On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 03:41:51AM +1100, Ted Cooper wrote:
[...]
> Should we all just start running red lights now days? "Oh, that red
> light just means we should stop, but this road never has any traffic so
> I just run it" -- BAM!
I hope that the author does not actually believe that this
analogy actually has any bearing on the subject under
discussion, but since his other postings on this subject
suggest that there is a real risk that he does, here is
another which is actually illustrative.
Here in the UK many traffic lights are controlled by
sensors such as induction loops in the road. The idea is
that only if traffic is waiting at the light should it
turn green; otherwise there is no point in interrupting
traffic on the other road to which it controls access.
Often these sensors, while detecting cars and trucks OK,
are miscalibrated and do not detect smaller vehicles like
bicycles. A cyclist confronted with such a traffic light
has two options for passing it: wait until another vehicle
of greater inductance arrives and the light changes (which
may be a very long time late at night); or to ignore or
bypass it. Or, of course, to give up and go home, because
the RFC^W Highway Code identifies a red light as a
permanent error condition^W^W^W mandatory instruction to
stop.
What is the sensible thing to do here? Ted identifies the
third option as the correct answer, and we must all
respect his no doubt sincerely-held conviction in this
matter; and of course to hope that he never takes up
cycling in a part of the world with sensor-controlled
traffic lights. On the other hand no sane person would
behave like that. And so it is in other cases where a dumb
machine gives an instruction which is definitely wrong or
based on an incorrect premise.
--
``We paid $3 billion for these television stations.
We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is.''
(David Boylan, to journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson of Fox television)
