I have to get this out of my system!

[camerafodder]

Today I was travelling as a passenger in one of our company vehicles. On our way home we were held up for some time in a roadworks traffic jam near Whitehaven. Eventually we were able to move as the temporary traffic lights were on green (the roadworks were on our side of the road). Whilst in the queue of slow moving traffic we reached the lights and pulled out to go past the roadworks. The lights changed to red but we were immediately behind the vehicle in front and had already pulled out so deeming it safer/better to continue rather than block the road trying to reverse back into position my colleague continued. The car behind us stopped but the Traffic cop behind him did not, he pulled out sharply and came through the red light behind us. He then proceeded to follow us for the next 10 minutes at a distance of about 100m. During this time the traffic was slowly gaining pace. We approached permanent traffic lights on a main road crossroads (A595) and proceeded through the lights at a steady pace. The lights changed to amber as we went through and in the rear view mirror we both watched in amazement as the copper came through on red without the use of sirens or lights! After a few hundred yards a layby appeared and he signalled from behind with his flashing blue lights and indicators for us to stop, which we did. My colleague was then invited into the traffic car to be read the riot act and shown a video of him going through the temporary red light. After this he was given a £60 fine and 3 points. I was not happy about the punishment given the circumstances and so went to speak with the constable concerned. I challenged him that although my colleague had driven through a red light at the roadworks that he (the copper) had driven through a red light on a junction on a main road without any sirens or lights and could have caused a serious accident and that our circumstances were considerably different to his. He lied and said that the lights were green so I asked him to play back the last bit of film on his in-car TV. He refused saying he ‘had better things to do’ I asked him again to play the film, he refused again so I accused him of lying and double standards I then asked how he could justify driving through a red light as he did because it certainly wasn’t justified or safe. I then took his name, number and the reg of his patrol car before he drove off. Should I lodge a complaint?.......Flame suit on!

 

[robert.saunders]

So to clarify... your car driver went through a red at the roadworks and went through an amber at the junction?

 

[stevesey]

But there is no white line at the roadworks, so exactly how do they judge this - from the stop here sign?

 

[et0609]

Dont waste your time, lets be honest if your mate hadnt pulled over before the lights changed, the copper wouldnt have followed and it would be pointless to retaliate as the cops will just say they were in pursuit.

The police do what they want when they are in a car. I have witnessed countless times, coppers jumping red lights, putting their blues and twos on just to avoid waiting at traffic lights, parking on double yellows to pick up pizzas, in fact I even took a photo of that one when I lived in Brighton and the Sun printed it as part of some campaign on the subject.

I wouldnt bother, nothing will happen.

 

[rf065]

Are temporary lights at roadworks classed the same as permanent ones?
I'm sure there are differences in how they are treated.

Maybe someone can make sense of this,

Significance of light signals prescribed by regulations 33 to 35 [35. Portable light signals for the control of vehicular traffic]

36. - (1) The significance of the light signals prescribed by regulations 33, 34 and 35 shall be as follows -

(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;

(b) when a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signals operating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;

Russ

 

[trapperjohn]

"Fairy" lights on red, have the same meaning as "standard" traffic lights. STOP. Your buddy was an easy "pull" and £60 for HMG coffers. Kerching. The points will cost him in insurance, next time around too. Agree with et0609, don't take smokey on, just not worth it. You passed a red and an amber. It may be a touch unfair but that is what your driver did.

 

[BTB 500]

Of course amber means 'stop' as well.

 

[camerafodder]

So to clarify... your car driver went through a red at the roadworks and went through an amber at the junction?

Yes, we went through a red traffic light although it would have been difficult to do otherwise without causing a minor hold-up. We then later went through another set of permanent lights which were on green but started to go amber as we crossed them. The copper however crossed the permanent lights on red, no question of it. My colleague (and it really is my colleague and not me) is happy to accept the penalty for the roadworks even given the circumstances and the complete absence of danger to anyone. I, on the other hand feel that the copper's reaction at the roadworks was for more dangerous and at the main lights was downright reckless. He could have caught us up easily by abiding by the rules and not potentially endangering anyone else. Why should there be one rule for us and another for the policeman?

 

[camerafodder]

Of course amber means 'stop' as well.

Indeed it does, but not when you're in the middle crossing the junction.

 

[jonnyboy]

Yes, we went through a red traffic light although it would have been difficult to do otherwise without causing a minor hold-up. We then later went through another set of permanent lights which were on green but started to go amber as we crossed them. The copper however crossed the permanent lights on red, no question of it. My colleague (and it really is my colleague and not me) is happy to accept the penalty for the roadworks even given the circumstances and the complete absence of danger to anyone. I, on the other hand feel that the copper's reaction at the roadworks was for more dangerous and at the main lights was downright reckless. He could have caught us up easily by abiding by the rules and not potentially endangering anyone else. Why should there be one rule for us and another for the policeman?

Agreed. The colleague is bang to rights, but the copper has to be accountable. If you intend to take it further it has to be aong these lines - ie we're not trying to get out of the penalty etc. Surely the only excuse he can have for jumping the light was to IMMEDIATELY nick your mate, not wait till later in the journey?

 

[BTB 500]

Indeed it does, but not when you're in the middle crossing the junction.

Amber shows for 3 seconds I believe. So if it changed from green while you were in the middle of the junction, how was it red for the police car (which you said was directly behind you)??

 

[camerafodder]

Amber shows for 2 seconds. So if it changed from green while you were in the middle of the junction, how was it red for the police car (which you said was directly behind you)??

The police car was following at approx 100m, he was not 'directly behind us', we were both travelling at around 30mph.

 

[Neiltodd]

Iagree,you can't let the copper away with lying,insist on seeing the video of him jumping the lights.

 

[camerafodder]

Iagree,you can't let the copper away with lying,insist on seeing the video of him jumping the lights.

I did this at the scene but he flatly refused to do it, my colleague is not trying to get out of the penalty but at the same time the copper should abide by the rules too. If its all on film (which it was) then he does not need to be in any rush and as such be putting other people at risk.

 

[BTB 500]

The police car was following at approx 100m, he was not 'directly behind us', we were both travelling at around 30mph.

It takes seven and a half seconds to cover 100 metres at 30 mph. So the lights would have been red for four and a half seconds before the police car went through.

The lights in the other direction would have been green by then, was there no traffic crossing the junction?

 

[camerafodder]

It takes seven and a half seconds to cover 100 metres at 30 mph. So the lights would have been red for four and a half seconds before the police car went through.

The lights in the other direction would have been green by then, was there no traffic crossing the junction?

You're right but he may have accelerated as I reckon they were red for 2 seconds before he crossed. Luckily nobody was coming across from the green side. We were in a column of traffic but he had left an unusually large gap between us and him, as I say, about 100m

 

[Neiltodd]

Don't take the fixed penalty,take the court option,they will drop it rather than play the video of themselves jumping the lights.

 

[BTB 500]

You're right but he may have accelerated as I reckon they were red for 2 seconds before he crossed. Luckily nobody was coming across from the green side. We were in a column of traffic but he had left an unusually large gap between us and him, as I say, about 100m

If there was no traffic crossing the junction it doesn't sound like the police were endangering anyone?

 

[BTB 500]

Don't take the fixed penalty,take the court option,they will drop it rather than play the video of themselves jumping the lights.

Aren't they entitled to do this, if in pursuit of an offender? The OP has said there was no cross traffic at the junction.

 

[camerafodder]

If there was no traffic crossing the junction it doesn't sound like the police were endangering anyone?

He took a gamble with no warning lights or siren and no clear view of the priority traffic, there could have been someone coming and the speed limit is 60mph. He should have followed more closely to avoid 'losing his target'. His actions were disproportionate to the incident.....I appreciate your advocative stance though!