A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Misreperesention of relative stopping distances of cars and trucks in Ny Driver's Manual



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 12th 05, 08:04 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>I would be interested in seeing how that law is worded. here in Ontario
>the law says " Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a
>circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her
>vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed
>with caution" . It means a bit of a judgment call, because you have to
>consider the safety of stopping fast versus the violation involved if the
>light turns red before you enter the intersection. If it is red, you have
>to stop. If it turns red before you get into the intersection, you must
>have made a bad choice before you got to it.


Or the light is mistimed.
Ads
  #62  
Old January 12th 05, 09:27 PM
Robert Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Top wrote:
> >
> > > You would be better off to plan for the worst.


> > Specifically, with traffic lights, don't commit yourself to
> > crossing the line until the guy in front has cleared it.

>
> There are people, unfortunately not rare, who will cross the
> line and THEN stop.


Yes, there are all sorts of idiots out there.

That said, if you are far enough behind not to commit to crossing
the line until the previous chap has cleared it then you are also
far enough behind to stop in whatever space he leaves you.
  #63  
Old January 12th 05, 09:27 PM
Robert Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Top wrote:
> >
> > > You would be better off to plan for the worst.


> > Specifically, with traffic lights, don't commit yourself to
> > crossing the line until the guy in front has cleared it.

>
> There are people, unfortunately not rare, who will cross the
> line and THEN stop.


Yes, there are all sorts of idiots out there.

That said, if you are far enough behind not to commit to crossing
the line until the previous chap has cleared it then you are also
far enough behind to stop in whatever space he leaves you.
  #64  
Old January 13th 05, 08:34 PM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Smith wrote:
> I would be interested in seeing how that law is worded. here in Ontario
> the law says " Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a
> circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her
> vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed
> with caution" . It means a bit of a judgment call, because you have to
> consider the safety of stopping fast versus the violation involved if the
> light turns red before you enter the intersection. If it is red, you have
> to stop. If it turns red before you get into the intersection, you must
> have made a bad choice before you got to it.


What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
you must go.
  #65  
Old January 13th 05, 08:34 PM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Smith wrote:
> I would be interested in seeing how that law is worded. here in Ontario
> the law says " Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a
> circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her
> vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed
> with caution" . It means a bit of a judgment call, because you have to
> consider the safety of stopping fast versus the violation involved if the
> light turns red before you enter the intersection. If it is red, you have
> to stop. If it turns red before you get into the intersection, you must
> have made a bad choice before you got to it.


What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
you must go.
  #66  
Old January 13th 05, 10:43 PM
Dave Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John David Galt wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > I would be interested in seeing how that law is worded. here in Ontario
> > the law says " Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a
> > circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her
> > vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed
> > with caution" . It means a bit of a judgment call, because you have to
> > consider the safety of stopping fast versus the violation involved if the
> > light turns red before you enter the intersection. If it is red, you have
> > to stop. If it turns red before you get into the intersection, you must
> > have made a bad choice before you got to it.

>
> What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
> and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
> you must go.


What is stupid about it? There used to be only red lights and green lights.
They brought in amber lights as a warning that the light is about to change.
Basically, the amber light says that you are supposed to stop if you can, not
that you should try to beat the red.



  #67  
Old January 13th 05, 10:43 PM
Dave Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John David Galt wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > I would be interested in seeing how that law is worded. here in Ontario
> > the law says " Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a
> > circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her
> > vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed
> > with caution" . It means a bit of a judgment call, because you have to
> > consider the safety of stopping fast versus the violation involved if the
> > light turns red before you enter the intersection. If it is red, you have
> > to stop. If it turns red before you get into the intersection, you must
> > have made a bad choice before you got to it.

>
> What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
> and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
> you must go.


What is stupid about it? There used to be only red lights and green lights.
They brought in amber lights as a warning that the light is about to change.
Basically, the amber light says that you are supposed to stop if you can, not
that you should try to beat the red.



  #68  
Old January 14th 05, 10:05 PM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>> What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
>> and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
>> you must go.


> What is stupid about it? There used to be only red lights and green lights.
> They brought in amber lights as a warning that the light is about to change.
> Basically, the amber light says that you are supposed to stop if you can, not
> that you should try to beat the red.


Not in places with rightful laws. Yes, it's a warning that your turn to go
is about to end, **BUT IT HASN'T YET**. So of course you go if you can!
Only a dimwit wouldn't want to, and only an asshole wouldn't do it anyway!
  #69  
Old January 14th 05, 10:05 PM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>> What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
>> and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
>> you must go.


> What is stupid about it? There used to be only red lights and green lights.
> They brought in amber lights as a warning that the light is about to change.
> Basically, the amber light says that you are supposed to stop if you can, not
> that you should try to beat the red.


Not in places with rightful laws. Yes, it's a warning that your turn to go
is about to end, **BUT IT HASN'T YET**. So of course you go if you can!
Only a dimwit wouldn't want to, and only an asshole wouldn't do it anyway!
  #70  
Old January 14th 05, 10:36 PM
Dave Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


John David Galt wrote:

> >> What a stupid law. The law everywhere should be the same as common sense
> >> and common courtesy both already dictate everywhe If you can make it,
> >> you must go.

>
> > What is stupid about it? There used to be only red lights and green lights.
> > They brought in amber lights as a warning that the light is about to change.
> > Basically, the amber light says that you are supposed to stop if you can, not
> > that you should try to beat the red.

>
> Not in places with rightful laws.


There is nothing about the laws that is not rightful. They are statute law, passed
by the legislature, which has the authority to do so.

> Yes, it's a warning that your turn to go
> is about to end, **BUT IT HASN'T YET**. So of course you go if you can!


You can take the chance. But if you enter the intersection after the light turns
red because you misjudged, then you are in violation. If you do it and are involved
in a collision, you will be at fault. It could get you killed, and your insurance
rates will go up.

> Only a dimwit wouldn't want to, and only an asshole wouldn't do it anyway!


Only fools try to beat red lights.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.