Stop for breaking red light but Garda admited it was Amber. Should I go to court?

gar32

I was driving past four courts tonight. It was raining so when the light went amber I did not want to break hard. The Grada said " You broke a red light please pull over." After the looking at car licence etc for 5min. Just as he was giving back my licence he said. "The light was amber for a long time when you went through."

How can I get 2 points for breaking amber light ?

Not happy as I have 14 years with no claims or crashes.

mathepac

gar32 wrote: »

... "The light was amber for a long time when you went through." ...

In other words if you'd been paying attention and / or travelling at a speed appropriate to the conditions you could have stopped safely.

gar32 wrote: »

... How can I get 2 points for breaking amber light ? ...

Failure to obey traffic lights.

dirtynosebeps

amber lights do not mean stop. they mean stop if it's safe to do so. o.p. were you at church street or was it chancery street, the lights just past the fours courts heading for capel street. there are two different speed limits at these junctions. church street is 50khp, when you get past this it's 30kph. also when approaching amber lights you have to take into account whats known as the point of no return as you said o.p. it wasn't safe to stop so thechnically you'd gone past the point of no return.
a green light does not mean go either, it means proceed if it's safe to do so. alot of people think otherwise.

gar32

I was looking where I was going. I did see the light change. Only thing is I was less the 2 meter to white line & it was unsafe to stop. I was doing less the 50km which is the speed limit for that road. The 30kmph starts just after next lights on the liffey. I was being safe as always & feel the graga was just trying to pick on some one.

MagicSean

Breaking an amber is an offence unless it would have been dangerous to stop.

dirtynosebeps

k_mac wrote: »

Breaking an amber is an offence unless it would have been dangerous to stop.

it's all down to a difference of opinion, what o.p. would call dangerous the guard would have a different opinion and vise versa. basically it looks like it was down to road conditions.
unsafe/ dangerous, is there really much of a difference. personally if that was me i'd fight it. but that just my personal opinion.

PCPhoto

OP - the only problem is that if issued with a fine, and you dont pay - the system is set up to make life awkward..... so if you don't pay you face a court hearing - which is your only opportunity to give your side of the story*.

at which point the judge has to decide who to believe - you or the garda (and technically he can only give judgement on fact - so if he hears two versions of the story and cant decide then the judge can just throw out the matter...of course - its possible that a judge might hear the garda's version and say they don't believe your version and you end out suffering - which is why we have the appeals court)

Anyway..... options are:

if fined - a) pay fine accept the blame for an easier life
b) don't pay the fine and get summonsed to court

*=you could also talk to the garda after you receive a court summons and if he agrees he may ask for the matter to be struck out (basically if he remembers that he admitted it was amber for a long time....he can ask the judge to strike out the matter...he might not agree in which case you are faced with the judge)

if you don't pay the fine - and are convicted in court - appeal the matter as fast as possible.

I had a similar experience - ran an amber light and garda claimed it was red ... then claimed I almost knocked down a cyclist when pulling over (there was no cyclists in the area) .... sometimes you come across a garda who is not having a good day...its possible that this garda will not do anything further on the matter.... you just have to wait and see if you get a fine or not.

dirtynosebeps

thanks for pointing out pc, o.p. i thought the guard was in agreement with you that it was amber . but its a difference of opinion, you say amber the guard says red. as pc pointed out now your into technicalities. when you proceed through it was amber but by the time you crossed the junction it was red.

Jo King

dirtynosebeps wrote: »

amber lights do not mean stop. they mean stop if it's safe to do so. o.p.

Amber light means STOP unless it is NOT SAFE to do so. Unless evidence is given in court that it was not safe to stop, a conviction is 100% likely. The presumption is against the driver who goes through the amber light. The guard just has to prove that the driver went through the amber light. Only if some evidence is raised that it was not safe does he have to go further and negative the suggestion that it was not safe to stop.

PARKHEAD67

Jo King wrote: »

Amber light means STOP unless it is NOT SAFE to do so. Unless evidence is given in court that it was not safe to stop, a conviction is 100% likely. The presumption is against the driver who goes through the amber light. The guard just has to prove that the driver went through the amber light. Only if some evidence is raised that it was not safe does he have to go further and negative the suggestion that it was not safe to stop.

Guards right, your wrong.Blahdy blahdy blah.Can never defend yourself against the almighty, brilliant, bould, ignorant guard.Not in court anyway.Guard-right.You-wrong.Them de roolz.

MagicSean

dirtynosebeps wrote: »

it's all down to a difference of opinion, what o.p. would call dangerous the guard would have a different opinion and vise versa. basically it looks like it was down to road conditions.
unsafe/ dangerous, is there really much of a difference. personally if that was me i'd fight it. but that just my personal opinion.

Not really. You are supposed to drive at a speed which allows you to cope with the unexpected. You are supposed to slow down when approaching a junction, even with a green light. You are supposed to drive slower in the rain.

When it comes to amber lights, dangerous basically means the person behind you is too close for you to stop.

dirtynosebeps

Jo King wrote: »

Amber light means STOP unless it is NOT SAFE to do so. Unless evidence is given in court that it was not safe to stop, a conviction is 100% likely. The presumption is against the driver who goes through the amber light. The guard just has to prove that the driver went through the amber light. Only if some evidence is raised that it was not safe does he have to go further and negative the suggestion that it was not safe to stop.

thats what i said,stop if it's safe. if it's not keep going. dont forget theres also a point of no return.
dangerous is basically anything to do with driving.it's not all about tailgating. as i said if i was done for going through an amber light i'd fight it. technically the guard wasn't /isn't doing the o.p. for an amber light.if the guard was doing him for the amber i'd bet my bottom dollar the o.p. would win the case hands down.
we're getting away from the topic and disagreeing over the color of a light.
at the end of the day the guard was/is doing the o.p. for breaking a supposedly red light.
i dont know who has to prove what .whether the guard has to prove the o.p. broke a red light or whether the o.p. has to prove it was an amber light.

Jo King

dirtynosebeps wrote: »

thats what i said,stop if it's safe. if it's not keep going. dont forget theres also a point of no return.
dangerous is basically anything to do with driving.it's not all about tailgating. as i said if i was done for going through an amber light i'd fight it. technically the guard wasn't /isn't doing the o.p. for an amber light.if the guard was doing him for the amber i'd bet my bottom dollar the o.p. would win the case hands down.
we're getting away from the topic and disagreeing over the color of a light.
at the end of the day the guard was/is doing the o.p. for breaking a supposedly red light.
i dont know who has to prove what .whether the guard has to prove the o.p. broke a red light or whether the o.p. has to prove it was an amber light.

You are still getting it wrong. It is not stop if it is safe. It is stop unless it is not safe. The o/p proving it was an amber light is no good to him. He then has to go on and prove that it was not safe to stop.
Even if the guard agrees with the o/p in court that the light was amber the o/p is still at risk. I was in court last year when a taxi driver was charged with going through a red light. He said the light was amber. The judge said ok even if it was amber you are guilty.

mathepac

Jo King wrote: »

You are still getting it wrong. ... It is stop unless it is not safe. ... The judge said ok even if it was amber you are guilty.

Correct. An amber light means you must not go beyond the stop line or if there is no line then you must not go beyond the light, unless stopping would be dangerous. The part in bold is the only difference between amber and red.

Carawaystick

mathepac wrote: »

Correct. An amber light means you must not go beyond the stop line or if there is no line then you must not go beyond the light, unless stopping would be dangerous. The part in bold is the only difference between amber and red.

Or it might be impossible to stop in time. If you were close to the line when the light changed, then it would be impossible to stop in time, while if you were further away then you have more time to react and stop.

There has to be an amount of reasonableness involved in the interpretation of the law here.

If you take a situation where the lights go amber as a car is 10 cm from the line, the driver should stop then?

Victor

gar32 wrote: »

I was looking where I was going. I did see the light change. Only thing is I was less the 2 meter to white line & it was unsafe to stop. I was doing less the 50km which is the speed limit for that road. The 30kmph starts just after next lights on the liffey. I was being safe as always & feel the graga was just trying to pick on some one.

30km/h starts at Church Street. So were you speeding also.

"The light was amber for a long time when you went through." and rain doesn't seem to reconcile with your "I was less the 2 meter to white line".

Bosco boy

gar32 wrote: »

I was driving past four courts tonight. It was raining so when the light went amber I did not want to break hard. The Grada said " You broke a red light please pull over." After the looking at car licence etc for 5min. Just as he was giving back my licence he said. "The light was amber for a long time when you went through."

How can I get 2 points for breaking amber light ?

Not happy as I have 14 years with no claims or crashes.

sadly, there are lots of people in graveyards as a result of traffic accidents who had no claims bonuses and previous good driving records.

gar32

I am a safe driver & if I make a mistake so be it. Don't try put misfortune on me. I have never injured any one and feel very lucy happy about this. Also I hope it is a life time thing for me. No one wants to hit any one. I was driving afe which is why I feel hard done by. I see many things on the road which points are not given for but should be.

Safety first always. Bored free flow Garda's try your best please.

Reloc8

He didn't admit it was amber. He said it had been amber for a long time when you went through. That doesn't mean it wasn't red.

gar32

Reloc8 wrote: »

He didn't admit it was amber. He said it had been amber for a long time when you went through. That doesn't mean it wasn't red.

Look at you sentance please. "when you went through" meaning it was amber when I went through. Hello

Paulw

gar32 wrote: »

Look at you sentance please. "when you went through" meaning it was amber when I went through. Hello

But, amber DOESN'T mean you can go through. Amber means STOP, unless it is not safe to.

dvpower

Paulw wrote: »

But, amber DOESN'T mean you can go through. Amber means STOP, unless it is not safe to.

But as the OP has indicated, he felt it wasn't safe to stop.

gar32 wrote: »

It was raining so when the light went amber I did not want to break hard.

In marginal cases like this it seems sensible to defer to the person closest to the action; the actual driver of the car.

antiskeptic

dvpower wrote: »

But as the OP has indicated, he felt it wasn't safe to stop.

The hint seems to be in the duration of the amber light. The fact that it was amber "for a long time" indicates the driver was a good distance from the traffic light when it turned amber. We can assume (or at least the judge will assume) that amber lights are timed to give sufficient time to stop.

Some reasons why he might not feel it safe to stop include:

- not confident of his braking. His problem
- going too fast to stop safely. His problem
- not spotting the light turning amber in time. His problem
- didn't know if he was being tailgated or not. His problem
- being tailgated. Not his problem.


In order to mount a defence, you'd have to suggest a scenario such as the last example - where the feeling that it was unsafe to stop didn't arise from his own lack. Which scenario is being suggested by the OP (given that it's unlikely to be tailgating, something the Guard would have seen)?

seamus

dvpower wrote: »

But as the OP has indicated, he felt it wasn't safe to stop.

But he's not disputing that it was amber for a long time, which means that it didn't go amber when he was two feet from the white line. So it myst have been safe to stop unless he was driving poorly.

As a matter of interest OP, were you pulled over by a Garda car? And if so, were they driving in front of you, or behind you?

dvpower

seamus wrote: »

But he's not disputing that it was amber for a long time, which means that it didn't go amber when he was two feet from the white line. So it myst have been safe to stop unless he was driving poorly.

It looks like he is (i.e. he made the decision not to brake at the point that the light went amber).

gar32 wrote: »

It was raining so when the light went amber I did not want to break hard.

antiskeptic

dvpower wrote: »

It looks like he is (i.e. he made the decision not to brake at the point that the light went amber).

You've now two possibilities:

- the light went amber when he was close to it and he did the right thing.

- the light went amber well in advance and he was going too fast to stop without hard braking.

The judge will believe the considered-to-be-objectively-neutral guard and disbelieve the considered-to-be-subjectively-biased driver.

Take him down!

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

The hint seems to be in the duration of the amber light. The fact that it was amber "for a long time" indicates the driver was a good distance from the traffic light when it turned amber. We can assume (or at least the judge will assume) that amber lights are timed to give sufficient time to stop.

Some reasons why he might not feel it safe to stop include:

- not confident of his braking. His problem
- going too fast to stop safely. His problem
- not spotting the light turning amber in time. His problem
- didn't know if he was being tailgated or not. His problem
- being tailgated. Not his problem.


In order to mount a defence, you'd have to suggest a scenario such as the last example - where the feeling that it was unsafe to stop didn't arise from his own lack. Which scenario is being suggested by the OP (given that it's unlikely to be tailgating, something the Guard would have seen)?

From what the OP has said, he made a decision not to brake at the point that the light went amber. But it is quite possible that he hadn't adjusted his driving to suit the bad conditions.

But its also possible that in busy urban traffic, in bad weather conditions, where the OP is unable to judge the driving skills of drivers behind him, he had to make a judgement call. I'd be inclined to accept this from a driver of long standing with a good driving record.

Mind you, I'd still be inclined to swallow the two points because its not at all predictable what a judge's attitude would be.

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

The judge will believe the considered-to-be-objectively-neutral guard and disbelieve the considered-to-be-subjectively-biased driver.

Its not a simple matter of one side being right and the other being wrong.

The test is whether it was safe to stop in that particular situation. If the judge accepts that this is a marginal situation, then s/he may well accept that the best placed person to apply that test at that time is the actual driver.

antiskeptic

dvpower wrote: »

But its also possible that in busy urban traffic, in bad weather conditions, where the OP is unable to judge the driving skills of drivers behind him, he had to make a judgement call. I'd be inclined to accept this from a driver of long standing with a good driving record.

I know the feeling. It has a lot to do with the fact that if you adjust your speed to suit the driving conditions you'll have people up your behind, flashing lights at you. There's a reality out there that doesn't necessarily reflect the theoretical ideal.

That said, in my...ahem.. extensive experience, the guards tend to be practical folk who pull people who clearly stray beyond the grey zone.

Mind you, I'd still be inclined to swallow the two points because its not at all predictable what a judge's attitude would be.

+1

If you had a clear cut point to make then you might cause the court conveyor belt to halt and consider the specifics. Mere disagreement with a guards opinion would be like placing stones on train tracks. And there's always the risk you get one of those barmy, rogue judges...

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

And there's always the risk you get one of those barmy, rogue judges...

Judges are a bit like Boards posters:)

antiskeptic

dvpower wrote: »

Its not a simple matter of one side being right and the other being wrong.

The test is whether it was safe to stop in that particular situation. If the judge accepts that this is a marginal situation, then s/he may well accept that the best placed person to apply that test at that time is the actual driver.

It seems to boil down to whether there was an amber light for a long time before the OP passed it .. or whether there wasn't. That is a simple matter of the one being right and the other wrong.

Assuming the judge goes with the guard on that point, the defendent would need a reason why he judged the situation unsafe.

Tailgating is about the only one I can think of.

gar32

€120 fine in the post today. Pay or not pay?

slimjimmc

€120 ?

The fine for not obeying a traffic light is €80 if paid within 28days. Miss this date and it is upped to €120 for the next 28 days.

The OP mentions the incident occurred 13/11/2010 which is only 11 days ago.

Does not compute

Pay or not? I reckon your best bet is to pay, that's my opinion. If you go to court the onus will be on you to show that it was dangerous for you to stop. All the Garda has to do is give evidence that you failed to stop for amber (which is true), you will have to prove him wrong or at least cast reasonable doubt he was wrong.

So with 5 penalty points and the €120 fine at risk, do you really feel you have sufficient evidence to show it was unsafe for you to stop ?

Victor

We can't give you advice, but the judge is going to hear "It was raining and I was going to fast to stop for the orange light".

Reloc8

gar32 wrote: »

Look at you sentance please. "when you went through" meaning it was amber when I went through. Hello

OK Good luck with that.

seamus

Victor wrote: »

We can't give you advice, but the judge is going to hear "It was raining and I was going to fast to stop for the orange light".

+1
If you claim it was raining, the first thing the judge will say is, "Why weren't driving more slowly then?".

Pay the fine and move on. It's not worth your while fighting it. Check the text on the fine again, it should be €80, maybe you're reading the "potential" bit?

gar32

Fine €80 paid. Life goes on these things happen.