Originally Posted by
atbman
In full agreement
In general agreement, but traffic law consists of various sets/subsets. The general set applies to all, e.g. drive on the right/left, depending on which country you're in; obey traffic signals and other signs within the law (Idaho right for cyclists to ignore signals, where safe, is a cyclist subset within Idaho) and all users can then be reasonably certain of how others will behave (inc. Idaho) assuming reasonable law-abiding behaviour on everyone's part.....
I basically agree, but live by the "no harm, no foul" rule.
For example, if I come to a red light and there's no traffic on the road, the only purpose served by waiting is adhering to the law and avoiding a possible fine. OTOH - if I proceed through, there's no harm to any other party and I'm like the tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear.
So, while man's laws provide a framework, I don't feel compelled to follow them when there's no other factor at play.
Every once I enjoy a comical moment when I'll pull up alongside a police car waiting at a red light. The officer will roll down the window and ask me why I'm waiting. (they've all seen me not waiting on a fairly regular basis).
So, thinking of NYC where the police periodically go on a bicycle enforcement binge, I have no objection at all if they cite bicyclists who speed through lights and/or crossing pedestrians. But I don't think any purpose is served when they cite bicyclists who slowly and safely proceed against the light through an empty intersection. Likewise I don't agree with citing bicyclists who slow but don't come to a full "toe down" stop at stop signs.
As I said, No harm, (should be) no foul.