Driving offences and court

[Richie]

Yeah but a lot of people seem to think that, because the ticket place has sent out the ticket and "don't accept my, as I see it, reasonable excuse" that there is nothing more that can be done.

I think what people don't realise (and the same goes with being charged by police etc) is that these places are not the ones that decide to prosecute or to not proceed. If they believe there is sufficient evidence to charge (whether the person is guilty or not), they will. Its the CPS/PF's decision to proceed or not, these other bodies are simply "reporters of facts"

Contrary to popular belief (and what the papers would have people think) - the courts don't only contain guilty people....

 

[Rainmaker]

Yeah but a lot of people seem to think that, because the ticket place has sent out the ticket and "don't accept my, as I see it, reasonable excuse" that there is nothing more that can be done.

I think what people don't realise (and the same goes with being charged by police etc) is that these places are not the ones that decide to prosecute or to not proceed. If they believe there is sufficient evidence to charge (whether the person is guilty or not), they will. Its the CPS/PF's decision to proceed or not, these other bodies are simply "reporters of facts"

Contrary to popular belief (and what the papers would have people think) - the courts don't only contain guilty people....

Yes I know that, but the fact is - as demonstrated in my post above - people HAVE been prosecuted for this and HAVE been convicted. I've spent the last dozen posts with you guys telling me I'm wrong and that you can't be prosecuted for crossing a red for an emergency vehicle. As I've been saying all along, that only applies on the direction of a police constable and no other service has this exemption. I was clearly told I was wrong. I wasn't.

 

[Vixen]

We've had so many different stories in this thread alone.

First the thought they were broken so went through on red.
Now apparently he thought they were green? Even though he had to drive around other cars to go through?

It sounds like he was in a queue of cars and saw the one in front go through the lights, decided he was bored of waiting and pulled past the cars between him and the front one. If that is the case then he almost certainly deserves the second charge.

 

[Richie]

OK, just for you.



http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Motorist-counting-cost-of-good.1087412.jp

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/free-press-news/MOTORIST39S-ANGER-AT-BARMY39-ROAD.1084700.jp

As I said, there ARE others. You MUST stop at a red light and NOT pass. It's a strict liability offence basically. The only exception is if you are on the direction of a police constable in uniform. So if a police car comes blaring behind you, and the passenger is waving his arms yelling "out of the ******* way!", you can cross the line. If it's an ambulance, fire appliance, blood van, bomb disposal etc, you can't.

From same sites you quoted -

Mr Freeman said he had been advised he had little chance of succeeding with a not guilty plea

If there was sufficient evidence to prove his case this then whoever advised him to plead guilty is a fool.

Mr Freeman, who represented himself in court,

Thats a mistake for starters. He, an untrained layman, decided to argue his case in court himself... Fool.

He was NOT found guilty, he PLEADED guilty, there is a difference.


This example does not prove anything other than the named person was wrongly advised both by representing himself and also by whoever advised him to plead guilty.

 

[Richie]

Yes I know that, but the fact is - as demonstrated in my post above - people HAVE been prosecuted for this and HAVE been convicted. I've spent the last dozen posts with you guys telling me I'm wrong and that you can't be prosecuted for crossing a red for an emergency vehicle. As I've been saying all along, that only applies on the direction of a police constable and no other service has this exemption. I was clearly told I was wrong. I wasn't.

Please see my post above.

He was convicted as he plead guilty

 

[Rainmaker]

Please see my post above.

He was convicted as he plead guilty

You really do want to belabour the point, don't you? He was one of several cases presented thus far. Also at the bottom of the same article you decided to nit-pick, is a voice of authority in these matters:

A spokesman for the Department of Transport, who pockets fines from road offences, said: "The Highway Code states that a vehicle should get out of the way of emergency vehicles, but not in a way that would endanger other road users.
"Passing through a red light is illegal and I am not aware of any defence for it."

Judges and police officers I have spoken to in the past agree. As I said, a strict liability offence, with no defence except doing so on the direction of a constable in uniform. An ambulance isn't a police constable in uniform, hence the direction to plead guilty and the fact he went through THREE trials before admitting defeat.

 

[TangoSixteen]

Urrghh this country is utterly pathetic with red lights. Its actually embarassing.

I never stop for a red light if for instance its 2AM or whatever and its totally empty.

Yet by the law of the land I could have been banned many many times over. Its nonsense.

Not to mention, sitting at a set of empty traffic lights at 2AM makes you look like a complete moron, its also more damaging to the environment with all the unnesescary stopping and starting.

It makes me rage...

Its the same with the STUPID mobile phone rule...

Who honestly gives a **** what you are doing in your car?? As long as you are upholding a good standard of safe driving then they should keep their beaks out of your business.

Sure... prosecute for careless and dangerous driving, thats fine... but to assume everyone is a complete moron who will turn into a murderous child abuser just because they have glanced at their phone is ludicrous.

This country and its pathetic nancy-boy nanny laws really winds me the **** up sometimes.

 

[Rainmaker]

Urrghh this country is utterly pathetic with red lights. Its actually embarassing.

I never stop for a red light if for instance its 2AM or whatever and its totally empty.

Yet by the law of the land I could have been banned many many times over. Its nonsense.

Not to mention, sitting at a set of empty traffic lights at 2AM makes you look like a complete moron, its also more damaging to the environment with all the unnesescary stopping and starting.

It makes me rage...

Its the same with the STUPID mobile phone rule...

Who honestly gives a **** what you are doing in your car?? As long as you are upholding a good standard of safe driving then they should keep their beaks out of your business.

Sure... prosecute for careless and dangerous driving, thats fine... but to assume everyone is a complete moron who will turn into a murderous child abuser just because they have glanced at their phone is ludicrous.

This country and its pathetic nancy-boy nanny laws really winds me the **** up sometimes.

Not sure if serious. What happens if/when you go through that red light on a "clear" junction and the car coming from the other side of the crossroads at anything between 30 and 60MPH sees a green and cruises on through... through you that is?

 

[TangoSixteen]

Not sure if serious. What happens if/when you go through that red light on a "clear" junction and the car coming from the other side of the crossroads at anything between 30 and 60MPH sees a green and cruises on through... through you that is?

I just said.... a clear junction at a late time.. like 2AM when I can see its totally clear...

Its funny though, you always see the cops hiding somewhere, just ready to pounce on someone who is going 1mph too fast, even at 2AM. Its almost like they have nothing better to do.... oh wait.... Useless ****ers.

Fortunately so far, I have been lucky and not done a red light near any of them.

Thankfully Scotlands Police are not quite as obnoxiously officious as their English counterparts.

 

[Rainmaker]

I just said.... a clear junction at a late time.. like 2AM when I can see its totally clear...

Its funny though, you always see the cops hiding somewhere, just ready to pounce on someone who is going 1mph too fast, even at 2AM. Its almost like they have nothing better to do.... oh wait.... Useless ****ers.

Fortunately so far, I have been lucky and not done a red light near any of them.

Thankfully Scotlands Police are not quite as obnoxiously officious as their English counterparts.

/facepalm

"Totally clear" is ironic considering the fact that it's always the car you "didn't see" that ends up smacking you one. I'm presuming by "totally clear" you mean a crossroads with no buildings, hedges or trees lining the street/road, meaning you're in flat land with no physical objects for at least a mile each side of the lights in every direction? Else, how can you know it's "clear"? A car coming at his "green" light (your red) at 60+ MPH is going to take you from "totally clear" to hospital or worse in a split second. But meh, carry on. I just feel sorry for the poor sod(s) you'll take with you tbh.

 

[Morba]

Rainmaker - on one hand you say 'under instruction of a uniformed officer' and in the other you quote 'an official' saying there is no defense... Make your mind up?

 

[Rainmaker]

Rainmaker - on one hand you say 'under instruction of a uniformed officer' and in the other you quote 'an official' saying there is no defense... Make your mind up?

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my head repeatedly hitting the wall.

It is a strict liability offence. You can only break the law on direction of a police constable. In the case quoted above, it was an ambulance. This means the DoT official is confirming that:

(1) Crossing a red light is illegal.
(2) The guy in the article was in court for letting an AMBULANCE through. As such there is no known defence to the charge.

Is it really that hard?

 

[stockhausen]

...
I never stop for a red light if for instance its 2AM or whatever and its totally empty.
...

You mean 2 PM . . . I don't believe that your Mummy would be so irresponsible as to allow you out after dark.

... Its the same with the STUPID mobile phone rule ...

You are clear evidence that mobile 'phones can cause brain damage

Oh, no, wait . . . that makes a clearly invalid assumption . . .

 

[TangoSixteen]

/facepalm

"Totally clear" is ironic considering the fact that it's always the car you "didn't see" that ends up smacking you one. I'm presuming by "totally clear" you mean a crossroads with no buildings, hedges or trees lining the street/road, meaning you're in flat land with no physical objects for at least a mile each side of the lights in every direction? Else, how can you know it's "clear"? A car coming at his "green" light (your red) at 60+ MPH is going to take you from "totally clear" to hospital or worse in a split second. But meh, carry on. I just feel sorry for the poor sod(s) you'll take with you tbh.

Are you high?

Totally clear means just that. If you can see all around and there are no cars anywhere, then its......... totally clear! No point in stopping and looking like a fool if there is no one there to stop for. Less CO2's for the environment too.

Where do you live? Vietnam? Are all the junctions surrounded by impenetrable jungle reducing your visibility to some leaves?!

 

[Rainmaker]

Are you thick?

Totally clear means just that. If you can see all around and there are no cars anywhere, then its......... totally clear! No point in stopping and looking like a fool if there is no one there to stop for.

Thick? If not going through red lights because I have a concept that my field of vision, seated in a car with only a fixed viewpoint as I am, is limited enough not to be able to safely go through red lights then yes. Yes I am.

 

[Richie]

I am not really labouring any point. At no time have I said its not illegal nor have I said you will not be prosecuted nor convicted in these circumstances.

What I HAVE said is, if you can prove in court (as it will go that far) that you moved through the traffic signal while it was red for a reasonable cause then you may not be convicted for it.


As for the "nit-picking" - I was merely pointing out that the case you used to make your argument did not reflect your stance. If he plead guilty then you can not honestly say that anyone else, in similar circumstances, will be convicted as the sheriff/judge did not have a chance to find him not guilty.

Perhaps, instead of asserting your point over and over again, you should read what people say a couple of times....

 

[Rainmaker]

I am not really labouring any point. At no time have I said its not illegal nor have I said you will not be prosecuted nor convicted in these circumstances.

What I HAVE said is, if you can prove in court (as it will go that far) that you moved through the traffic signal while it was red for a reasonable cause then you may not be convicted for it....
Perhaps, instead of asserting your point over and over again, you should read what people say a couple of times....

You're misunderstanding. A strict liability offence is one you are guilty of even if ignorant to it, even if you lack mens rea (guilty intent). In other words, you did it so you're guilty. Period. That's a strict liability offence, that's what crossing a red light is. The ONLY exception is on the direction of a constable.

So you can prove 10000% in court that you had reasonable cause, but BECAUSE it is a STRICT LIABILITY offence you ARE guilty regardless and there are no mitigating factors in deciding guilt. That's what a strict liability offence is, as I've been trying to explain for ages. You did it, you WILL be convicted.

The only one single sole exception to this automatic guilt is if you carried it out under the direction of a constable. Even then you get a guilty, just an absolute discharge.

So yes I was reading and listening. But yes it meant I am repeating myself because nobody seems to be grasping that it's a strict liability offence. No way out from being guilty. Rare chance of absolute discharge (police defence).

 

[TangoSixteen]

High? If not going through red lights because I have a concept that my field of vision, seated in a car with only a fixed viewpoint as I am, is limited enough not to be able to safely go through red lights then yes. Yes I am.

If you cannot ascertain whether a junction is totally clear or not, may I be so bold as to suggest you should have your eyesight checked and/or your driving license (if any) revoked.

 

[Rainmaker]

If you cannot ascertain whether a junction is totally clear or not, may I be so bold as to suggest you should have your eyesight checked and/or your driving license (if any) revoked.

May I be so bold as to suggest that next time you decide to ninja edit your insults, you make sure the person you insulted hasn't already quoted you BEFORE you alter THEIR quote to make you look innocent?

Rainmaker did NOT say "High?". Rainmaker said "Thick?" because that's what you said as per my original quote of your post. Pedantic? Maybe. Ninja edit your posts all you like. But don't alter my own words when you quote them simply because it reflects badly on you.

If you feel I should have my licence revoked for thinking it's safer to sit at a red light even if I "THINK" it's clear (I'm sorry but you can't see everything), that's your prerogative. That doesn't mean I can't think it's clear, it doesn't mean I can't drive safely.

To be honest, the fact that a self-confessed red light jumper is questioning my driving ability isn't really all that worrying. I wonder why?

 

[TangoSixteen]

You make me lol!

A self confessed red light jumper eh?! I feel like a hardened and dangerous criminal.