DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113341--------------------------------------------------
Ignoring red light for emergency vehicles
DIR By: Demio323
Date: March 15, 2026, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Common wisdom seems to have it (not necessarily from users of
this forum) that when driving, if an emergency vehicle with
lights blaring is behind you and you cross a red-light stop line
in order to make way for them, you automatically commit a red
light offence and legally have no recourse if you receive a PCN
as a result.
Just wondering if someone can clarify whether this is actually
the case?
I was having a look through Schedule 14 of TSRGD 2016
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14,
and my
understanding of it is that paragraphs 5(3) through 5(6) state
that if not proceeding beyond the stop line is "likely to hinder
the use of" an emergency vehicle, then the prohibition is
qualified:
--- Quote ---
> (5) The prohibition conveyed [by a red signal] is that the
vehicle must not proceed beyond the stop line in such a manner
or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person or to
cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or
course in order to avoid an accident.
--- End Quote ---
In other words, as long as you don't endanger other road users
or cause them to change speed/direction, you can proceed past
the stop line in these circumstances if necessary. Am I missing
something here?
Thanks in advance for your time.
#Post#: 113344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ignoring red light for emergency vehicles
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 15, 2026, 10:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When interpreting statute, it is generally useful to start with
what the statute actually says. Sections must be read as a
whole, and I would say that the same would apply to paragraphs.
--- Quote ---
>
> (3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) to (6), the red signal
conveys the prohibition that vehicular traffic must not proceed
beyond the stop line.
>
> (4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies on an occasion where a vehicle
is being used for at least one of the purposes set out in
sub-paragraph (6) and the observance of the prohibition in
sub-paragraph (3) would be likely to hinder the use of the
vehicle for that purpose.
>
> (5) The prohibition conveyed is that the vehicle must not
proceed beyond the stop line in such a manner or at such a time
as to be likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of
another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid
an accident.
>
> (6) The purposes are—
> (a)fire and rescue authority;
> (b)Scottish Fire and Rescue Service;
> (c)ambulance;
> (d)blood service;
> (e)providing a response to an emergency at the request of an
NHS ambulance service;
> (f)bomb or explosive disposal;
> (g)special forces
> (h)police; and
> (i)National Crime Agency.
>
--- End Quote ---
It seems pretty clear that the "the vehicle" mentioned in
sub-para (5) is a vehicle being used for one of the purposes in
sub-para (6). In your example, it is the ambulance that can jump
the red light as long as it does it carefully, not the car that
is blocking its path.
Case law tells us that an on-call ambulance driver cannot rely
on the speed limit exemption for ambulance purposes to drive to
the depot to pick up an ambulance to use for ambulance purposes,
so, before you ask, no, getting out of te way of an ambulance is
not going to constitute use for ambulance purposes.
If there is a risk of death or serious injury if the ambulance
(or other vehicle being used for sub-para (6) purposes), is
blocked until the lights change, then the defence of duress of
circumstances might apply, but unlike jurisdictions with a
broader defence of necessity, crossing the line simply because
it is the lesser of two evils is not a defence. Whether it would
be in the public interest to prosecute is another matter, as is
whether a court would find special reasons not to endorse.
#Post#: 113377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ignoring red light for emergency vehicles
DIR By: Demio323
Date: March 16, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Andy, thanks for your response.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> It seems pretty clear that the "the vehicle" mentioned in
sub-para (5) is a vehicle being used for one of the purposes in
sub-para (6). In your example, it is the ambulance that can jump
the red light as long as it does it carefully, not the car that
is blocking its path.
>
--- End Quote ---
Now that you've pointed this out, it does seem obvious upon
re-reading. My mistake for perusing at 1 in the morning ;D
Thanks for the clarification.
#Post#: 113383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ignoring red light for emergency vehicles
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 16, 2026, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It makes a nice change to have a discussion on a question of
law, starting with the actual statute (albeit not quoting all
the relevant parts*, but with a helpful link to the relevant
Schedule) that isn't hijacking an active case thread.
*N.B. the incomplete quote was due to an incomplete
interpretation of the statute, and therefore a potentially
flawed understanding of which clauses were relevant.
The "issue" seems to be the apparent ambiguity regarding the
term "the vehicle". "The" meaning "the definite article".
Sub-para (4) starts of considering "a vehicle", which, if being
used for one of the prescribed purposes, becomes "the vehicle".
This definition remains in sub-para (5), where "the vehicle"
remains the ambulance, not "the vehicle" that crosses the stop
line to make way for the ambulance.
How that was not immediately obvious to anyone at first glance
would be a mystery to Sir Jacob's nanny.
#Post#: 113385--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ignoring red light for emergency vehicles
DIR By: Demio323
Date: March 16, 2026, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> How that was not immediately obvious to anyone at first glance
would be a mystery to Sir Jacob's nanny.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hard to argue. I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous
point!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1