Running a red light in the Netherlands: penalties and compensation

Running a red light and causing an accident with serious injury is dealt with in the Netherlands under article 6 of the Wegenverkeerswet 1994 (Road Traffic Act 1994). If the court finds fault, the maximum sentence is eighteen months imprisonment where another person sustains serious bodily injury and three years where someone is killed; if the fault amounts to roekeloosheid (recklessness), those maxima double to three and six years, and they increase by a further half in aggravating circumstances such as driving under the influence, serious speeding or leaving the scene. A driving disqualification of up to five years can be imposed alongside. The victim can claim compensation directly from the driver insurer under the Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen (WAM), and can also join the criminal proceedings as an injured party.

This article sets out which provisions apply, where the line between an ordinary error and recklessness now lies after the Supreme Court judgment of 15 October 2024, what sentences are imposed in practice, how compensation is recovered and what defences are available. It is written for both sides of such a case: the person who is prosecuted and the person who was hit.

Which provisions apply when someone runs a red light

Four provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1994 do most of the work, and they form a ladder rather than a set of alternatives.

Article 5 is the general prohibition on behaving in traffic in such a way that danger on the road is caused or can be caused, or that traffic is obstructed. It is the lightest offence and applies where the driving was careless but the consequences or the degree of blame remain limited.

Article 5a, in force since 1 January 2020, criminalises seriously and deliberately breaching the traffic rules in a way that creates a foreseeable danger to life or of serious bodily injury, even when no accident occurs. The provision lists the conduct concerned, and ignoring a red traffic light is one of the examples, alongside serious speeding, dangerous overtaking, tailgating, driving against the traffic and holding a mobile telephone. The maximum sentence is two years imprisonment. A single listed violation is not enough on its own: the conduct as a whole must be a serious and deliberate breach with foreseeable danger.

Article 6 is the central provision once an accident has actually happened. It prohibits behaving in traffic in such a way that, through your fault, an accident occurs in which another person is killed or sustains serious bodily injury. The word that decides the case is fault, not intent: nobody has to have wanted the collision. What must be proved is culpable conduct, assessed on the whole of the driving behaviour and not on one isolated moment.

Article 175 attaches the penalties to article 6, and it works in three steps. In the case of ordinary fault the maximum is one year and six months where another person suffers serious bodily injury, and three years where someone is killed. Where the fault consists of recklessness, those maxima become three and six years. On top of that, the maximum is increased by half if the offence was committed while under the influence, after refusing a breath or blood test, or in combination with serious speeding, tailgating, failing to give way or dangerous overtaking, which brings the absolute maximum for a fatal accident to nine years. Articles 179 and 179a allow the court to disqualify the driver from driving for up to five years, and up to ten years in the case of a repeat offence within five years.

Article 308 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code), causing serious bodily injury through negligence, remains available in theory, but in traffic cases the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act take precedence in practice. On the civil side, article 185 of the Road Traffic Act matters just as much: the owner or holder of a motor vehicle is liable for damage caused to pedestrians and cyclists unless there is force majeure, which is a far more favourable starting point for the victim than ordinary fault liability. Our article on when a traffic violation becomes a criminal offence explains where the boundary between an administrative fine and a prosecution runs.

When does injury count as serious bodily injury

Article 6 only applies where the accident caused death or serious bodily injury, so the medical outcome decides which provision is on the table. Not every injury qualifies. A graze, a bruise or a sprain does not; in such cases what remains is article 5, and the case is dealt with as a minor offence.

The Supreme Court works with an open standard rather than a list. Injury is serious if, in the circumstances, it can be regarded as such, and the factors that count are the nature of the injury, whether an operation or another substantial medical intervention was needed, the length of the recovery and whether there are permanent consequences. Broken bones, the loss of an organ or a sense, severe internal injuries and injuries that require lengthy rehabilitation are normally serious; a complaint that resolves in a fortnight normally is not. Psychological injury can qualify, but it has to be substantiated medically.

For everyone involved this makes the medical file decisive, and it is built in the first days. Have every complaint recorded by a doctor immediately after the accident, however minor it seems, and keep the reports. A complaint that first appears in a file three months later is far harder to attribute to the collision, both in the criminal case and in the claim for compensation.

Fault or recklessness: where the line now runs

The heaviest question in these cases is the degree of blame, because it decides whether the sentence is community service or years in prison. Dutch law distinguishes ordinary culpable fault, which the courts describe as significantly careless conduct, from roekeloosheid, the most serious form of guilt.

Ordinary fault covers the driver who was distracted, who misjudged an amber light and thought he could still make it, or who simply did not look. He should have known better, but there was no deliberate choice to create danger. A single moment of inattention is not automatically enough even for that: the lower limit of criminal fault has to be reached, and where it is not, an acquittal under article 6 follows and only the light offence of article 5 remains.

Recklessness requires more. In its judgment of 15 October 2024 (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1405) the Supreme Court set out the framework: there must be a breach of the traffic rules, that breach must be serious, it must have been committed deliberately, and the conduct must have created a foreseeable danger to life or of serious bodily injury. The court assesses the whole of the driving behaviour, its nature and seriousness and the other circumstances of the case, rather than one isolated act. The Road Traffic Act itself now provides that recklessness is in any event present where the conduct meets the description of article 5a, which is why the 2020 reform matters so much: convictions for recklessness were rare before it, and they are no longer exceptional. That does not mean the threshold has become low. It remains the most serious form of guilt, and courts continue to require conduct that is extraordinarily careless.

The circumstances that push a red light case towards recklessness are recognisable: driving through the light at high speed, having ignored more than one light or rule shortly before, racing, alcohol or drugs, and using a telephone at the moment of the collision. What matters is the combination. A deliberate choice to cross an unmistakably red light at speed in a built-up area is a different case from a driver who braked too late.

What sentences are imposed in practice

The figures in the statute are maxima. What is actually imposed follows the sentencing guidelines of the Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service) and the orientation points used by the courts, applied to the circumstances of the case, and it is usually well below the maximum.

Where the court finds ordinary fault under article 6 and no recklessness, the sentence in a case with serious injury is typically a community service order, often at or near the statutory maximum of 240 hours, combined with an unconditional driving disqualification of several months to about a year, sometimes with a suspended prison sentence attached as a warning. Where recklessness is established, an unconditional prison sentence becomes a realistic outcome even for a first offender, and the driving ban is considerably longer.

Sentences move up where there are previous traffic convictions, where the driver left the scene, where alcohol or drugs were involved, or where the driving showed a pattern rather than a single lapse. They move down where the defendant has no criminal record, has taken responsibility, has shown genuine remorse and has cooperated, where the consequences for the defendant himself are severe, and where a long time has passed since the accident without that being the defendant fault. For young drivers the court can apply adolescent criminal law, with a different set of sanctions. Our article on what determines the punishment after a serious traffic accident goes into that weighing in more detail.

One point is regularly overlooked by defendants: the criminal case is not the only procedure. Independently of the court, the Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen (CBR) can require you to take an educational measure or to undergo an examination of your fitness to drive, and it can declare your licence invalid if you do not cooperate or do not pass. That procedure runs on its own timetable and its own rules.

Compensation for the victim

A driver who runs a red light and injures someone commits an unlawful act, and in almost every case the victim is entitled to compensation. Three routes exist and they can be combined.

The first is the insurer. Every motor vehicle in the Netherlands must be covered by third-party liability insurance, and under the WAM the victim has a direct right of action against that insurer: you do not have to sue the driver personally. In practice the insurer handles the claim, and it must do so within the framework of the Gedragscode Behandeling Letselschade, the code of conduct for personal injury settlement. If the driver acted intentionally or under the influence, the insurer still pays the victim but may recover the amount from the driver. Where the driver cannot be traced or turns out to be uninsured, the Waarborgfonds Motorverkeer (Motor Traffic Guarantee Fund) can step in.

The second is the criminal proceedings. As an injured party you can join the case under article 51f of the Wetboek van Strafvordering (Code of Criminal Procedure) and have your claim decided by the criminal court at no cost. That is the quickest route, but it works only for claims that do not place a disproportionate burden on the criminal case; a complex loss of earnings claim will be declared inadmissible in part and referred to the civil court. Victims and next of kin also have the right to address the court in person about the impact of the accident.

The third is civil proceedings against the driver or the insurer, based on unlawful act under article 6:162 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code) or, where the victim was a pedestrian or cyclist, on article 185 of the Road Traffic Act. Mind the time limits: a claim for damages generally lapses five years after the day on which the victim became aware of both the damage and the liable person, and the direct claim against the WAM insurer has its own, shorter period. Do not let the file go quiet while you recover.

Which losses can be claimed

Dutch law aims at full compensation of the loss actually suffered, and it is settled item by item rather than as a lump sum. Material loss covers medical costs that the health insurer does not reimburse, including the excess, loss of income and loss of earning capacity where you cannot return to your work or can do so only partly, the cost of domestic help and care, adaptations to the home, damaged clothing, spectacles, a telephone or the vehicle itself, travel costs to hospital and therapists, and the reasonable costs of establishing the loss and obtaining legal assistance, which the liable insurer must pay separately.

Non-material loss, smartengeld, compensates pain, grief and loss of enjoyment of life, including psychological consequences such as an anxiety disorder or post-traumatic stress. There is no tariff in Dutch law; the amount is assessed on the nature and seriousness of the injury, the duration of the recovery, the permanent consequences and the effect on daily life, with reference to comparable decided cases.

Relatives are no longer left out. Since the introduction of compensation for affection loss, close relatives of a victim who has died or who suffers serious and permanent injury have their own claim for a fixed sum, under articles 6:107 and 6:108 of the Civil Code. Separately, a person who is directly confronted with a serious accident or its consequences and who develops a recognised psychiatric injury as a result can claim shock damage in their own right. Both claims are distinct from the victim own claim and are frequently overlooked.

Everything must be proved. Keep invoices and receipts, medical records and reports, payslips from before and after the accident, and a diary of complaints and recovery. Where the injury is serious, a medical expert report and, for loss of earnings, an occupational or actuarial calculation will usually be needed. The approach is the same as in other injury files, such as the compensation of workplace accidents.

The procedure step by step

Immediately after the accident. The police secure the scene and, in serious cases, a specialised team draws up a Verkeersongevallenanalyse (traffic accident analysis), reconstructing speeds, braking distances, the position and phase of the traffic lights and the sight lines, supported by camera images and witness statements. That report becomes the backbone of both the criminal case and the civil claim. For the victim, medical care comes first, and the medical file that starts on that day is later the most important evidence.

The investigation. The Public Prosecution Service assesses the file and decides whether to prosecute and on what charge, which may be article 5, article 5a or article 6, with or without recklessness. A suspect may be interviewed, and in serious cases arrested; pre-trial detention is possible but exceptional in traffic cases. A suspect has the right to consult a lawyer before and during questioning. In files of this kind it is worth checking early whether the analysis, the light phase data and the witness statements really support the charge, an examination that our note on investigative work in traffic criminal cases describes.

The hearing. The court goes through the file, the prosecutor demands a sentence, the defence responds and the victim or next of kin may exercise the right to speak. The claim of the injured party is dealt with at the same hearing. Judgment and appeal. Judgment usually follows about two weeks later. Both the defence and the prosecution can appeal to the court of appeal within fourteen days, and a further appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court is possible afterwards.

Which defences are worth examining

An accident at a red light does not automatically produce a conviction under article 6, and the defence begins with the file rather than with the driver memory.

The first line is the fault itself. Was the light unmistakably red, or had it only just changed and could the driver no longer stop safely? What do the traffic light control data say about the phase and its timing? Was the installation working properly? Was there an emergency vehicle, a sudden medical event or another circumstance that amounts to force majeure? And if there was a lapse, was it serious enough to reach the lower limit of criminal fault, or does the case belong under article 5? Where recklessness is charged, the four requirements set out by the Supreme Court must each be met, and in particular the deliberate character of the breach is often the weakest link in the prosecution case.

The second line is causation. The accident and the injury must be attributable to the conduct charged. Where the victim also breached the rules, by cycling without lights in the dark or crossing where that was not allowed, that does not excuse running a red light, but it can affect the assessment of the fault and, on the civil side, reduce the compensation on account of contributory negligence, subject to the special protection that article 185 of the Road Traffic Act gives to pedestrians and cyclists, and particularly to children.

The third line is the loss. Is the damage claimed actually a consequence of this accident, or of a pre-existing condition? A claim that is not substantiated, or that a criminal court cannot assess without a disproportionate burden, will be declared inadmissible in whole or in part. And the fourth is the person of the defendant: a clean record, genuine remorse, contact with the victim through counsel, and the personal consequences of a driving ban are all relevant to the sentence, even where guilt is not in dispute.

Practical advice

If you are a suspect. You are not obliged to incriminate yourself, and you can consult a lawyer before you make a statement; use that right, because the first interview is often decisive for the charge. Be accurate about the facts and careful with legal conclusions: saying that you were reckless is a legal qualification, not a fact, and it is for the court to decide. Do not leave the scene under any circumstances. Expressing sympathy to the victim, through your lawyer and in a way that does not compromise your position, is humanly right and is regularly taken into account by courts. Take the CBR procedure as seriously as the criminal case.

If you are the victim. See a doctor immediately and keep going back while complaints continue, so that the file follows your recovery. Report the accident to your own insurer as well and ask for the police report number. Keep a diary and every receipt. Be careful with a quick offer of settlement from the liable insurer before the medical situation has stabilised: once you sign a final discharge, later deterioration is your problem. The reasonable costs of legal assistance are payable by the liable insurer, which means that engaging your own advisor generally costs you nothing.

Where this leaves you

A red light accident with injury runs along two tracks that move at different speeds. The criminal case decides the degree of blame and the sanction; the civil case decides who compensates what, and it usually lasts longer. The two influence each other, because a criminal judgment is strong evidence in the civil claim, but they are not the same procedure and they require different preparation.

Law and More assists both suspects and victims in traffic cases: defence in proceedings under articles 5, 5a and 6 of the Road Traffic Act, the CBR procedure, joining the criminal case as an injured party, and recovering compensation from the liable insurer. If you have been involved in an accident caused by a red light, our criminal law team will go through the file with you and tell you where you stand.

Frequently asked questions