 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / General Car Topics (UK group) / September 2007Traffic Lights Question .
Here is a post I was reading on a totally non-motoring Forum and wondered what the opinion in here might be . Stuart ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At many sets of traffic lights these days, there is a motor vehicle stop line, set back a few metres from the lights, then there is a green tarmac area for cyclists with another stop line level with the lights. Now let's say the lights were in the process of changing to red, but the back end of your vehicle passed the vehicle stop line before the lights actually showed red. Would you have technically gone through the lights on red, considering the stop line position? The reason I ask this, is because I've just watched "Traffic Cops" that was on BBC1 on Wednesday night. (5th Sept) They pulled up this woman who had done just that, emphasising that they were "making a point" about going through red lights. Even those cameras on traffic lights give you 1.5 seconds' grace for going through on red - which is quite a lot if you think about it. But, where the dual stop lines have been marked because of this "cycle area", the camera trigger loops have been moved to the vehicle stop line, which would lead me to believe that the motor vehicle stop line applies, not the cycle one. People have had nasty surprises in the post, because they crept forward into that cycle area. Maybe if that woman had been watching the slow-mo replay on this programme, she would have the grounds to contest the fixed penalty she was issued. Any clarification? > Here is a post I was reading on a totally non-motoring Forum and > wondered what the opinion in here might be . [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lights actually showed red. Would you have technically gone through > the lights on red, considering the stop line position? Assuming that you could not stop safely before the first ('vehicle') stop line before the red light was shown, passing that line is perfectly legal.If that happens, but you can stop before the second stop line level with the lights, motor vehicles should wait on the green tarmac. > The reason I ask this, is because I've just watched "Traffic Cops" > that was on BBC1 on Wednesday night. (5th Sept) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > applies, not the cycle one. People have had nasty surprises in the > post, because they crept forward into that cycle area. Creeping over the line on red is not allowed. If you stop safely before the first line, you should stay behind it while the red light shows. > Maybe if that woman had been watching the slow-mo replay on this > programme, she would have the grounds to contest the fixed penalty she > was issued. > > Any clarification? I missed the actually incident on TV. > Assuming that you could not stop safely before the first ('vehicle') > stop line before the red light was shown, passing that line is perfectly > legal.If that happens, but you can stop before the second stop line > level with the lights, motor vehicles should wait on the green tarmac. That makes perfect sense, but is that an "official" way, or just your POV? Chris  SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >> Here is a post I was reading on a totally non-motoring Forum and >> wondered what the opinion in here might be . [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > legal.If that happens, but you can stop before the second stop line > level with the lights, motor vehicles should wait on the green tarmac. The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop safely before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a traffic light turning red is not an unforeseeable event. If someone was tailgating then that may be a different problem. >> The reason I ask this, is because I've just watched "Traffic Cops" >> that was on BBC1 on Wednesday night. (5th Sept) They pulled up this [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I missed the actually incident on TV. I saw it, and I failed to notice anything other than 1 line. Truck in front passed on 'very' amber, car behind continued through with the light turning red quite a bit before it passed the line (well, the line I saw). Certainly enough time to have made an effort to stop. > The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop safely > before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a traffic > light turning red is not an unforeseeable event. If someone was > tailgating then that may be a different problem. In this country you don't get much time to on amber before red so you get people emergency stopping for the light, even if they could have gone through on amber. In germany you get significantly longer on amber so if you're already moving you can go through and otherwise you can come to a stop at a more leisurely rate. I'm sure there are more shunts at lights here than there are there. >> The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop safely >> before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a traffic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >can come to a stop at a more leisurely rate. I'm sure there are more >shunts at lights here than there are there. Where is "here"? It obviously isn't the UK, but where are you? SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager A bird in the hand can be messy. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop safely > before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a traffic > light turning red is not an unforeseeable event. It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, when you are one inch from passing the line. etc. >> The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop >> safely before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, > when you are one inch from passing the line. etc. Hence they display amber - giving you sufficient time to stop. If you're just about to cross the line when it turns amber, then you may not have time to stop - but, especially on 30mph roads, if you're a even short distance away when it turns amber then you should have time to stop. Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, then you are most likely travelling too fast or taking too long to react to the lights (lack of anticipation). I know one particular road around here which is a 50/60/70mph limit (can't remember exactly which but certainly quite fast) which has traffic lights on them - if you're travelling at the speed limit when the lights change, then it can be be very difficult to stop in time - hence I always anticipate that the lights may change and lift off a little until I'm at a point of no return (which should give me sufficient time to clear the line should it start to turn amber) Highway code says: "151: You MUST stop behind the white 'Stop' line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause an accident. 152: You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing." and back to the original question about advanced stop lines: "154: Advanced stop lines. Some junctions have advanced stop lines or bus advance areas to allow cycles and buses to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached, and should avoid encroaching on the marked area. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area." That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as both are marked as MUST. Would that be 2 fines + points, or just one? ;) In fact, this appears to be what Ken Livingstone is proposing £120 fine for stopping within the boxes... http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article2128011.ece Also see: http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2007/08/advanced-stop-line-update-from-les.html "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and fine to motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for cyclists behind the stop line at traffic lights. It seems that the reason that you never hear of anyone being prosecuted is because the police use their discretion, being that it is generally considered such an unreasonable law - expecting a motorist to get across what can sometimes be a distance of four metres or more between a traffic light going from amber to red." D >>> The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop >>> safely before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not have time to stop - but, especially on 30mph roads, if you're a even > short distance away when it turns amber then you should have time to stop. Define short distance, and restate your question. > Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light > to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, > then you are most likely travelling too fast or taking too long to react > to the lights (lack of anticipation). On busy roads there will generally be at least one car per phase which is unable to stop in those conditions, and none of those reasons apply. I know one particular road around > here which is a 50/60/70mph limit (can't remember exactly which but > certainly quite fast) which has traffic lights on them - if you're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > return (which should give me sufficient time to clear the line should it > start to turn amber) There you go, there is always a point of no return. > That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an > offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as > both are marked as MUST. Would that be 2 fines + points, or just one? ;) Right, what you mean is you should not have to pass the line after the red light shows. Not that you should always be able to stop before the red line7 > "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and fine to > motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for cyclists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be a distance of four metres or more between a traffic light going from > amber to red." It is not reserved for cyclists. If a box is 4 metres long and the road is busy there should generally be a car in the box. >> Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light >> to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On busy roads there will generally be at least one car per phase which >is unable to stop in those conditions, and none of those reasons apply. That is quite simply completely false. If you cannot stop before the line when the light changes to amber, but it has changed to red before you reach the line, then you are simply traveling far too fast. It isn't *quite* impossible to imagine circumstances where that might not be the case, but I have NEVER seen it happen, so your "generally at least one car" is just utterly false. > I know one particular road around >> here which is a 50/60/70mph limit (can't remember exactly which but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There you go, there is always a point of no return. Which should always be a point close enough to the line that the lights will not go through the complete amber phase before you reach it. >> That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an >> offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >red light shows. Not that you should always be able to stop before the >red line7 And just what do you think the difference is? >> "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and fine to >> motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for cyclists [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It is not reserved for cyclists. So just what do you think it *is* for? > If a box is 4 metres long and the >road is busy there should generally be a car in the box. Apart from those times when it is illegal for a car to stop in it. Which is all the time. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager If money could talk, it would say goodbye. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom ||| It is not reserved for cyclists. || [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || Apart from those times when it is illegal for a car to stop in it. || Which is all the time. And will you be providing a reference for that? SignatureRob >||| It is not reserved for cyclists. >|| [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And will you be providing a reference for that? I did so in another post to which you have since responded. It turns out that I wasn't quite right, in that it is legal to stop there IF you had already passed the first stop line when the lights turned red. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager URA Redneck if while mowing lawn, you find three cars. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>||| It is not reserved for cyclists. >>|| [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >there IF you had already passed the first stop line when the lights >turned red. Wasn't quite right my arse - you were wrong - why not just say so? You said it is always illegal to stop there - and that is not the case. Do you have dyslexia - it could be the same sort that Willy has. >>> ||| It is not reserved for cyclists. >>> || [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Do you have dyslexia - it could be the same sort that Willy has. Please, leave your Willy out of this. SignatureMoving things in still pictures! > It turns out that I wasn't quite right, in that it is legal to stop > there IF you had already passed the first stop line when the lights > turned red. And in other circumstances. >>>Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light >>>to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you cannot stop before the line when the light changes to amber, > but it has changed to red before you reach the line, That wasn't suggested. >> I know one particular road around >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lights will not go through the complete amber phase before you reach > it. Well, it will be a point precisely where they go through the complete amber phase as you reach the stop line whilst braking. >>>That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an >>>offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And just what do you think the difference is? Passing the line whilst the amber light is showing. >> It is not reserved for cyclists. > > So just what do you think it *is* for? To gain brownie points for councillors. >>If a box is 4 metres long and the >>road is busy there should generally be a car in the box. > > Apart from those times when it is illegal for a car to stop in it. > Which is all the time. No, it is always legal to stop there, only illegal to enter on red. >>>>Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light >>>>to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That wasn't suggested. It was *exactly* what you suggested. If you thin otherwise, then I suggest you go back and re read the paragraph (still quoted above) to which you responded. >>> I know one particular road around >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Well, it will be a point precisely where they go through the complete >amber phase as you reach the stop line whilst braking. Exactly. *AS* you reach it. Not before. >>>>That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an >>>>offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Passing the line whilst the amber light is showing. If you really think that is a difference between those two statements, then your understanding of English is *very* severely lacking. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager I'll have what the guy on the floor is having. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light >>>>>to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It was *exactly* what you suggested. Nope. >>>>>That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an >>>>>offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you really think that is a difference between those two statements, > then your understanding of English is *very* severely lacking. What does 'stop before the red line' mean? >>>>>>Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic light >>>>>>to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at the line, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Nope. Yes it is. If you did not mean that, then you were introducing something else without mentioning it. Or you just fail to understand the meaning of what you wrote. Perhaps you could explain what you think you *did* suggest, if it wasn't that. >>>>>>That to me suggests that passing the first white line on red is an >>>>>>offence. In theory, passing the second white line is another offence as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does 'stop before the red line' mean? I assumed that was a mistype by you. I've never seen a "red line", I assumed you meant "red light", since that made sense in context. If it appears obvious what was intended, I don't generally pick up on mistypes or ms spellings in usenet. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Why build a wall round a cemetery when no-one wants to get in? To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>If you really think that is a difference between those two statements, >>>then your understanding of English is *very* severely lacking. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I assumed that was a mistype by you. I've never seen a "red line", I > assumed you meant "red light", since that made sense in context. No, it was the statement to which I responded, and which I presumed you thought was easy to understand. > If it appears obvious what was intended, I don't generally pick up on > mistypes or ms spellings in usenet. What would 'stop before a red light mean'? >>>>If you really think that is a difference between those two statements, >>>>then your understanding of English is *very* severely lacking. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, it was the statement to which I responded, and which I presumed >you thought was easy to understand. No, it was in *your* post, not mine. <news:fbrqa5$7o9$1@registered.motzarella.org> >> If it appears obvious what was intended, I don't generally pick up on >> mistypes or ms spellings in usenet. > > What would 'stop before a red light mean'? Stop before the light changed from amber to red. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager "Apple" (c) 6024 b.c., Adam & Eve To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>If you really think that is a difference between those two statements, >>>>>then your understanding of English is *very* severely lacking. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, it was in *your* post, not mine. > <news:fbrqa5$7o9$1@registered.motzarella.org> It was in somebody else's first, neither mine nor yours. >>>If it appears obvious what was intended, I don't generally pick up on >>>mistypes or ms spellings in usenet. >> >> What would 'stop before a red light mean'? > > Stop before the light changed from amber to red. So, not including passing the amber light. || Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic || light to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || lights on them - if you're travelling at the speed limit when the || lights change, then it can be be very difficult to stop in time - That applies to every set of lights on every road. For any given speed it simply depends on how far you are from the line when the change occurs. || hence I always anticipate that the lights may change and lift off a || little until I'm at a point of no || return (which should give me sufficient time to clear the line || should it start to turn amber) Doesn't everyone do that? :-) ................................. ................................. || Also see: http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2007/08/advanced-stop-line-update-from-les.html || "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and || fine to motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for || cyclists behind the stop line at traffic lights. I don't believe that they do. It's not an offence. It seems that the || reason that || you never hear of anyone being prosecuted is because the police use || their discretion, being that it is generally considered such an || unreasonable law - expecting a motorist to get across what can || sometimes be a distance of four metres or more between a traffic || light going from amber to red." In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on or between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights depending on where you are when the lights change, either the first or the second stop-line will apply to you. If it's the second then so be it. There is no requirement that you do not enter the area between lines unless you can clear both - as if it were a box junction. -- Rob >|| Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic >|| light to go from green to amber to red, you are unable to stop at [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >I don't believe that they do. It's not an offence. Yes it is. Traffic Signs and General Directions Regulations 2002, regulation 43(2). <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43> -------------------------------------- Meaning of stop line and references to light signals 43. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), "stop line" in relation to light signals for the control of vehicular traffic means - (a) in relation to any vehicle except a tramcar the road marking shown in diagram 1001 placed in conjunction with the light signals; (b) in relation to a tramcar, the road marking shown in diagram 1001.1 placed in conjunction with those light signals, or when that marking has not been so placed, the marking shown in diagram 1001 so placed. (2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, "stop line" in relation to those light signals means - (a) the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or (b) the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane. ------------------------------------- > It seems that the >|| reason that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >do not enter the area between lines unless you can clear both - as if it >were a box junction. Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Rotisserie: a ferris wheel for chickens To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom ||||| Also see: http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2007/08/advanced-stop-line-update-from-les.html ||||| "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and ||||| fine to motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] || 43(2). || <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#43> No it isn't, as your quoted text confirms. ||| In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on or ||| between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights depending on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the || lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be in front of the now active second stop-line as per your quoted text? SignatureRob >||| In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on or >||| between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights depending on >||| where you are when the lights change, either the first or the >||| second stop-line will apply to you. If it's the second then so be >||| it. There is no requirement that you do not enter the area between >||| lines unless you can clear both - as if it were a box junction. >|| Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the >|| lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. >Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then >changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be >in front of the now active second stop-line as per your quoted text? No. In that case you proceed across the junction. If the junction is clogged with traffic, then you should not have crossed the first line. You should not enter a junction (even if the light is green) if the traffic is such that you cannot be sure that you will be able to clear the junction expiditiously. That does not mean that the junction must be clear of all traffic, but that any traffic ahead of you in the junction is flowing freely. It is the idiots that start off across a congested junction that cause the situation known as "gridlock." SignatureCynic || On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:36:03 +0100, "Rob" || <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] || || No. In that case you proceed across the junction. What, ignore both the law and the HC and proceed through what may now be a red light? || If the junction || is clogged with traffic, then you should not have crossed the first || line. Where are you getting this 'clogged with traffic' from? In ordinary traffic with one car following another, when the lights change there will often be someone between the lines who is capable of stopping at the second (as the law requires). || You should not enter a junction (even if the light is green) || if the traffic is such that you cannot be sure that you will be able || to clear the junction expiditiously. That does not mean that the || junction must be clear of all traffic, but that any traffic ahead of || you in the junction is flowing freely. Yes but we're not talking about entering junctions, but using sections of road before them, where there are no 'box-junction' type restrictions. SignatureRob >|||||| In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on >|||||| or between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >|||||| enter the area between lines unless you can clear both - as if >|||||| it were a box junction. >||||| Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when >||||| the lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. >||| Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the >||| light then changes to amber, where do you think you are required to >||| stop - could it be in front of the now active second stop-line as >||| per your quoted text? >|| No. In that case you proceed across the junction. > >What, ignore both the law and the HC and proceed through what may now be a >red light? If the light has only just turned amber after you cross the first line, it will not turn red until you have cleared the junction. (Unless the junction is congested, in which case as I stated, you should stop behind the first line regardless of the state of the lights). >|| If the junction >|| is clogged with traffic, then you should not have crossed the first [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >someone between the lines who is capable of stopping at the second (as the >law requires). No, the law does *not* require you to stop on a change to amber unless you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed the first line, you may proceed across the junction. SignatureCynic >>|||||| In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on >>|||||| or between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >should stop behind the first line regardless of the state of the >lights). The law does not require it, although I agree that good driving does mean you "should" do so. >>|| If the junction >>|| is clogged with traffic, then you should not have crossed the first [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed >the first line, you may proceed across the junction. Did you bother reading the quote I gave from the actual law, in the post Rob was responding to when you came in? You are simply wrong on this, as you will see if you do so. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager A friend: someone who likes you even after they know you. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > No, the law does *not* require you to stop on a change to amber unless > you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed > the first line, you may proceed across the junction. The law is much the same for both lines. If you cross either on amber when you clearly could have stopped before, it is not an explicit offence but, you could be driving without due care. >> No, the law does *not* require you to stop on a change to amber unless >> you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >when you clearly could have stopped before, it is not an explicit >offence but, you could be driving without due care. It *is* an explicit offence. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Why build a wall round a cemetery when no-one wants to get in? To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>No, the law does *not* require you to stop on a change to amber unless >>>you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It *is* an explicit offence. Nope. Where do you think it is made explicit? >>>>No, the law does *not* require you to stop on a change to amber unless >>>>you can do so before the *first* line. If you have already crossed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope. Where do you think it is made explicit? I'm not playing stupid mind games with you. I have posted it. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager I'm so broke, I can't even pay attention. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >|| On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:36:03 +0100, "Rob" >|| <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >someone between the lines who is capable of stopping at the second (as the >law requires). Only if they are driving too fast, or have broken the law by not stopping when able to under amber. The only other situation where it can occur *is* where traffic is clogged up, and you have passed the first line before the lights change to amber, never mind red. But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line until it was clear you would be able to get across the junction without stopping. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good > driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line > until it was clear you would be able to get across the junction > without stopping. Why? You get a better idea of whether you can clear the junction after you have passed the first line >> But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good >> driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? You get a better idea of whether you can clear the junction after >you have passed the first line In some cases, yes. But not all that often, and that is why it is only "suggested", rather than an absolute. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Why build a wall round a cemetery when no-one wants to get in? To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good >>>driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In some cases, yes. But not all that often, and that is why it is only > "suggested", rather than an absolute. I can't think of any cases where it isn't. Why is it better for cyclists etc. to wait further back? >>>>But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good >>>>driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't think of any cases where it isn't. One day, you should learn to drive. I would say that in at least 90% of cases, you will know before the first line whether the traffic ahead is flowing freely enough for you to be able to clear the junction by the time you reach the first line. > Why is it better for cyclists etc. to wait further back? I can't imagine a circumstance where it might be. Why do you think it might be? Or was that just a pointless question? SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager I can see clearly now, the brain is gone... To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good >>>>>driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > first line whether the traffic ahead is flowing freely enough for you > to be able to clear the junction by the time you reach the first line. And you get a better idea after passing it. >> Why is it better for cyclists etc. to wait further back? > > I can't imagine a circumstance where it might be. Why do you think it > might be? I don't - you suggested it was better to wait further back. >>>>>>But in that situation, although the law does not forbid it, good >>>>>>driving would suggest that you should not have passed the first line [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I don't - you suggested it was better to wait further back. No I didn't. I suggested that it is *no worse* to wait further back, and I made no mention of cyclists, who obviously are *intended* to wait in the "cycle area". SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager If money could talk, it would say goodbye. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then >>changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be >>in front of the now active second stop-line as per your quoted text? > > No. In that case you proceed across the junction. If the junction is You may do that if you can cross the second line on amber. If you can stop safely before the second line, that is better. > clogged with traffic, then you should not have crossed the first line. Yes, you should. >>>Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then >>>changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be >>>in front of the now active second stop-line as per your quoted text? >> No. In that case you proceed across the junction. If the junction is > You may do that if you can cross the second line on amber. >If you can stop safely before the second line, that is better. No it is not. Because then you will be blocking the pedestrian clearway and forcing pedestrians into the traffic flow on the cross road. You might also find that a woman crossing the road with a push-chair is a tad peeved at you, and is consequently not overly careful as she is forced to negotiate the push-chair around your car. SignatureCynic >>>>Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then >>>>changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >clearway and forcing pedestrians into the traffic flow on the cross >road. Utter rubbish. The cycle box is NOT a "pedestrian clearway". If there is a facility for pedestrians to cross, it will be in front of the cycle box again, although it will not be marked with a separate line, just by lowered kerbs. >You might also find that a woman crossing the road with a push-chair >is a tad peeved at you, and is consequently not overly careful as she >is forced to negotiate the push-chair around your car. In which case, one would get her prosecuted for criminal damage. Particularly since on most such junctions, she would have had to go out of her way to find her path blocked by your car. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager When I tried to take an ego trip I got stopped at the border To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the light then >>>>changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No it is not. Yes it is, the regulations require it. Because then you will be blocking the pedestrian > clearway and forcing pedestrians into the traffic flow on the cross > road. Nope. >>> Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the >>> light then changes to amber, where do you think you are required to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You may do that if you can cross the second line on amber. > If you can stop safely before the second line, that is better. Close, but not correct. As I posted before, the highway code (which contains MUST which I understand to indicate direct requirements under law) says that you must not pass the first line on a red light, AND you must not pass the second line on red. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm "154: Advanced stop lines. Some junctions have advanced stop lines or bus advance areas to allow cycles and buses to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached, and should avoid encroaching on the marked area. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 43(2)" D >>> Correct, but if you have already crossed the first line, and the >>> light then changes to amber, where do you think you are required to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You may do that if you can cross the second line on amber. > If you can stop safely before the second line, that is better. Ignore my other reply - I misread yours, I thought you said "cross the second line on red". Apologies D >>||| In slow moving/crawling traffic there will always be someone on or >>||| between the stop lines, so as you approach the lights depending on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No. In that case you proceed across the junction. In which case you would be breaking the law. Rob was quite right. If you are between the two lines when the lights turn red, then you *must* stop before the second line, even though you are otherwise not allowed to stop there. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom > If you are between the two lines when the lights turn red, then you > *must* stop before the second line, even though you are otherwise not > allowed to stop there. You are otherwise allowed to stop there. >||||| Also see: >||| [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >changes to amber, where do you think you are required to stop - could it be >in front of the now active second stop-line as per your quoted text? Yes, that is an exception to that rule. If you *cannot* stop before the first line, but *can* stop before the second line, then you should stop in that area. But if you stop in that area when you clearly *could* have stopped before the first line (when the lights are on amber or red), then you *have* committed an offence. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Software Independent: Won't work with ANY software. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>|| "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and >>|| fine to motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Traffic Signs and General Directions Regulations 2002, regulation > 43(2). [snip] No, it isn't. It is only an offence to enter the box when the red light is showing. > Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the > lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. No, that isn't an explicit offence either. We are not expected to judge our stopping distance to the nearest inch. >>>|| "The police do have the power to issue a three point penalty and >>>|| fine to motorists that stop in the advanced green box reserved for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No, that isn't an explicit offence either. We are not expected to >judge our stopping distance to the nearest inch. Wrong. The traffic signs and General Directions regulations 2002, regulation 36(1)(e): ---------------------------------- (e) 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; --------------------------------- SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Honeymoon: time between "I do" and "you'd better" To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the >>>lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > immediately before it; > --------------------------------- Yes, I know, but it is not an explicit offence. >>>>Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the >>>>lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Yes, I know, but it is not an explicit offence. So How, exactly, do you read the above? I cannot read it as anything other than an explicit offence. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Keyboard Not Found - Press [F1] to Continue To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the >>>>>lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So How, exactly, do you read the above? Without finding the word 'offence'. > I cannot read it as anything other than an explicit offence. It does not mention the word 'offence'. >>>>>>Agreed. But if you *can* safely stop before the first line when the >>>>>>lights turn to amber, then it is an offence to not do so. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It does not mention the word 'offence'. So what? On that basis, there are no explicit offences regarding traffic signs and road markings. If you want to be VERY stupidly and pointlessly pedantic, please carry on. I accept that by your ludicrous definition, there is no explicit offence of passing a traffic light on red, nor of disobeying any other road sign or road marking, nor of speeding, or indeed a large number of the road traffic offences. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager I had my coat hangers spayed. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>I cannot read it as anything other than an explicit offence. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On that basis, there are no explicit offences regarding traffic signs > and road markings. Yes, there are. You managed to mention in the banned right turn thread exactly the conditions which makes disregarding some signs an offence. > If you want to be VERY stupidly and pointlessly pedantic, please carry > on. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > road sign or road marking, nor of speeding, or indeed a large number > of the road traffic offences. There is an explicit offence for red lights. > || Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic > || light to go from green to amber to red, you are unable tostopat [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > do not enter the area betweenlinesunless you can clear both - as if it > were a box junction. Many intersection are designed so that cars need to behind the first stop line to enable buses to make a right turn. If you stop in the area between the two stop lines, you may have to do some tricky maneuvres if a bus comes. >> || Or to put it another way - if, in the time it takes for a traffic >> || light to go from green to amber to red, you are unable tostopat [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > area between the two stop lines, you may have to do some tricky > maneuvres if a bus comes. And they've only just discovered that? These cyclist boxes are very recent additions in his part of the world. SignatureMoving things in still pictures! >>> The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop >>> safely before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > D Or that the police no longer police, and if it isn't caught on a camera it is ignored. SignatureMoving things in still pictures! >> The question would come to my mind though, if you could not stop safely >> before the red line - was your speed appropriate, considering a traffic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, >when you are one inch from passing the line. etc. That is a circumstance which cannot arise. You should quit simply never approach traffic lights (on green) at such a speed that if they change then they will go right through the amber phase and into red before you get there, but without you being able to stop before you get there. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Crime does not pay...as well as politics. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >> It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop >>safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, >>when you are one inch from passing the line. etc. > > That is a circumstance which cannot arise. Of course it can. > You should quit simply never approach traffic lights (on green) at > such a speed that if they change then they will go right through the > amber phase and into red before you get there, but without you being > able to stop before you get there. That wasn't what I suggested. >>> It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop >>>safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That wasn't what I suggested. It was what would have to happen for what you *did* suggest to be able to occur. Which is why I said that situation cannot arise. It can, of course, but only if you are driving as I suggest above. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager Friendly fire - ISN'T ! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop >>>>safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It was what would have to happen for what you *did* suggest to be able > to occur. No, it wasn't. >>>>>It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop >>>>>safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No, it wasn't. I'm not going to play silly mind games with you any more. You are really being very stupid and childish. If you want a sensible discussion, then say what you mean, rather than giving cryptic clues. SignatureAlex Heney, Global Villager FIGHT BACK! Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom >>>>>>It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop >>>>>>safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If you want a sensible discussion, then say what you mean, rather than > giving cryptic clues. I wrote what I meant. It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light changing, when you are one inch from passing the line. At 11:09:49 on 08/09/2007, Nick Finnigan delighted uk.legal by announcing: > > > It is unreasonable drive at a speed which would allow you to stop > > > safely (or otherwise) before a line, in reaction to a light [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Of course it can. If you're one inch from the line when the light changes, it will be changing to amber and therefore allowing you to pass. In what situation do you imagine having to stop within an inch? > At 11:09:49 on 08/09/2007, Nick Finnigan delighted uk.legal by > announcing: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > changing to amber and therefore allowing you to pass. In what > situation do you imagine having to stop within an inch? Ah, you meant that the circumstances David Hearn seemed to be suggesting can not arise, not my suggestion. At 19:38:51 on 11/09/2007, Nick Finnigan delighted uk.legal by announcing: > > At 11:09:49 on 08/09/2007, Nick Finnigan delighted uk.legal by > > announcing: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ah, you meant that the circumstances David Hearn seemed to be > suggesting can not arise, not my suggestion. Firstly, that was my first post on the matter and I suggested exactly what I wrote. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.