Blues and Twos and Traffic Lights

[GTR1400MAN]

Easyshifter, do you have a GoogleMaps StreetView link for the location where this happened?

[EasyShifter]

Easyshifter, do you have a GoogleMaps StreetView link for the location where this happened?

I've never used this technology before but I think this will find it. It's Loughborough in Leicestershire. I was in Broad Street, waiting for a green light to turn left into Derby Road. As you'll see, my moving forward would not cause any danger for the Derby Road traffic as that is quite a distance away, but it would have threatened any pedestrians and/or cyclists crossing in front.
Don't know how much help this will be.
I'm personally quite satisfied that (a) a police driver does not have the authority to direct the car in front to go through a red light (s/he would if actually on foot directing traffic and therefore able to see the entire scene and communicate clearly with all drivers) and (b) my response was safe but technically and rightly illegal and if there is a camera on that junction then I might try a letter of explanation just on the off chance but I certainly shan't fight it out in court.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.77408 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[GTR1400MAN]

Here's the junction looking back into it.

I'd certainly have carefully eased forward and left to let them through there, as there's no chance of causing danger to cross traffic. Looks like three abreast is possible there.

And there's all that wasted cycle lane and ASL area as well.

PS. No sign of any cameras.

[superplum]

Here's the junction looking back into it.

I'd certainly have carefully eased forward and left to let them through there, as there's no chance of causing danger to cross traffic. Looks like three abreast is possible there.

And there's all that wasted cycle lane and ASL area as well.

PS. No sign of any cameras.

Intriguing; could it be argued that the junction/s control is effected by Pelican crossings rather than traffic lights per se? Could being pressured through a crossing be lawful?

[fungus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but IIAC the police officer must be in uniform and actually directing traffic. They can't direct you from a vehicle.

Nigel.

[EasyShifter]

Here's the junction looking back into it.

I'd certainly have carefully eased forward and left to let them through there, as there's no chance of causing danger to cross traffic. Looks like three abreast is possible there.

And there's all that wasted cycle lane and ASL area as well.

PS. No sign of any cameras.

Intriguing; could it be argued that the junction/s control is effected by Pelican crossings rather than traffic lights per se? Could being pressured through a crossing be lawful?

It's part of a road system, regulating traffic at quite a complex (for Loughborough!) junction - but the lights are far enough back from the junction itself that I was able to pull forward without getting anywhere close to the crossing traffic.
And no, as you imply, being pressurised through a pedestrian crossing area certainly can't be lawful - the police driver could never be sure of having a good enough view to take that responsibility. A police officer directing traffic carries responsibility for the safety of that traffic when responding to his signals - and he can only take that responsibility from a position where there is a full view of the whole scene. Furthermore, he had no way of controlling my reaction - if he'd just meant me to pull forward a couple of yards, and I had panicked and bolted out into the junction, there'd have been nothing he could have done. Any way we look at it, he can't direct traffic from that position.

[EasyShifter]

Correct me if I am wrong, but IIAC the police officer must be in uniform and actually directing traffic. They can't direct you from a vehicle.

Nigel.

Absolutely right - they have to be in a position to see the whole junction and be able to predict the overall effect of their directions. They also have to use a specified system of clear signals, as illustrated in the Highway Code. A driver can't be expected to comply with an ambiguous signal that has no clear meaning and the misinterpretation of which could be dangerous.

[Rolyan]

This is the problem with 'nerdy' advanced drivers learning rules, believing they know better, and being self-righteous in the face of common sense decision making.

Police rules are none of our business. A Police officer clearly indicating to you to move out of his way is obviously an instruction (as is Observing by IAM volunteers). No point in a semantical argument on this point.

There is no evidence that anyone has been prosecuted for complying with the instructions of a Police officer to get out of his way at traffic lights that involves the driver crossing the 'stop' line.

The driver has a choice. 1) Arrogantly, I think, forming the view that he has insufficient information to decide whether or not the Police driver is relying on common law rules or statutory exemptions to make his way through the lights and then refusing to move unless it is explained to him 2) Presuming that the Police officer has the authority to require him to move and complying with that instruction so as not to wilfully obstruct the Police officer in the course of his duty.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's not semantics, it's the law, as confirmed many times by ACPO. The driver is not expected to break the law in order to assist progress of the police driver. You taking the moral high ground does not alter that fact; if you won't accept it from members posting on here then I suggest you contact ACPO directly; they will confirm it for you.
The rest of your post contains so much irony that I agree with your last sentence.

P.S. the fact that you believe that Police rules are none of our business is far more worrying than your misguided attempt to dismiss those who disagree with you as 'arrogant'.

[userLeft1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but IIAC the police officer must be in uniform and actually directing traffic. They can't direct you from a vehicle.

Nigel.

This is where Alastair and the self-satisfied Easyshifter are getting confused too. The defence is not made under the statutory powers to direct traffic but under the common law.

[EasyShifter]

Correct me if I am wrong, but IIAC the police officer must be in uniform and actually directing traffic. They can't direct you from a vehicle.

Nigel.

This is where Alastair and the self-satisfied Easyshifter are getting confused too. The defence is not made under the statutory powers to direct traffic but under the common law.

I suggest, userLeft1, that if you're going to indulge in personal abuse you at least take the trouble to get your facts right by reading the posts in full.
I have already said, (a) that I did in fact take the decision to move out of the way as I was able to see that it was safe to do so, and (b) I would do the same again under similar circumstances and accept the consequences if prosecuted. My argument has been simply that the law cannot possibly give all drivers carte blanche to break the law on the basis of a personal interpretation. I took a responsible decision - it's fair to say that not all drivers would - and, for example, - a new-qualified, nervous driver with poor clutch control made worse by a sense of panic could easily have either failed to notice a pedestrian approaching or have overshot into the middle of the junction.
Finally:
Then two posts I have seen of yours so far have said far more about you than they have about me or anyone else on this forum and future posts that contain personal abuse will be ignored as far as I am concerned. I leave it to the admins what they decide to do about them.