Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works0 min ago
Crossing red traffic light in emergency
If I'm approaching a red traffic light on a single lane road and a police car or ambulance comes up behind me with the lights flashing and siren going, am I legally allowed to drive over the red light to allow it to speed on its way?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by WendyS. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I went through a red light to allow a fire engine through and wondered if I'd be prosecuted but wasn't. A few days later someone asked in one of the National papers about this sort of thing and the advice given by the police was that it is an offence and the Emergency Services are trained to cope with the situation.
Ward-minter is quite correct in saying that there is a difference in admitting guilt by way of accepting a fixed penalty, and being convicted in court (either by pleading guilty or being found guilty following a trial). One fundamental difference for the pedants amongst us is that a fixed penalty is not a fine and does not lead to a conviction � only courts can impose fines and register convictions. Nonetheless, the effect on the miscreant is the same.
If, in the example mentioned, the accused declines an offer of a fixed penalty and decides to plead not guilty in court, the magistrates would have to decide if an offence has been committed at all, and if so, whether there a reasonable defence to its commission which would allow them to reach a verdict of not guilty. As with all matters legal this is not as straightforward as many believe it ought to be. I would not say with any degree of certainty that �there is not a magistrate in the land who would convict�. To give you some idea of the sort of argument that might be faced, if the defendant used the excuse suggested by ward-minter that he thought life was being saved by him jumping the lights, he would be asked to show how he arrived at such an assumption. After all, he simply saw a police car and it may have been racing back to the Nick before the chips got cold! Flippant, I know, but an illustration of what might be faced.
This uncertainty, coupled with the prospect of a considerably higher penalty and being forced to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs of the trial, deter many people from contesting what is often a reasonably arguable case.
The sad thing about this question is that it should have to be raised at all. It is not that long ago that common sense would prevail over simple legalities and there would be no chance at all that such a case would even be before the court, let alone any prospect that a conviction would result. Alas, this is not
If, in the example mentioned, the accused declines an offer of a fixed penalty and decides to plead not guilty in court, the magistrates would have to decide if an offence has been committed at all, and if so, whether there a reasonable defence to its commission which would allow them to reach a verdict of not guilty. As with all matters legal this is not as straightforward as many believe it ought to be. I would not say with any degree of certainty that �there is not a magistrate in the land who would convict�. To give you some idea of the sort of argument that might be faced, if the defendant used the excuse suggested by ward-minter that he thought life was being saved by him jumping the lights, he would be asked to show how he arrived at such an assumption. After all, he simply saw a police car and it may have been racing back to the Nick before the chips got cold! Flippant, I know, but an illustration of what might be faced.
This uncertainty, coupled with the prospect of a considerably higher penalty and being forced to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs of the trial, deter many people from contesting what is often a reasonably arguable case.
The sad thing about this question is that it should have to be raised at all. It is not that long ago that common sense would prevail over simple legalities and there would be no chance at all that such a case would even be before the court, let alone any prospect that a conviction would result. Alas, this is not
As the person who posed the question in the first place, yes, I do find it it is sad that it had to be asked but it's an indication that many of the laws which are passed these day and which we are supposed to obey are either not being interpreted in the same universal way or communication of them is never properly clarified. It doesn't say much for the quality of our law makers and the speed at which some legislation is introduced.
Multiply this one query across the whole spectrum of our legislative process, and it's small wonder that many of the population are confused about their legal responsibilities.
Multiply this one query across the whole spectrum of our legislative process, and it's small wonder that many of the population are confused about their legal responsibilities.
There are two issues, Wendy.
The first is the undue haste with which laws have been enacted in recent years. These laws are often poorly drafted and are introduced as a panic reaction to a specific incident. This is always a bad thing to do and two examples that spring to mind are the Dangerous Dogs Act (brought in because a number of stupid individuals kept pit bull terriers and one or two of them savaged children) and the Control of Handguns Act (following Dunblane).
Both these laws, apart from being unsuitable for the purpose for which they were supposedly introduced, have seen numerous successful challenges in the courts because of their poor drafting. They have also seen the law of unintended consequences swing into action as part of their result. (Perfectly innocent dogs are sentenced to death. Sportsmen, who probably controlled their handguns better than anybody, had them confiscated and cannot practice their sport). At the same time, the problem they were supposed to cure remains unchecked or even worsens (pit-bull terriers still bite as many people as before and gun crime has increased dramatically in the past five years).
The other issue is the lack of common sense and discretion shown by prosecuting authorities when applying existing laws. The traffic light problem is in this category. It has long been known that one should not jump red lights. It has also long been known that occasionally circumstances prevail that make it necessary. There was a case last year where a motorist, who had stopped at the lights, simply moved one car length over a stop line to make way for a police car (presumably) answering an emergency. He promptly found himself reported by another policeman who was nearby. In years gone by the 2nd officer would have made it his business to clear the junction to allow his fellow officers to pass. Today, he seeks to find somebody to prosecute.
The first is the undue haste with which laws have been enacted in recent years. These laws are often poorly drafted and are introduced as a panic reaction to a specific incident. This is always a bad thing to do and two examples that spring to mind are the Dangerous Dogs Act (brought in because a number of stupid individuals kept pit bull terriers and one or two of them savaged children) and the Control of Handguns Act (following Dunblane).
Both these laws, apart from being unsuitable for the purpose for which they were supposedly introduced, have seen numerous successful challenges in the courts because of their poor drafting. They have also seen the law of unintended consequences swing into action as part of their result. (Perfectly innocent dogs are sentenced to death. Sportsmen, who probably controlled their handguns better than anybody, had them confiscated and cannot practice their sport). At the same time, the problem they were supposed to cure remains unchecked or even worsens (pit-bull terriers still bite as many people as before and gun crime has increased dramatically in the past five years).
The other issue is the lack of common sense and discretion shown by prosecuting authorities when applying existing laws. The traffic light problem is in this category. It has long been known that one should not jump red lights. It has also long been known that occasionally circumstances prevail that make it necessary. There was a case last year where a motorist, who had stopped at the lights, simply moved one car length over a stop line to make way for a police car (presumably) answering an emergency. He promptly found himself reported by another policeman who was nearby. In years gone by the 2nd officer would have made it his business to clear the junction to allow his fellow officers to pass. Today, he seeks to find somebody to prosecute.
Ref one of the answers to your query:
Emergency vehicles on calls are allowed to pass red lights BUT the must treat them as 'Give Way' signs.
There is one exception and that is a light controlled pedestrian crossing where there is a 'buzzer' or other sound for the pedestrian informing the pedestrian the lights are set for them to cross
Emergency vehicles on calls are allowed to pass red lights BUT the must treat them as 'Give Way' signs.
There is one exception and that is a light controlled pedestrian crossing where there is a 'buzzer' or other sound for the pedestrian informing the pedestrian the lights are set for them to cross
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.