legal advice for running a so called red light

[Matthew_T]

When I get a car, I will fit it with a dashcam. I will then show the people of the world how late you can safely brake for a red light (the environment will obviously depend on it but some people think that an amber means green). Countless times I see people running ambers just because they think it is a green.
Even when cycling, and approaching a junction where I know I can safely go through on an amber, I will still stop when I can.

 

[Matthew_T]

Will the world be ready?

It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.

 

[morrisman]

When I get a car, I will fit it with a dashcam. I will then show the people of the world how late you can safely brake for a red light (the environment will obviously depend on it but some people think that an amber means green). .

The Sainted Mrs Morrisman tried to show a VW Touareg how safely you can brake for an amber only to have her Skoda shortened by about 6 inches.

 

[Matthew_T]

The Sainted Mrs Morrisman tried to show a VW Touareg how safely you can brake for an amber only to have her Skoda shortened by about 6 inches.

Thats what I mean about the environment. I will probably do it when traffic is quiet and there is noone around who might be affected by it (that is if I even remember by then). I probably wouldnt have the courage to mess about on the roads. Just turn the camera on, and get on with the drive.

 

[classic33]

It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.

What year?

 

[martint235]

1)They already pick and choose.

2) It depends. I've RLJ'd before when not to do so would have put me at risk,but never passed through a junction.
Usually when I've been in a cycle lane leading to lights, it's changed to red, not been able to get into primary, filtered to ASL, find a vehicle in ASL so crossed line to get in front to be in a sfer position.
There's also a another set of lights where I have to turn right. I've been under and over taken whilst turning there, really dangerous maneuvering by drivers. I've noticed there's an all red phase for the pedestrian crossings. It'd be much safer for me to turn in that phase and since I've always been the only cyclist and it's slightly uphill (so I'd be going slow) it wouldn't really pose any problems for peds either. I've considered it, but haven't tried it yet
As a rule RLJ = bad though, unless not red light jumping puts someone at risk.

It's not really clear in the OP why he jumped the read,

Safer than just approaching the lights like a car? Taking your place in full primary in a line of traffic or are you justifying the driver mentality of "must get to the front"? I see no reason to get to the front of the queue and if you think about it, where's riskier? Two cars back where the car behind you isn't going to do an F1 start when the lights change or a couple of cars back where you have time to look at the driver, signal what you intend to do and then safely do it?

RLJing is done by impatient, selfish people who should be prosecuted. There should be a year of zero tolerance for all road offences.

 

[Sara_H]

Safer than just approaching the lights like a car? Taking your place in full primary in a line of traffic or are you justifying the driver mentality of "must get to the front"? I see no reason to get to the front of the queue and if you think about it, where's riskier? Two cars back where the car behind you isn't going to do an F1 start when the lights change or a couple of cars back where you have time to look at the driver, signal what you intend to do and then safely do it?

RLJing is done by impatient, selfish people who should be prosecuted. There should be a year of zero tolerance for all road offences.

Yes, I'm thinking of one particular set of lights where there's a bike lane, traffic crawling on the right or traffic at a standstill, lights turn red, I keep filtering up the cycle lane - no room to move out into primary as traffic is already nose to tail get to front, find car in ASL safer and causing no harm whatsoever to get in front than sit on his left.
If I'm in moving traffic and the lights change I'll happily move to primary and wait, but that's not the situation I'm describing here.
I'm not impatient or selfish, but if I find myself in a situation where it's safer for me to go over the line that isn't going to harm or inconvenience anyone else then that's what I'll do. It would be stupid not to.

 

[Matthew_T]

What year?

Next year. (Doesnt leave much time for stocking the Anderson Shelter does it?)

 

[400bhp]

Why? In my experience the police generally pay very little attention to such crimes in a scenario where "no harm's done".
Something like this would usually be dealt with by having a word. I'm very surprised it's going to court, it seems a bit OTT and in my view not a very good use of public resources.

So, you'd rather the police not bother with low level crime then?

What resources are they actually wasting? It must have taken them 10 minutes max to write up that statement, perhaps anothher hour arsing about with due process.

I would imagine that counter terrorism units have quite a bit of time on their hands because, no matter what the Daily Mail tell us, there's not an Abu Hamza on every street corner.

I the words of BB, I could be wrong on all of the above.

 

[400bhp]

and yeah, MTFU and accept the fine.

 

[400bhp]

It is foolish to dismiss it as wounded pride. We require our law process to have authority and the people to acknowledge that and preferably acknowledge it as fair etc.
If nobody ever gets prosecuted for it, and it occurs, then the law is not being enforced.

^^THIS^^

 

[400bhp]

This is a great thread.

Commuting community living together in har..mo..ee.

We bicker, bitch and argue, but when one of "our own" break the rules, you're on your own son.

 

[400bhp]

It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.

No

 

[Sara_H]

So, you'd rather the police not bother with low level crime then?

What resources are they actually wasting? It must have taken them 10 minutes max to write up that statement, perhaps anothher hour arsing about with due process.

I would imagine that counter terrorism units have quite a bit of time on their hands because, no matter what the Daily Mail tell us, there's not an Abu Hamza on every street corner.

I the words of BB, I could be wrong on all of the above.

That case will cost thousands to bring to court. Given that no harm was done here and that hundreds of crimes where harm will have been done will have gone uninvestigated by the police, then yes, I would prefer this to have been dealt with by having a word.
I've friends who've been victims of crime that has real impact - mostly theft of property, vehicles, burglary and the police have shown no interest whatsoever. A friend had his moped stolen and wrecked, a passer by caught the thief called the police, thief was let go on a restorative justice programme ie let off. Moped owner hundreds of pounds out of pocket in lost excess.
I myself was victim of a hit and run, got the reg of vehicle, police only investigated after a lot of pressure from myself when I found out they'd taken no action at all two weeks later.
If the police officers haven't got anything better to do with their time than this then they ought to be redeployed.

 

[400bhp]

Re-read your post and think about what you are saying.

All the crimes mentioned are in essence low level.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.