Be Excellent To Each Other

'Tother morning I went through a red light at Fitzalan Place in Cardiff. I was not able to see the light changing from green to orange (sun low in sky and very reflecty off stuff, even with my shades on) and when I was again able to see the light, it was red, I was doing thirty and would have screeched to a halt mid-junction had I stopped, so I went on, as I've been taught to do - if you can't stop safely at a light, don't do it.

Now I've got a thing saying the following:

1: They've got photographic evidence of this (which they seemingly can't be arsed to provide)
2: They keep refferring to this as an alleged offence, however I'm apparently 'to be informed of their decision' - so, when do I get my say?
3: They want my driving licence number in a return envelope - but if they've got my car reg and my address, they've got my licence number, surely?
4: It says I might not be given points, might get a fixed penalty - and I'll be told either way.

So - does someone just decide what I'm to get, arbitrarily - what is the decision based on? Also, should I in future sit in the middle of a junction, waiting for the boy racers who I see running reds all the time to hit me? I thought I was being safe.

I've been driving a year and never deliberately speeded or run a light or anything similar. Bloody pissed off about this - especially because the pigs were never this keen to communicate when they chased a chav into my car and wrote it off.

What sort of points and fine am I looking at here? I've a clean licence and just enough money to get through to the end of the month, I'd like to keep both that way.

You'll get TS10 - Failing to comply with traffic light signals. It's a £60 fine and 3 penalty points.

I can't say, but I'd like to know as well, as I'm absolutely petrified of exactly this sort of thing happening with those bastard lights.

Sounds seriously feeble to me, all the mights and maybes make it sound like a try-on. Presumably they need your admission of guilt or they have no proof it was you driving the car. I'd reply with a vehement letter asking for proof first, and provide no other details.

And no, you're not allowed to see any evidence unless you actually take it to court, risking a much higher sanction.

Which is really fucking stupid.

Sadly they don't need to prove who was driving any more. They'll simply hold the owner responsible.

You might find better advice here, but they deal more with speeding offences:

http://pepipoo.com/

A search for 'red light' turned up several interesting results.

EDIT: On that site's forums, obviously.

I'd send a letter contesting it, explaining exactly what happened but I wouldn't have thought you'll get far.. You may have to put this one down to experience.

how about "red light district"?

You get to say "Yes I'll accept the fixed penalty (3 points), I don't want to take it to court please thanks"


They can't see if it was you driving though. This gives you the chance to lie and pass the points on to a willing relative if it's about to push you into a ban. Don't do that.


I thought a fixed penalty was points? Hmm.



Come on, if you couldn't see the lights properly then you were going too fast or not paying enough attention for the conditions. You're going to have to admit some fault here.

That said, it is a somewhat unlucky break so I can see why you're pissed off
I got stopped by the cops after I blatantly drove right through a red on a 4-way controlled junction in Perth last winter, in the middle of the night. I played it humble and admitted being stupid and they just breathalised me (zero reading) and sent me on my way. The cameras are not at all flexible..

What Kalmar said. Just take the kick in the bollocks and move on.

I wasn't dazzled at any point before or after that moment. If I were I'd not have been driving to the speed limit. I'm not contesting that I went through a red light, and if they want to stealth tax me for something I see people doing away from cameras all the time I can't stop them. I just don't think 'safety' cameras should be costing me two xbox games for trying to be safe.

I'll be more nervous driving now, like I was for a few weeks after a guy ran into the side of my car when he was rushing for a train. As such I'm probably going to be driving less safely. Daft, isn't it? Pull me in for an hour to discuss the finer points of such situations in a constructive way and fine me if you must, but 3 points is not going to improve my driving, though I wish it would.

I agree with Kalmar etc. You're travelling at thirty towards a set of lights you can't see properly? Come off it, you're to blame, it's a strict liability offence and you'd be stupid to contest it.

Think of Maddy for god's sake.

And I think I'll get my post count up with this cut n' paste jobbie from The Highway Code, Paragraph 237:

"Hot weather. Keep your vehicle well ventilated to avoid drowsiness. Be aware that the road surface may become soft or if it rains after a dry spell it may become slippery. These conditions could affect your steering and braking. If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop."

Now stop whining and pay The Man.

Also red light cameras are usually placed at junctions that have had issues with people ignoring the lights and causing accidents. This is coming from someone who's been caught twice.

Been sent on one of those courses rather than take the 3 points, aye Myoptinsel.

Dude, I could see the lights properly, then I couldn't. Once finished recoiling from the glare (quite photosensitive, always drive with shades, examiner who passed me had no problem with this) my thoughts were

It's just changed to red - how the f...

brake/continue

brake means danger now

power on, get through, check mirrors - nowt coming anyway.


...this was all in the space of a second or two. Despite having my licence for a year, chill December mornings were a new thing to me, as of that day.

Since that incident I've driven the same route at least once a day, and been bloody careful about it, too for obvious reasons. Effectively a learner error, and one that hs been demonstrably learned from. I'll bet they've not got a video of that, have they?

If I've done something I should be punished for then I had no idea it was a punishable offence despite going through the whole process of learning to drive and passing two tests last year. And paying out a shitwad of money. Which I'd hoped had given me sufficient knowledge to comply with the law. I'm paying up, already said as much and I'm doing so because I've not got the strength to dig into this much and was expecting at some point after passing my test to have 'something' happen. I just thought it had happened with the guy who decided to ignore the lane he was jumping out from between two vans into bounced off my passenger door and scratched my car. I let him off with it because I'd fucked his rolex, laptop and wrist with my 306, and was man enough to admit it. Also me vomiting up my own heart when it happened more or less killed any offence I might otherwise have taken at his wanton disregard.

I was in good conscience doing the best job I could of driving safely as possible, as passed by a qualified examiner. And I think I'm being bloody philosophical about where it has got me. I also take offence at the information-light and consequence-heavy correspondence they've chosen. I don't want effusive salutations, just a guide to wtf it is all about. 'I pay their wages' and so on. Also the police wrote off a grand's worth of car I owned, my first car, last January and I've not seen a penny for it. Chased a chav into it despite it being against guidelines to do so. We all make mistakes, innit? Hence I've got the arse'ole about this.

How do I get sent on a course instead of getting three points? That's a constructive idea.

I think it's only ever something they offer, if they think it appropriate.

What kalmar said - they bung the NIPs out to the registered keeper, giving them the chance to say "actually, someone else was driving".

Fucking shit though, making it illegal to not incriminate yourself. Shows up the Human Rights Act for the sham it is.

I got a NIP "reminder" through today, for when Charl sped through a camera at 3 in the morning the other week. The initial NIP never fucking arrived, so it's a good job the reminder did - still sent to the wrong address, but at least it didn't get lost in the redirect this time. We're still debating whether or not it's worth fighting it, it being a rear-facing camera that for years has been pointing the wrong way, and flashing into drivers' eyes. She was speeding, it's not new, and it's painted yellow, after all. fair cop really.

Just read on those forums that some guy reckons the amber phase on camera'd lights is shorter than on others. I thought I was imagining that. Now I'm fucking intrigued. I wasn't dazzled for that ong at all, hence my surprise and half-second hesitation when I clocked the red.

That said, the fortune of timings of events there is pretty fucking tight - I'm unlikely to ever have that happen again.

Here's something else though - cars on the ascent coming over a nasty speed bump (safety bump?) tend to throw out more light than they would with their normal down-pointing headights at a normal angle. Someone's going to come to harm because of that one day.

Don't know how much night driving you've done GB, but you do kind of get used to the night dazzle. You're right though, there's a load of speed humps on my estate and it's a pain driving around. Mucho pupil dilation

I've just beta tested space Giraffe PC, which is somewhat easier on the eyes than driving through Splott or Ely at night.

Probably not done half as much night driving as day so dar. Although I did have Night Driver on the 2600, which must count, surely? It was a simliation, wasn't it?

Yep. The Atari is TOTAL IMMERSION if you got the head probes. You did have them didn't you?

I only passed my test 2 years ago myself but I reckon I've done more night driving than day. I only ever drive when the missus isn't working, evenings basically, or if we're going long haul.

MrsA got done for this. And still on her high horse about it.

Which is fucking hilarious. As I'm the one with a clean licence and I regularly (SNIP! - anti social behaviour Ed) often at (10 past naughty, Officer - legal Ed) whilst (having had some Tizer - legal Ed).

So, yeah, pay up and await the hit on the insurance as well.

3 Points, and 60 as someone said up there.

Having jumped lights or cut them very fine quite a few times and finally had to think about it I'm no longer happy that it's a good idea to go on through a red light if you've actually got time to react and stop. It sounds like you had advice to the contrary from your instructor, but on modern busier roads and tighter light timings, and y'know, cameras, it seems a bit dodgy. I don't think that was the advice when I had my test and that was a while ago.

There seems to be a far greater risk of something bad happening if you think "fuck it" and keep your foot down: a pedestrian sees the other traffic stopping and steps out without looking properly: bang. Partly his fault, but this exact thing happened to the guy I work with just after he passed his test, bloke got minor injuries and my colleague got a 12 month ban and nearly cost him his job.
Or MaliA on his bike is approaching fast from the side wanting to blast through as it changes to red-amber, you don't see him either..

Anyway, not meaning to lecture 'cos I'm sure you were caught very narrowly off guard here but it's definitely a learning experience, just a shame you actually got done for it rather than told off. And I agree the letters are arse, but hey, it's not as bad as the "pay your TV license citizen" shit and that's even optional.

The amber phase of a traffic light is dependent on the road's speed limit. On a 30mph road it won't be long at all.

I went through a red light last night. On purpose.

We were coming out of the hospital. There's a T junction, with separate signals for turning left and right. The left signals were constantly changing, not stopping on any one colour for more than about five seconds. The right signals never changed.

After a long time watching this the car in front of me just went through the red light and I followed.

On my bus journey home the bus has to cross three lanes of traffic in order to take a right at at major crossroads. The right turn has it's own signal and it's only even on for a few seconds so the buses often cut it close. A while ago I was sat at the front of the top deck when the driver decided to blow right through at red light, through the hard right turn at 30+ to beat the traffic coming from the right. THAT WAS NOT FUN!

I nearly got hit by a bus driver who jumped a red light yesterday lunchtime. I did think about remonstrating with him but couldn't' be arsed. Also didn't bother taking the bus reg and complaining. Maybe next time - that's a particular set of lights with a busy pedestrian crossing that people *always* jump the red on. Why there's no camera there but there are on all the "no pedestrians around at all" lights near Cabot Circus I don't know.

Relatedly - Didn't someone drive into House of Fraser this morning?

Higher mean sprightliness of pedestrian meaning fewer accidents - there're probably more old or high people near Cabot Circus or something.

So in fact what you should be doing is pushing other pedestrians in front of vehicles, you'll have a RLC by Christmas.

Did they break the 30 Niles per hour limit?

*groans from the crowd as Zardoz winks at the camera*

Unfortunately you were driving too fast for the driving conditions. If you can't see properly slow down.

I always asume that if a light has been on green for a while it is due to change.

You do have to prove who is driving, and if you can't, they can do you for letting an uninsured driver, drive your car.

The Police will always win

Tee hee

Marginally related link, very clever speed bumps

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/led-encrusted-speed-bump-flattens-out-when-youre-not-flat-out/

I heard years and years ago about something similar. I'm surprised it's taken them this long.

Still fucking rubbish for ambulances etc though.

But if people did not speed we would not need them

But given that "people" do speed, please describe the ways in which "we" "need" them?

Can start by defining "people" and "we"..

"I'm" "not" "sure" "I" "understand".

I resent speed humps because they penalise people doing even a third the posted limit, and the damage they do to tyres, wheels and suspension in the process.

When I had my Civic Type-R (boy racer car, whatever, still *entirely meeting the UK legislation*) I had to slow to 5mph to get over the humps in Kirkby, still uncomfortably. My M3 grounded out horrifically at Chill Factor in Manchester, at about 2mph, only to have my complaint met with rebuttals of "but the humps meet all legal specifications, sir", and it isn't even that low or anything.

Even worse, those bus-friendly square ones are known to have destroyed Octavia engines, which have a low-slung sump (and again, meet all UK legislation) - if you don't know this, you naturally put your wheels around the hump to minimise bumping and carry on doing 20ish (in your 30 zone, remember) only to hear a massive bang as the bit that holds the oil in is holed. New engine, and destined for a huge argument with your insurance company that you're not likely to win. For this reason, Skoda had to design a cast steel sump guard for the police version.

Yeah, no penalising legal drivers at all. All that plus the fact they actually increase the ambient noise level as drivers brake, squish-squish as they go over, then brum! as they accelerate off, instead of constant droning passed. Criminals, of course, blast straight over them anyway, leaving just habitual speeding rat-runners... who drive SUVs these days anyway.

Oh, umm, not entirely sure what I was arguing there now. Teh flu has made me spout all sorts of wrong shit today, not that you'd notice a difference from normal.

I really hate speedbumps though, they seem to serve no useful purpose and create all sorts of problems. I had a massive letter based argument with the head of my councils road department when they put them in where I used to live, on the basis that twats kept doing emergency stops and swerving to the left as they approach them, which is really great if you're on a bike on the inside. The hump disappears before it reaches the gutter leaving a big gap to swerve one side of a car into, and the stupid bastards compounded this by repainting the bike lane to swerve into the gap as well (leaving about two inches between the white line and the kerb).

One the one hand the bureaucrat said that drivers needed to be slowed down as they weren't obeying the signs, and on the other hand he would do absolutely nothing about the tendency of them to keep steering at cyclists to avoid the fucking obstacles in the road, because it wasn't the councils job to ensure adherence to the highway code.

Since then I've had a bit of antipathy towards speedbumps and make a point of thrashing them beneath the reinforced radials of my van, making sure to speed up to slightly over 30 mph where it actually smooths out to be indistinguishable from the rest of the road surface, littered as it is with bomb craters and collapsed mine-workings, man-hole covers sticking up a good inch clear of the rest of the surface and unidentifiable lumps of organic matter and car parts. It's fun to overtake boy-racers on them too.

Quite so. I'd learn a lot more for some corrective instruction, and if I wasn't paying the fine and saving for next years insurance I'd be glad to fork out for some in light of this correspondence. As would many others, I'm willing to bet.

I'm sure many, many others wouldn't give a shit, though. The fine and points are the only way to get through to some people (and even then that doesn't always work).

In summary: people are cunts.

The worst apeeders, particularly in the 'bumpy' areas are driving twocked cars. So bumps are a fun part of the ride, cameras are a problem for your theft victim and other cars are breaks.

These alleged safety measures do nothing to prevent the worst offences taking place.


Ad the worse are speedbump zebra crossings, as you can't always tell they are raised at all in imperfect light - but would think nothing of crossing one at twenty on an empty road, as I've done in Splott. Wasn't pleased with the noise my suspension made.

People as in Irresponsible drivers that treat the open roads as speed tracks.

we as in the people that want them to keep they speed down, so they don't cause accidents.

I am open to suggestions for each easy solution to do this.

Ban maliA

OK, but it's not at all clear what value of speed is a problem. 30? More than 30? More than 20? More than 10? At which speeds are accidents no longer caused?

Well, people do hit stationary cars..

To avoid accidents we should ban all cars.