Level crossing stupidity...

[kevinlms]

Are there more of them (proportionally, there are far more people around anyway), or do we just hear more about them since news is so easy to hear about? Hitting a level crossing barrier might've once just made the local paper. There wouldn't be videos around at all of people who went through but nothing got hit. You'd probably only hear of it further afield when people got hurt.

 

That said I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to your question was "yes." Grow up never having to be responsible for yourself and you'll never be able to, although there have always been some people without any sense whatsoever since the dawn of time.

I'm sure some people think that its a matter of 'free speech' or similar, to go through.

[Poggy1165]

I came across a comment the other day that essentially said people who strictly obey rules are the equivalent of the old park keepers who used to fuss over kids playing on grass, and that in effect it's cool to do whatever you want.

 

This sort of attitude must contribute to a whole lot of accidents, and what shocked me was that it came from a cyclist, one of a group who should be aware that they are extremely vulnerable and benefit from the protection of rules more than most.

 

Maybe it's just the "cocky youth" attitude which is so common these days. But even soldiers in battle usually weigh up risks and calculate that some risks are not worth taking. Perhaps we see here the mentality that gave the world Russian roulette.

[RJS1977]

 

This sort of attitude must contribute to a whole lot of accidents, and what shocked me was that it came from a cyclist, one of a group who should be aware that they are extremely vulnerable and benefit from the protection of rules more than most.

 

 

No, that sounds about par for the course for cyclists (certainly round here)- I narrowly avoid being knocked over by them on the pavement several times a day (often when there's a cycle lane in parallel) and last night after dark I got passed by five consecutive cyclists without lights in the space of a couple of hundred metres (4 of them on the pavement). I'm coming to the conclusion the main reason they have bikes is because they can't afford BMWs... ;-)

[kevinlms]

Maybe it's just the "cocky youth" attitude which is so common these days. But even soldiers in battle usually weigh up risks and calculate that some risks are not worth taking. Perhaps we see here the mentality that gave the world Russian roulette.

Many medals are won by soldiers doing stupid things, to rescue some fellow soldiers. Sometimes their lucky enough to get away with it, but many don't.Things like running up to a machine gun post and throwing in a grenade, come to mind.

[Poggy1165]

I did say "usually". You get the major medals for being unusual.

[jcm@gwr]

I tend to take a dim view of how much common sense there is around these days.

 

 

The trouble with common sense is, 

 

it's actually not that common! 

[MarkC]

The trouble with common sense is, 

 

it's actually not that common! 

And it's frowned upon by 'authority' - you can't have the proles thinking for themselves and taking responsibility...where would it end?

[John_Hughes]

And it's frowned upon by 'authority' - you can't have the proles thinking for themselves and taking responsibility...where would it end?

 

‘Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.’

 

(Descartes, Discourse on the Method)

[kevinlms]

And it's frowned upon by 'authority' - you can't have the proles thinking for themselves and taking responsibility...where would it end?

No speed limits, no drink driving laws, parking wherever and for how long you like. Instead of barriers at railway crossings, you could have a clock display, counting down the seconds, until a train gets to the crossing.

 

Yes 'common sense' would sort itself out - not.

[D854_Tiger]

I came across a comment the other day that essentially said people who strictly obey rules are the equivalent of the old park keepers who used to fuss over kids playing on grass, and that in effect it's cool to do whatever you want.

 

This sort of attitude must contribute to a whole lot of accidents, and what shocked me was that it came from a cyclist, one of a group who should be aware that they are extremely vulnerable and benefit from the protection of rules more than most.

 

 

 

Yes but the test of that kind of conviction is when they step onto an aircraft.

 

You can bet they expect (pray) the rules are being followed to the letter then, with (i)s doted and (t)s crossed.

 

Same as the kind of people who can be very dismissive of people who actually know how stuff works (geeks,) as if it's a disease you can catch, and be dismissive of things like mathematics stating you never need them in the real world.

 

I always apply the aircraft test to them, as well, wondering quite what kind of people they would have liked to have designed their aircraft, the mathematics they would like them to use to ensure their Easyjet flight stays up in the air.

 

You can be pretty sure the answer won't be in terms of a first in English Literature, expressing themselves mathematically, with the fingers of one hand, whilst the fingers of the other are holding onto a glass of gin and a fag.

[Ramblin Rich]

/\ /\ Going on from the post above, I am mildly confused * by people ** who dismiss 'experts' as irrelevant but are still happy to use (in fact, completely dependent on) modern communications, transport and utility systems which are designed installed and maintained by people I would definitely class as experts....

 

* actually, "completed baffled and feeling at odds with"

** eg present incumbent of the Whte House among many, many more

[kevinlms]

The trouble with common sense is, 

 

it's actually not that common! 

Exactly, that's why Rules are required and need enforcing, for those whose level of 'common sense', proves to be inadequate. Then far from 'taking responsibility', they do 'a runner'.

[D854_Tiger]

/\ /\ Going on from the post above, I am mildly confused * by people ** who dismiss 'experts' as irrelevant but are still happy to use (in fact, completely dependent on) modern communications, transport and utility systems which are designed installed and maintained by people I would definitely class as experts....

 

* actually, "completed baffled and feeling at odds with"

** eg present incumbent of the Whte House among many, many more

 

 

To be fair experts are sometimes fallible.

 

I have particularly lost faith recently in the kind of experts that offer dietary advice, to the point where (because so much of it seems contradictory and changing with the season) I now take all such advice with a pinch of salt, a large one.

 

Doctors are nice people, we tend to hold them in great esteem and they certainly have their uses but there isn't one of them that would or could guarantee you will still be here next week, so clearly they do have their limitations.

[Coryton]

To be fair experts are sometimes fallible.

 

I have particularly lost faith recently in the kind of experts that offer dietary advice, to the point where (because so much of it seems contradictory and changing with the season) I now take all such advice with a pinch of salt, a large one.

 

Doctors are nice people, we tend to hold them in great esteem and they certainly have their uses but there isn't one of them that would or could guarantee you will still be here next week, so clearly they do have their limitations.

 

Yes, experts are fallible, and some areas more liable to this than others.

 

Economics....I would argue that nobody really understands how the economy works and in any case making predictions involves modelling lots of individuals making decisions...not easy. So anything an economic expert says should be treated as an educated guess.

 

Medicine...difficult...biology is complex and ethics limit the sort of experiments you do, i.e. if a certain treatment is believed to be successful you can't usually check this with a trial where you give half the patients a placebo instead. So experts worth listening to, but with caution. For some reason dietary information seems to be particularly unreliable, perhaps because it's even harder to do controlled trials than with surgery or drugs.

 

Science...engineering...much more clear cut....it's much easier to do proper experiments or trials to find things out...if an expert says that a plane design doesn't have sufficient wing-span to stay up in the air, he's probably right.

[highpeakman]

Exactly, that's why Rules are required and need enforcing, for those whose level of 'common sense', proves to be inadequate. Then far from 'taking responsibility', they do 'a runner'.

 

Generally this is an absolutely correct statement, and for the good of all, but there is also a case for sensible interpretation of some rules as, on occasion, 100% enforcement to "the absolute letter" is just not common sense (or just).

 

Of course, one of the exceptions (i.e. should be 100% enforced) are the rules governing safety at level crossings (and lineside everywhere).

[Coryton]

Generally this is an absolutely correct statement, and for the good of all, but there is also a case for sensible interpretation of some rules as, on occasion, 100% enforcement to "the absolute letter" is just not common sense (or just).

 

Of course, one of the exceptions (i.e. should be 100% enforced) are the rules governing safety at level crossings (and lineside everywhere).

 

It is very hard to produce a set of rules that are correct all the time and often some common sense interpretation makes sense (but as you say not in all cases). And if you could plan for every eventuality, nobody would be able to learn the rules because they would be so complex.

 

The fun is of course in deciding when it's reasonable to ignore/bend rules and it some cases it can be quite contentious.

 

For example - should you carefully creep through a red light to let a fire engine through even though it's against the law?

[JDW]

It is very hard to produce a set of rules that are correct all the time and often some common sense interpretation makes sense (but as you say not in all cases). And if you could plan for every eventuality, nobody would be able to learn the rules because they would be so complex.

 

The fun is of course in deciding when it's reasonable to ignore/bend rules and it some cases it can be quite contentious.

 

For example - should you carefully creep through a red light to let a fire engine through even though it's against the law?

Yes.  But no.  But yes.  But no...

[MarkC]

 

For example - should you carefully creep through a red light to let a fire engine through even though it's against the law?

Well now, here's a classic case of where common sense (and 'doing the right thing') has been effectively wiped out by a 'jobsworth mentality' if you get caught by a <safety camera> whilst doing just that. Automatic fine issued by computer for passing the red light, and it's not guaranteed that you could get it quashed, even if you can sacrifice the time and money to fight it. Ditto going into bus lanes or a yellow box to get out of the way of an ambulance or fire engine who is trying to get past on 'blues and twos'. Quite often, and some might say with justifiable cynicism, the film/images that would show why you did what you did are 'conveniently' either corrupted during recording/storage or lost...

[Coryton]

Well now, here's a classic case of where common sense (and 'doing the right thing') has been effectively wiped out by a 'jobsworth mentality' if you get caught by a <safety camera> whilst doing just that. Automatic fine issued by computer for passing the red light, and it's not guaranteed that you could get it quashed, even if you can sacrifice the time and money to fight it. Ditto going into bus lanes or a yellow box to get out of the way of an ambulance or fire engine who is trying to get past on 'blues and twos'. Quite often, and some might say with justifiable cynicism, the film/images that would show why you did what you did are 'conveniently' either corrupted during recording/storage or lost...

 

I think it's not quite as simple as that - there is the argument that passing through a red light is by definition dangerous and therefore not justified.

 

A load of b****** on junctions where the red lights are set back and there is a huge area to pull into without entering the junction itself, in my opinion. Even if pulling across a pedestrian crossing, if done carefully and safely I don't see a problem - and anyway with a fire engine there, siren blaring away, pedestrians should be keeping well out of the way anyway even if it does mean waiting to cross on the next sequence.

[jim.snowdon]

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but my understanding of the law as it relates to traffic signals, almost certainly the current incarnation of the Road Traffic Act, is that it simply defines the act of passing a traffic sign in a road vehicle as an offence; no extenuating circumstances. It doesn't provide any exceptions for the drivers of emergency service vehicles and they can be, but usually aren't, prosecuted.

Strictly, it could also be argued that if an emergency service vehicle driver caused another driver to do something that imperilled either his safety or that of somebody else, it would be a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, especially if there was any element of policy in it.

Ultimately, the problem lies with the very black and white nature of English Law.

 

Jim

[Coryton]

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but my understanding of the law as it relates to traffic signals, almost certainly the current incarnation of the Road Traffic Act, is that it simply defines the act of passing a traffic sign in a road vehicle as an offence; no extenuating circumstances. It doesn't provide any exceptions for the drivers of emergency service vehicles and they can be, but usually aren't, prosecuted.

Strictly, it could also be argued that if an emergency service vehicle driver caused another driver to do something that imperilled either his safety or that of somebody else, it would be a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, especially if there was any element of policy in it.

Ultimately, the problem lies with the very black and white nature of English Law.

 

Jim

 

I expect that's right that there is no get-out clause for "normal" drivers. But I am pretty sure that there is a legal basis for emergency vehicles passing red lights when they are on an emergency call.

[david.hill64]

I expect that's right that there is no get-out clause for "normal" drivers. But I am pretty sure that there is a legal basis for emergency vehicles passing red lights when they are on an emergency call.

.

 

A quick Google reveals that emergency vehicles 'on call' can break speed limits, treat solid red lights as a give way sign, pass the wrong side of bollards and use motorway hard shoulders as through routes (in either direction). They cannot force another road user to perform an illegal act (such as passing a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass) though I believe that a police officer can direct a driver to do that.

[Coryton]

.

 

A quick Google reveals that emergency vehicles 'on call' can break speed limits, treat solid red lights as a give way sign, pass the wrong side of bollards and use motorway hard shoulders as through routes (in either direction). They cannot force another road user to perform an illegal act (such as passing a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass) though I believe that a police officer can direct a driver to do that.

 

I suppose technically when a fire engine with the siren on comes up behind a car at a traffic light and starts blasting away on the air horn, they aren't actually forcing the driver to go through the red light...

 

And - as I think discussed earlier in this thread - the difference between a conventional red traffic light and flashing reds is that emergency vehicles cannot pass and police officers cannot authorise anyone to pass flashing red lights.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Coryton

[highpeakman]

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but my understanding of the law as it relates to traffic signals, almost certainly the current incarnation of the Road Traffic Act, is that it simply defines the act of passing a traffic sign in a road vehicle as an offence; no extenuating circumstances. It doesn't provide any exceptions for the drivers of emergency service vehicles and they can be, but usually aren't, prosecuted.

Strictly, it could also be argued that if an emergency service vehicle driver caused another driver to do something that imperilled either his safety or that of somebody else, it would be a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, especially if there was any element of policy in it.

Ultimately, the problem lies with the very black and white nature of English Law.

 

Jim

 

Agreed that The Law is binary: Guilty or Not Guilty. 

 

I think that the theory here is that for traffic, and any other legal rules, the person/court deciding (ultimately a judge but sometimes that is more of a problem when "jobsworths" are involved in the process before court) whether an offence is committed will remember the reason and objective for the rule being made originally. 

 

If a rule is broken but the original objective of the rule is not "offended" and there is a good reason then the offender should be found by a court to be in the clear (or, at least, in law, "guilty" but not punished). Unfortunately many cases do not get as far as a court and are difficult (expensive) to fight. 

 

Of course, sometimes even a court seems to fail the above as well.

[Coryton]

Agreed that The Law is binary: Guilty or Not Guilty. 

 

I think that the theory here is that for traffic, and any other legal rules, the person/court deciding (ultimately a judge but sometimes that is more of a problem when "jobsworths" are involved in the process before court) whether an offence is committed will remember the reason and objective for the rule being made originally. 

 

If a rule is broken but the original objective of the rule is not "offended" and there is a good reason then the offender should be found by a court to be in the clear (or, at least, in law, "guilty" but not punished). Unfortunately many cases do not get as far as a court and are difficult (expensive) to fight. 

 

Of course, sometimes even a court seems to fail the above as well.

 

The "mischief rule" says that in interpreting legislation, judges should look at what 'mischief' the law was meant to remedy.

 

I'm not sure how much scope there would be in interpreting a simple rule such as "don't go through a red traffic light", though.