JNugent writes:

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.

Post-hoc, you mean?

I'll assume you are not using that response as a way of admitting that you
don't know.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of second-hand
information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching and nearly at a
set of traffic lights which have just, this very fraction of a second, turned
amber?

Is it *supposed* to be a guessing game, or are there some rules which you
think can be consulted?

JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.

Post-hoc, you mean?

It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are
judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been
committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable
infringement of civil liberties.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of
second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching
and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very
fraction of a second, turned amber?

It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask. If a driver
wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs
advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which
has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of
his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances
printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such
organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving
instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a
remedial course in driving skills.


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:
[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?
A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.
Post-hoc, you mean?

It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are
judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been
committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable
infringement of civil liberties.

Who was talking about traffic offences?

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.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of
second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching
and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very
fraction of a second, turned amber?

It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask.

That's exactly wahat I *was* asking.

If a driver
wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs
advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which
has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of
his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances
printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such
organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving
instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a
remedial course in driving skills.

So you don't actually know what "too close to be stopped safely" means?

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.

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

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.


-dan

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.

JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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.

There is.

Passing through the lights once they've gone red is an absolute offence.
Passing through the lights at amber is not an offence, but is strongly
discouraged by "best practice", as codified in the Highway Code.

What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that?

In message , JNugent
writes
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.
As so many people treat amber as "get ready to stop" instead of stop if
it's safe to do so, the chances of being rear ended if you do stop would
be greatly enhanced.
--
Clive