5 out of 6

jozi

Nice casual commute this beautiful morning, decided to count how often people blatantly ignore the rules of the road.

At 5 out of 6 junctions there was at least 1 car that didn't stop for red, at least 1! What is wrong with people! It's bad enough watching 3 cars ignore amber but anything up to 3 cars ignoring red

One guy got caught to which served him right!

---edit---

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/traffic-lights.html

corglass

Very thinly veiled ad

biko

Yeah I see this too in the city. Red lights are broken by one or two drivers all the time, even to the extent that they will make the people getting green light having to wait a second before take off.

RayCun

Bring in red light cameras

jozi

corglass wrote: »

Very thinly veiled ad

Ad? What ad? These guys doing red lights are putting pedestrians and other road users at risk, the car will win and come of with some scratches or dents but a pedestrian, cyclist or biker will pay a much bigger price for their stupidity.

The link was the first on Google that showed me what I wanted to show, no affiliation with the site

Graham_B18C

RayCun wrote: »

Bring in red light cameras

+1 when I drove in Sydney, almost every busy junction has them.

I was in an Uber there on a B/H weekend, the driver broke a red light while dropping us out, the car lit up. 6 points because a B/H and a 405 dollar fine. I felt awful for her all the same. The fines over there are maybe a little too harsh.

mloc123

Some guy pulled along side me in the right turn lane yesterday... I figured he planned to jump me as soon as the lights went green and cut in... he didn't even wait that long, just tore through the red light after 10 seconds

I then sat behind him for 10 minutes as we queued in traffic... it was definitely worth his while :rolleyes:

Cheensbo

Graham_B18C wrote: »

+1 when I drove in Sydney, almost every busy junction has them.

I was in an Uber there on a B/H weekend, the driver broke a red light while dropping us out, the car lit up. 6 points because a B/H and a 405 dollar fine. I felt awful for her all the same. The fines over there are maybe a little too harsh.

Double demerit bh weekends, they love it, better not put a foot wrong on those weekends, watch out for the drug & booze buses too.

Got a $750 fine w/no points myself for no rego one day (in victoria) which is a lot less harsh than the equivalent here for no tax/insurance/nct. Even got to keep the car, once I applied for a temp rego to move it.

Ubbquittious

The worst is when some fella behind you starts blowing the horn because you had the audacity to stop for a red light when he was expecting to follow you through

ironclaw

RayCun wrote: »

Bring in red light cameras

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change. The road there is lethal in autumn thanks to overhanging tress and very slippery. You get a ticket even though you could probably sail through that junction 2 or 3 seconds after the light goes red and come out of it. Likewise, I know plenty of people in California who had to move onto a junction to allow a fire truck or similar to pass. Its very hard to get those types of tickets revoked.

They assume a perfectly straight road, with good visibility of the lights and a very distinct and timed sequence of Green -> Amber -> Red, with enough time between Amber and Red to stop in the distance you can see. This is not always the case.

I'm not advocating light braking but there are circumstance where discretion might be necessary. Would you be ok with a ticket that states you went over the line 0.3s after the light went red? I've seen one.

RayCun

ironclaw wrote: »

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change. The road there is lethal in autumn thanks to overhanging tress and very slippery.

So the road is lethal due to wet leaves on the road, and you can't stop in time for a traffic light, so you'd drive through it two or three seconds after red.

The problem is not the red light camera.

jozi

This is Dublin rush hour traffic, (30kph zones?) they can all stop on amber and definitely red. Cameras would be pretty accurate on these junctions

ohnonotgmail

ironclaw wrote: »

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change. The road there is lethal in autumn thanks to overhanging tress and very slippery. You get a ticket even though you could probably sail through that junction 2 or 3 seconds after the light goes red and come out of it. Likewise, I know plenty of people in California who had to move onto a junction to allow a fire truck or similar to pass. Its very hard to get those types of tickets revoked.

They assume a perfectly straight road, with good visibility of the lights and a very distinct and timed sequence of Green -> Amber -> Red, with enough time between Amber and Red to stop in the distance you can see. This is not always the case.

I'm not advocating light braking but there are circumstance where discretion might be necessary. Would you be ok with a ticket that states you went over the line 0.3s after the light went red? I've seen one.

if the road is that dangerous perhaps you should not be doing the limit? Its a limit not a target.

McCrack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if the road is that dangerous perhaps you should not be doing the limit? Its a limit not a target.

Aghhhh

It's not an excuse but the terrible sequencing of lights is a lot of the reason people break lights imo. One set of lights I use every evening gives such a short green time to one of the 4 entrances to the junction that traffic builds up purely because of this and people get frustrated. If everyone stopped on amber you would never get home and nearly everyone including myself will go for it if they are just after turning red as you have the 3 seconds before the other junction changes.

It is incredibly frustrating sitting there with a red light and another junction green with no one even at the lights.

ohnonotgmail

McCrack wrote: »

Aghhhh

you dont think you should drive appropriately to the conditions?

Wildcard7

ironclaw wrote: »

RayCun wrote: »

Bring in red light cameras

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change. The road there is lethal in autumn thanks to overhanging tress and very slippery. You get a ticket even though you could probably sail through that junction 2 or 3 seconds after the light goes red and come out of it. Likewise, I know plenty of people in California who had to move onto a junction to allow a fire truck or similar to pass. Its very hard to get those types of tickets revoked.

They assume a perfectly straight road, with good visibility of the lights and a very distinct and timed sequence of Green -> Amber -> Red, with enough time between Amber and Red to stop in the distance you can see. This is not always the case.

I'm not advocating light braking but there are circumstance where discretion might be necessary. Would you be ok with a ticket that states you went over the line 0.3s after the light went red? I've seen one.

I'm by no means a saint when it comes to following all rules and laws on the road, but the bottom line is simple: If you're going so fast you can't stop in time for a red light (you DO get a warning, it doesn't go from green to red) then you're going too fast, full stop. No buts, ifs or whens.

There are red light cameras on many junctions in Switzerland and I've never heard or anyone even getting a ticket in a situation where it wouldn't have been warranted. Red light cameras take more than one picture (unlike a speed van), that allows them to judge the situation.

ironclaw

I'm by no means a saint when it comes to following all rules and laws on the road, but the bottom line is simple: If you're going so fast you can't stop in time for a red light (you DO get a warning, it doesn't go from green to red) then you're going too fast, full stop. No buts, ifs or whens.

Numerous court cases in the US say otherwise. Many junctions have had them removed as people successfully, and scientifically, proved that it would be impossible to stop in some situations given sight lines, road conditions or the sequencing (or a combination of them)

Red light cameras take more than one picture (unlike a speed van), that allows them to judge the situation.

Correct, but only in one direction and only of the junction. Not much use if you are arguing a following car was so close to your bumper that you thought it unsafe to stop, or if an ambulance was following and you needed to move across the junction. A speed van also do take multiple images, GoSafe is actually stills from a continuous video feed and GATSO (with road markings) takes a sequence.

I'm not advocating red light jumping and my history on the forum here would underline my love of tech for enforcement but its one of few situations I believe a Garda is a far better asset to employ at a problematic junction. Same with stop signs, you often see a cruiser in the US parked up in housing estates watching them.

RayCun

ironclaw wrote: »

Numerous court cases in the US say otherwise. Many junctions have had them removed as people successfully, and scientifically, proved that it would be impossible to stop in some situations given sight lines, road conditions or the sequencing (or a combination of them)

If you can't see the colour of the traffic lights from far enough away to stop before you get there, you SLOW DOWN.

If the road conditions are such that your stopping distance is longer, you SLOW DOWN.

Would you take a blind corner at speed?

Why is the concept of "being able to stop in time" so difficult? The idea that you can't be doing anything wrong because you are not exceeding the speed limit :rolleyes:

Wildcard7

ironclaw wrote: »

Numerous court cases in the US say otherwise. Many junctions have had them removed as people successfully, and scientifically, proved that it would be impossible to stop in some situations given sight lines, road conditions or the sequencing (or a combination of them)

I have no trouble believing that some junctions are set up in a way that makes it impossible to break in time in a reasonable manner (without performing an emergency stop). I can well believe that some tickets were revoked after measuring the length of the amber phase and doing the math. I have a very hard time to believe though, that after identifying this, instead of fixing the junction (extending the amber phase, placing lights higher up, remove obstruction through trees, ...), they left it like it was and decided to remove the cameras again.

And sorry, but road conditions don't come into play here. If you approach a junction where you could easily stop going 50 in dry weather, at the same speed when there's snow and ice on the road, and then you can't stop in time, it's your fault if you can't break in time.

After all, a child doesn't run out on the road any slower, giving you more time to stop, when the conditions are bad. WHY DOES NOONE EVER THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Reventon93

Had a learner beside me coming off a roundabout a few mornings ago. Could tell she was fairly new to driving based on how "safe" she was driving. There's a set of lights just after one of the exists. She blatantly sped through a red light like it was'nt even there :eek: I was horrified, as people cross there fairly often. What's worse, was that she had a passenger in the front. Looked like her mom or an aunt. I've never seen someone go through a red. People going through to beat a red is common, but this was well red before she reached it.

I love Sean nos

biko wrote: »

...they will make the people getting green light having to wait a second before take off.

What? :pac:

neonsofa

Reventon93 wrote: »

Had a learner beside me coming off a roundabout a few mornings ago. Could tell she was fairly new to driving based on how "safe" she was driving. There's a set of lights just after one of the exists. She blatantly sped through a red light like it was'nt even there :eek: I was horrified, as people cross there fairly often. What's worse, was that she had a passenger in the front. Looked like her mom or an aunt. I've never seen someone go through a red. People going through to beat a red is common, but this was well red before she reached it.

Not justifying it in the slightest but learners are gonna make mistakes. The fact you could tell she was new to driving by her lack of ability (and I'm assuming Ls as well) would suggest that it was a genuine learner mistake. I know I found it hard sometimes to take everything in and I'd be so focused on watching for people etc that sometimes I'd miss signs or whatever, I was lucky enough to have an observant instructor and family members but maybe she wasn't. Not making excuses or saying it's ok for learners to do, but at least it seems she had a reason as opposed to being an experienced driver who knows better and just doesn't give a ****.

fullstop

Graham_B18C wrote: »

+1 when I drove in Sydney, almost every busy junction has them.

I was in an Uber there on a B/H weekend, the driver broke a red light while dropping us out, the car lit up. 6 points because a B/H and a 405 dollar fine. I felt awful for her all the same. The fines over there are maybe a little too harsh.

Fine is up to $450 now i think. It's ridiculously steep but a great deterrent. It will only flash if you actually cross the line after the line has gone red, but have seen people get caught when in the wrong lane (in right filter lane but wanting to go straight and get flashed crossing the line). Saw a car break 2 red lights in 10 seconds in Dublin yesterday, about 5 seconds late at each of them, it's a joke.

galwaytt

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm by no means a saint when it comes to following all rules and laws on the road, but the bottom line is simple: If you're going so fast you can't stop in time for a red light (you DO get a warning, it doesn't go from green to red) then you're going too fast, full stop. No buts, ifs or whens.

Numerous court cases in the US say otherwise. Many junctions have had them removed as people successfully, and scientifically, proved that it would be impossible to stop in some situations given sight lines, road conditions or the sequencing (or a combination of them)

Red light cameras take more than one picture (unlike a speed van), that allows them to judge the situation.

Correct, but only in one direction and only of the junction. Not much use if you are arguing a following car was so close to your bumper that you thought it unsafe to stop, or if an ambulance was following and you needed to move across the junction. A speed van also do take multiple images, GoSafe is actually stills from a continuous video feed and GATSO (with road markings) takes a sequence.

I'm not advocating red light jumping and my history on the forum here would underline my love of tech for enforcement but its one of few situations I believe a Garda is a far better asset to employ at a problematic junction. Same with stop signs, you often see a cruiser in the US parked up in housing estates watching them.

This is the same US where helmet laws were successfully repealed because they "infringed" people's rights ??

galwaytt

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm by no means a saint when it comes to following all rules and laws on the road, but the bottom line is simple: If you're going so fast you can't stop in time for a red light (you DO get a warning, it doesn't go from green to red) then you're going too fast, full stop. No buts, ifs or whens.

Numerous court cases in the US say otherwise. Many junctions have had them removed as people successfully, and scientifically, proved that it would be impossible to stop in some situations given sight lines, road conditions or the sequencing (or a combination of them)

Red light cameras take more than one picture (unlike a speed van), that allows them to judge the situation.

Correct, but only in one direction and only of the junction. Not much use if you are arguing a following car was so close to your bumper that you thought it unsafe to stop, or if an ambulance was following and you needed to move across the junction. A speed van also do take multiple images, GoSafe is actually stills from a continuous video feed and GATSO (with road markings) takes a sequence.

I'm not advocating red light jumping and my history on the forum here would underline my love of tech for enforcement but its one of few situations I believe a Garda is a far better asset to employ at a problematic junction. Same with stop signs, you often see a cruiser in the US parked up in housing estates watching them.

This is the same US where helmet laws were successfully repealed because they "infringed" people's rights ??

Reventon93

neonsofa wrote: »

Not justifying it in the slightest but learners are gonna make mistakes. The fact you could tell she was new to driving by her lack of ability (and I'm assuming Ls as well) would suggest that it was a genuine learner mistake. I know I found it hard sometimes to take everything in and I'd be so focused on watching for people etc that sometimes I'd miss signs or whatever, I was lucky enough to have an observant instructor and family members but maybe she wasn't. Not making excuses or saying it's ok for learners to do, but at least it seems she had a reason as opposed to being an experienced driver who knows better and just doesn't give a ****.

Yeah, she was going pretty under the speed limit and had L plates up. I understand that it can be hard when youre getting used to everything, but if she was doing her test, automatic fail. What surprised me more was that people cross here when the lights are red, so she could have ploughed into someone. Luckily enough no one was there. And then the fact that she was going slow enough to stop but didnt. I was genuinely speechless. I'd be the same if it was someone experienced though.

neonsofa

Reventon93 wrote: »

Yeah, she was going pretty under the speed limit and had L plates up. I understand that it can be hard when youre getting used to everything, but if she was doing her test, automatic fail. What surprised me more was that people cross here when the lights are red, so she could have ploughed into someone. Luckily enough no one was there. And then the fact that she was going slow enough to stop but didnt. I was genuinely speechless. I'd be the same if it was someone experienced though.

But people can only improve and prepare for the test by getting experience out on the road and learning to not make those mistakes. Like, regardless of whether it'd be a grade 3 on the test or not, if it was intentional and she had control over it, it wouldn't be called a mistake. The fact nobody was crossing probably added to her not being aware of the lights. If there were people crossing it would have been more obvious. (Not that a red light isn't obvious!). Like I said I'm not justifying it, but I'd be a lot more understanding of how a learner could do it, and as dangerous as it is and as silly as it is, learners do make mistakes in the early days. Experienced drivers don't have any excuse.

Brian Scan

ironclaw wrote: »

If you can't spot these vans, you shouldn't be speeding, or indeed driving, in the first place as your observation is beyond rubbish.

ironclaw wrote: »

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change. The road there is lethal in autumn thanks to overhanging tress and very slippery. You get a ticket even though you could probably sail through that junction 2 or 3 seconds after the light goes red and come out of it. Likewise, I know plenty of people in California who had to move onto a junction to allow a fire truck or similar to pass. Its very hard to get those types of tickets revoked.

They assume a perfectly straight road, with good visibility of the lights and a very distinct and timed sequence of Green -> Amber -> Red, with enough time between Amber and Red to stop in the distance you can see. This is not always the case.

I'm not advocating light braking but there are circumstance where discretion might be necessary. Would you be ok with a ticket that states you went over the line 0.3s after the light went red? I've seen one.

ironclaw

@Brian Scan, digging pretty deep there Brian. I stand by what I said in relation to the vans making the clear distinction that I was talking about speed camera vans, not red light cameras. But anyway :rolleyes:

I'm also not sure what you are trying to say and if anything, it adds to my point.

You're coming up on a junction that you know has a red light camera, person behind you is taking it quick. It goes yellow. You jam a little harder on out of fear you'll get a ticket. Person behind isn't paying attention or thinks you'll roll through as it yellow. Think for a second, how often does someone behind you sneak the red? Smack. I've seen this happen, a few times actually. It recently happened the OH in Canada.

Contrast to the vans, we're forever giving out here that people brake or slam on when they see a van, the exact same thing is going to happen with a red light junction once people start to realize where the tickets are coming from.

Red light cameras work in the ideal world but they also have down sides which I believe far outweigh the benefits. They'll also be implemented, taking history into account, by a can't make a loss goverment tender and cost us even more. Take that cash and bolster Traffic Corp instead!

jozi

Guy behind needs to pay more attention. If there was no car in front and he runs a red light he might also miss that cyclist or pedestrian if he's not paying attention.

People need to cop on and stop before the red light before someone gets hurt. I see it every morning, I only hope they all get caught like the guy in the morning I posted the thread. In all likely hood they will be stood still for the next light anyway

Brian Scan

ironclaw wrote: »

@Brian Scan, digging pretty deep there Brian. I stand by what I said in relation to the vans making the clear distinction that I was talking about speed camera vans, not red light cameras. But anyway :rolleyes:

I'm also not sure what you are trying to say and if anything, it adds to my point.

You're coming up on a junction that you know has a red light camera, person behind you is taking it quick. It goes yellow. You jam a little harder on out of fear you'll get a ticket. Person behind isn't paying attention or thinks you'll roll through as it yellow. Think for a second, how often does someone behind you sneak the red? Smack. I've seen this happen, a few times actually. It recently happened the OH in Canada.

Contrast to the vans, we're forever giving out here that people brake or slam on when they see a van, the exact same thing is going to happen with a red light junction once people start to realize where the tickets are coming from.

Red light cameras work in the ideal world but they also have down sides which I believe far outweigh the benefits. They'll also be implemented, taking history into account, by a can't make a loss goverment tender and cost us even more. Take that cash and bolster Traffic Corp instead!

In the first post I quoted you seemed to be saying that if one wasn't observant enough to see speed vans one shouldn't be driving, in the second you seemed to be saying that it would be unfair for someone to get a ticket for breaking a red light having failed to adapt to unfavourable road conditions.

Your posts seemed somewhat contradictory to me.

ironclaw

Brian Scan wrote: »

In the first post I quoted you seemed to be saying that if one wasn't observant enough to see speed vans one shouldn't be driving, in the second you seemed to be saying that it would be unfair for someone to get a ticket for breaking a red light having failed to adapt to unfavourable road conditions.

Your posts seemed somewhat contradictory to me.

Well, the quote about seeing speed vans was from another thread in August 2015 but I appreciate the fan following!


But I have adopted to the road conditions, I never said I didn't. Are you familar with the lights on the N11 at Cabinteely that I quoted in my example? Its a nice wide road but the final approach onto the lights is blocked from view until you round the corner. In Autumn, even long after a rain shower, the road can be quite slippy from the tress that overhang it on the left hand side. I know this, I adopt for it. But the average driver won't. I doubt they even notice.

So you now have two dangerous situations, an 80km/h road with a very poor sight line on a set of lights, which have a ludaciously short green/red cycle as of late, and a road surface non conducive to hard braking. Add into the mix a red light camera and you'll have people fearful of getting a ticket and they may jam on just a little harder.

I'm not against red light cameras, I just think there are better means of enforcing junctions

jozi

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm not against red light cameras, I just think there are better means of enforcing junctions

How? If we send in a recording to the garda will the driver get a fine or even phone call?

hognef

ironclaw wrote: »

They are really, really inaccurate and don't take into account the case by case situation e.g. Imagine an 80km/h road (N11 at Cabinteely is a great example) with lights at the end. Its wet, you're doing about the limit, hook around a corner and the lights change.

Are you able to stop if the lights are already red as you exit the bend? If so, you should be absolutely fine.

Also, when the lights change, they change to yellow, which, by design, last long enough to allow you to stop before they change again, to red. Unless you're going too fast.

Brian Scan

ironclaw wrote: »

Well, the quote about seeing speed vans was from another thread in August 2015 but I appreciate the fan following!


But I have adopted to the road conditions, I never said I didn't. Are you familar with the lights on the N11 at Cabinteely that I quoted in my example? Its a nice wide road but the final approach onto the lights is blocked from view until you round the corner. In Autumn, even long after a rain shower, the road can be quite slippy from the tress that overhang it on the left hand side. I know this, I adopt for it. But the average driver won't. I doubt they even notice.

So you now have two dangerous situations, an 80km/h road with a very poor sight line on a set of lights, which have a ludaciously short green/red cycle as of late, and a road surface non conducive to hard braking. Add into the mix a red light camera and you'll have people fearful of getting a ticket and they may jam on just a little harder.

I'm not against red light cameras, I just think there are better means of enforcing junctions

hognef wrote: »

Are you able to stop if the lights are already red as you exit the bend? If so, you should be absolutely fine.

Also, when the lights change, they change to yellow, which, by design, last long enough to allow you to stop before they change again, to red. Unless you're going too fast.

It's not himself he's concerned about, it's the unfortunate average driver.

ironclaw

I had a think about this last night on the flight home and I just want to make sure people know how these systems work. People realise that the threshold, at least internationally, is very short. We're talking 0.2s after the light goes red, you'll get a ticket. Its not 2 or 3s, its literally if you are on the junction box (Even stopped mind you, a further caveat) you'll get a ticket.

So, agreed, you have amber and then red, but how many people would be on the threshold of the stop line at amber and judge it safer to continue than jam on? It happens. You understand at a wide junction, say Donnybrook at the bus station, you're going to get a ticket even if you actions didn't endanger anyone. If you were at Stillorgan Hotel, where there are close, unsynced lights, if the driver ahead of you isn't on the ball and you have to stop before you clear, you'll get a ticket.

Look at the contrast, how dangerous is that? At 60 / 50km/h, the speed limit in those examples, and assuming you had started to slow down before that, you are going to clear that junction before any other car, pedestrian or cyclists starts to move. Is it good driving? No. Is it dangerous? Debatable in my book and only a human could make that call. Lets make a clear distinction between entering and clearing a junction when other parties have got the green (So at least 1 to 2 seconds from the previous red) and, quite legally, not stopping because its unsafe to do so on a short amber.

Basically, I'd rather see any money even remotely considered for these ventures to be given to Traffic Corp.

RayCun

ironclaw wrote: »

I had a think about this last night on the flight home and I just want to make sure people know how these systems work. People realise that the threshold, at least internationally, is very short. We're talking 0.2s after the light goes red, you'll get a ticket. Its not 2 or 3s, its literally if you are on the junction box (Even stopped mind you, a further caveat) you'll get a ticket.

So, agreed, you have amber and then red, but how many people would be on the threshold of the stop line at amber and judge it safer to continue than jam on?

If you are at the threshold of the junction when the light changes to amber, you should have enough time to cross the junction before the light turns red.

If the traffic is moving slowly, and would delay you in crossing the junction, then you should be ready to stop.

You talk about wide junctions. I pass a wide junction (at the KCR) every day, and what happens? People approaching the junction accelerate on amber. People follow them through on red. And because it is a wide junction, the lights have turned green for the people on Kimmage Road West while traffic from Wainsfort Road is still in the middle of the junction.

The reason people say "make it a traffic corps decision, not a machine" is because they know traffic corps can't be present at many junctions, so they figure the odds are good. And maybe if there is a traffic corps there, and you don't spot them, sure you might be able to talk your way out of a ticket anyway.

The point of installing cameras is to change driver behaviour. So that drivers approach junctions preparing to stop, rather than preparing to chance their arms. So people know that if they close their eyes and gun it - which I see every single day, at multiple lights - they will get a ticket.

Wildcard7

ironclaw wrote: »

Are you familar with the lights on the N11 at Cabinteely that I quoted in my example? Its a nice wide road but the final approach onto the lights is blocked from view until you round the corner. In Autumn, even long after a rain shower, the road can be quite slippy from the tress that overhang it on the left hand side. I know this, I adopt for it. But the average driver won't. I doubt they even notice.

So you now have two dangerous situations, an 80km/h road with a very poor sight line on a set of lights, which have a ludaciously short green/red cycle as of late, and a road surface non conducive to hard braking. Add into the mix a red light camera and you'll have people fearful of getting a ticket and they may jam on just a little harder.

Since the solution to that scenario is to just drive through the red light, what's the solution for the situation where there's already a car stopped there at the red light?
Math and logic would suggest that the same physical restrictions apply for stopping at the light as there would for stopping before hitting a stationary object.

jozi

Wildcard7 wrote: »

Since the solution to that scenario is to just drive through the red light, what's the solution for the situation where there's already a car stopped there at the red light?
Math and logic would suggest that the same physical restrictions apply for stopping at the light as there would for stopping before hitting a stationary object.

Yesterday as the traffic light turned amber I spotted a guy 2nd in line pull out so he could dash across the junction.

My issue in the op was in rush hour traffic, people blatantly ignoring the red light. Cars are moving slow so there's no road conditions or driving too fast involved (most cases anyway) and 95% of the time stopping for red is possible, stopping for amber is possible a lot of the time!

In all my time doing the same route I've only seen maybe 2 people have bad luck and get caught for doing a red light.

mikeecho

No point in complaining... do something

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=165

be all you can be