The same reason that makes a proportion of cyclists try and go straight ahead next to the kerb when there is a HGV turning left, killing themselves in the process.

Lack of planning and lack of asking themselves "what if?"

Lidl. Nom. They have good meat and cheeses.

Might just have been the camera, but it seems you put your life in the hands of the traffic light there.

If you'd hit him the police might well have asked you why you did not stop when you saw him in the tunnel. Green does not, and never has meant, go. It means in essence you may proceed if it is safe to do so.

That's as I thought Derek to be honest.

The onus would be on me, I wonder why the police wouldn't be asking "why was the cretin there in the first place ?"

Edited to add, I didn't "see him", or register his threat to me, in time to react, for whatever reason, wasn't expecting it, light to dark, scratching my balls at the time, whatever.

I wonder, would the Police, as in your good self, have the same thoughts if it'd been a car, motorcycle etc?

I find it disturbing that you either think, or it is your experience, that I am automatically guilty of driving offences, possibly even death by dangerous (assuming he died in any collision), where in essence, I'm actually the innocent party there ........ in my opinion.

It was my job to make such decisions, or rather supervise those who did.

The example here is quite clear: The cyclist was in the tunnel. You drove into the tunnel. That makes you guilty. The cyclist may be guilty of failing to conform to red ATS but we don't know if he had a moment in the tunnel. Perhaps a dog ran out and he had to brake, as it would if he was seen by a brief before being questioned by police.

Let's make it clear: a green ATS does not mean you can drive across the controlled junction any more than it would if the lights on a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing showed green and there were pedestrians crossing.

I'm only the messenger of course, but if I was making the laws I could see no sensible alternative.

i see nothing wrong. Light to dark you would have no chance. stupid cyclist

I think you are not taking into account that the cyclist was cycling towards me, not a stationary hazard, a stationary hazard, in my opinion, would be a different ballgame.

As the lights have just changed to amber (which I only saw from the video, I'd not have known that otherwise, once across the temp stop line, the lights don't concern me, so I'm not watching them, I'd have been looking where I was going), we know that the lights the other way had been red for a whole cycle, plus the "tunnel clearance time" those lights have (I only live up the road so I know they have clearance time).

But thankyou for your response, the hospital is at the top of that road, so ambulances on blues and twos are a common occurance there, then it's interesting.

Also, notice the road straight ahead as I turn left for the tunnel .... the one with give way lines ?

You should see the fun there at peak times, by people that can't either wait behind a give way line, or have never heard of zip merging, and don't seem to appreciate that people coming the other way actually have priority (except cyclists of course, they have prioroty all the time whatever the circumstances, as your reply confirms).

Yes, I'm sorry, you will only be able to see the speed (gps), gps position, and g forces on the camera if you have the roadhawk software, and play the clip through that.

I don't know how to post in such a way that you can see all that data, but it is embedded in the clip.