Acceptable Law Breaking (and other morality questions)

[whhistle]

People try it on all the time in shops, whether it's eating something before getting to the check-out or scanning a cheaper item a couple of times to avoid paying for a more
expensive item (at the self-service tills) or simply feeling it isn't necessary to point out a change error if it's in their favour.

Read this in another thread.

I've often wondered about the morals of people and how one person doesn't see a problem, where others appear to believe it's the worst thing ever.

I haven't ever opened anything and ate it while walking round the shop and I don't like seeing other people do it either (seriously, can you not wait until you've finished shopping?!).
It seems acceptable in food shops, but not clothes shops - why is this?

Just like I've watched people not scan a bag for life, thus stealing it.
Would that person steal a 25p bottle of bleach? Or a £1 chocolate bar? What is the limit they would go up to before morals kick in and they decide it's stealing?

Yet these people who steal bags from the supermarket probably pay for their TV licence, which is easily avoided. And berate others for not doing so maybe?

Would they steal from a local greengrocer?

Speeding is another good one.
I don't know anyone who doesn't speed in one way or another.
So why is that acceptable but running a red light (at a pelican crossing) at 2am isn't?


Welcome others' thoughts on this.

 

[Howardh]

Here's an acceptable one, moving slowly and carefully through a red light to allow an ambulance to get past.

 

[Failed Unit]

Read this in another thread.



Speeding is another good one.
I don't know anyone who doesn't speed in one way or another.
So why is that acceptable but running a red light (at a pelican crossing) at 2am isn't?

Actually this one does bring up one of my pet hates - the mono driver.

You follow them at 40mph on a road with a 60mph speed limit. We then hit a 30 mph speed limit, where they continue at 40mph.

I am no angel on the speeding and often do 80mph on the motorway. But I don't delibrately speed on A roads. If I have creapt up to 65mph on a 60 this is corrected immediately. You are right it is interesting morals, why do I feel it is acceptable to speed on a motorway but not on a A-road (in particular in a built up area). It may be more to do with following sheep. But it is illegal anywhere. It is probably more to do with the fact the police don't normally book you at 80mph on a motorway.

 

[AM9]

Actually this one does bring up one of my pet hates - the mono driver.

You follow them at 40mph on a road with a 60mph speed limit. We then hit a 30 mph speed limit, where they continue at 40mph.

I am no angel on the speeding and often do 80mph on the motorway. But I don't delibrately speed on A roads. If I have creapt up to 65mph on a 60 this is corrected immediately. You are right it is interesting morals, why do I feel it is acceptable to speed on a motorway but not on a A-road (in particular in a built up area). It may be more to do with following sheep. But it is illegal anywhere. It is probably more to do with the fact the police don't normally book you at 80mph on a motorway.

I generally don't agree with law breaking at all, but contrary to that pompous assertion, as regards to speeding on public roads, most of the time I drive on non-congested speed restricted roads at no more than the permitted speed, usually with cruise control engaged. It is amazing how many cars can start so far behind me as to not be noticed, yet be less than two car lengths from me after less than a minute when I'm travelling at as near to the limit as I can get. Sometimes on a motorway, however, I may increase my speed to 75 or exceptionally 80mph (+7 to +14%). My reasoning is that on a motorway, there will only be other motor vehicles, generally all capable of travelling at speeds over 50mph, (i.e. no cycles, mopeds, tractors, milk floats etc.) and definitely no pedestrians/animals.* Therefore, all road users have a stake in avoiding getting hurt, (as opposed to getting caught).
In a built-up area, there are all sort of road users, many of whom are likely to come off a lot worse than me in a car in the event of a collision. We have been made aware of the relative survival chances of pedestrians/cyclists being hit at 20 vs 30 vs 40mph, yet there are still many who decide that their (unique) driving skills justifies them driving at speeds much higher than that which other road users should expect. When they do get caught they claim that their speed was still safe, (probably only for themselves).
* Occasionally animals do roam onto fast roads but there is little difference between a collision at 75mph vs 70mph when a stray horse or cow is concerned.

 

[404250]

People are much more likely to steal if it's not from a person. That's why self service tills have caused such an increase of shoplifting. No real employee contact, and the fact that supermarkets are such large companies mean there's very little guilt. The same people wouldn't pocket stuff in a corner shop.

 

[404250]

Speeding is another good one.
I don't know anyone who doesn't speed in one way or another.

I know people who really will stick to the speed limit in all situations.

 

[Failed Unit]

People are much more likely to steal if it's not from a person. That's why self service tills have caused such an increase of shoplifting. No real employee contact, and the fact that supermarkets are such large companies mean there's very little guilt. The same people wouldn't pocket stuff in a corner shop.

I must admit, I feel little guilt about "stealing" from GTR when "the key" doesn't work.

I am happy to post how here as maybe they will fix the problem as it is a real pain in the rear end when you have to phone them up and try and fix the "incomplete journey"

I have had many instances where I have tapped in a WGC, the gates open then off I go. I have no reason to believe the journey is not recorded as you tap on the reader the gates open. Repeat at the London terminal. Sometimes you will get an email from GTR saying I didn't tap in. Phone them up sort it. Sometime the journey won't show up at all. I have mentioned this at a meet the manager session, they are aware of the fault. I have had an RPI check the key during the journey - again they can't see my tap in but have seen it many times saying thier is a know problem at certain stations on the route.

So you get some free journeys as a result of this. This is techinically stealing - my moral compass on this takes the view I have attempted to pay. GTR are rotten to the core, rejecting valid delay repay, timetable shambles etc. They know the key has a fault so why should I spend hours on the phone trying to get this journey paid for? It is really - if a company treats you with contempt you are less likely to feel guilty over free rides with them.

 

[underbank]

The same people wouldn't pocket stuff in a corner shop.

We had a small newsagent/convenience store for over 20 years. The amount of stock stolen was ridiculous. Not just kids/undesirables either. We delivered papers to a sheltered housing complex which had letter/milk boxes in the entrance hall - 2 or 3 papers a day would be nicked. The milkman said the same, a few bottles of milk stolen every morning. And that was OAPs! We were forerunners of stock control systems that are now common place - it was truly amazing to see what kinds of stock went awol - not the Mars bars, comics and bag of crisps you'd expect, but plenty of magazines like Homes & Gardens, Railway Modeller, Radio Times, plus local newspapers, birthday cards, etc. Then you'd get the customers claiming that their newspaper/magazine hadn't been delivered, usually on days when it had included "freebie" gifts, special offer coupons etc! It really changed our view of who were the likely shoplifters! At least with the kids & undesirables it was relatively cheap stuff like an odd chocolate bar, but the real loss was in expensive magazines etc.

 

[bnm]

I know people who really will stick to the speed limit in all situations.

Train drivers?

 

[radamfi]

Speeding should become a thing of the past with compulsory speed limiters. Existing car owners should endeavour to install their own even if it isn't compulsory.

 

[Failed Unit]

Speeding should become a thing of the past with compulsory speed limiters. Existing car owners should endeavour to install their own even if it isn't compulsory.

We probably already have a thread on it, but I wonder how this will help long distance rail travel. London - Newcastle could become more competitive by rail time wise if cars can only go 70 mph. However I know real journeys are more likely to be Harrow - Washington were the car will always be king.

 

[radamfi]

We probably already have a thread on it, but I wonder how this will help long distance rail travel. London - Newcastle could become more competitive by rail time wise if cars can only go 70 mph. However I know real journeys are more likely to be Harrow - Washington were the car will always be king.

I think improvements to cycling rates might be more likely if 20 mph limits are no longer exceeded.

 

[404250]

It's usually the traffic not the speed limits that slow down journey times. Unless driving at night.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think improvements to cycling rates might be more likely if 20 mph limits are no longer exceeded.

Very true. I do end to end journeys with the bike getting to the railhead. Very competitive time wise compared to the car. Cycle facilities on the train are the biggest issue. (Although only a keen cyclist would consider 10 miles in the rain / wind)

 

[404250]

With bike hire points at each station and all town centres bikes wouldn't need to take up space on trains.

 

[EM2]

Speeding should become a thing of the past with compulsory speed limiters. Existing car owners should endeavour to install their own even if it isn't compulsory.

It will still be necessary under some circumstances to break the speed limit, albeit for a very short time.

 

[bramling]

I think improvements to cycling rates might be more likely if 20 mph limits are no longer exceeded.

Might be so, however this doesn’t take away the bigger danger which is people pulling out in front, or cutting in having completely misjudged a pass. In fact, I don’t like the idea that a car’s acceleration could be inhibited at a moment when accelerating out of trouble might be necessary.

 

[talltim]

Loving someone of the same sex. Not illegal here (nowadays), but in many countries.

 

[Busaholic]

Might be so, however this doesn’t take away the bigger danger which is people pulling out in front, or cutting in having completely misjudged a pass. In fact, I don’t like the idea that a car’s acceleration could be inhibited at a moment when accelerating out of trouble might be necessary.

I recall a journey on an 'A' road in Kent about forty years ago, where on a single carriageway road I was stuck behind a lorry travelling at a steady 40 mph for about fifteen minutes. At last we entered a straight stretch with nothing approaching, but a combination of my poor-accelerating Peugeot hire car and a bloody-minded lorry driver seemingly determined I wasn't going to pass almost caused a head-on collision. I therefore agree with your last sentence. What it did teach me was not to take a chance with overtaking without being as certain as possible of the outcome: also, never to drive a Peugeot again unless absolutely necessary!

 

[Mag_seven]

I've often wondered why people think that breaking laws involved in motoring is acceptable when they wouldn't dream about breaking any other law?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Read this in another thread.

I've often wondered about the morals of people and how one person doesn't see a problem, where others appear to believe it's the worst thing ever.

I haven't ever opened anything and ate it while walking round the shop and I don't like seeing other people do it either (seriously, can you not wait until you've finished shopping?!).
It seems acceptable in food shops, but not clothes shops - why is this?

It's an interesting question. Broadly, I would say there are two distinct situations:

1. Where a person's moral values genuinely don't align with what the law says.
2. Where a person does something that is illegal and which, if also feels wrong to them, but which they do anyway.

Shoplifting must surely fall into the 2nd category in almost all cases - I find it hard to imagine that anyone would - if seriously challenged - really believe it's OK. Yet evidently vast numbers of people do it anyway, which to my mind is very sad.

An example for me of the first category would be cycling and red lights: I personally usually feel comfortable on a bicycle treating red lights as meaning 'give way' rather than 'stop'. And I do seriously think it's ridiculous that the law that tells cyclists to stop even if they can see that it is clear and safe to proceed, and that doing so won't inconvenience anyone else. (Although I will still tend to stop anyway if there are other road users nearby who I think may be confused if I don't).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I've often wondered why people think that breaking laws involved in motoring is acceptable when they wouldn't dream about breaking any other law?

In the case of speeding, I suspect it may be partly because it's so easy to break the speed limit unintentionally - and that means that drivers who start off intending to keep to speed limits can quickly and completely unintentionally become accustomed to breaking those limits - and then it's quite easy to get into a frame of mind of 'well I've gone beyond the speed limit lots of times and nothing bad has happened. So I may as well carry on'. This is in contrast to most illegal things (such as shoplifting), where you normally have to make a conscious and deliberate effort to do the illegal action - which is a big thing if you've never broken that particular law before - and that puts up a psychological barrier to keep people within the law.

I'm sure there's also a thing with traffic laws where people convince themselves that they are not harming anyone else and it's therefore OK to break the law (Which is kinda where I'm at in my previous post on cycling and red lights, though I'd argue that I have seriously thought it through very carefully - which I suspect most of those motorists who speed have not done)

 

[Busaholic]

Here's an acceptable one, moving slowly and carefully through a red light to allow an ambulance to get past.

I'd think almost everyone would agree with that, but an unfortunate motorist in Plymouth caught on camera doing that a few years ago got convicted and fined. Needless to say, the motorist's name wasn't David Beckham. Sometimes the law can be an ass, or, rather, its application can be. The West Midlands Chief Constable admits his coppers have better things to do than arrest people with a bit of cannabis, but when a mother trying to help prevent her 9 year old daughter having recurrent epileptic fits brings medicinal cannabis, proven to be a huge benefit, through Customs it gets impounded.

 

[big all]

ok never been a car driver so motoring not applicable
being a bit skint and avoiding some payments well yes being in abject poverty and struggling then yes and now being in reasonable comfort then never ever
we all have our own moral compass where we justify our own actions as acceptable because off our situation where as in fact we are still bending the rules at minimum up to stealing
now i have a fairly good moral compass buuuut i still looked for ways to save money yes stealing but in my mind not to bad early 70s priv return to east croydon then priv underground vic and back to waterloo eastern
route would be reigate to clapham and trainspot for quite a while then up to vic and via overbridge to unmanned barriers the underground priv about 30p ???on to usually stratford for some hours and back to waterloo now in my head that was reasonable action but off course it was stealing

 

[radamfi]

Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Is it better to be illegal and alive, or legal and dead?

 

[alxndr]

Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Is it better to be illegal and alive, or legal and dead?

That's a good one. Where I lived there was a choice of four less than ideal options to cycle to work:

1. Cycle down a bit of dual carriageway (albeit 40mph)
2. Cycle the wrong way down a one way street
3. Cycle on the pavement of the one way street
4. Walk that stretch

I did option 1 once, found it terrifying and never tried again. Of the remaining options I tended to alternate depending on the time of day, level of traffic and amount of flytipping cluttering up the pavement. Early in the morning or late at night I tended to chance cycling, at other times the most I'd do would was cycling until I'd caught up with pedestrians and then jump off and walk. What felt morally okay fluctuated daily though.

 

[underbank]

I personally usually feel comfortable on a bicycle treating red lights as meaning 'give way' rather than 'stop'. And I do seriously think it's ridiculous that the law that tells cyclists to stop even if they can see that it is clear and safe to proceed, and that doing so won't inconvenience anyone else. (Although I will still tend to stop anyway if there are other road users nearby who I think may be confused if I don't).

That applies to motorists too though. Quite common for motor vehicles to have to stop at traffic lights when it's clear there's no need,such as when at a pedestrian crossing where someone has pressed the button but crossed before the lights have changed or at a quiet junction where you can see there are no vehicles coming from elsewhere. If it's ok for bikes to treat traffic lights as give way, then why not other vehicles too?

 

[ComUtoR]

If you have an abusive Husband. Is it ok to murder them ?

 

[transmanche]

If it's ok for bikes to treat traffic lights as give way, then why not other vehicles too?

As a cyclist and a motorist, I can say that you have a much better awareness of what is around you on a bicycle than when in a car.

There are only a couple of locations where I would consider going through a red light on a bike. They are both pelican crossings on an uphill incline - to avoid loss of momentum. On a bike, I can clearly see all around me that there are no pedestrians in the vicinity of the crossing. Whereas in a car, not only would I be travelling faster, but I have plenty of blind spots (e.g. pillars) which could hide an approaching pedestrian.

 

[Adsy125]

The problem is, while everyone thinks there knowledge of what's going on around them is great, it often isn't. I have almost been hit by a cyclist running a red light, who clearly thought the same way as you.