Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Derek C on 31 Jul 2010 03:39 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! Derek C
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 03:47 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? Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than dis-benefit for most of the time? Would our access roads and streets be safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them? -- Matt B
From: Derek C on 31 Jul 2010 04:00 On Jul 31, 8:47 am, Matt B <matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > 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? > > Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than > dis-benefit for most of the time? Would our access roads and streets be > safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them? > > -- It seems to me that some sets of traffic lights are deliberately designed to slow up motorised traffic as much as possible, especially in motorist hating Labour controlled boroughs. Some lights change so quickly that only a few vehicles at a time can get through, while others keep you waiting at the red light for ages, long after all the traffic going in the other direction has got through the junction. However most traffic lights are reasonably sensible. 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. Derek
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 04:23 On 31/07/2010 09:00, Derek C wrote: > On Jul 31, 8:47 am, Matt B<matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: >> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: >> >> Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than >> dis-benefit for most of the time? Would our access roads and streets be >> safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them? > > It seems to me that some sets of traffic lights are deliberately > designed to slow up motorised traffic as much as possible, especially > in motorist hating Labour controlled boroughs.Some lights change so > quickly that only a few vehicles at a time can get through, while > others keep you waiting at the red light for ages, long after all the > traffic going in the other direction has got through the junction. The dead phase of all-red is the real congestion and pollution creator. > However most traffic lights are reasonably sensible. At all times? Could they be switched off at, say, night? > 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. What about the danger of RLJers (deliberate or erroneous) - that risk would disappear if there was no red (and no green) light? -- Matt B
From: NM on 31 Jul 2010 04:52
On 31 July, 09:23, Matt B <matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > On 31/07/2010 09:00, Derek C wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 8:47 am, Matt B<matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > >> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: > > >> Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than > >> dis-benefit for most of the time? Would our access roads and streets be > >> safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them? > > > It seems to me that some sets of traffic lights are deliberately > > designed to slow up motorised traffic as much as possible, especially > > in motorist hating Labour controlled boroughs.Some lights change so > > quickly that only a few vehicles at a time can get through, while > > others keep you waiting at the red light for ages, long after all the > > traffic going in the other direction has got through the junction. > > The dead phase of all-red is the real congestion and pollution creator. > > > However most traffic lights are reasonably sensible. > > At all times? Could they be switched off at, say, night? > In the land of the Frog they used at night to put the main road traffic lights to green with amber flashing and the side road red with also amber flash, side road go but give precedence to traffic on main road and a warning for the main road traffic. |