure, it only affected 2% (by your figures - I've no idea how many Honda riders exist in the population as a whole) but it did nto adversely affect anyone else, unless you count all the religious zealots getting their knickers into a twist about how allowing two men or two women to marry was a violation of their particular god's law.

But overall, I'm struggling to think of an example of a law they passed that genuinely was done in the interests of serving the whole population.

[swbarnett]

unless you count all the religious zealots getting their knickers into a twist about how allowing two men or two women to marry was a violation of their particular god's law.

No, the law didn't hurt them at all. They hurt themselves by trying to tell others how to run their lives.

[swbarnett]

whats the bloody problem with that?

Too true. I agree with a degree of leniency and considering context but maybe if every Aucklander was ticketed people might stop doing it (or at least it would become less common).

[swbarnett]

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

And who pays the government so that they can pay the Police? I don't work for my employer, I work for my clients.

maybe he was just having a bad start to the day.

I sincerely hope so.

[Macktheknife]

And who pays the government so that they can pay the Police? I don't work for my employer, I work for my clients.

Unless you are self-employed, I think your employer may view the situation quite differently.
If you are employed, you work for the employer, and the clients are the businesses clients.
Illustrated simply by the fact that if you were fired tomorrow, the clients would be passed on to another employee to manage.

[Storm]

However, if you have done your job properly(ie real good), the clients follow you to your next job

DISCLAIMER(Of course this wont apply to some jobs)

[Pumba]

Now, If I'm not mistaken there's a 2 second pause between one light changing to red and the other changing to green. At 50km/h you travel approximately 28m in 2 seconds. Considering that lanes are between 2 and 3m in width and there were 3 lanes to cross to cross before they reached my side of the road this would be a time of at most approximately 0.6 seconds. Surely this means that the light was red before they crossed their white line?

As much as I hate amber light runners, Especialy the ones who think its ok to que accross intersections (this infact anoys me more than people flying through at speed), I need to correct you on the statement above. It is not a blanket 2 second pause between lights changing.

The gap an be varried from about 0.1 of a second up to anything you chose, and this gap can vary dependant on the thime of the day and volume of traffic passing through a intersection. Normally a standard gap of 2 - 3 seconds is is allowed for on a new intersection, however if amber light runners become a problem (yes certian intersections are worse than others) the programme can be changed allowing for a longer gap and therefore a larger margin of safety.

I know that is not the issue you are pointing out, and probally the cop should have done somthing (I thought there was a blitz on this sort of behavour at the moment?) but if you regulary pass through this intersection and experience bad amber light runners making it unsafe for you and other motorists it may be worth registering a complaint with Road Controlling Authority, normaly the local council or Transit NZ. The more complaints the better traffic signals can be fine tuned to real world conditions and traffic flows.

[davereid]

Yeah, but at 2am I stopped at a red light on my scooter. Waited...waited...waited.. didn't change, so off I goes through the red. Cop thought THAT was worth a ticket.

p.s. Ticket was shit - lights are supposed to change for a vehicle, if they don't change they are faulty and you can ignore them, applying the right hand rule. But I had to go to court cos the cops wouldn't drop it, though the court only took 2 secs to dump it.

[swbarnett]

Unless you are self-employed, I think your employer may view the situation quite differently.
If you are employed, you work for the employer, and the clients are the businesses clients.
Illustrated simply by the fact that if you were fired tomorrow, the clients would be passed on to another employee to manage.

Yes, my employer has power over my livelihood. I work for my clients. I used to work for Air NewZealand and we were told that we worked for the passengers (I don't think upper management shared this view).

If my employer and my client ask me to do contradictory things the client wins out every time. This is expected as part of my job.

[swbarnett]

Normally a standard gap of 2 - 3 seconds is is allowed for on a new intersection, however if amber light runners become a problem (yes certian intersections are worse than others) the programme can be changed allowing for a longer gap and therefore a larger margin of safety.

Does this not lull drivers into a false sense of security? People get to know that they've got a couple of seconds after the red so they use it. I may be wrong but when the gap was introduced it seemed that more people started running the red. At least when there was no gap people knew when the opposing green was active.

BTW: Thanks for clarifying the gap situation.