If there's no white line do you have to stop at a red light?

[edindave]

Newly resurfaced road; 'no road markings' signs; traffic lights red.

I stopped, probably a bit far back in fact, but I wasn't sure where to stop.

It got me thinking... "if there is no white line am I legally obliged to stop?"

 

[subaqua]

Newly resurfaced road; 'no road markings' signs; traffic lights red.

I stopped, probably a bit far back in fact, but I wasn't sure where to stop.

It got me thinking... "if there is no white line am I legally obliged to stop?"

yes, at the primary signal/post for the primary signal for that traffic control signal ( reg 43 TSRGD 2002) .

 

[2Loose]

Don't even go there!

 

[edindave]

Aha, I was hoping there would be a rule! Everything I've read in the highway code references the white line so I clearly missed that bit.
It was just one of those random thoughts on the way home from work

Thanks!

 

[apollo179]

You always have to stop at red lights - as much for your own safety as anything else.

 

[gaz]

yes, at the primary signal/post for the primary signal for that traffic control signal ( reg 43 TSRGD 2002) .

for an even deeper reference, TSRGD Reg 43 3 b or this

Where no stop line has been provided in conjunction with light signals or the stop line is not visible, references in relation to those signals to the “stop line” are—http://

(a)​

in a case where the sign shown in diagram 7011, 7011.1 or 7027 is placed in conjunction with the light signals, to be treated as references to that sign; and

http://

(b)​

in any other case, to be treated as references to the post or other structure on which the primary signals are mounted.

 

[fisha]

Interesting question.

My answer was simply going to be that the offence you'd get done for was fail to stop for a red light, and not fail to stop at stop line.

 

[al78]

My ex-girlfriend thought that temporary traffic lights were only advisory as there was no white stop line on the road.

 

[mightyquin]

Weren't you tempted to ignore the red light and see what happened?

I wonder if it's OK to run pedestrians down if there's no pavement?

 

[subaqua]

for an even deeper reference, TSRGD Reg 43 3 b or this

cheers for that. windoze phone wouldn't let me copy the linky

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You always have to stop at red lights - as much for your own safety as anything else.

 

[NotFabian]

You always have to stop at red lights - as much for your own safety as anything else.

Even on a quiet road at 2am...?










(joking)
(can't seem to work little yellow non verbals on iPhone)

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Even on a quiet road at 2am...?










(joking)
(can't seem to work little yellow non verbals on iPhone)

Apollo is drinking the cool aid at last

 

[apollo179]

Even on a quiet road at 2am...?


(joking)
(can't seem to work little yellow non verbals on iPhone)

I 100% agree that it is conceptually never right to not stop at a red light because the "stop at red" concept is the foundation of out entire road traffic control strategy and should not be undermined or eroded in any way.
I would merely advise those on this forum all to ready to call fellow cyclists all kind of names, to temper their admonishment with some consideration of the wider perspective , which is that there are circumstances where it is safe and every rljer is not a menace to society.
I dont see this same capture all condemnation for cyclists who cycle on the pavement - presumably because there is an understanding that although technically wrong , pragmatically there are good and bad instances.

 

[Banjo]

I rarely stop at a red light if on an empty road with good vis in all directions and I am turning left.
The only reason you would stop is blind obbeyance rather than any safety consideration.


There you go call me names report me to interpol whatever.