We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Driver Prosecuted Over Collision After Cyclist Jumps Red Light
Comments
-
Billy_Bullocks wrote: »Can you give a link to the legislation of failing to comply with an amber light?
Section 36(1): "Where a traffic sign ... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
Section 192 (1): “traffic sign” has the meaning given by section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192
and that act:
"In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64
Finally, section 36(1(e)) of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002:
"the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made0 -
Section 36(1): "Where a traffic sign ... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
Section 192 (1): “traffic sign” has the meaning given by section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192
and that act:
"In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64
Finally, section 36(1(e)) of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002:
"the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
Extreme blather :rotfl: Would that be "a driver or a cyclist" ?0 -
There is a defence to crossing the line on amber if it was impossible/unsafe to stop, but there is no defence for crossing the line on red.
(if any part of the vehicle crosses the line on red it is a slam dunk conviction, even if it is the rear bumper)I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science
)0 -
-
Billy_Bullocks wrote: »Go on then let's hear the three extra words that would cover it.
They are in the quote.0 -
Who are the brain donors that write this unadulterated guff? The whole blather could be written as "the amber light means stop unless it's unsafe to do so."
You are clearly not acquainted with British law, this sort of stuff is perfectly normal. It's what happens when you have a law and extend and edit it over and over and people are afraid to cut stuff out. It's why all these populists like Trump who promise to cut red tape and regulation will never succeed because it's almost impossible to make cuts without just getting rid of the entire law and rewriting it.
It's like how bikes are not covered under the road traffic act for speeding because the law only references motor vehicles.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
-
You are clearly not acquainted with British law, this sort of stuff is perfectly normal. It's what happens when you have a law and extend and edit it over and over and people are afraid to cut stuff out. It's why all these populists like Trump who promise to cut red tape and regulation will never succeed because it's almost impossible to make cuts without just getting rid of the entire law and rewriting it.
It's like how bikes are not covered under the road traffic act for speeding because the law only references motor vehicles.
I think you meant guff?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards