wilddemon wrote:^ yeah agree. I think the root of this arrogance is "I'm right and refuse to be convinced otherwise". This unwavering stance is typical of what a lot of drivers think cyclists assume.
Now to take some acid and wait for xplora
I am fascinated that people think that they are unable to use a road and make good decisions without a sign, yet the presence of a sign completely changes that? Resting on the principle of negligence, you have certainly exercised your duty of care to your fellow citizens if you slow down long enough to check the area is safe to proceed into.
How many footpaths have static stop signs on them? Zero. Common sense dictates that you need to make up your own mind about proceeding on foot. I see value in different rules for faster vehicles, but only enough to ensure due care is taken... you aren't guaranteed to avoid an accident after stopping at a stop sign or a red light. End of the day, without witnesses and calibrated video evidence, you might still be hit by someone going through a red and have no recourse from the courts. Man and Policeman.... "but he ran the red"... "how can you prove it?"... "but he ran the red!"... "did you hear me?"
Darwin had a theory about people who are so inept that they cannot function in society safely. A signal is just that. It doesn't clear the intersection, people do.