Red light does not always mean stop

almillar

Chevrons - aren't you only allowed to drive on them if it is 'SAFE' to do so, which I take as a very different meaning to 'NECESSARY'?
Bit more on topic - I use traffic lights to cross a road every day on the way in and out of work where the red light is regularly ignored - if it's a particular junction, perhaps you could ask the police to sit there for a while? I don't think they can take people to court every time they receive a video...

Johnmcl7

I'm pretty sure if the drivers had been caught by a red light camera they would have been receiving penalty points or at least NIPs. Going by Pepipoo there's very few excuses accepted for crossing the stop line on a red light even when someone had crossed one to let an ambulance through.

John

Tilt

almillar wrote: »

I don't think they can take people to court every time they receive a video...

They can 'report' an offender if it clearly shows an offence being committed. It's then up to the CPS if it goes to court or not.

Not sure why so many people are having a dig at the OP here. I remember acouple of years ago that someone else was doing the same thing and captured a hit and run taking place where a pedestrian got run over. The guy with the dash cam followed the offending car and managed to stop it eventually and call the police. His footage ensured a successful prosecution. Had it not been for him, the offender may never of been traced.

My only criticism of the OP is him sounding his horn at the car(s) going through the red light.

Rotor

I'm with Derrick on this. there's too much poor and dangerous driving on the roads , I don't understand why some people think evidence should only be gathered by the police. Potentially catastrophic law breaking driving needs prosecuting whatever the source of the evidence.

Keep going derrick - we'll all be the safer for it!

derrick

almillar wrote: »

I don't think they can take people to court every time they receive a video...

They don't need to take them to court, a FP could be used if upon seeing video evidence of the offence they hold their hands up.

.

Bongles

almillar wrote: »

Chevrons - aren't you only allowed to drive on them if it is 'SAFE' to do so

Correct. All the road marking diagrams of hatchings and chevrons with a broken boundary say the same thing - you should not enter the hatched area unless you can see it's safe to enter. Presumably the OP assessed it was safe to enter. Unless that assessment was flawed, then he's perfectly entitled to enter the hatchings.

Tobster86

What do you do that is so beneficial to society that you feel you are in a position to make moral & legal judgements over others?

I really hope the next time you put a slight foot wrong the book is thrown well & truly in your face.

Sgt_Pepper_2

derrick wrote: »

They don't need to take them to court, a FP could be used if upon seeing video evidence of the offence they hold their hands up.

.

And if they don't?


Get your 'mate' to explain the system to you.

funnyguy

Good grief OP have you got any friends?Still I am sure you never drive over the speed limit at any time!

LincolnshireYokel

If any part of your vehicle crosses the solid white line at traffic lights after they have turned red, you commit a moving traffic offence, no grey area about it. There has indeed been a couple of cases where people moved over the line at red to allow emergency vehicles through and were prosecuted for it.