WillCAD

Ummmm, you do know that not all traffic signals are at perfect 4-leg perpendicular intersections, right? You do understand that multi-leg intersections will always have more than one leg on the red phase at any given time, making it perfectly possible for two people on different legs to both run the run light at the same time? I'm not sure how you've never encountered an intersection with left turn arrows, or more than 4 legs, or 3 oddly-shaped legs that each have their own individual red/green phases. Besides - even a perfect perpendicular 4-leg intersection still has two legs red at the same time, exactly opposite each other, and it's still possible for people on both red legs to run the light and hit cross traffic or even each other.

RichardKenner

False.

There are many intersections (e.g., in south Florida) where there are three traffic patterns: only n/s traffic is moving, only e/w traffic is moving, and only two left turns are permitted. At those intersections, two of the three traffic patterns will both have red lights. (Plus, even with only two traffioc patterns, some lights are timed so both will be red for a short period.)

A very simple example: take the intersection I described above. It's in the "two left turn" mode. But there are no drivers making lefts turns at the moment. So a driver going north and a driver going west simultaneously decide to run the red light after they see the last turning driver go by and forget about each other. Both have run a red light and the accident occurred only because both did.

And then, of course, you have cases where only one person did run the red light, but the other person was speeding and the accident wouldn't have occurred if the other driver were able to stop in time.

No, the extremes are still A and B. The fact that you took position C didn't change the position of the people at either extreme.

First of all, you're assuming that there's some absolute "truth". In the sorts of social and political debates we're talking about, that's almost never the case. As to your second comment, it sounds like you're agreeing with me!

Carl Johnson

Well, depends on how you look at it. Analysis can be hard work. Just balancing between viewpoints is easier. If you care about truth, you do analysis, even if it yields an "extreme" position.

If you don't care so much about truth, balancing works fine.

I do admit that my earlier analysis didn't mirror yours. Let me try it again.

A and B, with C intermediate. C is obviously the correct position. OK, let's suppose that all the people who formerly advocated position B abandon it in favor of C. C is now wrong, because it's an extreme position, so the correct position is now D (until position C is abandoned in favor of D).

WillCAD

The number of people who accept a position has nothing to do with the extremity of the position. If everybody abandons B in favor of C, that doesn't change B to non-extreme and C to extreme. A and B are still the extremes, and C is still the moderate - only the population numbers have changed, but the positions haven't.