On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:39:09 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
wrote:
>The actual requirements are set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002, r
>33, and the offence is under the RTA 1988, sec 36:
>It is an offence for a person driving or propelling a vehicle to fail to
>comply with the indication given by a traffic sign which :-- indicates a
>statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or - which is expressly
>provided by or under any provision of the Traffic Acts, and which :- - is of
>the prescribed size, colour and type, and - which has been lawfully placed
>on or near a road.
>
>It is only an offence to go through a red light.
>
>Except:
>when a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive
>disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of
This was changed following a case in which Lord Denning upheld the
conviction of an ambulance driver who went through a red light. I
cannot now remember the citation.
>the prohibition would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the
>purpose for which it is being used, the requirement instead shall be that
>vehicle shall not proceed in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any
>person, and in the case of a red light to cause the driver of any vehicle
>proceeding in accordance the signals at the junction to change its speed or
>course in order to avoid an accident.
>
>You could argue that a stuck red light is not within the regulation, as I
>have seen successfully argued in relation to a sign that claimed to prohibit
>"stoping", and double white lines that were so deficient that they failed to
>comply with the requirement of "a continuous white line...." However, as I
>see it, there is no obvious get-out clause.
This sounds very interesting. Does that mean that I can safely park
on double yellow lines where their continuity has been damaged by
roadworks and the lines had not been repainted over the fresh tarmac?
--
Alasdair. |