The Law on "Beating the Red"
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Position of. the Driver Who is Struck by a Vehicle which has .Crossed in Contravention of a Red Signal Light By Our Legal Adviser
ONE of the biggest potential dangers on the roads, as The Commercial Motor has already pointed out, is the driver who either crosses on the red light or cuts it so fine as to cross at the very tail end of the yellow. It is, therefore, relevant to consider the position of the man in the right, who is imperilled by such an action. Can the guilty driver say afterwards, "Well, you saw me, why didn't you avoid me?"
Another aspect of the problem of traffic lights is: what duty, if any, is one under to look both right and left when crossing a cross-roads with lights in one's favour.
The legal answer to the first question is the same as that in any case of negligence. If there is contributory negligence, the blame for the accident might have to be apportioned between the two drivers, but contributory negligence cannot arise unless the driver who had the lights in his favour was aware of the danger created • by the other driver. Even if he saw -the other driver, there is an old legal doctrine known as the "agony ,of the moment," which may excuse any mistake he then makes himself. How this doctrine may be invoked is best shown by examples from two cases.
"On the Sudden . . ."
In a case in 1825 a turnpike road had two gates, one for each line of traffic, and the plaintiff made for his proper gate at the same moment as the defendant wrongly approached it. The plaintiff thought that the defendant would give way and rode on, although he could have stopped, and a collision occurred.
The plaintiff recovered damages, and the judge's remarks gave the clue to the basis of the doctrine when he said: "On the sudden, a man may not be sufficiently self-possessed to know in which way to decide; and in such a case I think the wrongdoer is the party who is to be answerable for the mischief, though it might have been prevented by the other party's acting differently."
In a later case in 1915—dealing with more modern means for transport!—two motorists were approaching each other from opposite directions, A on his proper side and B on his wrong side of the road. When a collision seemed inevitable to A, he swerved to his wrong side at the same instant as B crossed over to what was his proper side, and the collision occurred on A's wrong side of the road. Nevertheless, A was held entitled to recover damages because, in effect, it. does not lie in the mouth of the original wrongdoer, who has created a situation of peril, to blame the innocent party who has acted reasonably, although wrongly, in the "agony of the moment."
The second problem is whether a driver entering a cross-roads with the traffic lights in his favour is under any obligation to assume that the driver of a vehicle halted by the lights might be entering the cross-roads against them. It was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1936 that the answer to that is an emphatic "No."
A police car going to a call and travelling at about 30 m.p.h. approached a main cross-roads as the red light was turning to amber. It was succeeded by green • just as the car reached the stop line, where three lines B20 of hitherto stationary traffic—including a tramcar— proceeding in the same direction were just starting to move forward.
The driver's view was, thereiore, effectively screened from any traffic still crossing from the left, but without slackening his speed he pulled over the crown of the road to his off side to overtake and came into collision with a van approaching from the left which had entered the cross-roads, although the lights had turned red as it reached them.
Police Driver in Error?
It was urged that the police 'driver had acted in direct contravention of the Highway Code, which counsels no overtaking at cross-roads, and in disregard of the provisions as to traffic lights, which clearly say that the green light means "proceed if the road is clear." it was pointed out, however, that it was possible for the two vehicles to be in the centre of the cross-roads at the same moment only because one of them—the van— had broken the law by crossing deliberately on the red light.
Moreover, it was not strictly true to call a lightcontrolled cross-roads a " cross-roads " in the normal sense where extra caution should be observed, because the other road was, or should have been, as effectively blocked by the red lights as though there was a blank wall on each side. These arguments were substantially accepted by the Court, which found the police driver to be blameless.
There is one aspect of the matter which might give cause for uneasiness in view of this decision. What would be the position where a slow-moving vehicle. such as a horsed cart, had crossed the stop line with the lights in its favour, but had not managed to complete the crossing before the other traffic was released by a green light? In such a case this vehicle would be law. fully on the crossing and the other vehicles would owe it a duty of cart. In any event, such a vehicle can stop instantly in the face of danger and is unlikely to be the cause of such an accident as has just been described.
Absolute Prohibition
Perhaps one cannot conclude in better fashion that by quoting one of the judges of the Court of Appeal or the subject of obedience to lights: "Nothing but implicii obedience to the absolute prohibition of the red car ensure safety to those who are crossing on the invitatior of the green. Nothing but absolute confidence in the mind of the driver invited by the green to proceed accelerating up to the full speed proper to a clear roar in the particular locality, without having to think oi the risk of traffic from left or right crossing his path will promote the free circulation of traffic, which, ilex' to safety, is the main purpose of all traffic regulation.'
• It is a common misconception that the amber ligh following the green, does not in fact mean "stop." Ad( that hazard to the practice of moving forward when tilt amber and red are showing and the amber " safet1 zone" becomes a sort of no-man's land. It should b4 realized that a deliberate misuse of the amber light ha. the same legal consequences as disobeying the red.