Richard Goodman deftly scribbled:
> "Not me, someone else" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
>
>> The reason we have lights is to give a clear indication to all users of that crossing, from
>> whatever direction, of a temporary right of way until the lights change again. If someone breaks
>> that right of way, then they are in the wrong, no matter whether they're a cyclist, motorist or
>> pedestrian ..
>>
>
> Not necessarily - emergency vehicles aren't restricted by the colour of the lights although of
> course they do tend to make a lot of noise, have flashing lights and sometimes proceed only very
> cautiously until they are sure the opposing traffic has stopped for them. If they do have an
> accident while doing all that it may be that it will be the other user, proceeding with the green
> light, that was in the wrong.
Actually emergency vehicles _are_ restricted to the laws of the land, but are given a dispensation
to proceed through a red light when they see it is safe and clear to do so ...
> The point is that colour codes are a poor indication of whether it is safe to proceed at an
> intersection or not -
That was part of my point .. while we have right of way due to a light colour at a crossing, this in
no way determines how _safe_ that crossing actually is. If some fool thinks it's clear and crosses
on red, the person crossing on green is still in the right, but may not actually be safe.
> apart from emergency vehicles of course other users do wrongly run the lights, but that fact that
> they were in the wrong will be of little consolation if it is a car doing it to a cyclist or ped.
> Green lights neither indicate safety to proceed nor do red lights necessarily mean it is unsafe.
That's what I was saying .. We have a clear indication of right of way. Some people choose to ignore
it, at their or others potential peril ..
--
Digweed
( Kona Explosif - sparkling 
