Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Steve Firth on 31 Jul 2010 17:21 Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > If you can't handle it then perhaps you shouldn't have a driving > license. American drivers manage it all the time so I don't see why you > think a British driver can't without crashing. And Italian, German, French, Swiss drivers. All of them driving in places where traffic lights become four-way give way signs (flashing amber) at night. The definition of "night" starts surprisingly early in most places - from about 6pm onwards.
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 31 Jul 2010 17:32 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:39:26 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >When I'm driving I want to know that I can either go through a junction at >normal speed if the lights are in my favour or else I will have to stop if >they are not. Having to slow down at *every* junction, rather than only >those where the lights are against me, is a very retrograde step. Odd, the "Great Car Economy" seems to work just fine with that kind of rule, to say nothing of inconsistent rules on whether you can turn on red between states and sometimes, I'm told, individual cities within states. My driving instructor told me that all colours of a traffic light mean "stop" - green means "stop unless it is safe to proceed". e was president of the driving instructors' association, evaluated potential driving instructor examiners for the ministry and was awarded a CBE for services to driving instruction, so I tend to treat his advice as generally sound. Mind you, the number of people who don't understand box junctions and continuing once you've passed the line, I think it's quite likely that a fair proportion of licensed drivers simply can't remember even the fairly limited number of traffic laws we do have! Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid.
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 31 Jul 2010 17:36 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:58:02 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: >>> From the court reports in my local newspaper: >>> >>> [snipped details of some motoring offences] >>> >>> If only penalties like these were applied to cyclists, we would soon >>> see a drop in deliberate RLJing, no lights at night and the many >>> other offences that cyclists seem to get away with scot free! >> >> Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the >> tine? > >How do you determine the risk posed by a cyclist with no lights on?... To you or to him? There's also a vast variation in risk depending on the roads themselves. >A lorry driving along suddenly, at the last minute sees a cyclist with no >lights on and swerves to avoid him. In doing so he wipes out 2 cars, each >containing a family of four and the mangled mess then ploughs through a >bus-stop of kids coming home from the cinema. s/cyclist/deer/ Or pedestrian. Or fallen tree. The requirement to drive within the distance you can see to be clear is not contingent on all potential obstacles being lit. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid.
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 31 Jul 2010 17:39 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:00:26 +0800, The Peeler <peelingthe(a)invalid.admin> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:58:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" ><guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Derek C >><del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On Jul 31, 10:39�am, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Derek C wrote: >>>> >>>> > How often do cyclists get fined? >>>> >>>> Fairly often but they usually accept the FPN of �30. �If they contest >>>> any such penalty and take it to Court then they will usually get hit >>>> with a much bigger fine plus costs if they are found guilty to >>>> discourage people from clogging up the Courts contesting them. �All of >>>> your examples and mine appear to be people who have contested it in Court. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tony >>>> >>>Come on Tony! Once in a blue moon, the Police send a few junior >>>officers out for an hour or two to nick a few cyclists, because of >>>political pressure from the general public who are fed up with their >>>law breaking antics. They can't be caught by cameras because of their >>>lack of registration plates, unlike cars. >> >>This is probably a reflection of the fact that cyclists are far more >>likely to be killed by a motorist jumping a red light than by jumping >>it themselves. > >Where do you get this "fact" from? TfL and DfT. See also <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece> - "Women risk death by obeying traffic lights". A bonus for you: I bet you didn't know that you're many times more likely to be killed or injured by a car on the pavement than by a bicycle on the pavement. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid.
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 18:19
On 31/07/2010 20:03, Colin McKenzie wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:23:59 +0100, Matt B > <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: >> The dead phase of all-red is the real congestion and pollution creator. > > In recent years there has been a policy to lengthen this period. This is > not, as many would claim, to delay traffic more. It is done to reduce > the number of collisions resulting from drivers going through, usually > at high speed, just after the light has gone red. These drivers could > have stopped safely. Do you have a reference for that, because that would be counter productive: the longer the dead period gets, the more drivers know it will be "safe" to pass red for a few moments after the change - so the more likely it is to happen. -- Matt B |