Re: Missing the obvious
What he specifically said... and it is just above my comment, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to repost it:
The offence is crossing the line when the light is not green. There is a statutory defence if it unsafe to stop only while the light is amber.
1. It is an *offence* to cross the line when the light is not green.
2. There is a "statutory defence" if it is unsafe to stop.
Goes on to deduce the commentor they are replying to does not know the highway code because they said this:
jump red lights (crossing the line after the light has gone from amber to red).
And therefore demonstrates how one cyclist is ignorant of the highway code, by implication all cyclists are ignorant of the highway code, and they can safely be run over, because it's probably their fault anyway.
Now try reading that lot again, noting:
1. It's not an offence to cross the line during an amber light if unsafe to stop.
2. Doing so is not a "statutory defence".
3. The original comment was clarifying the phrase "jump red lights" as about crossing the line after the light has changed from amber to red. Unlike the red herring about not understanding amber that has been introduced, this is unambiguous, and also an explanation of the phrase.
And on top, the highway code doesn't actually create offences. It can be presented as evidence in court. IANAL, and you shouldn't have to be one to drive, but my understanding is that offences are under the road traffic act, but details are set out by the highway code and various instruments, such as the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (2016) "An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it." schedule 14, part 1, 4(9).