running red light-can I get a course instead of the 3 points

[speedking31]

Retroman said:

Amber means stop the same as red.
There are certain defences that can be used sometimes to get off with going through an amber light. I.e if you braked so sharply it would cause an accident.

The question of obscured lights is a red herring. Given good visibility and watching the lights like a hawk with no other distractions, what speed should you drive at to ensure that you can always stop at an amber? Clue: the answer is an integer less than 1

When you are closer to the lights than your stopping distance, no matter what your speed, then when the lights change you will not be able to stop. That cannot be an offence. Otherwise we would not have an amber phase at all.

[anonymous-user]

Retroman said:

Amber means stop the same as red.

No it does not.

Amber on its own means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

RED means ‘Stop’. Wait behind the stop on the carriageway.

Subtle differences, but differences all the same.

[TooMany2cvs]

garyhun said:

Retroman said:

Amber means stop the same as red.

No it does not.

Amber on its own means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

RED means ‘Stop’. Wait behind the stop on the carriageway.

Subtle differences, but differences all the same.

So, yes, both DO mean "STOP". The difference comes in the subtleties after that requirement to stop. With amber, you have a get-out from the requirement if you cannot stop safely. Red, you don't.

The problems start when people treat amber as they should treat green - go if it's safe to do so. Green then gets treated as carte blanche.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

The problems start when people treat amber as they should treat green - go if it's safe to do so. Green then gets treated as carte blanche.

Totally agree. As I said earlier I went through an amber a few years back and the police agreed it was, it that situation, the correct thing to do as it changed from green as I was so close. Not always the case!

[Hilts]

mybrainhurts said:

Hilts said:

mybrainhurts said:

7and911 said:

My question is there anyway I can get "red light awareness course"

This is a red light ----->

Be aware of it.

Hope that helps...

That was a great course, didn't get bored or fall asleep.

How much do I owe you?

Invoice is in the post. Sit down before opening it..

OK, I'll square you up once I pay off all these fines I have for running red lights.

[speedking31]

garyhun said:

You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

But physics says that sometimes you cannot stop irrespective of whether it is safe to do so or not.

[Einion Yrth]

speedking31 said:

garyhun said:

You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

But physics says that sometimes you cannot stop irrespective of whether it is safe to do so or not.

And in those situations the police would probably say that you were going too fast.

[speedking31]

See my post above No doubt the magistrates would agree with the police though, no matter how scientific the defence

[TooMany2cvs]

speedking31 said:

no matter how imaginative the defence

FTFY

[Retroman]

garyhun said:

Amber on its own means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

Thanks for rewording exactly what i said.

[anonymous-user]

Retroman said:

garyhun said:

Amber on its own means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

Thanks for rewording exactly what i said.

Well it's obviously my pleasure.... but I'm not too sure I did

[LoonR1]

Here's a question. Does anyone have an amber phase on a set of lights that they travel through which are set on such a short time that you could be driving at the speed limit and not be able to stop before they go red?

I doubt it very much.

[LoonR1]

AW111 said:

Loon : what is the most improbable thing you have seen in your insurance career?


This has nothing to do with the OP, or your current argument : it is just idle curiosity.

No idea, we get all sorts. here are two from last week. A brand new high performance car was bought and within 5 hours of purchase the named driver write it off. He's claiming he was hit from behind by a mystery driver.

A policyholder claims they sold their car 8 hours before it was involved a major crash. They have no receipt and can't remember who they sold it to.

I used to have dozens of these on a temporary cover policy where someone insures their car and amazingly it got stolen that night.

[Pete317]

Einion Yrth said:

And in those situations the police would probably say that you were going too fast.

If you're, say, 3 or 4 metres from the line when the lights change, it's physically impossible to stop before the line even if you are only doing 10mph.

[SS2.]

LoonR1 said:

Here's a question. Does anyone have an amber phase on a set of lights that they travel through which are set on such a short time that you could be driving at the speed limit and not be able to stop before they go red?

All amber only are set to the same duration, irrespective of the limit - 3 seconds, +/-250ms, IIRC.

[LoonR1]

SS2. said:

LoonR1 said:

Here's a question. Does anyone have an amber phase on a set of lights that they travel through which are set on such a short time that you could be driving at the speed limit and not be able to stop before they go red?

All amber only are set to the same duration, irrespective of the limit - 3 seconds, +/-250ms, IIRC.

So would you be able to stop from 70 in that time? I think the answers yes, if not then we have a problem.

[vonhosen]

If they are green then any change is going to be against you, so that's what you should have in mind & be prepared for approaching them.

[SS2.]

LoonR1 said:

So would you be able to stop from 70 in that time?

Not a chance..

70mph is about 102 feet per second.

A decent driver in a car with decent brakes on a decent road surface is unlikely to be capable of decelerating at anything more than 25 feet per second per second.

That means a minimum stopping time of about 4 seconds, plus the second or so reaction time = 5 seconds.

[LoonR1]

SS2. said:

Not a chance..

70mph is about 102 feet per second.

A decent driver in a car with decent brakes on a decent road surface is unlikely to be capable of decelerating at anything more than 25 feet per second per second.

That means a minimum stopping time of about 4 seconds, plus the second or so reaction time = 5 seconds.

Right, does anyone live near a 70 limit with traffic lights and can manually time the amber phase time.

The reason I ask is that I've only ever gone through on red if I chose to do so amd could easily have stopped, so either my cars of old (I did have normal family stuff previously) had amazing brakes, or the phasing was for longer than three seconds.

[Pete317]

SS2. said:

LoonR1 said:

So would you be able to stop from 70 in that time?

Not a chance..

70mph is about 102 feet per second.

A decent driver in a car with decent brakes on a decent road surface is unlikely to be capable of decelerating at anything more than 25 feet per second per second.

That means a minimum stopping time of about 4 seconds, plus the second or so reaction time = 5 seconds.

Er, no.
While decelerating, your average speed is lower, which means you take more time to cover the same distance.
You'll find that your emergency stopping distance from 70 is roughly the same as the distance you'd cover in 3 seconds at 70, give or take.