When driving, do I have to proceed at a green light?

Samuel T. Cogley

As said by someone above green means proceed with caution and there are times where traffic turning right will still have control of the junction even though it's green for you. However I imagine hypothetically that's not the scenario you're describing.

Peregrinus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As said by someone above green means proceed with caution and there are times where traffic turning right will still have control of the junction even though it's green for you. However I imagine hypothetically that's not the scenario you're describing.

What's lacking in the OP is any account of why the hypothetical driver does not proceed when the light turns green. I can't be arsed to reread four pages to see if a clear reason for not proceeding is ever stated.

The answer to the question "has an offence been committed" is "the facts as stated would support a charge of obstruction but other facts, not stated - including but not limited to the reason for not proceeding - might provide a defence or might mitigate the offence".

hullaballoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

What's lacking in the OP is any account of why the hypothetical driver does not proceed when the light turns green. I can't be arsed to reread four pages to see if a clear reason for not proceeding is ever stated.

The answer to the question "has an offence been committed" is "the facts as stated would support a charge of obstruction but other facts, not stated - including but not limited to the reason for not proceeding - might provide a defence or might mitigate the offence".

Switch to 40 posts per page - it's not even 2 pages yet!

The reason stated thus far is that the hypothetical driver is hypothetically being extremely cautious.

We have latterly been drip-fed the information that there is a specific hypothetical junction where there is an unusually high rate of failing to observe signals. So unusually high, that it appears the signals may as well not be there.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

Switch to 40 posts per page - it's not even 2 pages yet!

The reason stated thus far is that the hypothetical driver is hypothetically being extremely cautious.

Cautious of what, exactly? If he's too cautious to drive, how did he get as far as the lights in the first place? If there's some particular hazard involved in driving through the junction, what is it? And what would have to happen for him to be willing to proceed?

hullaballoo wrote: »

We have latterly been drip-fed the information that there is a specific hypothetical junction where there is an unusually high rate of failing to observe signals. So unusually high, that it appears the signals may as well not be there.

If he's concerned that somebody's going to come through a red light and hit him, he should avoid the junction. He shouldn't drive up to it, stop his car, and refuse to move further. That will get him a conviction for obstruction.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Misguided1

Is there not a requirement for road users to make reasonable progress?
Would failing to proceed at a green light, cautiously (!), be seen as a failure to make reasonable progress.
I don't know if it is a legal requirement however.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'm surprised to be asked this question by you. It's a hypothetical, but what prompted me to ask the question was my experience with Kilshane Cross. I've been using Kilshane Cross for approximately 10 years now and from all 4 directions. It has always been a junction that requires caution due to the amount of amber gambling and significant blatant red light jumping at quite high speed. However, I've had cause recently to approach from the N2 northbound/Coldwinters direction recently and after I'm shown the green right turn arrow, I have to stay behind the line due to the amount of traffic still turning right at pace from the Blanchardstown direction. I'd normally be off the line on green like a greyhound out of a trap, but if I even moved forward on green in those first few seconds, I'd likely have a tipper truck stuck through my left front quarter.

That's what has prompted my question.

In that case (if that is your 'hypothetical scenario') your grand.

On green proceed with caution.. you were cautious enough to not proceed because errrr there was traffic moving across you.

OXO

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Can the Garda notify the NDLS that they believe someone is unfit to hold a licence?

There is no legal mechanism for such.

Misguided1 wrote: »

Is there not a requirement for road users to make reasonable progress?
Would failing to proceed at a green light, cautiously (!), be seen as a failure to make reasonable progress.
I don't know if it is a legal requirement however.

"Making progress" isn't a legal requirement, it's an assessment tool in relation to speed management.

It is the term used for the progression management part of the driving test which is testing your ability to maintain speed, observe speed limits, judge stopping distances, taking into account road conditions etc.

Once you have completed your driving test making progress has no legal meaning anymore.

Are Am Eye

At any junction you should throw a look at the other roads before taking off. There could be a stolen car or an emergency vehicle going against the lights. But that look takes a second and may actually coincide with you moving off. The case as the op presented it, was of remaining stationary and for no particular reason. Which is as has been said obstruction.

Really Interested

GM228 wrote: »

There is no legal mechanism for such.





"Making progress" isn't a legal requirement, it's an assessment tool in relation to speed management.

It is the term used for the progression management part of the driving test which is testing your ability to maintain speed, observe speed limits, judge stopping distances, taking into account road conditions etc.

Once you have completed your driving test making progress has no legal meaning anymore.

In relation to the first point does not section 28 apply

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/28/enacted/en/html#sec28


While it is not the NDLS a DC can make an order if a person due to illness etc. is unfit to drive.

GM228

Really Interested wrote: »

In relation to the first point does not section 28 apply

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/28/enacted/en/html#sec28


While it is not the NDLS a DC can make an order if a person due to illness etc. is unfit to drive.

Yes S28 allows Gardaí to obtain a court order to have someone disqualified if they believe they are unfit or incompentent to drive, but my reply was in relation to Freds query - can Gardaí "notify the NDLS that they believe someone is unfit to hold a licence" - the answer is no they can't.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

I love Sean nos

Peregrinus wrote: »

What's lacking in the OP is any account of why the hypothetical driver does not proceed when the light turns green. I can't be arsed to reread four pages to see if a clear reason for not proceeding is ever stated.

Luckily for you, the information you seek is a whole 2 posts above your own.

evolving_doors

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Luckily for you, the information you seek is a whole 2 posts above your own.

Was that when you were wondering if you had to proceed when the lights were green but there were cars jumping the lights and driving across you?

I love Sean nos

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Was that when you were wondering if you had to proceed when the lights were green but there were cars jumping the lights and driving across you?

Again, it's a hypothetical. I've never not proceeded. Kilshane Cross is a regular route of mine for many years, but coming at is northbound is reasonably new and the view of the of the approach road from the Blanch direction isn't great. It has right turn arrows on the northbound and southbound approaches that show green before the general proceed light, but they don't last long. That's what got me thinking about this situation and how it would work if the light went off before I could cross it. An extreme example sure, and unlikely to ever happen because apart from rush hour and maybe not even then, the northbound/southbound greens are long and the southbound approach is likely to be cleared of traffic before the cycle goes back to red.

Peregrinus

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Luckily for you, the information you seek is a whole 2 posts above your own.

Which would mean I'd have to wade through more than 50 posts to find it.

Bugger that. If you're posing a hypothetical in the OP you should put all the pertinent information in there. It's not other boardies' job to try and worm your hypothetical out of you.

Del2005

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Again, it's a hypothetical. I've never not proceeded. Kilshane Cross is a regular route of mine for many years, but coming at is northbound is reasonably new and the view of the of the approach road from the Blanch direction isn't great. It has right turn arrows on the northbound and southbound approaches that show green before the general proceed light, but they don't last long. That's what got me thinking about this situation and how it would work if the light went off before I could cross it. An extreme example sure, and unlikely to ever happen because apart from rush hour and maybe not even then, the northbound/southbound greens are long and the southbound approach is likely to be cleared of traffic before the cycle goes back to red.

Is there a green arrow for straight ahead or is it a circle?

I love Sean nos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which would mean I'd have to wade through more than 50 posts to find it.

Bugger that. If you're posing a hypothetical in the OP you should put all the pertinent information in there. It's not other boardies' job to try and worm your hypothetical out of you.

Someone appears to be taking things a bit too personally here, maybe a carryover from another thread. If you can't be bothered to contribute, don't. I'll miss your contribution as I normally find them interesting, but not if it's going to result in a strop.

Peregrinus

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Someone appears to be taking things a bit too personally here, maybe a carryover from another thread. If you can't be bothered to contribute, don't. I'll miss your contribution as I normally find them interesting, but not if it's going to result in a strop.

My apologies, IlSn. Rereading what I wrote before, it was a bit tetchy. I was out of line. Sorry.

Still, I think we have an answer to the query raised in your OP. The facts stated in the OP would support a charge under RTA 1961 s. 98 of obstructing traffic through a public place. Other facts not stated - and there are obviously relevant details which are conspicuously omitted from the hypothetical - might provide a defence or a mitigation.

Reasonable caution with respect to other traffic that might proceed improperly through the junction would I think provide a defence, but it would have to be reasonable. You could take enough time to look right and left and either observe that there is no traffic or that it appears to be responding to the signals or is too far away to be a danger, but that should at most be a few second. On the assumption that you could drive through the junction in from a standing start in four or five seconds, it's hard to justify waiting more than that for other drivers who might do so.

If you're just slow pulling away from the lights, I don't see you being charged with obstructing traffic. If anything, you're more likely to be charged with driving without due care and attention, and your defence that you were just waiting as long as necessary to check that you could proceed safely is a good defence - but only if your wait is, in fact, only as long as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. If you wait for, say, 20 seconds and in that time no other car passes through the junction in defiance of the signal, then I think you'll be convicted of driving without due care and attention, because if you were paying proper attention you would have noticed either that there was no other car, or that the other car was too far away to get to the junction in the time you would take to pass through it, or that the other car was in fact slowing in response to the signal.