Traffic Light Camera's

Poppycat

I agree that in some cases traffic can flow much more easily without lights I have seen this many times, we get a lot of through traffic where I live since lights were put in on a nearby road. When lights don't work traffic is hardly backlogged and I have seen this in other places in my home town too.

I think part of the reason is people behave differently when there's a perceived danger when oncoming traffic approaches.

southernscouser

If you are over the line at any point during amber the camera will not flash even if you are still in the junction area as the lights turn red. They will only flash if you go over the line while they are red!

I'm not preaching (got 3 points myself :doh: ) but traffic lights do give you adequate time to brake as long as your not exceeding the speed limit. The time they stay on amber depends on the speed of the road you are on!

If you were driving within the speed limit and appropriate to conditions you should have had plenty of time to brake. Regarding the bloke behind up your backside, thats just life unfortunately and why we have car insurance! :rolleyes:

Sorry if that sounds really preachy, it wasn't meant to!

bargainboy

okay so lets presume taht all this is my own fault and i need to take the 3 points and fine what is the damage that 3 points will do to my insurance, when do i need to declare it and how long do they stay on my licence

Altarf

Bossyboots wrote:

Amber means get ready to stop

Incorrect -

"AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs01.htm

hilary1

bargainboy wrote:

okay so lets presume taht all this is my own fault and i need to take the 3 points and fine what is the damage that 3 points will do to my insurance, when do i need to declare it and how long do they stay on my licence

My OH had 3 points for speeding and it put the insurance renewal up by £17. Depends on your age etc I would imaging though.

roswell

Not really truethfull but you could advise that you felt threatened by the speed of the car behind you as you had already passed the point of no return (the line) you felt it safer to continue than to risk the lives of your passengers and the car behind you... knowing that there would a 3 second delay from the one set turning red to the other set turning amber .... then a further 3 seconds before it went green :-) and under the higway code amber means get ready before green shows not GO then go again ...

mclaren_2

Bossyboots wrote:

mclaren however stated twice that you would be charged with an offence if you stopped suddenly and someone hit you from behind which is not the case.

if you brake unnessessery then it is at your door the blame will be left at and therfor the dangerous driving charge will be aswell.

You are supposed to leave a 2 second gap, but if the car behind isnt, or the driver is new learner or what not, and smashes in to you, the blame, will most likly be at your door because you were the one in the wrong to brake so sharp and sudden for no good reason atall.

I know it sounds daft, but the law states if you brake suddenly and cause an unadvoidible accident then the blame will be at your door.

gregg1

Bossyboots wrote:

I have to say that's a new one on me. You cannot cause a car behind to crash into you. It is the responsibility of the driver behind to leave sufficient gap to stop just in case the car in front brakes suddenly which can happen for any reason, not just the changing of traffic lights.

I see your point. However, I think a driver has to take some responsibility when another car is driving too close to you. Although it is the ultimate responsibility of the car behind you I think there are precautions you can take to minimise the chance of them going into the back of you such as slowing right down. I usually give em a quick flash of my hazard lights, this works in a lot of cases and they drop back a bit.

I do sympathise with the OP but agree with some of the other posts. The simple fact of the matter is that any court will probably say that you MUST approach lights at a speed which will enable you to stop safely - I personally think it would probably be safer to brake and have a car go into the back of you than risk having a head-on by going over the lights. I can see in this case there seem to be some mitigating circumstances but still think the courts will not give way on this however unfair it may seem.

bargainboy

I would like to jump in here again although this has nothing to do with my OP. I actually know someone who is a crash scene investigator, he works independantly not for the police or insurance company's and if there is an argument about who is to blame for an accident then he is used to settle a claim ( although normally used for higher expense claims not just a fiat panda rearending a lada ) and he is very thorough on his checks and they include road surface, sun blindness, speed, condition of the vehicles in question etc, etc, etc. i am not saying that Mclaren is right or wrong but there is definatly more than just who hit who. and some of the comments on here seem to be a bit cut and dry about who's fault something is. as i dont work for an insurance company then i dont know the criteria for a CSI to get involved but if you don't know facts then it is hard to comment on what is right and what is wrong. Mc is training to become a policeman and therefor is defo in a better position than me to comment about this however if the given argument was something i was in the know about then i would expect people to at least listen to what i had to say he was only trying to give his advice. aswell as other folks advice on this post I have done some homework and now know that if the ticket comes through my door i will know how to tackle it and if there is nothing i can do then i will pay the consequences.
I am sure that all posts on this subject are genuine and none were meant to offend anyone but since we live in a democratic society we all have opinions and believe in what we believe in thats why it is the way it is.

ariba10

If someone runs into the back of another car it can not be the fault of the leading car in any shape or form.

It means that the car behind was too close to the one in front.