4 ms·
Fucking logical pedants. Less not stopped is logical and correct if you consider the individual. If you read the comment again, it does not exclude other drive
by gouranga 14y ago
Fucking logical pedants.
Less not stopped is logical and correct if you consider the individual. If you read the comment again, it does not exclude other drivers so the logic is correct. The comment was not inclusive.
Perhaps I should clarify: "If you don't apply the one size fits all rules, you will increase the number of deviants."
Now there is a logical fallacy there for you to ponder...
Happy now?
bangs head on wall
- mseebach 14y agoYou seem to assume that the only reason people stop for red light is the law. Considering that plenty of non-lighted intersections exist and people behave reasonably in them, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.
- gouranga 14y agoNo the only reason people stop is that they read the highway code and therefore agreed a set of conventions to work with other people. The law (Road Traffic Act 1988+) is the enforcement of such a thing and is a separate problem. With regards to other "intersections", in the UK where the They have give way lines across the front of the junction so they are "controlled" as well. When they are not controlled, it is carnage as the numerous bits of missing car brushed to the side of the road demonstrate (look carefully).
- mseebach 14y agoThe reason people read the highway code is because it's describing what the law is. It's meaningless to treat the highway code and the law separately. I believe that the vast majority of people behave in traffic, not out of reverence to a book, but because they want to arrive at their destination safely and without having hurt other people. Wrt. other intersections (not sure why that word needs scare quotes?), I live right next to a fairly busy one, and can see three others from my balcony, and I have so far failed to see any carnage.