Stop line?

[martine]

Take a look at:
http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/traffic_lights.htm

In particular:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was in a queue of stop start traffic. The lights changed as I was on the line. Have I committed an offence?

If you stop immediately, you have not committed an offence regardless of the fact that part of the vehicle is past the stop line. An offence is committed if you attempt to proceed further when the light is red. The rules are, the offence is committed if you do not come to an immediate halt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My understanding is if you are past the stop line when the lights change then it isn't an offence to continue over the junction (providing it is safe of course) but the answer above suggest you mustn't proceed. Have I been advising my learners wrongly?

[Gareth]

There are issues of practicality here. The FAQ answer is talking about when the vehicle is in the process of crossing the stop line but hasn't cleared it. For some junctions there are no lights on the far side so when the driver is beyond the stop line it might not be possible to know that the lights have changed. If the alternative route traffic could be free-flowing then I'd suggest not continuing if it would move your vehicle into conflict with other vehicles.

[cliftonite]

From the MotorLawyers site:

Q: I drive an articulated vehicle. Quite often, when I approach the lights they are green, but by the time by vehicle is through, they have changed to red. There is nothing I can do because of the length of the vehicle. Why should I be prosecuted?
A: If the red light is not showing when the front of the vehicle crosses the line, but is illuminated before the rest of the vehicle has passed, an offence is committed. The rules state that it is your obligation as a driver to ensure that the whole of the vehicle can pass on green. If it cannot, you should not proceed.

Whilst this would appear to be a true interpretation of the law, it also shows how ludicrous some of the rules of the road are that we have to adhere to.

How on Earth does an HGV driver ensure that he always complies with this idiotic state of affairs?

[michael769]

Amber lights show for a minimum of 3 seconds which by maths means a 16m (the longest allowed) could have problems crossing the line on amber at anything less than 12mph. Clearly this is an impossible ask. Clearly though a prosecution in these circumstances would fIl the DPP Full Test and never make it to a court even if a copper took complete leave of their sense of proportion.

martine your advice is correct as stated, provided that the entirety of their vehicle has passed the line. If any part of it is over the line then they commit an offence.

The common error is to assume that the rule is based on the front of the car passing the line.

It should not be a problem for cars - taking a 3m long car it can pass the line on amber at speeds as low as 3mph and the driver should be able to pull up on amber at that speed.

[GJD]

martine your advice is correct as stated, provided that the entirety of their vehicle has passed the line. If any part of it is over the line then they commit an offence.

The common error is to assume that the rule is based on the front of the car passing the line.

Have you got a reference for that? Is "any part of the vehicle" explicitly mentioned in the law somewhere? TSRGD Regulation 36 says "the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line" but I haven't found anything that definitively states that interpreting that to mean the front of the vehicle rather than any part of the vehicle is incorrect.

[michael769]

Have you got a reference for that? Is "any part of the vehicle" explicitly mentioned in the law somewhere? TSRGD Regulation 36 says "the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line" but I haven't found anything that definitively states that interpreting that to mean the front of the vehicle rather than any part of the vehicle is incorrect.

I have highlighted the relevant phrase in the quote. I will not insult your intelligence by quoting the dictionary definition of the word beyond, but merely observe that taking the everyday interpretation of that phrase those two words imply a vehicle that was over the stop line whilst the red light is on which then moves so that it is beyond it, and point out that the regulation mkes no mention of any requirement for the light to have been red when the vehicle first moved over it.

The test for the offence has two parts(ignoring amber of simplicities sake):

(1) that any part of the vehicle was over the line whilst the signal was showing red
(2) that the vehicle then proceeded beyond the line

1 is required because vehicles that passed the line on green are also still proceeding beyond, but are clearly intended to be able to do so lawfully.

The wording also has another interesting implication... for bonus points who wants to point it out?

[GJD]

Have you got a reference for that? Is "any part of the vehicle" explicitly mentioned in the law somewhere? TSRGD Regulation 36 says "the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line" but I haven't found anything that definitively states that interpreting that to mean the front of the vehicle rather than any part of the vehicle is incorrect.

I have highlighted the relevant phrase in the quote. I will not insult your intelligence by quoting the dictionary definition of the word beyond, but merely observe that taking the everyday interpretation of that phrase those two words imply a vehicle that was over the stop line whilst the red light is on which then moves so that it is beyond it, and point out that the regulation mkes no mention of any requirement for the light to have been red when the vehicle first moved over it.

The test for the offence has two parts(ignoring amber of simplicities sake):

(1) that any part of the vehicle was over the line whilst the signal was showing red
(2) that the vehicle then proceeded beyond the line

1 is required because vehicles that passed the line on green are also still proceeding beyond, but are clearly intended to be able to do so lawfully.

The wording also has another interesting implication... for bonus points who wants to point it out?

My intelligence is fine, I'm sure .

All I was interested in is whether "any part of the vehicle" is explicitly stated somewhere or is the accepted interpretation of the wording I linked to.

I don't doubt that "any part of the vehicle" is the rule and I don't mean to suggest it isn't a reasonable interpretation of the wording I linked to.

[martine]

martine your advice is correct as stated, provided that the entirety of their vehicle has passed the line. If any part of it is over the line then they commit an offence.

Great - thanks for that.

It all makes sense for normal vehicles (cars and the like) but it's a bit iffy for large lorries and artics. I wonder if anyone has every been successfully prosecuted because their trailer was crossing the stop line at red?

[michael769]

I cannot imagine it.

Public Prosecutors have to apply a public interest test to prosecutions and it is hard to believe that such a case wold on its own pass the bar, unless there were other circumstances at play.

[MGF]

...Is "any part of the vehicle" explicitly mentioned in the law somewhere?

The law was clarified in the case of Ryan v Smith 1966

Ryan was driving a bus which he had stopped half-way across the line to allow oncoming traffic to turn right across his path. When he moved off to turn right himself, the lights had changed to red. Although the Court noted that this was not an easy case to decide LJ Winn concluded,

In my opinion the proper construction of the words is that the prohibition relates to any vehicle or any part of any vehicle and is infringed if any part of any vehicle moves forward so that that part of the vehicle crosses the line, and thereby goes from the nearer side of the line to the far side of the line, looking at the line of advance in the same sense as the line of advance of the vehicle.

[jcochrane]

Many years ago I stopped at the stop line but the lights had been recently been repositioned by a couple of yards. A new stop line had not yet been repainted to be just before the light. By stopping at the stop line I had passed through a red light, just. (It was only by a few feet and I could still see the lights.) It was not overlooked by a policeman standing in a shop doorway by the lights, however. I was then "educated" by the officer but with no further action taken.

[Slink_Pink]

The test for the offence has two parts(ignoring amber of simplicities sake):

(1) that any part of the vehicle was over the line whilst the signal was showing red
(2) that the vehicle then proceeded beyond the line

1 is required because vehicles that passed the line on green are also still proceeding beyond, but are clearly intended to be able to do so lawfully.

The wording also has another interesting implication... for bonus points who wants to point it out?

I presume that I could, with my long vehicle partly across the line at the point of lights changing, legally proceed forwards as long as I stop prior to the end of my long vehicle crossing the line. If timing permitted, I could in effect creep continuously across the stop line such that the tail end of my vehicle passed over the line only when the lights had again changed to green for the next phase.

[MGF]

It would have to be a very thick line for that to work as the prohibition applies to any part of the vehicle not just the part at the rear.

[Slink_Pink]

It would have to be a very thick line for that to work as the prohibition applies to any part of the vehicle not just the part at the rear.

My very hypothetical situation was based on the difference in wording between (1) and (2).
Since (1) states "any part of the vehicle" and (2) states the reduced case of "the vehicle" then I assumed different meanings applied. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the bonus-point stick!!

[MGF]

Michael's wording isn't the law, you're best reading LJ Winn's comments for that. I am not sure what the implication of Michael's wording is either.