I'm in agreement with this.
I'm in agreement with this.
The thread title implies you're not stopping first (that's what "running a red" means to me).
I'm OK with a law that lets you proceed if you wait for it to trip and it won't. Of course, you have to wait - and not 5 seconds - a whole rotation seems fair.
You just know some asshat will abuse it and do a stop-and-go. And obviously, some other asshat will ride out in front of a car going through on a green. Darwin candidates will have a new excuse.
Maybe you should have to pass an IQ test and get special permission on your license to perform this tricky maneuver.
Yea, I heard about this a little while ago. Seems like a reasonable idea in specific circumstances. Nothing worse than getting stuck at a red light in suburbia late at night and a) having to wait for another car or b) pulling the old right-turn-u-turn-right-turn manoeuvre.
Far as I know we have that law here. I've done it a couple times. I think it's something like "if light doesn't change for 2 cycles" or something.
Going through redlight through a 3-way T:
it is very safe for the one traveling straight through the top of the "T" going straight against the top edge of the "T". All that person has to do is pay attention to the left for the oncoming left-turners (which is only "one" on-coming traffic direction to worry about). Almost like a roundabout concept that provides the "entering motorist" to pay attention to only one on-coming traffic direction.
A related redlight safety feature is to incorporate next to the signal light having a count down clock of when the light changes to red/green. That way, approaching traffic is aware and prepares themselves instead of playing the "simon says" game at the intersection. Redlight $cameras$ are NOT safety oriented!
Last edited by 4wheelsLESS; 02-08-2012 at 08:21 PM.
in a society with brains those counters might be useful. here they'll be used as count down timers for street racing.
"Honda = Boring, Suzuki = Wannabes, Yamaha = Poser, Ducati = Overated, BMW = Compensating, Aprilia = Insecure, Buell = BCIT business... go faKOffee." - PUREVIL
I have proceeded through red lights that just wouldn't change for me.
I cant pretend to know how all systems work to tell when someone is waiting for a light. What I can tell is that sometimes my bike just can't set one to change.
"Aw fuck what the hell have I done!!!! Fuck me that's going to be hell hard to keep on top of wtf is going on!!!"
It's an electromagnetic sensor, fucking retards. I can't believe a law was passed based on a theory that the sensors are set off by weight. Fail.
Also, the 2 light rule exists in BC.
Unless you've got some source outside of the MVA, I can't find anywhere that says it's currently legal to pass through an intersection with a red light that has stayed red for two cycles or more... could you point it out if I've missed it?
The only argument I think you could make is under Section 125.1 (1) where it says you must come to a stop if the signal is inoperative. It doesn't define inoperative so you might be able to assume that the signal is inoperative if it hasn't changed for two cycles... but that's probably a stretch.
My point was that there's no specific rule stated anywhere that I can find. As K-rod eluded to, you can go ahead and define what "inoperative" means to you so long as you get the traffic court judge to agree.