site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   3385 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 25, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That’s insane.

I’m always going on yellow. On an incredibly rare occasion the light turns red exactly as I head into the intersection.

This is perfectly logical and I assumed legal.

It’s either go on yellow or slam my brakes.

"is obligated to exercise reasonable care, which includes making reasonable observations for traffic traveling on an intersecting street".

That makes zero sense. Unless you’re literally running the red light - short of slamming your brakes so hard that you’re burning rubber, this doesn’t make sense.

It's illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red.

Incorrect (in this state).

NJ Statutes tit. 39 ch. 4 § 105:

Amber, or yellow, when shown alone following green[,] means traffic[ is] to stop before entering the intersection or nearest crosswalk, unless when the amber appears the vehicle or street car is so close to the intersection that with suitable brakes it cannot be stopped in safety.

Nothing is said about exiting the intersection before the light turns red.

§ 67:

No vehicle or street car shall be permitted by the owner or driver thereof to so occupy a street as to interfere with or interrupt the passage of other street cars or vehicles, nor shall the driver of a vehicle or street car drive such vehicle or street car into an intersection if preceding traffic prevents immediate clearance of the intersection.

That means a motorist must exit the intersection before any other light turns green, not before his light turns red. A traffic signal normally will have an all-red clearance interval of two or three seconds, so the difference between these two definitions is far from negligible.

You're right, and I was mistaken about my state too.

The jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.

Entering an intersection on a yellow light is legal (in this state). But failing to brake when you have a yellow light and someone else illegally runs a red light in front of you may count as negligence.

Also, in this case, Russell specifically admitted that he didn't even consider whether he could safely stop at the yellow light.

Also, in this case, Russell specifically admitted that he didn't even consider whether he could safely stop at the yellow light.

Yeah it's more a case for "don't talk to cops" or at least "know what the law really says and don't openly admit to breaking it" which sometimes works OK for traffic cops.

"I was really close to the intersection as the light changed and didn't think I could safely stop in time, so I proceeded into the intersection at my current legal speed" is all you should ever say about entering an intersection on a yellow; "IDK IT ALL HAPPENED SO FAST OMG I CAN'T EVEN" would possibly be even better if you think you can pull it off.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats