Red light jumping. Ok or not ?

[Andy_R]

It used to be against the law for blacks to sit at the front of the bus.

Pretty sure that was never the law in this country. As for RLJ...well let them. I don't but that's my choice. Perhaps you should only be allowed to RLJ if you're wearing a helmet

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If I'm reading that correctly, AFS stands with every law which is made. So if he was around in those days, he'll be a racist? Nice point.

That law has never existed in the UK. Actually this is the extent of racial segregation in England.


England
Segregation may have existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, restricting intermarriage and resulting in the displacement of the native British population by Germanic incomers.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-27[/sup] According to research led by the University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers enjoyed substantial social and economic advantages over Celtic Britons.[sup][29][/sup] However, Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes argue that there was no population displacement, as the Anglo-Saxons had relatively little genetic impact on England.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-29[/sup][sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-30[/sup] In 2002, the BBC used the headline "English and Welsh are races apart" to report a genetic survey of test subjects from market towns in England and Wales.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-31[/sup]

The Statutes of Kilkenny were a series of thirty-five acts passed at Kilkenny in 1366. They forbade the intermarriage between the native Irish and the English settlers in Ireland, the English fostering of Irish children, the English adoption of Irish children and use of Irish names and dress.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-32[/sup]

 

[ohnovino]

There's going to be hypothetical exceptions to pretty much any law you can think of.

The bulk of RLJs happen for no reason other than because the rider can't be bothered stopping, and that's wrong.

Now where's the quickest way out of this thread - I want to escape before it hits 50 pages

 

[Red Light]

I just wish everybody would stop talking about me as if I'm not here.

 

[Jezston]

Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.

The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.

The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?

 

[Theseus]

I just wish everybody would stop talking about me as if I'm not here.

You should feel flattered, people are talking about jumping you. You could be in for a long night.

 

[adds21]

Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.

The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.

The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?

+1

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.

The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.

The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?

I am pursuing it in the context of Road Traffic Offences. We are not (as far as I am aware) discussing morality but rather legality as such the law does define right from wrong. If we are discussing morality then I would still not break a law designed to provide safety to all (such as red lights).

I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example) but do so within the law.

 

[Buddfox]

+1

+2

 

[Buddfox]

I am pursuing it in the context of Road Traffic Offences. We are not (as far as I am aware) discussing morality but rather legality as such the law does define right from wrong. If we are discussing morality then I would still not break a law designed to provide safety to all (such as red lights).

I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example) but do so within the law.

Please read the question. It does not say "Is red light jumping against the law?", it says "Is red light jumping OK?"

So we are discussing morality, and not legality. So it is possible to think it's morally OK, even if it's illegal.

FWIW and in response to the first post, I thought the conjecture in the other post was that the majority of cyclists (not CC forum members) might believe that RLJ'ing is OK?

 

[rowan 46]

Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.

The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.

The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?

I have to agree legality and morality are different issues. The laws on homosexuality were wrong and there are laws which are grey areas even now. I don't think the red light laws are a bad law per se but having to stop at an empty ped crossing late at night is unnecessary. one can argue that unnecessary laws are an infringement of personal liberty and therefore bad. Blindly following a law because its the law is not in my opinion a good default position some awful things have happened by people doing that. The nuremburg trials defence of many was that they were following orders (consequently being lawful) its not good enough to say I follow the law whatever. You can quite justifiably argue that you agree with a law because ... but to argue that that one agrees with the law because it is the law gives too much power for the state to abuse if it so desires.

 

[wiggydiggy]

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Please read the question. It does not say "Is red light jumping against the law?", it says "Is red light jumping OK?"

So we are discussing morality, and not legality. So it is possible to think it's morally OK, even if it's illegal.

FWIW and in response to the first post, I thought the conjecture in the other post was that the majority of cyclists (not CC forum members) might believe that RLJ'ing is OK?

I do not think it is morally right to break a law that is designed to keep people safe. If it were against the law to travel on a bus if you were ginger then I would fight against it as it is clearly morally wrong.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I have to agree legality and morality are different issues. The laws on homosexuality were wrong and there are laws which are grey areas even now. I don't think the red light laws are a bad law per se but having to stop at an empty ped crossing late at night is unnecessary. one can argue that unnecessary laws are an infringement of personal liberty and therefore bad. Blindly following a law because its the law is not in my opinion a good default position some awful things have happened by people doing that. The nuremburg trials defence of many was that they were following orders (consequently being lawful) its not good enough to say I follow the law whatever. You can quite justifiably argue that you agree with a law because ... but to argue that that one agrees with the law because it is the law gives too much power for the state to abuse if it so desires.

Conversely to choose which laws you wish to obey is a step towards an Anarchic society. I may feel 70mph is too slow for motorway driving and elect the drive at 90mph. Is that morally valid? If we go down that path then laws become meaningless.

 

[Buddfox]

I do not think it is morally right to break a law that is designed to keep people safe. If it were against the law to travel on a bus if you were ginger then I would fight against it as it is clearly morally wrong.

Indeed - and I'm not questioning your right to believe it's morally wrong to jump a red light, just your conjecture that this thread is a post about legality (which formed the basis of one of your other arguments).