Llil said:
I never said you should blindly trust the traffic lights. Of course you should look around in case someone thinks it's okay not care about other cars and people.
So if there's nothing seriously wrong with your eyesight or hearing, making you perfectyl capable to both hear and see if a car is within a risky distance and traveling at a risky speed that might lead to an accident if you cross the road and disobey the traffic light, why are you still so dependant on those lights if you're on foot?
Llil said:
I'm advocating not breaking the rules when there's no reason to. It's just that "following the rules" and "not breaking the rules" usually mean the same thing.
I have a reason to. I might have an appointment that I can't miss, perhaps the mother of my potential child is delivering. Perhaps I just don't feel like waiting an unnecessarily long time for an overly-catious traffic light to change. So there's plenty of reasons to choose from. Take your pick.
A system of rules should be relied upon when it's actually needed. If it isn't, then there's no reason to rely upon it. It's that simple.
Llil said:
Maybe. Or maybe I just don't like when people don't do what's been agreed on. And I don't want to be the kind of person I dislike.
What do you mean "agreed on"? Was there some sort of meeting or assembly where all of us came together and decided that when the light is red you can't cross a road, even when there are no cars around. Because I sure wasn't invited. I've never agreed to anything of the sort, so do what kind of tangible reason do you really have for considering yourself to be "superior" to me just because you "follow the rules" even when the very purpose for those rules sometimes makes it redundant following them?
Llil said:
Oh, and by the way, you seem angry about this. I hope I haven't offended you. It's so easy to do, it seems.
My apologies.
No need to, since you're just reading too much into it. Im not angry or offended (it's pretty hard to upset me in any way or form actually), I just have a somewhat caustic and gruff demeanor which I was never presented with a good enough reason to change.
Llil said:
Then why is driving through red light any different? If you clearly see no-one's coming, then what's the problem?
Several reasons. First of all sitting in a car limits your senses to such a degree that you should be more careful when operating the vehicle in question. A windshield might seem useful, but it's placement and the way it is attached does limit your field of vision (especially to the sides of the car), your hearing of what goes on outside of the car is also limited.
I.e a pedestrian with normal hearing can usually HEAR a car coming long before it is within a potentially dangerous distance. A person driving a car however can pretty much never hear if a pedestrian is close to the vehicle because the vehicle shuts out exterior sounds.
Then you have to consider the fact that cars can be driven in speeds that the average human reactiontime has difficulties in coping with.
If im running using my legs, I can most likely come to a full stop if I see an obstacle in my way well before I actually collide with the obstacle in question.
Coming to a full stop with a car going at high speed however and avoiding a collision is severely more difficult.
To summarize: a driver's senses and perception of the world outside the car is severely limited as opposed to the pedestrian. Hence it's more logical of a driver to prioritize caution and following the trafficlights than it is for a pedestrian. Along with the fact that a car runs the risk of killing people in a way that a lone pedestrain could never do even by accident.