Red light does not always mean stop

anotherbaldrick

Dave_C wrote: »

From the highway code:


Dave.

Who is drafting legislative documents these days ? That is a complete travesty of the English language.

neilmcl

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Was that the driving over hatchings in the first clip or the use of horn other than as a warning of his presence in the second?

Driving over broken chevrons is perfectly within the law when turning right. Incidentally OP what camera are you using?

Joe_Horner

neilmcl wrote: »

Driving over broken chevrons is perfectly within the law when turning right. Incidentally OP what camera are you using?

Not true. the meaning of chevrons with a broken border is that you shouldn't enter it unless it's necessary and it's safe to do so.

Note that the word is "necessary", not "convenient". Saving yourself queuing for a couple of car lengths at a junction doesn't fall into any definition of "necessary" that I've ever seen!

photome

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not true. the meaning of chevrons with a broken border is that you shouldn't enter it unless it's necessary and it's safe to do so.

Note that the word is "necessary", not "convenient". Saving yourself queuing for a couple of car lengths at a junction doesn't fall into any definition of "necessary" that I've ever seen!

I thought he was wrong but taken from a learner driver website


When turning right you can enter a broken white line chevron if you feel by not doing so you would stop the traffic flow from behind.

rev_henry

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not true. the meaning of chevrons with a broken border is that you shouldn't enter it unless it's necessary and it's safe to do so.

Note that the word is "necessary", not "convenient". Saving yourself queuing for a couple of car lengths at a junction doesn't fall into any definition of "necessary" that I've ever seen!

Don't think there is any definition of necessary. We've had this before talking about overtaking on chevrons.

Unbelievable how long after it turned red some people on the vids went through. Put the reg numbers in the title/keywords, they might find it.

Joe_Horner

photome wrote: »

I thought he was wrong but taken from a learner driver website


When turning right you can enter a broken white line chevron if you feel by not doing so you would stop the traffic flow from behind.

If the right lane was on a separate light phase after "ahead" then fair enough - when there's a queue moving onto the hatching allows traffic ahead to use their green light. That doesn't apply in the video though, seeing as ahead and right turn are on the same phase of the lights, so it's the lights that are stopping (or not) all traffic

RH, I know it's been done to death and have no wish to start that hwole discussion again but, in this case and with those light timings, claiming necessity is stretching things by any definition

As for how long after the change, I agree and I'm not for one minute defending the light jumpers.

My point was only that the video doesn't appear to be of a quality that could be used in court when both of those amber phases could be as little as 1/3 of the prescribed length thanks to the video's failure to resolve the colours or even which individual lights were lit until a few seconds before the cars passed them.

It'd be a waste of money and court time to try and establish "beyond reasonable doubt" that it wasn't a faulty light sequence and that trying to stop on the wet / greasy road would have been more dangerous than passing the red based on that footage.

Contacting the drivers concerned for info and (hopefully) waking them up a little is probably the best outcome to be hoped for in this case.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It'd be a waste of money and court time to try and establish "beyond reasonable doubt" that it wasn't a faulty light sequence and that trying to stop on the wet / greasy road would have been more dangerous than passing the red based on that footage.

It's an offence to cross on red whatever the road conditions.

Hintza

Oh dear I thought everyone had learnt not to post videos of them complaining about other drivers after we all had a good laugh at strider's expense a year or so ago.

Dave_C_2

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Who is drafting legislative documents these days ? That is a complete travesty of the English language.

IANAL, but as I understand it legislative documents do not have to be written in good English, more written in such a manner as to prevent ambiguity or loopholes.

Dave

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

It's an offence to cross on red whatever the road conditions.

Agreed, although if those amber phases were short (which the prosecution's video suggests, M'lud) then it could be argued that the lights were not of the "prescribed size, colour and type" as is required for the offence.

It would also be possible to attempt a defence of necessity if stopping posed an objective likelihood of serious injury, which might be the case with a short amber phase on a slippery road.

Although necessity has long been held as being no defence in English law (going back to at east the mid-1700s), this has changed somewhat over the past few decades and has been successfully applied in motoring cases such as driving while disqualified. Afaik no-ones tried it for a traffic light violation but the possibility exists.

If the drivers in the first video had been driving at a sensible speed for the conditions before the lights started to change, the chances are that they could have stopped anyway. But it would be interesting to try - not sure how your own culpability for the danger that creates necessity would affect the defence itself?