KAOSWATERS:
If you have crossed the solid white line with the front of your vehicle and the light is NOT red then it is not an offence. It IS an offence when you cross the solid white line at the front of your vehicle and the light is red.If you are halfway over the solid white line with your truck and the light then changes to red it is NOT an offence.
Guaranteed.
This is what I thought.
Monkey241:
If you’ve already crossed then you should clear the prohibited area.
To be fair it’s a matter of judgement…but are you suggesting stopping the truck so the trailer axles are astride the white line is reasonable?The offence is failing to obey a traffic sign…
The law demands stopping before the white line, the enforcement is a slightly flawed process and the reason why every photograph of the offence is subject to review by human eyes.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
It was obeyed though - green is totally fine. Yellow is questionable (for the reasons I posted above), but the issue is whether if you ALREADY crossed with PART of the vehicle THEN it turns red, what happens? It appears it is LEGAL to continue.
TruckerGuy:
, but the issue is whether if you ALREADY crossed with PART of the vehicle THEN it turns red, what happens? It appears it is LEGAL to continue.
No - it an offence for ANY part of the vehicle to cross the line when the light is red. if you are part way across and STOP before the light is re, no offence is committed (assuming it was not safe to stop on Amber)
Sources:
RAC: rac.co.uk/drive/advice/came … t-cameras/
Motoring Laywer: motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/ … lights.php
Motoring Lawyer 2: motoringoffencelawyers.com/ … -accident/
and many others…
The stop line is there for a reason.
Any encroachment…camera or not on a red light is an offence.
The fact that the light won’t flash is not the same as not committing an offence.
Stop with an artic blocking the junction or impeding the flow of traffic and an offence is committed regardless of camera activation.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I think (I’m, at least) getting confused by the word “crossed”. To me that implies I have not YET passed over it AT ALL with any part of the vehicle.
So you’re saying if my front wheels are one side, and the rear wheels the other, and it CHANGES FROM AMBER TO RED, to continue MOVING AT ALL, is the offence?
TruckerGuy:
I think (I’m, at least) getting confused by the word “crossed”. To me that implies I have not YET passed over it AT ALL with any part of the vehicle.So you’re saying if my front wheels are one side, and the rear wheels the other, and it CHANGES FROM AMBER TO RED, to continue MOVING AT ALL, is the offence?
Of course not. That would be retarded and everyone driving a long vehicle like an artic or coach would be dealing with a hundred TS offences every week 
. Ignore the simpletons on here and speak to a motoring lawyer.
I see several references to offences committed if “any part” of the vehicle crosses the line on red - even some assertions that the law is perfectly clear on this point. I’d be interested to see where this comes from as I can’t find any reference to it in the relevant legislation. The only places I’ve found it quoted are on “Mr Loophole” style law firms’ websites - quelle surprise as they attempt to drum up business.
But regardless of that, it takes about four seconds for an artic to pass an arbitrary point on the road at 10mph. It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that an offence is committed by driving past a stop line (on green) only for the lights to change during the four or more seconds it takes for the rear bumper to clear the line. If there is indeed an “any part” element to the offence it would surely be that once “any part” of the vehicle has passed the Stop Line then that vehicle is to be regarded as having passed it. This is why the red light cameras produce photos which show the time that has elapsed since the lights changed to red and the speed of the vehicle.
Roymondo:
I see several references to offences committed if “any part” of the vehicle crosses the line on red - even some assertions that the law is perfectly clear on this point. I’d be interested to see where this comes from as I can’t find any reference to it in the relevant legislation. The only places I’ve found it quoted are on “Mr Loophole” style law firms’ websites - quelle surprise as they attempt to drum up business.But regardless of that, it takes about four seconds for an artic to pass an arbitrary point on the road at 10mph. It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that an offence is committed by driving past a stop line (on green) only for the lights to change during the four or more seconds it takes for the rear bumper to clear the line. If there is indeed an “any part” element to the offence it would surely be that once “any part” of the vehicle has passed the Stop Line then that vehicle is to be regarded as having passed it. This is why the red light cameras produce photos which show the time that has elapsed since the lights changed to red and the speed of the vehicle.
I think the issue is the law and the tech used to enforce it.
Cameras usually work on sensors whilst the law works on part of the vehicle passing the stop line. Therefore you could theoretically stop with part of your vehicle over the white line and have broken the law…but not activate the camera
Depending where the artic is when Amber flashes up you could clear the sensors with the front wheels …but activate with the rear as the light changes to red.
My take is that if your cab has cleared the line on Amber, you’d still be committing an offence if you then stopped the vehicle…potentially 2 offences.
Could you pick up a penalty by activating the sensors with your rear wheels? I think the time stamp on the photo then plays a key part.
It’s not as clear cut as some on here pretend…but if you go through on Amber so long as you’re not taking the proverbial you should be OK.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Based on the above, if it ever happens to me I’m fighting it (dashcam FTW). I never deliberately run red lights or even amber (as per the Highway Code, though I have been informed previously the HC is not worth the paper it isn’t printed on in 2021).