Bike Cop must have been low on quota

[Fub@r]

Bollocks.

Red light running is defined as failing to observe the rule that a yellow light means 'stop if it is safe to do so'.

If you enter an intersection on a yellow light when you could have stopped safely, you're ticketable.

Watched an NZ doco a few years ago, cops had setup a video camera of an intersection and were reviewing the tape. The only people that were sent tickets were people that had crossed the lane line when the light was red. They were sitting there for ages going frame by frame trying to determine it on some cars.

I suppose its easier to issue a ticket on that basis than to argue who's opion is the right one as to whether you could've stopped safetly or not

[madandy]

Bollocks.

Red light running is defined as failing to observe the rule that a yellow light means 'stop if it is safe to do so'.

If you enter an intersection on a yellow light when you could have stopped safely, you're ticketable.

F'n oath.
Red light runners are becomming more prevalent in TGA too! I see plenty when I drive or ride through town & used to see plenty more when I lived across town & had to cross several light controlled intersection riding to & from work.
I'd see 2-3 every day now - passing through only one set of traffic lights, twice a day. They control a pedestrian crossing for school children on SH2 in Bethlehem...
Fuckers.

[jrandom]

I suppose its easier to issue a ticket on that basis than to argue who's opion is the right one as to whether you could've stopped safetly or not

I'm sure that's the case, yes.

My point was, of course, that a sufficiently-motivated cop can still justifiably ticket someone, in certain cases, if they cross the line before the light turns red.

Although I imagine that a sufficiently-motivated defendant wouldn't have much trouble getting out of such a ticket, and such motivation is undoubtedly going to grow substantially once the demerit points associated with red light running increase.

[swbarnett]

Nothing to do with lapse of concentration. I see this all the time. They actually accelerate to try to run the light.

I'll come up to a light, oh red, OK, stop, easy peasy, 5 seconds later the dick behind me roars through the red light. I can see him floor it when the light changes.

In cases like you describe I agree with you, throw the book at them. What concerns me is that the cases which are just a lapse of concentration are going to get lumped in with these. We need some way of distinguishing the two. Instead of a blanket 75 demerit points it needs to be a maximum and the cop can award a lower number for the lesser offence.

[Swoop]

Are you suggesting that one momentary lapse of concentration makes a person unfit to drive? Hell, we better close the roads, nobody will be allowed to drive.
We have to make some allowance for human falability.

These people probably have done this before... a few times - in fact.
The "oops, made a mistake" runner should be intelligent enough to realise he/she has done wrong and will not do that ever again.
Recidivist RL runners start somewhere. They all take the same risk.
If someone gets caught on their first offence (they will always trot that excuse out to the officer)- too fu*king bad.
Do the crime - do the time.

[swbarnett]

If someone gets caught on their first offence (they will always trot that excuse out to the officer)- too fu*king bad.

This only creates bitterness and a disrespect for the law. Each case must be treated on it's own merits.

Do the crime - do the time.

My point exactly. The trouble is that often the time is too long for the crime actually committed.

[scumdog]

This
Are you suggesting that one momentary lapse of concentration makes a person unfit to drive? Hell, we better close the roads, nobody will be allowed to drive.

We have to make some allowance for human falability.

Too often it's a LOT of concentration of the wrong kind.

First car shoots through on the last glimmer of the orange.

And then two or sometimes three more see that and (like sheep) think "If I boot it I'll be able to sneak through behind the car on front, after all HE got through o.k..

Even though the last car has seen the red light 30 metres before he got there....

Morons.

[swbarnett]

Too often it's a LOT of concentration of the wrong kind.

First car shoots through on the last glimmer of the orange.

And then two or sometimes three more see that and (like sheep) think "If I boot it I'll be able to sneak through behind the car on front, after all HE got through o.k..

Even though the last car has seen the red light 30 metres before he got there....

Morons.

Definitely. The problem I have is with the severity that's being put on this. I don't think it's bad enough to nearly take people off the road for.

[Swoop]

Definitely. The problem I have is with the severity that's being put on this. I don't think it's bad enough to nearly take people off the road for.

Well if it is "that severe" then people will take more care, not do stupid things and therefore remove the threat of losing their licence.
Simple really.

[swbarnett]

Well if it is "that severe" then people will take more care, not do stupid things and therefore remove the threat of losing their licence.
Simple really.

That assumes that every driver is aware of every piece of draconian crap that's regurgitated from the bowls of our illustrious leaders and that they are 100% vigilant 100% of the time. Every driver/rider has moments of poor concentration from time to time that usually go unnoticed because they happen in a way that is not dangerous. Occasionally this will happen in the wrong place at the wrong time. No amount of retribution is going to do anything to correct this.

And what about the poor learner rider that happens on a petrol spill just short of the intersection? Happened to me. The only way out was to wind open the throttle and scream through the intersection horn blaring. And, yes, without the horn I would've been a hood ornament. Should I loose my license because of a slippery road? I learnt my lesson and from that day I brake a tad earlier for intersections and take more notice of the road surface.

People are fallible. Using a sledge hammer to try and wedge in unrealistic ideals simply doesn't work.

[Swoop]

Words.

Drive/ride to the conditions.
Amber or red lights are conditions.

[swbarnett]

Drive/ride to the conditions.
Amber or red lights are conditions.

Agreed.

However, this debate is about how the law reacts to someone that who, without malice or forethought, commits an error of judgement that is well within the realms of human fallibility This type of behaviour is not correctable as there's nothing to correct.

[Swoop]

However, this debate is about how the law reacts to someone that who, without malice or forethought, commits an error of judgement that is well within the realms of human fallibility This type of behaviour is not correctable as there's nothing to correct.

You are not reading other posts where it is plainly explained that drivers deliberately accellerate when they see an amber or red light. The discussion is regarding runners. Period. Intended or accidental. The driver has plainly placed his/her self and innocent others, in danger.

I am reading your posts' as "I am totally happy with anyone running red lights" even though you are trying to say "unfairness of demerits".
The law may be written to allow someone to lose their licence from this. So be it. If people don't like it they can vote for a different electorate representative. Until then, too bad.

A person earns a drivers licence, and is appreciative of the "rules of the road" when they do so.
If a persons behaviour is "not correctable" - as you put it, then quite frankly they do not deserve that privilege of joining the rest of society on the roads.

[swbarnett]

You are not reading other posts where it is plainly explained that drivers deliberately accellerate when they see an amber or red light. The discussion is regarding runners. Period. Intended or accidental. The driver has plainly placed his/her self and innocent others, in danger.

I have read all the posts. What I'm trying to say is that intentionally and accidentally going through a red light are not the same thing. While I accept that both deserve a ticket I don't believe that they should be treated the same. They are quite different.

I suppose the root of our disagreement is that I'd rather leave one murderer on the street than jail an innocent. Would I be correct in assuming that you would rather jail an innocent than leave one murderer free?

I am reading your posts' as "I am totally happy with anyone running red lights" even though you are trying to say "unfairness of demerits".

Believe me, I'm as pissed off with deliberate red light running as you are. Anybody that knowingly runs a red should be hung out to dry.

A person earns a drivers licence, and is appreciative of the "rules of the road" when they do so.
If a persons behaviour is "not correctable" - as you put it, then quite frankly they do not deserve that privilege of joining the rest of society on the roads.

The uncorrectable behaviour that I'm talking about is the same behaviour that leads to lapses of concentration in everybody, even you. It is just that some are unfortunate to have that lapse of concentration happen at a bad time. This is just part of being human. We are not robots and I resent the fact that the lawmakers seem to believe that we are.

[Blossom]

Especially some dude on a 250, L-licence, zig-zagging at speed in peak hour up the Nothern Mway...he will get splattered.

I think I know who this was if the bike was a silver 250 and yes he has stopped lane splitting now as a week or two ago he got binned by a car changing lanes which cut him off whilst lane splitting, wrote the 250 off but escaped unharmed. I think he has learnt his lesson.