Your nicked, Perth today 1745

[Mojocvh]

..to the chap driving the "Korean" 4X4 with X3 bikes strapped to the back, who unwittingly carried through the amber light at West Bridge Street heading away from Scone, you may by now have found out that a WPC observed your momentary indiscretion (NO HARM DONE, no children were harmed during this) and from her sudden, almost orgasmic leap from lethargy, I think you have been definitely reported for a crime against humanity.

Good Luck.

[OlberJ]

Must be that time of the month, my mate got done for having his driving lights on last night. Pulled over and the ticket was already written, just filled in the blanks as he drove past.

Incorrect road on the ticket, Number plate noted wrong in the box and let's be honest, hardly the greatest crime in the world.

Still, not worth fighting it for £30.

Cherry picking really gets on my tits though. "Ve vill do you fur sumfink!"

[bigwheel]

OlberJ said:

Must be that time of the month, my mate got done for having his driving lights on last night. Pulled over and the ticket was already written, just filled in the blanks as he drove past.

Hardly the greatest crime in the world.

They are not driving lights, they are the front version of those annoying/distracting bright red things at the back, Fog Lights. If it ain't poor visibility, then it's illegal to use them.

[OlberJ]

I'll admit i don't know a lot about it and only going on past comments. On the ticket, it says optional lights - misuse.

The rear fog light comes on separate, on a tell tale switch, it's a JDM import, and both optional lights are well below the bumper.

Not defending him as he didn't even know they were on, or how to switch them off independantly from the lights (it's my old car he now owns) and yes he should know how to work the bloody car.

Still, £30 for that to give the "newbie" officer some experience/hit targets, just seems a bit crap really.

[bigwheel]

OlberJ said:

I'll admit i don't know a lot about it and only going on past comments. On the ticket, it says optional lights - misuse.

The rear fog light comes on separate, on a tell tale switch, it's a JDM import, and both optional lights are well below the bumper.

Not defending him as he didn't even know they were on, or how to switch them off independantly from the lights (it's my old car he now owns) and yes he should know how to work the bloody car.

Still, £30 for that to give the "newbie" officer some experience/hit targets, just seems a bit crap really.

I'm with you all the way with Traffic Boys (and including usual PC's) going for "easy, hassle free, minimum paperwork nicks". They should target crime that hurts and distresses folk. Just don't give the ******s an excuse to pull us over.

[S2red]

OlberJ said:

Must be that time of the month, my mate got done for having his driving lights on last night.

If it was not the correct conditions for having them on serves him right they are NOT driving lights

The are a PIA if you are in a low car when some tt especially SUV's pulls up behind you and blind you withe thir FOG lamps

[Mr E]

S2red said:

If it was not the correct conditions for having them on serves him right they are NOT driving lights

The ones on my old import certainly were considered driving lights by the entire of Japan, as they are wired into dipped beam at the factory. I had to rewire them to turn them off...

[OlberJ]

S2red said:

OlberJ said:

Must be that time of the month, my mate got done for having his driving lights on last night.

If it was not the correct conditions for having them on serves him right they are NOT driving lights

The are a PIA if you are in a low car when some tt especially SUV's pulls up behind you and blind you withe thir FOG lamps

It's usually the over bright after market xenon headlights that do that.

I think you're missing the point here, it's not that he got done for it, he's a muppet for not knowing they were on, it's the cherry picking. Surely a simple warning would have been better in this case, rather than a £30 fine?

[Deva Link]

bigwheel said:

OlberJ said:

Must be that time of the month, my mate got done for having his driving lights on last night. Pulled over and the ticket was already written, just filled in the blanks as he drove past.

Hardly the greatest crime in the world.

They are not driving lights, they are the front version of those annoying/distracting bright red things at the back, Fog Lights. If it ain't poor visibility, then it's illegal to use them.

Yet (and I've moaned about front fogs for years) we now we have DRLs - the Merc LED ones are appear as bright as any front fog lamp.

[bigblock]

The Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 state that front fog lights can only be used in conditions of "seriously reduced visbility" however driving/running lights can be used at any time. The ony restriction being that they don't cause "undue dazzle or discomfort to other road users".

The definition of a front fog light is "A lamp used to improve the illumination of the road in front of a motor vehicle in conditions of seriously reduced visibility".

The definition of a driving/running lamp is "A lamp (not being a front position lamp, an end-outline marker lamp, headlamp or front fog lamp) used to make the presence of a moving motor vehicle readily visible from the front".

If the lamps mentioned in the above posts were not marked as foglights in the vehicle and were not causing undue dazzle or discomfort to other road users then I don't see what offence the driver was commiting.

[CDP]

bigblock said:

The definition of a front fog light is "A lamp used to improve the illumination of the road in front of a motor vehicle in conditions of seriously reduced visibility".

Like darkness?

[tvrgit]

bigblock said:

The Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 state that front fog lights can only be used in conditions of "seriously reduced visbility" however driving/running lights can be used at any time. The ony restriction being that they don't cause "undue dazzle or discomfort to other road users".

The definition of a front fog light is "A lamp used to improve the illumination of the road in front of a motor vehicle in conditions of seriously reduced visibility".

The definition of a driving/running lamp is "A lamp (not being a front position lamp, an end-outline marker lamp, headlamp or front fog lamp) used to make the presence of a moving motor vehicle readily visible from the front".

If the lamps mentioned in the above posts were not marked as foglights in the vehicle and were not causing undue dazzle or discomfort to other road users then I don't see what offence the driver was commiting.

Schedule 1 says that there must be 2 "dipped beams" on most vehicles (there are exceptions but they don't apply to Citroen Saxos etc). Not 3 or 4, but 2. Schedule 2 also says that dipped beams must be at least 500 mm above the ground.

If they are lower, they are fog lamps (which can only show in reduced visibility) or driving lamps (which can only show with main beam).

If they are wired to come on with dip beam in other conditions (when entering a Maccy D car park for example) then they are commonly known as "wker lights" (although there is no legislation covering that definition, but which can be useful, nevertheless, to alert other drivers of other vehicles to the fact that they are probably being "raced" even although they might not otherwise have realised that any race was taking place).

[tvrgit]

Mojocvh said:

..to the chap driving the "Korean" 4X4 with X3 bikes strapped to the back, who unwittingly carried through the amber light at West Bridge Street heading away from Scone, you may by now have found out that a WPC observed your momentary indiscretion (NO HARM DONE, no children were harmed during this) and from her sudden, almost orgasmic leap from lethargy, I think you have been definitely reported for a crime against humanity.

Good Luck.

Going over the stop line on amber isn't an offence...

[Deva Link]

tvrgit said:

Going over the stop line on amber isn't an offence...

Oh yes it is. Unless you were too close to stop safely. Very vague law.

[OlberJ]

tvrgit said:

If they are wired to come on with dip beam in other conditions (when entering a Maccy D car park for example) then they are commonly known as "wker lights" (although there is no legislation covering that definition, but which can be useful, nevertheless, to alert other drivers of other vehicles to the fact that they are probably being "raced" even although they might not otherwise have realised that any race was taking place).

Haha, i'm trying to imagine Weebles "racing"

Nope, does not compute.

I'll be sure to call him a wker though

[tvrgit]

Deva Link said:

tvrgit said:

Going over the stop line on amber isn't an offence...

Oh yes it is. Unless you were too close to stop safely. Very vague law.

That's what I meant. Going through on red is a specific offence. Going through on amber, isn't.

[Deva Link]

tvrgit said:

Deva Link said:

tvrgit said:

Going over the stop line on amber isn't an offence...

Oh yes it is. Unless you were too close to stop safely. Very vague law.

That's what I meant. Going through on red is a specific offence. Going through on amber, isn't.

Yes it is. But there's a defence of being unable to stop - what are the chances of a Magistrate agreeing with you, do you think?

[tvrgit]

Deva Link said:

tvrgit said:

Deva Link said:

tvrgit said:

Going over the stop line on amber isn't an offence...

Oh yes it is. Unless you were too close to stop safely. Very vague law.

That's what I meant. Going through on red is a specific offence. Going through on amber, isn't.

Yes it is. But there's a defence of being unable to stop - what are the chances of a Magistrate agreeing with you, do you think?

What point are you arguing about?

My only point was that there IS a defence (however remote you personally consider it to be) against going through an amber light. There is no defence against going through a red - it's red so you stop, no qualifications about "if safe to do so", nothing.

Maybe if I had said "Going over the stop line on amber isn't ALWAYS an offence", you'd have been happier?

[Deva Link]

tvrgit said:

Maybe if I had said "Going over the stop line on amber isn't ALWAYS an offence", you'd have been happier?

I guess that would be true, because the law doesn't recognise the amber light.

The law regards the amber light as a red one if you could stop, and green if you couldn't.

People (on the internet) who get done for this, get prosecuted (or get a fixed penalty) as if they went through a red light. It seems to me a double whammy - you'd have to convince the court the light was amber (hopefully the Policeman wouldn't lie) and then convince the court you couldn't safely stop (to which the policeman would presumeably say that in his opinion you could have stopped, or else he wouldn't have pulled you).

[tvrgit]

Deva Link said:

tvrgit said:

Maybe if I had said "Going over the stop line on amber isn't ALWAYS an offence", you'd have been happier?

I guess that would be true, because the law doesn't recognise the amber light.

The law regards the amber light as a red one if you could stop, and green if you couldn't.

People (on the internet) who get done for this, get prosecuted (or get a fixed penalty) as if they went through a red light. It seems to me a double whammy - you'd have to convince the court the light was amber (hopefully the Policeman wouldn't lie) and then convince the court you couldn't safely stop (to which the policeman would presumeably say that in his opinion you could have stopped, or else he wouldn't have pulled you).

Yeah I know that's what the Road Traffic Act 1988 says - and that's the problem. Maybe the OP should contact the driver he saw and offer to be a witness!