Sapper Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Back in college my roomate got a speeding ticket even though he was going under the posted speed limit. Posted limit was 50Kmh - he was doing 45kmh but the cop felt with the snow storm and ice that anything over 20 was unsafe so gave him a ticket. Buddy beat the ticket in court and won - he as a class 1 - new tires and moonlighted as a driving instructor on occasion. But it does provide that what you see as the posted maximum speed limit is just that - the maximum - it is not what your allowed to drive at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I have been driving since I was 16 - I have driven cabs, commercial vehicles and an unmarked car when i was peace officer, so lots of driving in 46 years. I have never had an at fault accident (been hit a couple of times) and I have only ever received one moving violation and that was back in 1974 in Prince Rupert when I was working summer jobs between University terms. I was ticketed by an RCMP officer on a deserted residential street at 4 am - coming home from one of my jobs ( I had three that summer) - I was ticketed for not coming to an full and absolute stop (rolling stop California stop) at a visually clear intersection controlled by a stop sign - I could see clearly both ways and the road was deserted. And if I was not fully stopped I was barely moving. I tried to reason with the officer but to no effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 point missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Hey, not saying that if a cop happened to see Christy do this that he wouldn't be out of line giving her a ticket. That's about the scope of the issue here. Oh, and FYI, while most traffic lights should default to flashing red (stop sign) in low volume hours many could also be replaced with yield (flashing yellow) in many situations as well in the higher volume direction when there is good sight lines such as in your example. Instead, due to politics, we end up over engineering many intersections. If instead we used proper design, and at least had lights defaulting to yield and stop conditions (flashing yellow and red) there would be much less delays for people and much less frustration on the part of drivers. It's my (professional, experienced) opinion if that if intersections were much more rational people would much much more likely to follow the traffic rules and in situations where they did come up to a solid red in the middle of the night they would be much more likely to respect the red since if they were only there when needed people would realize it's there for a reason they should be respecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I get your point. It's just inane. Everyone violates traffic rules because the traffic rules are often wrong and people know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Or, they could wait the 10-20 seconds and go on the green. It's not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 So why bother enforcing the rules then? Let's just have lawless roads since you think the rules are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 What if it's controlled by a detector and it's broken? It might not be hard but other than the risk of a ticket what's the point of waiting if it's safe to proceed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 We do have lawless roads! If your not doing 10km/h over the limit you can expect to be tailgated! That not every law is not rigorously enforced or obeyed doesn't have to mean you need a crackdown or a public shaming campaign. Sometimes it means you should streamline things to actually comply with what reasonable people do in those situations so long as it maintains public safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Then we should change the rules of the road, not just break them because we think they are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 What if what if what if. Who determines what's safe? Why not do it in the middle of the day if I deem it safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 It probably wouldn't safe in the middle of the day. Roads are rarely deserted at that time, and when there are, they tend not to have lights on them. /turn on common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 My point is who gets to determine what's common sense? That's why we have laws--to protect the dumbest people. I disagree with that in a lot of ways, but you can't excuse someone for running a red light just cause they felt like it was ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 If she got caught and go fined I would expect her to pay it and if she caused an accident doing this I certainly would have an issue with her judgement but she didn't even get either of those. in fact the reporter in the car clearly didn't think his life in danger as he only included it as an afterthought. No harm, no foul. You're excused. I suppose if someone had a stick up their *** and an axe to grind against someone you could make a big deal about doing something that everyone does from time to time (violate traffic laws) you could hold it as being inexcusable (like say blowing a red light at 100 km/h and killing a family of five) but just because two things have the same name it's not always the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Whatever. 'It's ok if you can get away with it' isn't really appropriate, especially with your son in the car saying you do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Pssh, might as well learn the real world. So if you have a kid in the car you always obey every speed limit, come to complete stop at every stop sign, keep right except to pass, etc. etc. etc.??? If so good for you but most people don't and the world hasn't ended yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 No, people just die by the thousands on our streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 If you mean BC, then no as it is in the low hundreds. And the fatality rate is dropping. 2007-11 five year average is 357 traffic fatalities (2011 - 291) And comparing Intersection fatalities (52 average over five years and 2011 - 66) Non intersection fatalities (285 over five years and 2011 - 225) http://www.pssg.gov....ms2007-2011.pdf See what I mean about informed opinions vs uniformed set you hair on fire opinions??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 No, people just die by the thousands on our streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Your entire post is based on assumptions. As I've asked before, why wouldn't you ask me what I mean rather than assume and then insult me based on your assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.