Easter 4km/h tolerance?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Easter 4km/h tolerance?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1277379 5-Apr-2015 11:00

frankv:

This applies to every transgression from tax fraud to diet failures to marital infidelities to queue jumping. Red lights are no different.

My point, though, was that *everyone* chooses what laws to obey and what laws they think are inappropriate. And there are many laws that are silly in some circumstances.

Getting huffy and holier-than-thou when someone breaks a law is silly at best and hypocritical at worst.

As per Douglas Bader: "Rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of the foolish".

I think that the huffy and holier-than-thou people are more than balanced out by the arrogant and condescending ones. Dismissing someone else's point of view as "needing to be controlled" doesn't help the debate.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1277466 5-Apr-2015 14:19

jeffnz: I don't believe the "optional" is the issue more that we don't won't to take ownership once we get caught. The justifications people go through when you point out they went through a red light are just about guessable:

- It wasn't red it was orange.
- Its ok it was safe.
- I'm in a hurry
- The lights aren't working properly.
- Everyone else does it.

the list goes on but it seems human nature, in most, to try and justify why they did it when trying to convince themselves its ok.

Ownership of what? That we did something wrong or that we broke the law? They're not always the same thing. Yes, I'm breaking the "law" when I ignore a red arrow that doesn't actually need to be there. Is it wrong? Not at all. It wasn't wrong before they introduced the red right turn arrows and there's no justification for them in most cases.

If I ever get caught breaking this particular law certainly won't be bearing witness against myself though.

Handle9: I think that the huffy and holier-than-thou people are more than balanced out by the arrogant and condescending ones. Dismissing someone else's point of view as "needing to be controlled" doesn't help the debate.

Do you not see an element of Stockholm Syndrome when people effectively state "Obey the law just because it's the law"?. That's certainly not debate.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1277467 5-Apr-2015 14:23

jeffnz: Stick to facts and don't try and label me because I don't agree with you.

How about you address the fact that law around red arrows is superfluous instead of trying on the victim hat for size.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1277476 5-Apr-2015 14:27

TonyR1973:
jeffnz: Stick to facts and don't try and label me because I don't agree with you.

How about you address the fact that law around red arrows is superfluous instead of trying on the victim hat for size.

I have no issue with the red arrows nor the 4kmh tolerance but do have an issue with the way you approach people that don't agree with you on here.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Stu

Hammered
8332 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1277484 5-Apr-2015 14:50

Just like on the road, this forum also has rules. Please stop attacking each other and stick to the topic at hand.

Toe the line or this thread will be locked and members possibly banned.

People often mistake me for an adult because of my age.

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Referral Links: Sharesies - Backblaze -

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? If so, please consider supporting us by subscribing.

No matter where you go, there you are.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1277493 5-Apr-2015 15:08

jeffnz:
TonyR1973:
jeffnz: Stick to facts and don't try and label me because I don't agree with you.

How about you address the fact that law around red arrows is superfluous instead of trying on the victim hat for size.

I have no issue with the red arrows nor the 4kmh tolerance but do have an issue with the way you approach people that don't agree with you on here.

Seems to me you just don't like explaining your reasoning for your position. Why is the 4km/h tolerance a good thing? Why are red arrows a good thing?

You can either discuss or you can play Mr Needlessly Sensitive.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1277506 5-Apr-2015 15:22

TonyR1973:
jeffnz:
TonyR1973:
jeffnz: Stick to facts and don't try and label me because I don't agree with you.

How about you address the fact that law around red arrows is superfluous instead of trying on the victim hat for size.

I have no issue with the red arrows nor the 4kmh tolerance but do have an issue with the way you approach people that don't agree with you on here.

Seems to me you just don't like explaining your reasoning for your position. Why is the 4km/h tolerance a good thing? Why are red arrows a good thing?

You can either discuss or you can play Mr Needlessly Sensitive.

Because if everyone plays by the same set of rules it prevents chaos on the roads. Everyone knows what is expected of them on the roads, and what they should be entitled to expect from other motorists. For example I have a right to a reasonable expectation that other motorists will be traveling at the speed limit or less, and that others will obey a red traffic signal. If you disagree with a particular rule and have an idea to improve things then by all means lobby your local MP for a law change.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1277507 5-Apr-2015 15:24

TonyR1973: Why are red arrows a good thing?

because its probably more about convenience of the company/organization that controls the traffic lights. they would end up having to monitor and analyze thousands of sets of lights and then reprogram.

there probably just isn't the money in it for that.

yes it could be better but there could be other reasons that you don't know of or haven't thought of.

#tryingtobedevilsadviocate

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1277521 5-Apr-2015 16:03

scuwp: Because if everyone plays by the same set of rules it prevents chaos on the roads. Everyone knows what is expected of them on the roads, and what they should be entitled to expect from other motorists. For example I have a right to a reasonable expectation that other motorists will be traveling at the speed limit or less, and that others will obey a red traffic signal. If you disagree with a particular rule and have an idea to improve things then by all means lobby your local MP for a law change.

Regarding the red arrows, as I've already pointed out, there's already the give way rule for the situations where you're sitting on a green light but a red arrow if that red arrow did not exist especially so since the give way rule change. If you proceed against a red right turn arrow and apply the give way rule as you would if it were not there it's not a situation without a rule. The same applies to give way and stop signs in many cases too - they're unneeded. Do people just blindly barrel through if there's no sign? If they do it's a driver training issue IMO.

I don't see an appreciable difference to other driver's decision making if you're driving at 110km/h or 100km/h. You should certainly remove any "reasonable expectations" of what other drivers should be doing regardless - that perspective is a fraught with peril. Expect nothing but the most inconsiderate and completely oblivious driving and you'll be much better off and they'll almost never disappoint you either.

scuwp: If you disagree with a particular rule and have an idea to improve things then by all means lobby your local MP for a law change.

Politicians do what is popular, not what is right - they're more worried about the perception of doing something and fathering their own nests. NZTA just respond with form letters. The few submissions the receive (I've made some) are just ignored. I feel it's probably better to concentrate efforts on awakening fellow citizens in the hope of a groundswell of support for common sense, although I suspect NZ apathy probably largely nullifies that too. I'm sure we used to have more collective backbone.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1277524 5-Apr-2015 16:09

Jase2985:
TonyR1973: Why are red arrows a good thing?

because its probably more about convenience of the company/organization that controls the traffic lights. they would end up having to monitor and analyze thousands of sets of lights and then reprogram.

there probably just isn't the money in it for that.

yes it could be better but there could be other reasons that you don't know of or haven't thought of.

#tryingtobedevilsadviocate

Solutions for each intersection are already different and you don't get much simpler than just a red, amber and green light facing each road! Get rid of the red arrows where they're not needed and we'll actually SAVE a fortune in programming and capital expense, yes?

Having done work for traffic engineers in the past I have to say their insight was somewhat lacking - but some suggestions I made at the time were taken on-board.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1277541 5-Apr-2015 17:11

The thing that pees me off about red turn crossing arrows are the bunnies who push the crosswalk button, skip across between the cars and when the lights change you get stuck there for about 20~30 seconds while no one on the crossing..

Regards,

Old3eyes

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1277545 5-Apr-2015 17:14

TonyR1973:
scuwp: Because if everyone plays by the same set of rules it prevents chaos on the roads. Everyone knows what is expected of them on the roads, and what they should be entitled to expect from other motorists. For example I have a right to a reasonable expectation that other motorists will be traveling at the speed limit or less, and that others will obey a red traffic signal. If you disagree with a particular rule and have an idea to improve things then by all means lobby your local MP for a law change.

Regarding the red arrows, as I've already pointed out, there's already the give way rule for the situations where you're sitting on a green light but a red arrow if that red arrow did not exist especially so since the give way rule change. If you proceed against a red right turn arrow and apply the give way rule as you would if it were not there it's not a situation without a rule. The same applies to give way and stop signs in many cases too - they're unneeded. Do people just blindly barrel through if there's no sign? If they do it's a driver training issue IMO.

I don't see an appreciable difference to other driver's decision making if you're driving at 110km/h or 100km/h. You should certainly remove any "reasonable expectations" of what other drivers should be doing regardless - that perspective is a fraught with peril. Expect nothing but the most inconsiderate and completely oblivious driving and you'll be much better off and they'll almost never disappoint you either.

scuwp: If you disagree with a particular rule and have an idea to improve things then by all means lobby your local MP for a law change.

Politicians do what is popular, not what is right - they're more worried about the perception of doing something and fathering their own nests. NZTA just respond with form letters. The few submissions the receive (I've made some) are just ignored. I feel it's probably better to concentrate efforts on awakening fellow citizens in the hope of a groundswell of support for common sense, although I suspect NZ apathy probably largely nullifies that too. I'm sure we used to have more collective backbone.

I am not disagreeing that on occasion a red arrow is just plain silly. But there are engineering guidelines for all manner or traffic signals including when they should (or shouldn't) be used including Give Way and Stop signs. As already pointed out most of these control devices cater to the lowest common denominator, and increasingly because of the complex nature of some intersections. You only need to watch what happens when the lights go out at a major city intersection...chaos!!! The average human driver cannot compute complex traffic decisions in the time-frame expected.

If you think that the difference between 100km/h and 110km/h isn't a lot then perhaps a Year 9 physics recap is needed. E = mc2

I am not saying things are perfect, but if everyone consistently follows the same rules and behaves as generally expected under the laws of the road then that makes others judgements much easier.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1277557 5-Apr-2015 17:43

Lol e = mc2 has nothing to do with velocity or acceleration or deceleration!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1277571 5-Apr-2015 18:17

I think the formula implicated is

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity (squared)

e=mc2 refers to energy = mass x speed of light (squared), or the conservation of energy - matter continuum

- easiest explained by nuclear bomb, mass of uranium/plutonium -> explosion energy

I like to see it as, you can convert matter into energy, move it somewhere else (within this universe or otherwise), and then make the matter reappear ... a bit like time travel ... !

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1277600 5-Apr-2015 19:01

joker97: I think the formula implicated is

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity (squared)

e=mc2 refers to energy = mass x speed of light (squared), or the conservation of energy - matter continuum

- easiest explained by nuclear bomb, mass of uranium/plutonium -> explosion energy

I like to see it as, you can convert matter into energy, move it somewhere else (within this universe or otherwise), and then make the matter reappear ... a bit like time travel ... !

Derivation has the same basis, but yes exactly that. Increased speed = increased Kinetic energy = increased risk of death and destruction when the other person thinks they know better and ignores the red arrow ;-)

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8