"Do the temporary roadworks traffic lights have the same standing in law as permanent ones? Clearly jumping them could be dangerous, but if no danger exists, is it still an offence?"
Yes, since about 10 years ago, before that no, as there was no stop line.
Now you have to stop before a red sign.
|
"Do the temporary roadworks traffic lights have the same standing in law as permanent ones?
Yes since about 10 years ago before that no as there was no stop line.
Really? A colleague while I was at a company that I left 21yrs ago got done for that - the car at the other end flashed him so he set off, not realising there was a police car behind him! It sticks in my mind (maybe incorrectly) that it was abreach of the "automatic traffic signals" regulations.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 02/06/2008 at 13:36
|
Yep, I've gone through reds at temp lights at roadworks, and crossed double whites. But only when I can see that there is no other traffic approaching, and importantly, no RISK of any other traffic approaching.
Being on a motorbike gives one an infinitely better view of hazards.
|
|
Any cyclists here like to 'fess up? ;>)
|
with double white lines... there used to be a time when you could trust the road planners and they were very much there for a reason e.g. covering a hidden dip, hidden entrance etc
nowadays, with the intervention of the nanny state, there are vast tracts of the things, which if you're on a m/c or driving a powerful car up behind something exceptionally slow like a tractor can be most frustrating
still don't think it's a good idea to ignore them though, although i do think there should be a review of their usage, so that they are only placed when they should be.
one more thing, could car drivers in this country, move over left a bit, to let m/c's past when they're in a queue, so that the bike doesn't have to cross the white lines, car driver's in other countries manage it, why not here.
|
I think the world we now live in impacts what people do.
We so expect to "be done" as drivers that we dare not do other than obey. The only time I'm ever likely to meet Plod, really or metaphorically, is driving, so I must just do what I'm told; speed cameras everywhere; lights, gantry signs, temporary limits, no parking, waiting, red line no stopping, white road stripes, permit holders only, - you name it we have it.
Result? If anything does go wrong it's someone else's fault, no personal responsibility.
Cross a junction when it's clear to do so, forget it; it's when you are allowed to do so nowadays.
Right or wrong?
Either way, profoundly depressing. It does seem amazing to me that we have in a period of a few years created around 15 million new criminals.
|
It would be interesting if all who've posted would indicate if they were NCB protected or not and which side of the fence they sit, does having protected NCB make you take more risks?
EG; stop on red / protected NCD
Dox; stop on red, not protected NCD.
|
|
|
|
with double white lines... ....behind something exceptionally slow like a tractor can be most frustrating. I thought the speed of vehicle you were allowed to cross 'double whites' to pass was 20mph. - But see below - it's 10mph
Highway Code Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]
|
|
|
one more thing could car drivers in this country move over left a bit to let m/c's past when they're in a queue so that the bike doesn't have to cross the white lines car driver's in other countries manage it why not here.
I do if I see one coming, but tend to stay in the middle of a single carriageway as if I go to the left to let a m/c past I end up blocking the push bike who's coming up the inside! Can't win really!!
|
i just saw a prime example of what jumping a red light can do i was driving though a village with temp traffic lights in the middle women jumps the lights at one end while about 10 of us were streaming though from the otherside. Result she hit the car two in front of mine head on while the rest of us were stuck there for 10 minetes whilst the guys that had joined the que from the green light reversed enough to let us all back up to before the now red light as there was no other way round. was it worth not waiting 2-3 minetes at a red, seeing as now 2 peoples cars are damaged no doubt an insurance job and the inconvience of it all to everyone who happened to be there when this idiot decided the rules didnt apply to her.
the icing on the cake for me was that she was the first o start shouting at the other driver for the damage to HER car!!!
Edited by welshlad on 02/06/2008 at 20:54
|
|
|
"This is because laws are blunt instruments and not always the absolute decider of what is morally right. I am well aware of the law requiring me to stop at a red light; but, in this situation, it is morally acceptable to act above the law."
- is everyone allowed to decide whether or not which laws are "morally right"?
I think present levels of tax on fuel is "morally wrong", and the tax on my little cigars and my bottle of red, and the amount my brother had to pay to the wife who walked out on him and the kids, and the amount we pay towards "National Insurance" yet my wife will get "pink fluffy dice" all when she retires but if she was a single 16 year old unemployed, unmarried mother would get this that and the other, and if was an MP I would be able to claim thousands of poundsworth of expenses without a receipt ........ and why should I keep left on the road when driving on the right might mean quicker progress, and zebra crossings - why should I stop when a pedestrian is waiting to cross, and double yellow lines - you mean the ones outside the paper shop or the chip shop? Why should I wait for my paper, or chips? Why should I stick to 20 mph outside a school when no kid is visible???? Why should I stop when that lollipop lady holds up her lollipop?
but laws are laws - a red light means STOP - there is no excuse - STOP! And if you don't and cause an accident - I have no sympathy. Go ahead and cross red lights - but please don't do it while I'm coming the other way and assumed that my green light meant GO
Edited by Webmaster on 04/06/2008 at 14:14
|
I am not disagreeing with the tenor of yr post PhilW, but I was taught that a green light meant 'proceed if it is safe to do so'. You are supposed to see the crazed red light crasher coming, and try not to run into them.
I doubt that there are many here over the age of say 35 who have never, ever squeaked through a red light. I have often done it myself, but always with due caution and never with damaging or even fraught results. It's getting harder to get away with though. I believe I still have three points from a camera at the Angel junction...
|
"a green light meant 'proceed if it is safe to do so'."
Maybe that is why at French temporary traffic lights they don't have a green light - it's a flashing orange which is clearly "proceed if it is safe to do so" - here we have "green", which may be "proceed if it is safe to do so" but which most (all?) read as "GO".
Whatever, (trendy aren't I?) - to most of us, red means STOP!
|
|
I suspect that those who chose to ignore whatever part of the law does't suit them will be very quick to use that same law if they are injured or their property damaged by a law breaker.
I doubt that they would accept the excuse from a red light jumper that whilst they knew they were breaking the law it was OK because in the circumstances they thought it morally right.
|
Morality doesn't have much to do with running red lights. It is a deliberate or accidental infraction of an absolute law and may may result in a penalty. It follows that if an accident occurs as a result all or most of the blame will naturally fall on the driver who has gone through the red light.
I suppose you might say that someone in this position would be behaving immorally if they tried to shift blame away from themselves by lying and attempting to smear third parties.
|
|
my brother had his car written off by a taxi running a red light at 3:30 one morning - the taxi driver said '...but no-one comes along here at this time of night...'
|
|
|
|
"one more thing, could car drivers in this country, move over left a bit, to let m/c's past when they're in a queue, so that the bike doesn't have to cross the white lines, car driver's in other countries manage it, why not here."
Yes, I do this on numerous occasions but on narrow roads you then block the near side for cyclists. Especially in London, you are overtaken n/s by cyclists and o/s by m/cs. Us car drivers can't win. I suggest as a m/c you drive within the lines and adhere to the rules that we should all abide by. What gives you preferential treatment.
|
I just had to comment in reply to some of the opinions here. What if a traffic cop pulled up a car for a spot check, slipped some drugs in the boot, and arrested the driver for possession? A no-no? What about if he broke a tail light? Still a no-no? OK, so what if he lay down a temporary speed limit sign and then "caught" a lot of drivers speeding? Still a no-no? What if just forgot to put a temporary sign up? Or left the camera set to the roadworks limit when it had been removed? What about only refunding fines, removing points and reinstating licenses only to those who had spotted the con and complained? All done. All choosing whether to obey the law, where, and when.
How about all those cases where the police "have" to respond to a complaint. Like when a kid complains that a householder "abused" them for vandalising their property? But they managed not to respond to the householder's complaints of criminal damage and threats for months. And if the question why is asked, the householder had no evidence. Well, only their own word for it and the damage. Strange that that counts for nought, but the word of a kid is enough to get out half a dozen panda's and even a SWAT team! Did someone mention you can't interpret the law the way you want to?
Some people like to trot out the term "Rule of law", thinking it means YOU have to obey the law. Sorry, no, it doesn't: it means that THEY have to obey the law. And not only that, the law has to be fair and reasonable, and not passed on a whim. And it needs to be passed, and enforced, with the consent of the public.
But what we have today is ridiculous, unfair, unjust, arbitrary laws, passed on a whim, and ignored or misused as the powers that be see fit. The Rule Of Law ended years ago. So the public no longer have a responsibility to obey "The Law".
What all decent people have is a responsibility to do the right think according to natural justice. When the Rule Of Law breaks down, that often means doing the opposite of what "The Law" says!
|
Speechless......
'Viewer', would you care to comment on how your final three paragraphs differ from an essential anarchism?
Because what you propose sure sounds like anarchy to me.
I'm sorry, but I still believe in law and order - and I am not a police officer, a lawyer, or a member of the judiciary.
|
|
They don't. That's my point. It's irrelevant what you believe in if that's not what you've got.
|
One small step becomes a big step.
On our lawless roads, where 50% - YES 50%!!! - of drivers have either NO license or a fraudulently-obtained one, the biggest probelm is that this anarchaic attitude is creeping in.
For example...
#1 people know that they can drive for months without a license plate, as there are rarely police visible on the roads.
So it is better to drive plateless, risking a R500 fine IF they get caught - about 35 quid - than to get lots of camera fines!
#2 anyone who gets caught doing anything automatically belats "but what about the taxies"- referring to our lawless thug minbus taxi industry, which gets away with automotive murder. This becomes the attitude - if THEY can do it, I can do it - so we have situations, for example, where NOBODY stops at a stop sign, everyone just breezes throuigh, because... everyone else does it.
My daughter's school has FIVE No U-turn signs in the space of 100m outside it.
Every day, I see about 15 Mummies and daddies making U-turns. And if, as has happened, teachers complain to said parent, they get 'but what about the taxis'?...
|
"The Rule Of Law ended years ago. So the public no longer have a responsibility to obey "The Law"."
Something to remember Viewer, if anyone shunts you up the rear and they didn`t believe in having insurance ;)
Edited by oilrag on 03/06/2008 at 08:50
|
What really concerns me is that people actually think that stopping at a red light is optional - I've been hit by a red light runner and it wasn't pleasent - for those of you who think that its ok, please go and find another country to drive in....
|
>> "The Rule Of Law ended years ago. So the public no longer have a responsibility to obey "The Law"."
Something to remember Viewer if anyone shunts you up the rear and they didn`t believe in having insurance ;)
Why, Oilrag? You shouldn't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. Especially if you haven't actually bothered to read it first!
Note I said " "The Law" ", ie in quotes. ie the arbitrary and unjust edicts of the bureacracy. I did say that people had a duty to do the right thing though, didn't I?
For example, I don't think that people have a legal duty to not have their bin lids open four inches because some fly-tipper stuffed some rubbish in it. Or because the bin men didn't bother collecting the previous fortnight. But I do think they have a moral duty to take in their neighbour's bin because the neighbour had the audacity to work for a living, or, shock, horror, dared to take a couple of days off for a break around Bin "Day".
|
Speechless......
'Viewer', would you care to comment on how your final three paragraphs differ from an essential anarchism?
Because what you propose sure sounds like anarchy to me.
I'm sorry, but I still believe in law and order - and I am not a police officer, a lawyer, or a member of the judiciary.
By the way, drivewell, I note you didn't care (dare?) to comment on my first two paragraphs!
|
By the way drivewell I note you didn't care (dare?) to comment on my first two paragraphs!
Not a case of 'caring' or 'daring'. First paragraph deals with conspiracy. I don't think any of the examples you list are common enough for us to use them as a reason to disobey the law. Any police officer guilty of conspiracy is likely to receive a tougher than average sentence.
Your second paragraph again addresses issues which I admit happen from time to time. I still do not, however, believe that the failures of others gives us justification to break the law ourselves.
Law-keeping is, to my mind, a foundational principle of living in society. Cultures who have abandoned an objective law code have often declined rapidly into social disorder.
I have no desire to see this happen in the UK (nor do I have any desire to pursue this particular debate any further)
|
|
|
I suggest as a m/c you drive within the lines and adhere to the rules that we should all abide by. What gives you preferential treatment.
>>
I'm talking about a big queue of traffic for whatever reason, not necessarily in a built up area, which let's face it doesn't often have double white lines... and a bike trying to get to the head of the queue by filtering (which they're perfectly entitled to do and is one of the benefits of a bike).
A car driver stuck there anyway, can often with minimum fuss facilitate the progress of a bike if they wished to, but many don't with the thought process no doubt of 'what gives you preferential treatment'...(in other words sheer selfishness).
Why do most drivers on the continent and particularly France actively go out of their way to let a bike past..whereas here you can often get the total opposite?
If i was intent on breaking the rules i wouldn't be submitting a post asking car drivers to move over a bit..i'd be overtaking over the white lines wouldn't I.
p.s. i.m a car driver 99.9% of the time, last year only did 600 miles on the bike
|
You're entitled to overtake on double white lines if its safe to do so providing the target vehicles speed is less than 15MPH
|
You're entitled to overtake on double white lines if its safe to do so providing the target vehicles speed is less than 15MPH
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing:
"Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]"
|
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing:
. You may cross the line if necessary provided the road isclear to pass a stationary vehicle or overtake a pedal cycle horse or road maintenance vehicle if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]"
Thanks for the correction BP, however I doubt anyone could tell the speed differential between 10 and 15MPH of a cycle when driving at the national speed limit.
|
But the cyclist would probably notice Dox blasting past at 60 without crossing the double whites too far...
:o}
|
I slow down for horses though Lud ;o)
|
Thanks for the correction BP however I doubt anyone could tell the speed differential between 10 and 15MPH of a cycle when driving at the national speed limit.
No, but it's not going to be helpful if you get pulled and start insisting that it's 15MPH.
Probably more important is that the definition of what you can overtake is much more limited than "vehicle".
|
I understand that queueing vehicles fit into a grey area as to whether or not they are 'stationary'. i.e. they are temporarily stopped in traffic, but not parked.
I think that part of the legislation was designed for parked or broken down vehicles, not someone held temporarily in a queue....and don't fancy being the test case with 3 points hanging over my head.
Maybe PU can add his thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
