Red light jumping. Ok or not ?

[apollo179]

The choice of a yes option and a sometimes option is somewhat superfluous.
Nobody rljs all the time. Anyone who does rlj only rljs sometimes - ie - when it is safe to do so.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The choice of a yes option and a sometimes option is somewhat superfluous.
Nobody rljs all the time. Anyone who does rlj only rljs sometimes - ie - when it is safe to do so.

No it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means just that, Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances"

 

[gaz]

Are you sure about this? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

What evidence?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

What evidence?

Post changed Gaz. Brain not engaged a the mo

 

[apollo179]

No it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means just that, Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances"

So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
Surely that is a nonsensical option.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
Surely that is a nonsensical option.

I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).

 

[gaz]

I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).

That's generally why you write a little bit here to state why you choose the option you did.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That's generally why you write a little bit here to state why you choose the option you did.

Indeed Second cup of Tea. Brain starting to de-fuzz now

 

[Arch]

So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
Surely that is a nonsensical option.

I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.

It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.

 

[apollo179]

I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).

So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.

 

[Arch]

So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.

or, see my previous post (I think we cross posted).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.

One can be taken as "most of the time", the other "rarely". I'll leave you work out which is which.

 

[Oldbloke]

I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.

It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.

Sadly a lot more than a few, I can assure you.

 

[apollo179]

I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.

It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.

Agreed arch you can allways find extremes of any kind on behaviour that can be extrapolated to cast a cloud over the entirety.
For example dodgy charities set up for their own benefit discredit charities as a whole.
There are rljers who are indefensible - there are a majority of rljers who rlj in as responsible a way as possible.

 

[apollo179]

One can be taken as "most of the time", the other "rarely". I'll leave you work out which is which.

I cant see how society benefits from marginalising and criminalising people in this way.