6 ms·

Hmm, I agree with between 50% to 66% of that: * "Assume good intentions" - fair enough :). I'll agree with that noble posture. * "Free to post without randos

Hmm, I agree with between 50% to 66% of that: * "Assume good intentions" - fair enough :). I'll agree with that noble posture. * "Free to post without randos commenting" - mmhm... if you don't want internet randos to comment, don't post it to internet randos. To a certain degree, the whole point of posting it to the intertubes rather than emailing it to close friends & family, is to reach internet randos :-/ * "Based on believing individuals should have the liberty to do what they want, as long as they aren't harming someone" - I fully agree in principle, but I also 100% believe that red forward lights are in fact "harming someone". As I pointed in a sibling comment, I don't believe that's a rule that's there for funzies. "Principle of least astonishment" is crucial in driving, and drivers have lifetime of reflexes based on "White lights are coming to me, red lights are moving away from me / braking". Can you imagine being on a lonely country two lane road, and then some red lights are coming your way in the opposite lane? Etc etc... scenarios are not difficult to figure out.

moron4hire 6y ago
It's also not difficult to figure out scenarios in which he would never use red lights on public roads, but might use them at private events, like shows. Given the lack of evidence that OP is an idiot, I'm going with the assumption that he's not going to run forward running red lights in public. I'm going to assume the only reason the color is changeable is to show off for fun. BTW, your paraphrasing of my comment on random commentators is a mischaracterization. I'm not talking about all random commentors. Just the ones who can't see past their noses far enough to know their criticism is not universal.