Driving offences and court

[TangoSixteen]

Yes, if there is no traffic.

If a car turns up at a junction, then the lights should stay green for that car.

Or, perhaps more sensibly the law should be changed so that if there is nothing there and its safe to do so, you can go.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Yes, if there is no traffic.

If a car turns up at a junction, then the lights should stay green for that car.

Or, perhaps more sensibly the law should be changed so that if there is nothing there and its safe to do so, you can go.

Please, tell us all more about the fantastic impact that would have on insurance disputes :swoon:

 

[Rainmaker]

You haven't shown any magistrates find a person guilty though.

Convictions of summary offences are by their very nature invalid though because government appointed judges are unduly influenced and thus unable to render a fair verdict. Only a trial by a jury can render a just verdict that serves the people.

I honestly haven't Googled bar the first result returned to you earlier. I've definitely heard of them though. For example,

In Buckoke v GLC [1975] Ch 655, Lord Denning indicated obiter that the driver of a fire engine was compelled to stop at a red traffic light even if he saw 200 yards down the road a blazing house with a man at an upstairs window in extreme peril and the man's life would be lost by waiting. Lord Denning accepted that the driver would commit an offence against the Road Traffic Regulations if he crossed the red light. (Note: there now exist statutory defences for fire-engines, police and ambulances.)

No such exemption for civilians even with an emergency vehicle behind them. Apart from the by now well publicised exception of it being a requirement to follow the directions of a constable in uniform.

Lord Denning further stated (in answer to the 'necessity' defence earlier):

… if hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing, it would open a door through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder would pass … . If homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one's house could be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut. It would not only be those in extreme need who would enter. There would be others who would imagine that they were in need, or would invent a need, so as to gain entry.

So necessity doesn't apply. I'll happily Google for a few real cases now I'm back from the shop though. You've piqued my interest too. As I said though, the letter of the law and the spirit may be different. I know for sure the letter of the law says you're automatically and unremittingly guilty for passing the red light for anything other than a police officer (and only then at his DIRECTION). No doubt the CPS (or police) would fail to pursue in most cases, making a court decision moot; but all I've said is that a court WOULD find you guilty - not that you'd necessarily end up there.

Interesting debate. Thanks muchly. Well except TangoSixteenGoingonSix. He just made me laugh.

 

[Energize]

… if hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing, it would open a door through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder would pass … . If homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one's house could be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut. It would not only be those in extreme need who would enter. There would be others who would imagine that they were in need, or would invent a need, so as to gain entry.

The judge has then committed the straw man fallacy indicating himself to be a moron, the threat of starvation is not immediate, whereas a fire is.

Regardless of what the judge said the law clearly states that there is a complete defence, the judge merely decided to ignore the law and make up his own rules.

R v Safi [2003] shows that criminal activity is justified if the accused believes there is a threat to the person.

 

[Rainmaker]

The judge has then committed the straw man fallacy indicating himself to be a moron, the threat of starvation is not immediate, whereas a fire is.

Regardless of what the judge said the law clearly states that there is a complete defence, the judge merely decided to ignore the law and make up his own rules.

Barton v Armstrong [1976] shows that criminal activity is justified where there is a threat to the person.

You've found later case law which supersedes the one I'd found so far. Nice. How do you know there is a threat to the person though? Bearing in mind running a red is a strict liability offence...

We really need a judge on here. TBH I'm certainly not qualified to argue much further, as I'm sure you're not either(?). Bloody interesting though, and if you're much like me you probably won't sleep now until you "know"...

EDIT: Sorry I should have made doubly clear. The fire engine/burning building and the latter starvation/necessity judgments were two separate cases. Hence using two separate quote boxes. I could have been clearer, however. The law was only rectified for the exemption to emergency service vehicles after the judgment was made. Just so I don't give an overly negative (false) impressed of Lord Denning.

 

[Energize]

You've found later case law which supersedes the one I'd found so far. Nice. How do you know there is a threat to the person though? Bearing in mind running a red is a strict liability offence...

Sorry I posted the wrong case, the edited one is more relevant.

 

[Rainmaker]

One last post (not about the red light thing; as per my edit above I'm agreeing to drop that if you agree to shake hands - as I really can't argue further in good conscience).

Rather, regarding the necessity. Are you stating that it's OK to assassinate HM the Queen and 1,000 school children if you get told your wife or child's life is in danger if you don't? Necessity isn't an over-riding concern there, surely? We're getting more into ethics than law though; rather Kantian. I wonder what the law does say? (rhetorical!)

 

[Energize]

One last post (not about the red light thing; as per my edit above I'm agreeing to drop that if you agree to shake hands - as I really can't argue further in good conscience).

Rather, regarding the necessity. Are you stating that it's OK to assassinate HM the Queen and 1,000 school children if you get told your wife or child's life is in danger if you don't? Necessity isn't an over-riding concern there, surely? We're getting more into ethics than law though; rather Kantian. I wonder what the law does say? (rhetorical!)

The duress defence does not apply to murder, it's a special exemption.

 

[Danthus]

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.

 

[whitecrook]

strange rant

-1, Flamebait

Tell me where you drive so I can avoid that area Kthx.

 

[eatcustard]

Top Tip

Dont jump a red light, you may get nicked for it.

 

[jamief]

it seems pretty harsh seeing as he was only following the car in front.

A woman was killed on the A9 recently by a foreign tourist who hit her head on. The foreign tourist was overtaking because a van in front of him was overtaking. The van pulled in and he went into the front of a car coming the other way. His excuse in court was "I was following the van in front". If your Dad was really that careless he deserves his points.

 

[Castiel]

I think it's indicative of the poor standards of many drivers that Tangosixteen even has a licence.

 

[Robbo]

I think it's indicative of the poor standards of many drivers that Tangosixteen even has a licence.

I was just about to post this.

 

[TangoSixteen]

I think it's indicative of the poor standards of many drivers that Tangosixteen even has a licence.

Im sorry but this is about as incorrect as a scat video involving nuns and Alsations.

If you are really suggesting that at 2AM on a deserted road you would allow a small red light to dictate your movements, then this is crazy.

I would venture as far as to say that I think you may be the sort of person that gets irate at people parking over two spaces in a car park, or something equally as trivial.

In the US they allow turning at a red light if traffic allows, thats an extremely sensible solution to a traffic problem if you ask me.

We just need common sense. Why should you have to sit there like a plonker on a deserted junction at 2AM just because of a rubbish light on a timer?

Its absurd.

 

[div0]

Yes, if there is no traffic.

If a car turns up at a junction, then the lights should stay green for that car.

Or, perhaps more sensibly the law should be changed so that if there is nothing there and its safe to do so, you can go.

Oh dear, you really have no clue at all.

It actually makes so much more sense to have both default to red, from both a safety and convenience point of view.

If both default to green, two cars approach in opposite directions at the same time, one (or both?) of the lights change to red, but the driver goes through as it is changing. I'll let you figure the rest out.

If you always default to green in one direction, then when someone arrives in the other direction and reaches the red light, then the lights have to assume (for safety) that another driver may have just gone through the green. They then have to leave enough time for that 'imaginary' car to have driven through, before they can change the red to green in the other direction.

Whereas, if both default to red, then the lights just have to make a decision as to who arrived first and can immediately change for that driver. This is not only the safest way to do it, but also the quickest for the driver as well. Which is why most temporary lights work in this fashion.

While your always green idea may seem sensible to you, it is by far the worst thing to do.

 

[TangoSixteen]

Oh dear, you really have no clue at all.

It actually makes so much more sense to have both default to red, from both a safety and convenience point of view.

If both default to green, two cars approach in opposite directions at the same time, one (or both?) of the lights change to red, but the driver goes through as it is changing. I'll let you figure the rest out.

If you always default to green in one direction, then when someone arrives in the other direction and reaches the red light, then the lights have to assume (for safety) that another driver may have just gone through the green. They then have to leave enough time for that 'imaginary' car to have driven through, before they can change the red to green in the other direction.

Whereas, if both default to red, then the lights just have to make a decision as to who arrived first and can immediately change for that driver. This is not only the safest way to do it, but also the quickest for the driver as well. Which is why most temporary lights work in this fashion.

While your always green idea may seem sensible to you, it is by far the worst thing to do.

I fear it is you my internet comrade who has no clue.

Read my post properly. We are talking about a car/s approaching a junction which is empty, and you solution is to have all the lights on red? Wonderful.

Thank the lord we don't have you in charge of civil planning and road traffic legislation.

 

[div0]

I fear it is you my internet comrade who has no clue.

Read my post properly. We are talking about a car/s approaching a junction which is empty, and you solution is to have all the lights on red? Wonderful.

Thank the lord we don't have you in charge of civil planning and road traffic legislation.

There's nothing wrong with defaulting to red, when there are no cars likely to be there for some time (ie at night). That way (as described) the lights are safe to immediately change when someone approaches from any direction.

Your method doesn't work. Which is why many lights, particularly temporary lights will default to red.

 

[Gaygle]

lol Tango Sixteen's new traffic light system that changes instantly as you approach it, so you don't have to slow down because "live's too short to be stuck at a traffic light"...

...coming soon to a Motors Forum near you!

 

[TangoSixteen]

There's nothing wrong with defaulting to red, when there are no cars likely to be there for some time (ie at night). That way (as described) the lights are safe to immediately change when someone approaches from any direction.

Your method doesn't work. Which is why many lights, particularly temporary lights will default to red.

THATS THE WHOLE PROBLEM!!

The lights do NOT change fast enough, forcing most of the people that have their lives dictated to them by a small light to either slow down dramatically, or stop completely, while the stupid, rubbish light decides wtf its going to do.

Or in my case I check to see whats what, and just do the red light completely. No slowing, I get there faster, and its better for the environment.

Its win win. A double win no less. I think I have trumped you in Traffic Light top trumps here.

*rushes out to patent this new gaming genre*