Red Light dilemma

[s500]

Sitting at a red light in Whitehall yesterday, had a marked Police car come up behind with blues and sirens, having recalled a recent case where a driver was prosecuted and appealed unsuccessfully for driving through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle through decided to sit tight until lights went green, needless to say the BIB gave me some verbal as they passed and suggested that I should think about this moment if I ever need emergency assistance, ironically they pulled up in Parliament Square to attend to a motorist that had only broken down, hardly an emergency.

I feel bad not allowing them through but would have felt even sicker if the sensible option would have got me 3 points. What would you guys do faced with the same situation?

[shuvitupya]

If there was no camera on the lights, then I would have let them through.

But if there was a camera, then I would not have crossed the line.

[Parrot of Doom]

Personally I'd make a complaint about this. Not necessarily about the behaviour of the officers (as I can sympathise with their views), but explain why you didn't move. After all, why should you? The law is the law (as the scamera pratnerships say). Its your licence, not theirs.

[justinp1]

Parrot of Doom said:

Personally I'd make a complaint about this. Not necessarily about the behaviour of the officers (as I can sympathise with their views), but explain why you didn't move. After all, why should you? The law is the law (as the scamera pratnerships say). Its your licence, not theirs.

Completely agreed.

I would shout back that I heard about the case that the last person that helped out the emergency services got 3 points.

We dont make the rules. We dont even get to inperpret the rules. The rules say that it is an offence - without exception. The magistrates say that it is an offence - without exception.

The only way this may change is that after more and more people are hesitant over helping out then perhaps the emergency service guys on the street could put their feelings up through the system from the bottom up, and really make a change.

[bluepolarbear]

The there was a red light camera I wouldn't cross the line - sad but that is what police speeding policy had lead to.

If you can get public disorder offence for flicking the "Vs" at the a camera van I would also report an offence for the behaviour of the police officers depending on the nature of the conversation they had with you.

Police support will contintue to decline until the police remember that they are there to "protect and serve" rather "record and abuse".

[deva link]

You can go through if instructed to do so by a Police Officer – I would imagine that them coming behind you using blues & twos could be assumed to be an instruction.

However, ironically, the Police (as in this example) are probably the least likely of the emergency services to be going to an actual emergency. I wonder what the position is with the Fire and Ambulance services?

[BigBob]

bluepolarbear said:

Police support will contintue to decline until the police remember that they are there to "protect and serve" rather "record and abuse".

But in many cases 'blues & twos' indicate that the vehicle IS going to try and 'Protect & Serve' and that's the conundrum.

The majority of drivers WANT to help the emergency services but are scared to do so for fear of (possibly) losing their licence and livlihood.



BB

[bluepolarbear]

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

[vonhosen]

bluepolarbear said:

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

If they direct you to do so & you don't, then you commit an endorseable offence as well.

[bluepolarbear]

vonhosen said:

bluepolarbear said:

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

If they direct you to do so & you don't, then you commit an endorseable offence as well.

Basically sums up policing in 21st Britain

[justinp1]

bluepolarbear said:

vonhosen said:

bluepolarbear said:

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

If they direct you to do so & you don't, then you commit an endorseable offence as well.

Basically sums up policing in 21st Britain

Then.... Let me guess, if you elect to defend your case in court and not accept your roadside shafting then your punishment is linked to your earnings...

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

bluepolarbear said:

vonhosen said:

bluepolarbear said:

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

If they direct you to do so & you don't, then you commit an endorseable offence as well.

Basically sums up policing in 21st Britain

Then.... Let me guess, if you elect to defend your case in court and not accept your roadside shafting then your punishment is linked to your earnings...

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th July 11:03

[littlegreenfairy]

There is a complicated bit of road near me where cars go one way and buses etc can go the other. On the car section there is a set of traffic lights as two roads join together. For some reason the ambulances use this bit rather than the shorter bus lane and it causes havoc if they come roaring up on the inside of you and then basically barge you out of the way (because of the little concrete island jobby with a sign post on)into oncoming traffic. I don't fancy being shoved into oncoming traffic tbh.

This has lead me to stop about 5/6 feet from the stop line to allow them to swerve into the oncoming traffic should needs be - and the abuse I get from other drivers is awful.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I also object to emergency vehicles coming right up behind me, sitting about 2 ft from my arse and then blasting the sirens and lights when they are so close with no prior warning.

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

bluepolarbear said:

vonhosen said:

bluepolarbear said:

Agreed. Unfortunetly the wider context of police behaviour means that more and more people won't get out of the way in the circumstances described. It is shame but it is a direct result of the police's support for automated enforcement and implicit support for it's rigid enforcement.

If they direct you to do so & you don't, then you commit an endorseable offence as well.

Basically sums up policing in 21st Britain

Then.... Let me guess, if you elect to defend your case in court and not accept your roadside shafting then your punishment is linked to your earnings...

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th July 11:03

That was intended as a bit of sarcastic rhetoric, but cheers Von! Accurate and informative as ever!

[Robin Hood]

I seem to remember a case last year when a motorist sped up in a 30 zone to get to a bus stop to allow an Ambulance (that did have the sirens and lights on) to get past. He got zapped by plod with a laser gun. When he went back to the officer to ask if he had been recorded for excessive speed the officer said 'yes'. The motorist tried to explain why he had sped up as the officer had a clear view of what had happened, but he wasn't having any of it. The motorist, understandably, became rather irate, promptly hoofed the speed gun over a hedge and then chucked the officers hat into the road. (I think it got run over..)

In court, the Ambulance driver came to the aid of the motorist and explained that if he hadn't moved out of the way the injured passenger may have died as they just made it to the hospital. The speeding fine was dropped and the motorist had to pay for a new hat for the officer.

Brilliant.

[vonhosen]

Robin Hood said:

I seem to remember a case last year when a motorist sped up in a 30 zone to get to a bus stop to allow an Ambulance (that did have the sirens and lights on) to get past. He got zapped by plod with a laser gun. When he went back to the officer to ask if he had been recorded for excessive speed the officer said 'yes'. The motorist tried to explain why he had sped up as the officer had a clear view of what had happened, but he wasn't having any of it. The motorist, understandably, became rather irate, promptly hoofed the speed gun over a hedge and then chucked the officers hat into the road. (I think it got run over..)

In court, the Ambulance driver came to the aid of the motorist and explained that if he hadn't moved out of the way the injured passenger may have died as they just made it to the hospital. The speeding fine was dropped and the motorist had to pay for a new hat for the officer.

Brilliant.

I wonder how many of these tales that are told are tales of truth or fairytales though ?

(not having a dig at you, you are just recounting what you heard/read, but it's where do they start ? I take them all with a large pinch of salt without evidence to the contrary)

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th July 12:07

[Stubby Pete]

vonhosen said:

I wonder how many of these tales that are told are tales of truth or fairytales though ?

(not having a dig at you, you are just recounting what you heard/read, but it's where do they start ? I take them all with a large pinch of salt without evidence to the contrary)

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th July 12:07

Spoken like a true BiB, shame there's not more that assume innocence prior to receiving evidence!

vonhosen said:

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Whats the penalty for driving through a red light, is it the same?

[vonhosen]

Stubby Pete said:

vonhosen said:

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Whats the penalty for driving through a red light, is it the same?

Yes, exactly the same.

[Stubby Pete]

vonhosen said:

Stubby Pete said:

vonhosen said:

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Whats the penalty for driving through a red light, is it the same?

Yes, exactly the same.

So hypothetically, if you are instructed by BiB to pass through a red light your are liable for prosecution whatever you do next?

(only playing Devil's advocate)

[vonhosen]

Stubby Pete said:

vonhosen said:

Stubby Pete said:

vonhosen said:

The punishment is a level three fine (max £1000), obligatory 3 points & discretionary disqualification.

Whats the penalty for driving through a red light, is it the same?

Yes, exactly the same.

So hypothetically, if you are instructed by BiB to pass through a red light your are liable for prosecution whatever you do next?

(only playing Devil's advocate)

If you are given an instruction by BiB to proceed through a red light or other sign then that overrides the other instruction. I wouldn't take a blue light alone though as an instruction to disobey a red light.