Green doesn’t mean go.
Ok it means you can proceed forward if it’s safe to do so and if your exit is clear…mr pedantic .com
Rowley010:
Carryfast:
Rowley010:
Personally I think amber doesn’t mean stop, red means stop. Amber is warning you that you need to take action.Trust me the law doesn’t see it that way.Amber means stop unless you can prove very exceptional circumstances on the basis of guilty unless proven innocent.
I know the way the law sees it. Amber means stop, however, you only quoted part of what I said. I then said unless you are committed and in which case even if you slammed on you’d still end up stopped in the middle of the junction, car or truck, your better off going.
Let’s face it, there has to be a bit of leeway on an Amber other what’s the point in it? Why not just cut out all Amber lights and go from green straight to red with no warning?
Green means go, Amber means stop, red means stop, then Amber means stay stopped, then green means go…so what’s the bloody point in wasting tax payers money on Amber lights? To the letter of the law it does mean stop, but if your committed then surely your safer for everyone to just go. And when i say committed I do mean literally at the line, just past it, or a VERY short space before it. That’s committed to me. Committed is not being 5ft away and flooring it to get though, or even 2ft away and flooring it. Committed is where I was today, pretty much on the line as it went to Amber.
Committed actually means being close enough to the line where there’s not enough reaction time/distance left to stop if it goes to amber.That’s a lot more than 2 feet at 20 mph.Which was actually my defence against a copper who nicked me with the car in exactly that situation let alone a truck.Needless to say the advice was plead guilty.
Everything else you’ve said I agree with which is why I said it’s a stupid rule which defeats the object of having an amber light.To the point where some places actually use a flashing green advanced warning of the change to amber which is at least better than what we’ve got. 
My distances were just plucked out of thin air with no thought to make a point. I think I agree what your saying with regards to thinking and stopping distance time whether your committed or not. That’s what I was getting at really, and that was my situation earlier today. Pretty much on the line, changes to Amber, by the time I’d though should I go or stop I was probably just over the line (split seconds) then at that point I went because starting to break would have left me halfway over the junction.
Rowley010:
My distances were just plucked out of thin air with no thought to make a point. I think I agree what your saying with regards to thinking and stopping distance time whether your committed or not. That’s what I was getting at really, and that was my situation earlier today. Pretty much on the line, changes to Amber, by the time I’d though should I go or stop I was probably just over the line (split seconds) then at that point I went because starting to break would have left me halfway over the junction.
That was the situation in which I was nicked.While it looks like cameras are probably as good as it gets in terms of benefit of the doubt v a copper’s judgement. On that note given a general rule of amber means stop it’s surprising that a flashing green advanced warning wasn’t/hasn’t been applied to that here long before now.
Red means stop, Green means go, Amber means floor it or slam the anchors on. There is no prepare only do.
Lets not cloud reality with what the highway code says.
I’ve said it before , if you’re going through , boot it , too many drivers with shall I , will they change , brake , they might , no I’m ok, ■■■■ , just make the decision your going through and go , and I mean go , boot it
Harsh braking!!!
SEDriver:
The rule is AMBER = StopThe exception is in the case that it is “Unsafe” to stop.
RED = Stop
If “ANY PART” (Magic word) of the vehicle passes the stop line on Amber or Red you have committed an offence (Unless Amber, not safe to stop)
Red Light Cameras work like this
Amber (3 Seconds) - No Enforcement
Red (First 1 Second) - No Enforcement
Red (After 1 Second) - Camera/Sensors activeSo if you can’t clear the stop line in 4 seconds of the green light going out, then you are stuffed.
Any part of the vehicle means just that, including trailers.
This seems difficult to apply to practice however.
Is there any sensible situation where a person could be convicted for failing to stop at an amber light (preceding a red light)?
Also, is there any authority for the implication that a vehicle may not stop straddling a stop line whilst the light is not red? Making a right turn is an obvious case where it will often be necessary to straddle the stop line, during which the light may turn red (or there may be no repeater beyond the stop line and it may be impossible, except perhaps by inference, to know what state the light is in). This latter case is tacitly acknowledged in the highway code, so straddling the stop line and then moving off on red must be permitted at least in that case.
And is there any authority that no part of the vehicle may proceed over the white line when the light is red? I always thought, consistent with common sense, was that once the stop line is being straddled then the traffic light has already been “passed” (and in a queuing situation, it is then a judgment as to whether to cross the junction “on red” or wait).
Rjan:
SEDriver:
The rule is AMBER = StopThe exception is in the case that it is “Unsafe” to stop.
Any part of the vehicle means just that, including trailers.
This seems difficult to apply to practice however.
Is there any sensible situation where a person could be convicted for failing to stop at an amber light (preceding a red light)?
Also, is there any authority for the implication that a vehicle may not stop straddling a stop line whilst the light is not red? Making a right turn is an obvious case where it will often be necessary to straddle the stop line, during which the light may turn red (or there may be no repeater beyond the stop line and it may be impossible, except perhaps by inference, to know what state the light is in). This latter case is tacitly acknowledged in the highway code, so straddling the stop line and then moving off on red must be permitted at least in that case.
And is there any authority that no part of the vehicle may proceed over the white line when the light is red? I always thought, consistent with common sense, was that once the stop line is being straddled then the traffic light has already been “passed” (and in a queuing situation, it is then a judgment as to whether to cross the junction “on red” or wait).
A right turn is obviously an exception to the rule don’t enter the junction unless your exit is clear.In all cases the light has to be green when crossing the stop line not amber or red.On that note you will be convicted for crossing the stop line on amber unless you can prove that it would have been dangerous to stop.The definition of ‘dangerous’ being at the discretion of the law not the driver.Which in the real world means if a copper says to the court you should have stopped then you’re toast.
Carryfast:
A right turn is obviously an exception to the rule don’t enter the junction unless your exit is clear. In all cases the light has to be green when crossing the stop line not amber or red.On that note you will be convicted for crossing the stop line on amber unless you can prove that it would have been dangerous to stop.
No, the prosecutor must prove that it was safe to stop and the driver failed to do so, not the other way around.
And it’s completely absurd to say that a driver has to prove that it wasn’t safe to stop - the whole point of the amber phase is that it reflects a period of time during which it isn’t generally regarded as safe for vehicles to stop. The light turns red only at the point when it is accepted that drivers have had enough time to come to a safe stop.
I suppose there may be a small margin at the end of the amber phase where it would be theoretically possible to prove the offence, but I think a court would have a hard time swallowing that a driver who was able to fully pass the stop line within the amber phase, should be convicted of failing to obey.
The only realistic situation I can think where a conviction would result, is where the driver stopped at a green light (for some odd reason), and then took off on a stale amber, it being obvious in that case that he was already safely stopped and did not need to proceed.
The definition of ‘dangerous’ being at the discretion of the law not the driver.Which in the real world means if a copper says to the court you should have stopped then you’re toast.
I don’t think that would wash at all. The driver may simply have registered the amber light a few hundred milliseconds later than it actually displayed - and then, by time he did register it, he made the decision that he was too close to stop and so he proceeded on amber. What copper is then in a position to say otherwise?
I certainly don’t think that the court would hold the minor vagaries of human perception and attention against a driver, even if it were shown that theoretically the driver could have reacted quicker and stopped.
I’m still pee’d off that I was done for exactly this scenario back in '68, way before cameras. In those days it was a summons to appear and the copper (■■■■■■■■■■■ even said that I was 5 yards from the line when the lights went to amber. I’d just left Spitalfields market with half a trailer load of fruit on and was tear arsing along at about 25. 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
A right turn is obviously an exception to the rule don’t enter the junction unless your exit is clear. In all cases the light has to be green when crossing the stop line not amber or red.On that note you will be convicted for crossing the stop line on amber unless you can prove that it would have been dangerous to stop.No, the prosecutor must prove that it was safe to stop and the driver failed to do so, not the other way around.
And it’s completely absurd to say that a driver has to prove that it wasn’t safe to stop - the whole point of the amber phase is that it reflects a period of time during which it isn’t generally regarded as safe for vehicles to stop. The light turns red only at the point when it is accepted that drivers have had enough time to come to a safe stop.
I suppose there may be a small margin at the end of the amber phase where it would be theoretically possible to prove the offence, but I think a court would have a hard time swallowing that a driver who was able to fully pass the stop line within the amber phase, should be convicted of failing to obey.
The only realistic situation I can think where a conviction would result, is where the driver stopped at a green light (for some odd reason), and then took off on a stale amber, it being obvious in that case that he was already safely stopped and did not need to proceed.
The definition of ‘dangerous’ being at the discretion of the law not the driver.Which in the real world means if a copper says to the court you should have stopped then you’re toast.
I don’t think that would wash at all. The driver may simply have registered the amber light a few hundred milliseconds later than it actually displayed - and then, by time he did register it, he made the decision that he was too close to stop and so he proceeded on amber. What copper is then in a position to say otherwise?
I certainly don’t think that the court would hold the minor vagaries of human perception and attention against a driver, even if it were shown that theoretically the driver could have reacted quicker and stopped.
I think you’re way under estimating the weight which a police statement carries regards absolute offences like speeding and traffic signals.In the real world if the copper says you’ve crossed a stop line on amber when you should have stopped that’s the version which will stand in court.As opposed to sorry I didn’t see the light change in time or the distance was less than that required to react to the light change.On that note as I said at least cameras provide a better chance by removing the ‘opinion’ of a copper from the evidence equation and possibly being set to a more realistic toleranc level.
While the basic flaw remains in that the rule of stop on amber defeats the object of the amber light.Thereby also requiring advanced warning of the change from green to amber in the form of a flashing green.
peterm:
I’m still pee’d off that I was done for exactly this scenario back in '68, way before cameras. In those days it was a summons to appear and the copper ([zb]) even said that I was 5 yards from the line when the lights went to amber. I’d just left Spitalfields market with half a trailer load of fruit on and was tear arsing along at about 25.
That’s more or less also the exact circumstances in which I got nicked driving the car in the 1970’s.
Talking of stopping at a green light, I have done this.
Sat there staring at it all embarrased wondering wtf im doing.
Perhaps on the approach I saw a red light some where, maybe the lights where offset and I could see the other directions red or most likely im just daft.
Dipper_Dave:
Talking of stopping at a green light, I have done this.
Sat there staring at it all embarrased wondering wtf im doing.Perhaps on the approach I saw a red light some where, maybe the lights where offset and I could see the other directions red or most likely im just daft.
I’ve done it in central London , you’ve never heard so many horns Dave , I just hide behind my curtains when they pass 
Carryfast:
I think you’re way under estimating the weight which a police statement carries regards absolute offences like speeding and traffic signals.In the real world if the copper says you’ve crossed a stop line on amber when you should have stopped that’s the version which will stand in court.
I would like to think that in this day and age the police would be reasonably expected to produce video evidence of such a finely judged matter, just as the mere say-so of one officer standing streetside has never been sufficient for a speeding prosecution.
As opposed to sorry I didn’t see the light change in time or the distance was less than that required to react to the light change.On that note as I said at least cameras provide a better chance by removing the ‘opinion’ of a copper from the evidence equation and possibly being set to a more realistic toleranc level.
While the basic flaw remains in that the rule of stop on amber defeats the object of the amber light.Thereby also requiring advanced warning of the change from green to amber in the form of a flashing green.
Which makes me think that the basic flaw is in our interpretation here. The legislation says “[amber treated as red] except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal”.
In the first place, that would appear to suggest that any vehicle which in fact passes the stop line on amber, is (at the time that the line is passed) doing so whilst the light is treated as being green (because, at the time of passing, it is obviously too late to safely stop a vehicle which is travelling at speed).
And in terms of an earlier window of opportunity, during which the amber would have been treated as red, it is not obvious that the driver has in fact disobeyed the traffic sign, because during that window he does not cross the line.
The offence of crossing the line is “failure to comply with the indication given by the traffic sign”, but the RTA 1988 s.36(2) says that a person shall not be convicted of failing to obey the indication unless he also fails to comply with the prohibition (the prohibition, in this case, being not to cross the stop line).
The driver who passes on amber does not fail to comply with the prohibition, because at the time he actually crosses the line, the amber is now treated as green and the prohibition is no longer in force (by virtue of the driver having failed to slow his vehicle when he had the opportunity to do so).
It’s crafty reasoning, but it brings us back to the common sense position that amber is a warning which in practice means “prepare to stop for a red light”.
These are just points of law, before we get to the issue (if prosecution cannot be ruled out on these points of law) of the officer actually being able to prove (without any devices or stopwatches, and despite the light remaining amber) that it was safe for the driver to pull up the vehicle on that occasion (which is always a judgment within a margin of milliseconds, and two perfectly reasonable, truthful, and careful drivers may well differ in their judgment on any one occasion).
Frankly, if the officer wants to do you for crossing on amber, and if his say-so is all that counts in your belief, then he’d make his life easier to just say you crossed on red!
Rjan:
Carryfast:
I think you’re way under estimating the weight which a police statement carries regards absolute offences like speeding and traffic signals.In the real world if the copper says you’ve crossed a stop line on amber when you should have stopped that’s the version which will stand in court.I would like to think that in this day and age the police would be reasonably expected to produce video evidence of such a finely judged matter, just as the mere say-so of one officer standing streetside has never been sufficient for a speeding prosecution.
As opposed to sorry I didn’t see the light change in time or the distance was less than that required to react to the light change.On that note as I said at least cameras provide a better chance by removing the ‘opinion’ of a copper from the evidence equation and possibly being set to a more realistic toleranc level.
While the basic flaw remains in that the rule of stop on amber defeats the object of the amber light.Thereby also requiring advanced warning of the change from green to amber in the form of a flashing green.
Which makes me think that the basic flaw is in our interpretation here. The legislation says “[amber treated as red] except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal”.
In the first place, that would appear to suggest that any vehicle which in fact passes the stop line on amber, is (at the time that the line is passed) doing so whilst the light is treated as being green (because, at the time of passing, it is obviously too late to safely stop a vehicle which is travelling at speed).
And in terms of an earlier window of opportunity, during which the amber would have been treated as red, it is not obvious that the driver has in fact disobeyed the traffic sign, because during that window he does not cross the line.
The offence of crossing the line is “failure to comply with the indication given by the traffic sign”, but the RTA 1988 s.36(2) says that a person shall not be convicted of failing to obey the indication unless he also fails to comply with the prohibition (the prohibition, in this case, being not to cross the stop line).
The driver who passes on amber does not fail to comply with the prohibition, because at the time he actually crosses the line, the amber is now treated as green and the prohibition is no longer in force (by virtue of the driver having failed to slow his vehicle when he had the opportunity to do so).
It’s crafty reasoning, but it brings us back to the common sense position that amber is a warning which in practice means “prepare to stop for a red light”.
These are just points of law, before we get to the issue (if prosecution cannot be ruled out on these points of law) of the officer actually being able to prove (without any devices or stopwatches, and despite the light remaining amber) that it was safe for the driver to pull up the vehicle on that occasion (which is always a judgment within a margin of milliseconds, and two perfectly reasonable, truthful, and careful drivers may well differ in their judgment on any one occasion).
Frankly, if the officer wants to do you for crossing on amber, and if his say-so is all that counts in your belief, then he’d make his life easier to just say you crossed on red!
By that logic the highway code would actually describe amber as just a warning regards ‘being prepared to stop for red’.Which by definition removes any question of anyone having crossed the line on amber because the driver considered it impossible to stop in time.In which case that would be in keeping with the obvious object of the amber light in acting as advanced warning of the change from green to red.
Unfortunately that isn’t how current traffic law is worded or enforced.Amber is regarded a meaning stop the same as red unless it’s unsafe to do so with the burden of proof being on the driver regards the definition of unsafe to stop.With the explanation of not enough time usually being met by the ‘expert’ police ‘opinion’ of an unsafe approach to a stale green not an unsafe distance to stop.Which as I’ve said logically explains the need for a flashing green to do the job that the amber light ‘should be’ there for but in reality isn’t.
I wouldn’t worry about it mate I’m sure you’ll be fine.
I was coming down the East Lancs from Bootle one Sunday afternoon sweating on making it back to Immingham in my driving hours…went through a set of lights on Amber (floored it as much as you can with 44t gross)…never got done for going through a Red light but did get 3 points and £100 for doing 46 in a 40…the photo online clearly showed the light was actually red as my trailer got photographed…I had been unusually conscientious that day and actually remebered to put my number plate on the trailer…schoolboy error!!!
Eric Rambler:
Well in the good old days we didn’t usually bother to stick a number plate on the trailer, and if we did it was just a random one we found at the gatehouse.
£60 FPN. Got one myself for no numberplate in the middle of the night on the M62 by a bored Trafpol looking for something to do.