Traffic lights and the attitude of the Police

[fireliv]

Bet if it was ureself or a young person he might have cared more........

[rwh]

Ritchard, it's not an accident. I hate that shit and put your dictionary down.

Put the dictionary down? You don't like the idea of actual research? Did you notice, by the way, that I apologised and retracted a bunch of it? That's not being contradictory by the way, it's admitting I was wrong.

What I'm talking about is whether it was accidental, you were trying to avoid the situation or not. Neglegence, failure to pay the due attention etc doesn't cause an accident. It causes you to crash into someone.

There are plenty of times I've been inattentive and not crashed. There's an element of unpredictability. Now that I've got straightened out on the definitions - it's still often an accident.

You need to stop thinking that there are two people in an accident. NO! there is typically someone that crashed into the other/s.

And typically, the person that made the mistake neither intended to do it nor expected it to happen. That makes it an accident in my book. My stupid example of lane splitting in a truck was just that - stupid - and I apologise.

Also, there are times when nobody is particularly at fault - a blowout for example. Will you let me call that an accident?

If not, we might as well drop the word from the language entirely.

My feeling is that those who would like to stop using the word think it somehow absolves the guilty party, which it doesn't. It does, however, allow someone who didn't intend to cause a crash to be viewed and treated more leniently than someone who did - which I think is entirely reasonable, don't you?

I've read so many of these other guys (Scummy etc) posts and they have formed opinions based on real world experience and they are consistent and have been for years. You guys can't be consistent from one sentence to the next!

There's inconsistency and there's learning. The only inconsistency in what I've written, that I'm aware of, is my misinterpretation of the word accident - and that was an acknowledged mistake. I don't think I've actually stated a view on the larger issue of this thread at all - I'm trying to straighten out the arguments within it, and filter out the ones that don't hold up, in order to work out what my opinions actually are, and maybe expose illogical conclusions that others have come to.

If everybody is expected to be consistent the whole time, any discussion like this is a complete waste of time. I don't think it is.

Please (and I'm not being a dick, I reccomend you do this) volunteer with a Ambo or Towie or someone, go to a serious crash and then sit down once it's sunk in and cry. Honestly.

This reminds me of discussions on penalties for crimes. Something horrendous happens, the world gets angry, and demands blood. My feeling is that an excessively emotional state is not the best time to be making those decisions.
You might get the feeling that I'm a particularly cold and unemotional person as a result of this point of view; I don't think I am. I think I'm probably as shocked as anyone by the results of accidents or child abuse or whatever. I just make a point of trying not to let it affect decisions that I would rather deal with rationally.

Richard

[Pancakes]

Also, there are times when nobody is particularly at fault - a blowout for example. Will you let me call that an accident?Richard

If you have checked the tyres as often as possible and there wasn't excessive wear, had paid due care to the roads so pothole etc didn't cause it then yeah. Like that truck part that blew up on the motorway a few years back. Installed correctley, being run right, just a manufacturers defect and blam, metal everywhere!!

I wasn't pointing out all your inconsistancies (sp?) just SWBarnett's posts that turn into an undoing of what he said last time and try to get all legalisious on me! Point it out to the cop they ran the lights for sure, if they were doing something else or decided not to for whatever reason I doubt your amazing powers of influence are going to change his mind!

Suck it up boyeez.

You come off like nitpicking little kids.

I wasn't suggesting you go see the reality that would affect the opinion the cops on the site to skew your views. Maybe you would think that there is more to safety that your made-up arguments etc.

[rwh]

You come off like nitpicking little kids.

I realise that.

However, if faulty reasoning is used to come to a conclusion that affects us all, isn't it better to have it exposed?

Regarding views on safety - I know that crashes are bad; we all agree on that, and watching an ambo mopping someone up isn't going to change that. Where there are differences in this thread (and others) is in how a limited police budget should be best spent to reduce them.

Richard

[swbarnett]

I wasn't pointing out all your inconsistancies (sp?) just SWBarnett's posts that turn into an undoing of what he said last time and try to get all legalisious on me!

I'm not sure what you mean by me contradicting myself. Perhaps my wording is not always the clearest or perhaps it's just that I do read every post and try to take on board comments that seem to make sense. The to and fro of this type of thread helps one to question one's own beliefs.

I've come to realise that the thing that annoys me most about red light runners is just that they're being very discourtious and not treating me with the respect I deserve (something I try to do to everyone else, road user or not). For me it's not really a safety issue at all as I'm very weary of any cross traffic when I ride. (I've come of a bike probably about a dozen times in my early years and only once was another vehicle involved, my wife rear-ended me on her bike. I've also never done any harm to myself beyond a grazed knee.)

This and other threads have also been instrumental in my forming the view that traffic policing in general is far too proactive for my liking. I'm not saying that I want anarchy on the road, just that the balance seems far too much towards curtailing personal freedoms for the sake of safety. I'm also not sure where I would like the balance to sit or how it could be achieved.

Safety is all very well but we have to look very closely at the cost. Considering the millions of kms that are driven daily in NZ do we really have a a problem? Have we ever had a problem? Surely the road toll should be measured in deaths or injuries per x km rather than per year?

I do not want to live in a society where safety is the most important thing. First I live, then I worry about living safely.

[Pancakes]

Oh but Richard, certain mental images as you decide your going to try and get lower htru that corner than you have before just may (or almost certainly will) make you check yourself.

SWB, don't get me wrong, I agree with your attitude and wish that other road users would be so self aware and responsible. The system we have in place takes into account that the vast majority of road users are ill-equipt for most driving situations and don't have a clue about the type of attitude needed to keep themselves and other safe on the roads.



SWB Quotes:
Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic.


Then;
Thanks for pointing out the brow of the hill situation. I'd forgotten that one. Indeed this is one situation where I would not go against a red arrow.

Then;
Indeed, the compulsory stop laws are more than adequate in most situations that currently have red arrows.

Thats enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock you guys, the government and roading engineers design systems that can be linked together and applied in multiple situations and the results for the most part tested on paper to handle an estiumated workload/flow. The result is the idealised traffic laws and control systems applied in the real world. How is that different to you applying your idealised drivers with awareness and skill in the real world.

Out in the nitty gritty there are pre-made solutions applied to varying situations gauged by the averaged resonces of computer simulated drivers! Don't lose your standards and for sure keep discussing this kind of thing but don't hold your breath waiting for traffic systems to be customised for every intersection and traffic load. (I wouldn't wait too long for your perfect drivers that are happy to wear the consequences of their actions either!)

[rwh]

Oh but Richard, certain mental images as you decide your going to try and get lower htru that corner than you have before just may (or almost certainly will) make you check yourself.

I'm having trouble relating this comment to the rest of the thread. I assume the mental images you're talking about are the memories I'd have if I'd been out with an ambo or a towie? Sure they might make a difference to how I ride - but how I ride has never been an issue in this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock you guys

I'm not convinced that bundling swbarnett and myself together like this is necessarily a good idea. Some of our opinions may be similar, but treating both of us as one argument has the effect of attributing the rest to each other as well, which isn't valid. I think it would be better to respond to each of us in separate posts. Thanks.

Richard

[swbarnett]

SWB Quotes:
Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic.


Then;
Thanks for pointing out the brow of the hill situation. I'd forgotten that one. Indeed this is one situation where I would not go against a red arrow.

Then;
Indeed, the compulsory stop laws are more than adequate in most situations that currently have red arrows.

Thats enough.

Are you trying to say that these statements are contradictory? If so, perhaps I need to paraphrase it a bit more clearly.

A red arrow where there is plenty of clear visibility is just unnecessary. If someone turns right and an accident results (with or without a red arrow) they can be done for failure to give way.

Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) is just poor planning, lights or not.

How is that different to you applying your idealised drivers with awareness and skill in the real world.

I'm not trying to say that every driver is perfect. I think where we differ most is in the direction in which to err. You would, I think, tend to err on the side of caution and I would err more on the side of personal freedom.

BTW: Thanks for your (and others) comments. They're certainly helping to get my own ideas into clearer focus.

[rwh]

Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) is just poor planning, lights or not.

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.

I think red arrows are a good solution in this case.

I'm a bit disappointed with the intersection of The Terrace and Salamanca Rd in Wellington though - it's a shocking one for visibility, and it has arrows - but from memory, while the reds might get used, I don't think they ever use the greens for the right turning traffic; you just have to sit up in your seat and hope nobody's coming through too fast.

Richard

[Pancakes]

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.Richard

Bang on, our roads are typically laid over cart tracks that followed trails cut in the bush! They follow ridgelines or run east - west (sun as a guide?) and are set-up for sunstrike. Mix that with the highest road volumes being commuters and in the morning windows can be foggy and it's crash city!

I also agree with off ramps being uphill and onramps being downhill to help accelleration/braking. Saves energy and safer too.

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think. They don't think when given the chance, red light runners. Whole family in a poorly maintained van with no seatbelts and fall asleep at the wheel, the list goes on. I know in your idea it would be clear who is at fault, that is if you live through the crash to see them in court! People are fricken idiots. I'm honestly happy you want to think for yourself and are able to see you are responsible for your actions, I'd like to think I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!

[rwh]

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think. They don't think when given the chance, red light runners. Whole family in a poorly maintained van with no seatbelts and fall asleep at the wheel, the list goes on. I know in your idea it would be clear who is at fault, that is if you live through the crash to see them in court! People are fricken idiots. I'm honestly happy you want to think for yourself and are able to see you are responsible for your actions, I'd like to think I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!

Interesting that the only time I remember almost cutting in front of opposing traffic (got yelled at by my passenger) was against a red arrow, not an uncontrolled intersection. Dunno what the significance of that is ... maybe it's more significant that I was driving a Volvo

Actually I think a relative had an accident in similar circumstances. Maybe it's a case of being able to see both a green light and an arrow, and failing to click that they're not in the same place.

Richard

[swbarnett]

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.

Let me rephrase - Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) with knowledge of modern traffic is just poor planning, lights or not.

Yes, historically traffic was a lot slower. These existing intersections should probably be turned in to no right turns (although in a lot of cases there won't be an alternative route).

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.

Unless you're second in the queue. I do see the point though. This is a perfect example of the planners thinking of cost over safety.
They do the same with passing lanes. I've seen loads of cars overtaking late because they can't see where the lane ends. Much better to stop the lane before the brow so you can see the end clearly.

I think red arrows are a good solution in this case.

Probably is the best solution given a bad road layout.

[swbarnett]

I also agree with off ramps being uphill and onramps being downhill to help accelleration/braking. Saves energy and safer too.

No problem there. I think the problem comes when you have a hill with no flat portion, just up one side and down the other.

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think.

That's my main objection to them.

They don't think when given the chance

If you remove the need to think in some areas then that attitude is taken into other areas. I'm in favour of making people think in all aspects of life. In order to get people to think on the road we have to start much earlier and get them thinking as soon as they can walk (or before) and follow on with that at school. The intellectual level in Switzerland is far higher than NZ (you won't see a calculator in your local bakery) for two reasons - parents already know how to think and the school system instils a high level of mental ability. Once we have a population of thinkers (or a long way towards it) we can start removing the crutches from our roads without major carnage.

I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!

It's a principle of interpersonal psychology that you get what you expect. Treat a population like idiots and that's what they become. I expect people to follow suit and behave skilfully on the roads but I'm pragmatic enough that I'm also prepared for them not to.

[scumdog]

The intellectual level in Switzerland is far higher than NZ (you won't see a calculator in your local bakery) for two reasons - parents already know how to think and the school system instils a high level of mental ability. Once we have a population of thinkers (or a long way towards it) we can start removing the crutches from our roads without major carnage.


It's a principle of interpersonal psychology that you get what you expect. Treat a population like idiots and that's what they become. I expect people to follow suit and behave skilfully on the roads but I'm pragmatic enough that I'm also prepared for them not to.

New Zealand offers no incentive to make people think - it might make the dumb bastards among us feel inferior and we can't have that in a nanny-state PC country.

[The Big J]

In the USA the law is that you can turn right on the arrow, but not left.

So reversing for our correct side of the road you can turn around the corner but not cut across the opposing lane. I think it is a good law but imagine NZers would abuse it.