Breaking lights at empty crossroads = victimless crime, or is it?

grogi · 09-10-2017 10:36AM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... flashing Amber means yield. How are you supposed to perceive it as you've right of way?

I am pretty sure it does not mean that.

GM228 · 09-10-2017 11:02AM

grogi wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... flashing Amber means yield. How are you supposed to perceive it as you've right of way?

I am pretty sure it does not mean that.

Dravokivich is correct, it means exactly that.

grogi · 09-10-2017 11:04AM

GM228 wrote: »

Dravokivich is correct, it means exactly that.

Ok, to everyone or to those in the right? I can only find that they need to give way to pedestrians...

GM228 · 09-10-2017 11:20AM

grogi wrote: »

Ok, to everyone or to those in the right? I can only find that they need to give way to pedestrians...

Everyone.

S30 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012).

30(5) Where traffic sign number RTS 004 is provided in advance of traffic sign number RUS 026 (yield / Géill Slí) or traffic sign number RRM 018 (yield line) or both, a driver of a vehicle may proceed past the traffic light when the amber light at the lower level of the lights is illuminated on an intermittent basis subject to compliance with the provisions of article 21.

grogi · 09-10-2017 11:32AM

GM228 wrote: »

Everyone.

S30 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012).

Where traffic sign number RTS 004 is provided in advance of traffic sign number RUS 026 (yield / Géill Slí) or traffic sign number RRM 018 (yield line) or both (...)

Sounds to me that one needs to yield if the traffic lights are off/flashing AND any form of yield sign is given (sign or line)... Makes perfect sense and is exactly what @CiniO was referring to - if the traffic lights are off or flashing, you rely on the regular signs.

This does not apply if no other sign is given I believe...

Dravokivich · 09-10-2017 11:42AM

grogi wrote: »

Where traffic sign number RTS 004 is provided in advance of traffic sign number RUS 026 (yield / Géill Slí) or traffic sign number RRM 018 (yield line) or both (...)

Sounds to me that one needs to yield if the traffic lights are off/flashing AND any form of yield sign is given (sign or line)... Makes perfect sense and is exactly what @CiniO was referring to - if the traffic lights are off or flashing, you rely on the regular signs.

This does not apply if no other sign is given I believe...

Off ramp from n4 outbound, heading towards Weston always has flashing Amber. Are you saying this superceedes the green presented to those coming from leixlip?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 09-10-2017 12:11PM

bazz26 wrote: »

This being typical Ireland

What has this got to do with Ireland? There's nothing typically Irish about it.

Adriana Bewildered Neighbor wrote: »

Nonsense, of course it is unless you are blind.

As per usual, you are wrong.

Adriana Bewildered Neighbor wrote: »

Well we make this call many times every time we drive i.e. Deciding if a move is dangerous.

You don't decide when a red light applies to you or not, that decision has been taken away from you. Broken lights are a red herring here.

Adriana Bewildered Neighbor wrote: »

Have cars suddenly started to come with cloaking devices as standard? Where is the mysterious car going to come out of if you have good visibility and can clearly see the way is clear to proceed? I'm not talking about flying through a junction nor am I saying that it's safe to go through any red light but the example I gave of turning left at a junction onto another road, the same manuvre everyone does multiple times a day on roads with out lights is not suddenly dangers for the simple reason there is a red light involved. I'd hate to be so worried about rules it must make life so difficult.

Your arguments are incredibly childish. The fact that there's a light at the crossing makes it far more dangerous than a junction without lights. Just think about it for a moment as to why that may be.

Adriana Bewildered Neighbor wrote: »

For 14 years along with extensive experience driving machinery since I was 10 years of age.

:rolleyes:

grogi wrote: »

Look at that... Not only saints, but we have some writers among us!

Do you have anything to add to the thread apart from this pseudo intelligent drivel?

Adriana Bewildered Neighbor wrote: »

I would see someone who blindly follows the rules of the road and doesn't make those own assessment as a poor driver.

You are trying to defend the indefensible with this outlandish claim.

Your logic;

Follow the rules of the road = bad driver
Pick your favorite rules/follow some rules/rules are time dependant = good driver.

grogi wrote: »

I am genuinely jealous for your absolute knowledge.

How should I know what is the law (when it is so complex?) I don't, you don't. Nobody really can know for certain what the law was until the highest court rules. Until then I have to use my best knowledge of the current state of the law and apply interpretation of what I know for the specific situation.

I guess we simply don't agree the meaning of the word interpretation.

This is a completely fascicle argument "I didn't know the law, your honor" will do nothing for your case. You're obliged to know the laws. I agree that you can't know all the laws, that's why we have specialized lawyers for such case. But to claim that you don't understand that red=stop, well that's just completely unintelligent. You are trying to apply complexities to this incredibly simple law, it's not working.

sdanseo wrote: »

The only time where it's OK and doesn't pose a risk is pedestrian lights.

Wrong, it's also not ok. Can people stop spreading their shítty road practices? Standard of driving is already poor enough.

mikeecho wrote: »

How many commentators here, regularly drive between 3 and 5am?

I do, and their is virtually no traffic.
There are plenty of junctions , where if you slow down, or come to a stop, and then proceed through a red light, it is safe.

Yea, until there's some other fool on the road with the same thought process "Ah sure, it's 4AM and there's nobody but me on the road, i'll just plough on at a ton, sure it'll be grand".

dil999 · 09-10-2017 03:19PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Off ramp from n4 outbound, heading towards Weston always has flashing Amber. Are you saying this superceedes the green presented to those coming from leixlip?

There is a yield sign on the road there also, Which covers the specifics of the legislation.

As Dravokivich has said, flashing amber lights universally mean the same as a 'Yield' sign. It never means that you have right of way. It would be beyond stupid to have flashing amber lights in one scenario meaning 'Yield' and in another giving you right of way.

The rules of the road are generally designed to be straight forward and easy to follow. The type of arguments from people on here attempting to nitpick legislation they don't understand, to justify their inability to drive safely is like listening to a precocious 10 year old.

A red light means stop. End of story. For those of you driving at night who believe they are so important that they can't spare that 1 minute stopped at a red light, tough. Other people's safety wins out every time.

Dravokivich · 09-10-2017 03:25PM

dil999 wrote: »

There is a yield sign on the road there also, Which covers the specifics of the legislation.

I don't believe it's too visible until you've gotten up just before the lights though. A sign is no good unless you can see it in advance. So you'll need to be responding to that light.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 04:07PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't believe it's too visible until you've gotten up just before the lights though. A sign is no good unless you can see it in advance. So you'll need to be responding to that light.

The yield sign is actually painted on the road, so its impossible to see if there is a car on it. You are 100% correct and i am in complete agreement with you that the flashing amber lights are what tells the driver to yield.

My point was that the yield sign on the road means it technically complies with the legislation. It was pointed towards another poster (Grogi). He was quoting snippets of legislation, that he found on the internet, and was trying to make a point that flashing amber lights don't mean 'Yield' unless they adhere to other criteria. Road engineers are fairly au-fait with the legislation and will make sure that appropriate markings accompany the flashing amber lights.

grogi · 09-10-2017 04:15PM

dil999 wrote: »

The yield sign is actually painted on the road, so its impossible to see if there is a car on it. You are 100% correct and i am in complete agreement with you that the flashing amber lights are what tells the driver to yield.

Inability to see a sign lays exactly under the 'ignorantia juris non excusat' principle.

dil999 wrote: »

My point was that the yield sign on the road means it technically complies with the legislation. It was pointed towards another poster (Grogi). He was quoting snippets of legislation, that he found on the internet

I did not quote any snippet. @GM228 did - and I would not call him law-ignorant at all. So stop please personal trips here.

And yes - traffic rules are very technical.

dil999 wrote: »

/../ and was trying to make a point that flashing amber lights don't mean 'Yield' unless they adhere to other criteria.

Please show me a legislation, in a form of a snippet if you like, that says that an flashing amber light means yield. I'm not saying it isn't, but nobody did so far.

To my best knowledge a flashing amber means 'traffic lights not working. proceed with caution'.

Road engineers are fairly au-fait with the legislation and will make sure that appropriate markings accompany the flashing amber lights.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 04:46PM

grogi wrote: »

Inability to see a sign lays exactly under the 'ignorantia juris non excusat' principle.

:rolleyes:

grogi wrote: »

I did not quote any snippet. @GM228 did - and I would not call him law-ignorant at all. So stop please personal trips here.

Sorry, Groggi, my mistake. Not on any trips.

grogi wrote: »

To my best knowledge a flashing amber means 'traffic lights not working. proceed with caution'

I don't mean to be facetious but that shows a very limited knowledge. If you are at a pedestrian lights, and the lights flash amber you yield to pedestrians. if you are at a junction turning left on to a main road with a flashing filter arrow arrow, you give way to traffic on the main road. If you are approaching a pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing with flashing amber lights) you give way pedestrians on that crossing. That's pretty basic stuff.

grogi wrote: »

And yes - traffic rules are very technical.

Please show me a legislation, in a form of a snippet if you like, that says that an flashing amber light means yield. I'm not saying it isn't, but nobody did so far.

I doubt very much that there is a specific line to be found in the legislation that states a flashing amber signal means yield. But there doesn't have to be. In the instances flashing amber lights are mentioned in the legislation, they require you to yield. Hence flashing lights mean yield in the legislation.

Assuming you drive, you are obliged to know the rules of the road. The ROTR are underpinned by the legislation, and if you know them and follow them then there is no requirement for you to know the legislation.

grogi · 09-10-2017 06:36PM

dil999 wrote: »

I don't mean to be facetious but that shows a very limited knowledge. If you are at a pedestrian lights, and the lights flash amber you yield to pedestrians. if you are at a junction turning left on to a main road with a flashing filter arrow arrow, you give way to traffic on the main road. If you are approaching a pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing with flashing amber lights) you give way pedestrians on that crossing. That's pretty basic stuff.

I am certain there are hundreds of other meanings of flashing amber lights, none of which is relevant to this discussion, which was about a junction with another road.

dil999 wrote: »

I doubt very much that there is a specific line to be found in the legislation that states a flashing amber signal means yield. But there doesn't have to be. In the instances flashing amber lights are mentioned in the legislation, they require you to yield. Hence flashing lights mean yield in the legislation.

Yet you haven't given any in the context of a road junction, when the lights are on their own. I bet that such sign, on its own, is meaningless. Granted, no harm will be done if you yield - but you are not required to.

Assuming you drive, you are obliged to know the rules of the road. The ROTR are underpinned by the legislation, and if you know them and follow them then there is no requirement for you to know the legislation.

Au contraire. You ARE obliged to obey the law, and if you don't know it - it's your own fault (well... Ignorantia juris non excusat). ROTR not only are not the law, they are often misguiding. For instance the "o'clock rules" on the roundabout.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 07:39PM

grogi wrote: »

I am certain there are hundreds of other meanings of flashing amber lights, none of which is relevant to this discussion, which was about a junction with another road.

Yet you haven't given any in the context of a road junction, when the lights are on their own. I bet that such sign, on its own, is meaningless. Granted, no harm will be done if you yield - but you are not required to.

Au contraire. You ARE obliged to obey the law, and if you don't know it - it's your own fault (well... Ignorantia juris non excusat). ROTR not only are not the law, they are often misguiding. For instance the "o'clock rules" on the roundabout.

Since the match is so bad I'll do a quick reply. There are only a few reference of flashing amber lights in the rules of the road. Most of which I have covered. If you don't understand the context that's your issue.

You need to know the law, not the legislation (unless your studying in Blackhall Place). The rules of the road is the definitive guide to the law as it applies to road usage. You are required to know it and are tested on it before you are given a licence to drive. There is no requirement on anyone to know the legislation.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 07:58PM

grogi wrote: »

I am certain there are hundreds of other meanings of flashing amber lights, none of which is relevant to this discussion, which was about a junction with another road.

Yet you haven't given any in the context of a road junction, when the lights are on their own. I bet that such sign, on its own, is meaningless. Granted, no harm will be done if you yield - but you are not required to.

Au contraire. You ARE obliged to obey the law, and if you don't know it - it's your own fault (well... Ignorantia juris non excusat). ROTR not only are not the law, they are often misguiding. For instance the "o'clock rules" on the roundabout.

Since the match is so bad I'll do a quick reply. There are only a few reference of flashing amber lights in the rules of the road. Most of which I have covered. If you don't understand the context that's your issue.

You need to know the law, not the legislation (unless your studying in Blackhall Place). The rules of the road is the definitive guide to the law as it applies to road usage. You are required to know it and are tested on it before you are given a licence to drive. There is no requirement on anyone to know the legislation.

Mycroft H · 09-10-2017 08:03PM

Steve wrote: »

Any link to an actual law?

Section 13 Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.

13 Traffic lights

13.—(1) Subject to paragraph (4) of this bye-law, a driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light or, if there is no such stop line, beyond that light.

(2) A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows an amber light while no other traffic light lamp (immediately above or below) shows any light, shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light (or, if there is no such stop line, beyond the light) save when the vehicle is so close to the stop line when the amber light shows that the vehicle cannot safely be halted before crossing the stop line.

(3) A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows a green light (other than a green arrow) may, in accordance with these bye-laws, proceed past that light.

(4) A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows a lighted green arrow may, in accordance with these bye-laws, proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow, notwithstanding that another traffic light lamp facing the driver shows a red light.

That's what I know of.

As part of the day job we can claim exemptions to pass a red light. As part of a dynamic assessment we can either choose to treat it as a give way junction or hold back for the green. There's some junctions that it's even too risky to proceed through even in a yellow ambulance with all the warning equipment like dual carriageways and other high speed junctions. At the end of the day, I still drive on my licence even when I claim exemptions, if I mess up, it's my arse on the line still.

grogi · 09-10-2017 08:15PM

dil999 wrote: »

Since the match is so bad I'll do a quick reply. There are only a few reference of flashing amber lights in the rules of the road. Most of which I have covered.

All of which are special cases (lights at pedestrian crossing, amber at junction with yield sign etc). I rest my point then. It's really simple logic...

Flashing amber does not mean yield.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 08:29PM

grogi wrote: »

All of which are special cases (lights at pedestrian crossing, amber at junction with yield sign etc). I rest my point then. It's really simple logic...

Flashing amber DOES NOT mean yield.

Not sure of your logic in that reply. And shouting doesn't help your argument. All instances of flashing amber lights in the rules of the road require yielding right of way to either pedestrians or traffic. Which catagorically shows you are incorrect.

grogi · 09-10-2017 08:32PM

dil999 wrote: »

Not sure of your logic in that reply. And shouting doesn't help your argument. All instances of flashing amber lights in the rules of the road require yielding right of way to either pedestrians or traffic. Which catagorically shows you are incorrect.

Not sure if explaining dictum de omni would be considered on-topic to this thread.

gerryirl · 09-10-2017 09:21PM

isint amazing the sh1te thats talked on threads that has nothing got to do with it what so ever.. someone jumped a red light and put up a post in the hope that people will say ah sure its alright ive done it loads of times and make them feel ok for breaking the law.. if you break it and you get away with it good for you . if you get caught or cause accident.. though sh1t ... get on with it but do you really need to post about it.. god I hate social media..

I'll get my coat

dil999 · 09-10-2017 09:30PM

grogi wrote: »

Not sure if explaining dictum de omni would be considered on-topic to this thread.

I think your understanding of Latin, logic and English need a bit of work
I'll yield right of way now as your posts are beginning to look more and more like flashing amber lights.

dil999 · 09-10-2017 09:31PM

gerryirl wrote: »

isint amazing the sh1te thats talked on threads that has nothing got to do with it what so ever.. someone jumped a red light and put up a post in the hope that people will say ah sure its alright ive done it loads of times and make them feel ok for breaking the law.. if you break it and you get away with it good for you . if you get caught or cause accident.. though sh1t ... get on with it but do you really need to post about it.. god I hate social media..

I'll get my coat

Would you grab mine on you way as well.

gerryirl · 09-10-2017 09:34PM

dil999 wrote: »

Would you grab mine on you way as well.

sure will ...lol

Stephen15 · 09-10-2017 09:38PM

jca wrote: »

Did it once at a pedestrian crossing that the people were well clear of, unmarked i40 behind me pulled me over and read me the riot act. He didn't do me even though he took my name licence etc, needless to say I won't do that again in a hurry.
In the Netherlands after a certain time at night the lights turn flashing amber at the quieter junctions, give way to the right then prevails.

Ireland is actually one of the few countries with pedestrain lights most countries have designated pedestrian crossings where cars only have to stop when a pedestrian puts their foot out and starts walking and the cars have to stop.

grogi · 09-10-2017 09:38PM

dil999 wrote: »

I think your understanding of Latin, logic and English need a bit of work
I'll yield right of way now as your posts are beginning to look more and more like flashing amber lights.

Why?! Nobody called anyone a traffic light Hitler yet!

CiniO · 09-10-2017 09:50PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ireland is actually one of the few countries with pedestrain lights most countries have designated pedestrian crossings where cars only have to stop when a pedestrian puts their foot out and starts walking and the cars have to stop.

Traffic lights exist and are widely used at pedestrian crossing nearly everywhere in Europe.

sdanseo · 10-10-2017 06:02PM

CiniO wrote: »

Traffic lights exist and are widely used at pedestrian crossing nearly everywhere in Europe.

Widely used, but not necessarily the default.

I regularly see two things at unsignalised pedestrian crossings in Ireland. Stupid motorists who go straight through because there's no lights, or pedestrians who look genuinely surprised that you've stopped to let them cross.

If half our pedestrian crossings were made unsignalised, especially the lesser used ones and around roundabouts, traffic would move an awful lot better.

Emiliano Rich Whistle wrote: »

Wrong, it's also not ok. Can people stop spreading their shítty road practices? Standard of driving is already poor enough.

I thought I made it clear enough in my post that it's not one of my practices but that I think it would be safe and acceptable. No different to a pedestrian crossing with a permanent flashing amber or no light at all, once you are satisfied there are no pedestrians about to cross.

It's different with traffic. If vehicles have a green light they will proceed at speed.

If you have a clear view of the road and there are no pedestrians, continuing should be allowed, and this should be legislated for or catered for in the form of removing all red lights from all but the most congested pedestrian crossings and replacing them with amber or none.

Breaking lights at empty crossroads = victimless crime, or is it?

Comments