Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

Who was talking about traffic offences?

A brief survey of the thread in Google Groups indicated that Adrian was,
Mortimer (who explicitly said "going through on amber ... is not actually
an offence") was, and in quoting the legislation that creates the
offence, I obviously was too.

But I wasn't and it is hard to see how anyone might think I was.

If you were talking about something else you might have said so.

It was absolutely clear what my question meant.

I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of
traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the
law says and what it means.
You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc
and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be
legal or not.

In exactly the same way and to the same extent, they cannot know in
advance whether their conduct will be judged as careless driving or
dangerous driving. Yet most of us seem to get along most of the time.

Yeeesss... but most of us will pass sets of traffic lights rather more often
than we encounter overtly dangerous situations.

Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them is a
very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready case-law on
the topic.