| General > General Technical Chat |
| Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license |
| << < (37/63) > >> |
| MarkS:
Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket. |
| retrolefty:
--- Quote from: MarkS on July 01, 2017, 01:41:24 am ---Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket. --- End quote --- Well as I stated before the policeman at my traffic class said entering the intersection during a yellow does NOT result in a ticket, even if the light changes to red while still in the intersection. He was quite adamant about this law, at least here in California. |
| orin:
--- Quote from: retrolefty on July 01, 2017, 03:57:08 am --- --- Quote from: MarkS on July 01, 2017, 01:41:24 am ---Yes. Many municipalities have a law staying something to the effect of, "Traffic in the intersection has the right to clear before other traffic can proceed." Running a yellow light, i.e., entering the intersection on yellow can result in a ticket. --- End quote --- Well as I stated before the policeman at my traffic class said entering the intersection during a yellow does NOT result in a ticket, even if the light changes to red while still in the intersection. He was quite adamant about this law, at least here in California. --- End quote --- I agree. It should be obvious that entering an intersection on yellow (assuming not accelerating as discussed before) cannot result in a ticket. Otherwise, a municipality could issue a ticket if you entered an intersection one millisecond after the light changed... so where do you draw the line? One second, two seconds? In any sane jurisdiction, it is when the light turns red, and the delay between yellow and red is sufficient for someone with a normal reaction time to stop. FWIW, in WA USA, last time I looked at the law, the yellow is merely a warning that the light is going to turn red. You must stop whenever facing (whatever that means) a red light. Of course, IANAL and you should consult a lawyer to interpret exactly what the law means... you could well be surprised. |
| MarkS:
Sorry, I was replying on 4 hours sleep. I totally misread your post. In my experience, at least in the places I've lived, running a yellow light can be considered the same as running a red. It depends on the municipality. |
| T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: Corporate666 on June 30, 2017, 11:47:28 pm ---News flash - yellow lights are not "quick, get through before it goes red" lights, they are supposed to give drivers an opportunity to slow down before they turn red. There are two types of drivers in my many years of driving experience. The type that notice a yellow light and, if they have time to decelerate at a reasonable rate of speed, will slow down and come to a stop. The second type will accelerate and try to get through the light before it turns red - often and usually crossing the line after the light has gone red already (and another car behind them does the same). This second driver is the one who is loud and outspoken about comparative delays between yellow lights and the vileness of red light cameras. --- End quote --- I am not an outspoken or aggressive type driver, but a yellow light of unsafe and unjust duration will get noise from me. I've been ticketed by an automatic system before. In fact, I pulled up safely to a red light, making a complete stop, looked both ways, proceeded into the intersection and conducted a lawful right turn. Sometimes, machines make mistakes, too. (Naturally, the totally opaque "appeal process" didn't go anywhere, and I had to pay the $100.) (Also, FWIW, this was a properly set up light, with yellows of reasonable duration for traffic.) The system is usually set up illegally, or very questionably legally, so that even if you wish to challenge the ticket in court, you cannot. It is a civil fine delivered by criminal law, or vice versa, or something bizarre like that. The fine is levied by a company, not the state; and there is no agent of the state present to witness the act, so there is no accuser. Because of the combined criminal and civil aspects, no civil or criminal court can conduct a proper hearing. You'd think such bizarre constructions would default to no charge. You'd be correct: but only after paying the $200+ of court fees to have a judge see it and decide (on a case-by-case basis, never escalating to a higher level that would achieve real change) that your ticket is void. The municipality still wins. --- Quote ---I travel a LOT in this country and I drive a LOT and I have never, ever, ever seen any intersection with a yellow that was such that a driver did not have sufficient time to recognize the yellow and slow at a perfectly reasonable rate of speed to a stop. I challenge anyone to point out that intersection - I wager it doesn't exist. The problem is people who want to beat the yellow but end up getting a ticket instead. --- End quote --- Just because you haven't driven through one, doesn't mean they don't exist. That just means you haven't seen them. Please check your selection bias before you generalize. I haven't seen them either, personally, but I know better than to boldly claim they don't exist. The OP provides such an example where illegal yellows are used to generate revenue! Tim |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |