Acceptable Law Breaking (and other morality questions)

[Mutant Lemming]

I wonder how many would adhere to a law that they felt fundamentally flawed - such as South Africa's segregation laws under apartheid or dispossessing Jewish people of their property under Nazi laws ?

 

[ComUtoR]

I wonder how many would adhere to a law that they felt fundamentally flawed

As with all laws. If you are benefiting from it then you would support it.

 

[transmanche]

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.

How can you be sure that he 'clearly thought the same way' as me? He might have been one of those people who cycle without paying attention (e.g. listening to music on headphones, or playing with their phone) or one of those people who cycle too fast (and was unable to stop). Or they might have just been a ****...

 

[Adsy125]

How can you be sure that he 'clearly thought the same way' as me? He might have been one of those people who cycle without paying attention (e.g. listening to music on headphones, or playing with their phone) or one of those people who cycle too fast (and was unable to stop). Or they might have just been a ****...

All true, but I mean he decided to run the light

 

[baz962]

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).

You could in fact then extend it to motor vehicles. In the States at most junctions you can turn right on a red ( equivalent of turning left here in the UK ) so you turn with the traffic , but not cross over it. If it's a junction where you cannot turn on red , it has signs indicating that you cannot. You can also u turn at many lights too.

 

[radamfi]

In the Netherlands, cycles can often turn right when there is a segregated cycle path, as it simply continues around the corner uninterrupted. You just have to give way to bikes coming from the left.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You could in fact then extend it to motor vehicles. In the States at most junctions you can turn right on a red ( equivalent of turning left here in the UK ) so you turn with the traffic , but not cross over it. If it's a junction where you cannot turn on red , it has signs indicating that you cannot. You can also u turn at many lights too.

In principle, I think you're right that there are place where it may make sense for 'red light' to mean 'give way' for all traffic. I suspect it would still be far fewer places than would work for cycles: Cycles are much more manoeuvrable and can often edge out along the kerb to see if the way is clear, without getting in the way of anyone else: Cars just can't do that because they are too big.

For what it's worth, I'm not keen on the 'turn left/right on red' thing as in my experience it often causes issues for pedestrians - most obviously, if there's a pedestrian crossing just beyond the junction which if you're turning you can't see until you're virtually on top of it it. And for pedestrians on the crossing, it means that cars can appear out of nowhere while they are actually crossing. That would be OK if those cars were going slowly and expecting to give way, but in my experience in the US, usually they are coming round the corner as fast as they possibly can.

Back to the subject of this thread: There is some interesting psychology in that when I'm driving, I would basically never dream of breaking the highway code in normal circumstances - and certainly would not go through a red light. But when I'm cycling, my attitude is much more one of, being considerate to all other road users (and to be clear, when cycling, I'm very often shocked by the way other cyclists happily just cut up anything in their path), but at the same time proceeding if it's safe/considerate to do so, regardless of what the law and the highway code says. On reflection, I think that's partly because of a perception that the highway code and much of the road network has been designed around the needs of motorists, without any thought for cyclists, and often very little thought for pedestrians: From the point of view of a cyclist, much of traffic law is just a complete ass which doesn't really deserve much respect. I think the lesson for this thread is that, to be generally respected and obeyed, the law needs to be seen as fair and relevant: To be seen as morally worthy of respect.

 

[whhistle]

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

If GTR are aware and they don't fix the problem, then it shouldn't be your problem.
They're effectively sanctioning you to have a free journey.


Another good morally right question:

Went to Asda.
Bought something from the reduced section - label said £2.48. It scanned as £2.09.

 

[whhistle]

Another question is finding money.

I'm sure I've read people here saying they'd hand in £10 if found on the sreet.
Others said they'd hand in £100 or more but not less.
Others still evaded the answer and said it depended on what circumstances (IE, was the money in a wallet, a case, freshly bundled notes....).

But then I've been in lost property situations before where the finder member of public didn't want to hand it to the member of staff at the leisure facility I was at because they didn't trust them. I found that utterly bizarre!

 

[whhistle]

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).

Would you say it's acceptable for cars too then?
Not challenging you, just interested in your point of view

(As a side note, I wish most lights between 11pm and 5am (or similar) would be flashing yellow. There's hundreds if not thousands of junctions that could be "proceed with caution", which would help everyone. I mean, when traffic lights stop working, people manage okay.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would you say it's acceptable for cars too then?
Not challenging you, just interested in your point of view

No, I would say that the law on red lights is generally appropriate for cars because of the nature of cars: Huge metal boxes that are designed to keep the people driving them as safe as possible, while at the same time easily able to kill loads of people outside them, if driven inappropriately. And often giving somewhat restricted visibility to the person driving them.

I would see cyclists as being rather more comparable to - say - someone running fast. Obviously not quite the same, but much closer in nature to a runner than to a car - and I would say the law really ought to reflect that. Almost no-one would see anything wrong with a person on foot running past a red light (at least in the UK).

(As a side note, I wish most lights between 11pm and 5am (or similar) would be flashing yellow. There's hundreds if not thousands of junctions that could be "proceed with caution", which would help everyone. I mean, when traffic lights stop working, people manage okay.)

I'm inclined to agree with you there. I think the law on red lights is appropriate to cars, but red lights are used too often at quiet times when they are not needed - and that just slows everyone down.

 

[EM2]

Another good morally right question:

Went to Asda.
Bought something from the reduced section - label said £2.48. It scanned as £2.09.

Immaterial.
In law, any price displayed is an 'invitation to treat'. You, as the customer, may offer less than that if you wish, but the retailer is under no obligation to accept the offer.
Conversely, if the price displayed is not one that the retailer is willing to sell for, then they don't have to, but crucially, MUST remove the item from sale until the price displayed is one that they will accept.

 

[GB]

No, I would say that the law on red lights is generally appropriate for cars because of the nature of cars: Huge metal boxes that are designed to keep the people driving them as safe as possible, while at the same time easily able to kill loads of people outside them, if driven inappropriately. And often giving somewhat restricted visibility to the person driving them.

I would see cyclists as being rather more comparable to - say - someone running fast. Obviously not quite the same, but much closer in nature to a runner than to a car - and I would say the law really ought to reflect that. Almost no-one would see anything wrong with a person on foot running past a red light (at least in the UK).

Cyclists can reach speeds of 20+mph and have proven to cause serious injury and death when coming into contact with pedestrians....they can also cause damage to property in the event of a collision so I do not think its at all appropriate to allow cyclist to ignore red lights.

 

[tsr]

I'm inclined to agree with you there. I think the law on red lights is appropriate to cars, but red lights are used too often at quiet times when they are not needed - and that just slows everyone down.

Totally agreed, as someone who drives at all times of day and night. There are plenty of traffic lights which do nothing overnight except slow people down, cause pollution, delay urgent travel and add minutes to logistics operations.

I’d also be in favour of part-time speed limits on certain roads, permanently signed like a part-time bus lane (not like a Variable Speed Limit motorway). I think this would show the authorities are trying to permit a sensible speed at all times and encourage co-operation at times when drastic safety measures really are genuinely needed.

Eg. There are some roads where it is only reasonable to do 20mph maximum in daylight hours and especially the school run, but at school holiday times or in the middle of the night, the roads will be empty and 40mph would be a perfectly sensible speed. But they are 20mph at all times because there’s no mechanism to do otherwise (with the available infrastructure limitations). Equally, there are country roads where 60mph is fine in daylight but ludicrous after dark.

 

[AM9]

Totally agreed, as someone who drives at all times of day and night. There are plenty of traffic lights which do nothing overnight except slow people down, cause pollution, delay urgent travel and add minutes to logistics operations.

I’d also be in favour of part-time speed limits on certain roads, permanently signed like a part-time bus lane (not like a Variable Speed Limit motorway). I think this would show the authorities are trying to permit a sensible speed at all times and encourage co-operation at times when drastic safety measures really are genuinely needed.

Eg. There are some roads where it is only reasonable to do 20mph maximum in daylight hours and especially the school run, but at school holiday times or in the middle of the night, the roads will be empty and 40mph would be a perfectly sensible speed. But they are 20mph at all times because there’s no mechanism to do otherwise (with the available infrastructure limitations). Equally, there are country roads where 60mph is fine in daylight but ludicrous after dark.

There is an issue that pedestrians might be familiar with the road when it's speed limit is (say) 20mph yet be unaware that vehicles are approaching them at twice that speed at other times. It's fine on a motorway as all vehicles will be notified by actual illuminated signals, - in addition, there won't be any pedestrians crossing it either. It would be unreasonable to expect them to be aware of the vehicle speed limit at a specific time from fixed passive signs, and evidence of general abuse of road speed limits would indicate that typically, many drivers would consider that 23:35 would be near enough to midnight to give then licence to choose a higher speed than the road had been cleared for.

 

[Adsy125]

There is an issue that pedestrians might be familiar with the road when it's speed limit is (say) 20mph yet be unaware that vehicles are approaching them at twice that speed at other times. It's fine on a motorway as all vehicles will be notified by actual illuminated signals, - in addition, there won't be any pedestrians crossing it either. It would be unreasonable to expect them to be aware of the vehicle speed limit at a specific time from fixed passive signs, and evidence of general abuse of road speed limits would indicate that typically, many drivers would consider that 23:35 would be near enough to midnight to give then licence to choose a higher speed than the road had been cleared for.

As well as the fact that a car going at 40mph, in the dark, round a bend is less likely to be seen by a pedestrian, and the chances go from 10% ish to 90% ish of dying between the speeds.

 

[Bevan Price]

As a pedestrian, I have have twice been hit by idiot cyclists emerging from side roads or garden paths without checking to see if their way was clear.
I have also been a bus passenger when a cyclist came out of a side road at full tilt - into the side of the bus. (Fortunately he seemed to suffer nothing worse than concussion.)
As a driver, I have narrowly avoided running into a cyclist riding without lights - in fog.
All too regularly, I have seen cyclists using the busy pedestrian areas of the local bus station.
So, I do not have a high opinion about most cyclists. Far too high a proportion of cyclists seem to think that laws only apply to everybody else.

As a driver, I have always tried to stick to speed limits, because I had better things to do with my money than waste it on speeding fines; inevitably I have sometimes exceeded the limit occasionally by a few mph whilst overtaking, etc.

 

[Typhoon]

Another good morally right question:

Went to Asda.
Bought something from the reduced section - label said £2.48. It scanned as £2.09.

Besides the legal argument put forward by em2 , in my experience it is more likely to work the other way and I am queuing at customer services to get my money back for items for which I have paid a higher than advertised price (and this assumes I have noticed).

 

[bramling]

As a pedestrian, I have have twice been hit by idiot cyclists emerging from side roads or garden paths without checking to see if their way was clear.
I have also been a bus passenger when a cyclist came out of a side road at full tilt - into the side of the bus. (Fortunately he seemed to suffer nothing worse than concussion.)
As a driver, I have narrowly avoided running into a cyclist riding without lights - in fog.
All too regularly, I have seen cyclists using the busy pedestrian areas of the local bus station.
So, I do not have a high opinion about most cyclists. Far too high a proportion of cyclists seem to think that laws only apply to everybody else.

As a driver, I have always tried to stick to speed limits, because I had better things to do with my money than waste it on speeding fines; inevitably I have sometimes exceeded the limit occasionally by a few mph whilst overtaking, etc.

Ah, cyclists, the concept that everyone seems to have an opinion on. As with all things in life, it’s *people* that are the problem.

 

[Bevan Price]

As a pedestrian, I have have twice been hit by idiot cyclists emerging from side roads or garden paths without checking to see if their way was clear.
I have also been a bus passenger when a cyclist came out of a side road at full tilt - into the side of the bus. (Fortunately he seemed to suffer nothing worse than concussion.)
As a driver, I have narrowly avoided running into a cyclist riding without lights - in fog.
All too regularly, I have seen cyclists using the busy pedestrian areas of the local bus station.
So, I do not have a high opinion about most cyclists. Far too high a proportion of cyclists seem to think that laws only apply to everybody else.

Ah, cyclists, the concept that everyone seems to have an opinion on. As with all things in life, it’s *people* that are the problem.

That is why I wrote "MOST" cyclists.
There are some safe, sensible ones - but far too many seem to be careless, or negligent, or silly and more than a few are downright stupid (or incompetent.)
On a night journey some years ago, I did a quick personal survey. Only about 10% of cyclists had adequate lighting. Another 20 - 25% had some lights, but not really bright enough for them to be seen clearly. Over 60% had no lighting at all. I would hardly describe that as safe & sensible.

 

[radamfi]

In Britain and other uncivilised countries, "cyclist" is a derogatory term because most people have been scared away from cycling because of traffic. In the Netherlands, for example, the term "cyclist" is synonymous with "person".

 

[ComUtoR]

In Britain and other uncivilised countries,

Are you implying that Britain is 'uncivilised' ?

 

[al78]

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.

Ah yes, the 40 mph club, endemic in the SE. The worst of the bunch join a motorway at 40 mph whilst the driver stuck behind them wonders if they can to get up to speed and join ahead of the two HGV's approaching from the rear in lane 1.

 

[al78]

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

False dichotomy. I'm quite happy being legal and alive.

 

[al78]

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.

Not just that, motor vehicles are far more dangerous to third parties than bicycles, so it is not appropriate to have the same regulations for both types vehicles. The consequence of making a mistake riding a bicycle is mostly the cyclist coming a cropper. The consequence of making a mistake when driving is the possibility of killing someone.

I do obey traffic signals, but I can sometimes sympathise with cyclists who don't. In Horsham, I have to deal with a set of lights which nearly always goes amber-red when I am 100 meters away. This results in me having to wait for the full cycle of the lights before setting off, by which time I have a queue of motorists behind me, all eager to get through the next lights 200 meters ahead which have a sub 10-second green phase.

 

[GB]

Not just that, motor vehicles are far more dangerous to third parties than bicycles, so it is not appropriate to have the same regulations for both types vehicles. The consequence of making a mistake riding a bicycle is mostly the cyclist coming a cropper. The consequence of making a mistake when driving is the possibility of killing someone.
.

As I have already said, cyclist have the ability to kill or injure pedestrians, they also have the ability to cause damage to property. Yes cyclists may come off worse most of the time but thats not really the point is it...I don't wan't to be involved in an accident even if it isn't my fault. The rules are there for everyones safety.

 

[al78]

Cyclists can reach speeds of 20+mph and have proven to cause serious injury and death when coming into contact with pedestrians....they can also cause damage to property in the event of a collision so I do not think its at all appropriate to allow cyclist to ignore red lights.

Number of people killed by cyclists: one every four years on average.

Number of people killed by motor vehicles: well over 1,000 per year.

Trying to equalise the two modes of transport in terms of risk to others is absurd.

 

[al78]

As I have already said, cyclist have the ability to kill or injure pedestrians, they also have the ability to cause damage to property. Yes cyclists may come off worse most of the time but thats not really the point is it...I don't wan't to be involved in an accident even if it isn't my fault. The rules are there for everyones safety.

They theoretically have the ability but very rarely do. When they do, it is front page news because it is so extreme. When a motorist kills someone, it might make a smal;l paragraph in a national newspaper if it were a light news day. This is why cyclists are not legally obliged to have third party insurance, because on a population scale they pose such a low risk to life and property.

 

[al78]

As a pedestrian, I have have twice been hit by idiot cyclists emerging from side roads or garden paths without checking to see if their way was clear.
I have also been a bus passenger when a cyclist came out of a side road at full tilt - into the side of the bus. (Fortunately he seemed to suffer nothing worse than concussion.)
As a driver, I have narrowly avoided running into a cyclist riding without lights - in fog.
All too regularly, I have seen cyclists using the busy pedestrian areas of the local bus station.
So, I do not have a high opinion about most cyclists. Far too high a proportion of cyclists seem to think that laws only apply to everybody else.



That is why I wrote "MOST" cyclists.
There are some safe, sensible ones - but far too many seem to be careless, or negligent, or silly and more than a few are downright stupid (or incompetent.)
On a night journey some years ago, I did a quick personal survey. Only about 10% of cyclists had adequate lighting. Another 20 - 25% had some lights, but not really bright enough for them to be seen clearly. Over 60% had no lighting at all. I would hardly describe that as safe & sensible.

So you saw them, what's the problem? They are compromising their own safety, and it is them that cops it if a driver fails to see them. This is the key again, if a cyclist does something stupid, it is nearly always the cyclist who takes the consequence. If a motorist does something stupid, it is frequently an innocent third party that cops it.

I strongly suspect your experiences have clouded your judgement and resulted in confirmation bias i.e. you subconsciously and selectively remember anything that supports your opinion, and reject anything that contradicts it.

I was nearly killed by a careless driver four years ago, still got the brain damage (thankfully not debilitating), extremely lucky to get away with it given at my worst I was three days from having the life support switched off. That experience does not mean I hold a low opinion of motorists, because I think logically, not emotionally, and know that it was a freak event that statistically is very unlikely to happen, and most drivers on the road are reasonable. It seems to be sadly typical that any whinge abouit cyclists turns out to be an issue of them-and-us, demonisation of a minority group, rather than any sort of logical objective analysis. I really don't get why others feel the need to put people in groups, and slap negative labels on them based on the worst examples of their peers.

 

[fowler9]

First off my father has been driving for fifty years and never had a point on his licence, sticking to the speed limit is not that hard.

Second there are plenty of irresponsible cyclists, despite that you are still very unlikely to be killed or even seriously injured by one.

Third I was nearly hit by a car on the way home from work who was speeding and didn't indicate that he was turning in to the road I was crossing. He leaned on the horn and he stopped being a tough guy when I leaned on his bonnet and shouted at him to use his indicators.

Forth I am just about to leave the house and know I will have to walk on the road to get to the station because of two cars parked on the pavement.

All of these things are illegal but are treated in a bizarre way by motorists who think they know best. Yes pedestrians and cyclists do stupid things but who is more likely to die.