Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nick Finnigan on 31 Jul 2010 14:46 Matt B wrote: > > Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do most > crashes occur now? On roads where traffic moves at a slower speed?
From: Colin McKenzie on 31 Jul 2010 15:03 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. This policy is of course crazy, as the law-abiding are delayed, but law-breaking drivers just learn that they can get through even later. Strangely, the chance of being caught and fined doesn't seem to be large enough to put them off. > On 31/07/2010 09:00, Derek C wrote: >> However most traffic lights are reasonably sensible. > > At all times? Could they be switched off at, say, night? I think most of us would vote for that, as long as no road has priority, and sightlines are restricted, so that everyone slows down for the junction. >> If you didn't >> have traffic lights, you might find it difficult to enter a main road >> from a minor one with give way signs at busy times of day. > > What if you didn't have give-way limes or signs either, and there was no > defined priority - just an imaginatively cobbled or garishly painted > free-for-all zone in the middle? This is the case when traffic lights > break down (except for the cobbled or painted bit!), and in such > circumstances the junctions generally flow more efficiently. But pedestrians often struggle to cross at all. If DfT rules allowed it, a junction with no defined priority for road users, but zebras all round, might work well. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
From: alan.holmes on 31 Jul 2010 15:42 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:9d0039fc-9a56-4744-af1d-b617c94ace2c(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... From the court reports in my local newspaper: Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �200 plus three penalty points on his licence. Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �110 plus three penalty points on her licence. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention - Fine and costs �190 plus 5 penalty points. Faulty rear lights on a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �275. 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! I don't think this has anything to do with cars and traffic lights, just an excuse to have a dig at cyclists! Alan Derek C
From: alan.holmes on 31 Jul 2010 15:46 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:9d0039fc-9a56-4744-af1d-b617c94ace2c(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... From the court reports in my local newspaper: Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �200 plus three penalty points on his licence. Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �110 plus three penalty points on her licence. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention - Fine and costs �190 plus 5 penalty points. Faulty rear lights on a motor vehicle - Fine and costs �275. 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! I don't think this has anything to do with cars and traffic lights, just an excuse to have a dig at cyclists! Alan Derek C
From: Derek C on 31 Jul 2010 15:58
On Jul 31, 8:42 pm, "alan.holmes" <alan.holme...(a)somewhere.net> wrote: > "Derek C" <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:9d0039fc-9a56-4744-af1d-b617c94ace2c(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > From the court reports in my local newspaper: > > Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a > motor vehicle - Fine and costs £200 plus three penalty points on his > licence. > > Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a > motor vehicle - Fine and costs £110 plus three penalty points on her > licence. > > Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention - Fine and > costs £190 plus 5 penalty points. > > Faulty rear lights on a motor vehicle - Fine and costs £275. > > 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! > > I don't think this has anything to do with cars and traffic lights, just an > excuse to have a dig at cyclists! > > Alan Unless they are unlucky enough to get caught in one of the rare Police purges on law breaking cyclists, they are very unlikely to be caught and prosecuted. Even if they are it is normally a £30 fixed price penalty plus a slap on the wrist, they don't have a licence that can be endorsed, and they can't normally be banned from riding. |