Looking for advice please

I have just been stopped for allegedly going through a red light

The officer pulled me over and asked why I went through a red light to which I replied I had not

He then said his was green as I went through so that tells him mine was red

I once again told him I had not gone through a red light and that it was just turning Amber as I was more or less on top of it

He then proceeded to take my details and then hand me just a yellow slip with no details of the offence and hardly any information

Can you tell me if it’s worth fighting in court or just accept whatever outcome it is

I feel very upset about the whole thing for something I did not do

The rules for going through an amber light is that you don't – you stop unless you have already crossed the line or if you risk causing an incident if you do stop suddenly.

If you plead not guilty and then you are found guilty then you will probably get a stiffer sentence.

If you went through the amber light because you had already crossed the line or there was a risk of having an accident then you should plead not guilty. It will be helpful to provide information about your speed and also about the traffic. For instance if there was an empty road behind you then there would have been a very low possibility of having a car behind you colliding into you. On the other hand if this was the time of day where there was a high level of traffic then you are more likely to be able to argue that your decision to cross the amber was justified.

Most importantly, the police officer did not see you go through the amber. This is your strongest argument. His own light was green and so he has concluded that you must've crossed on a red. I think you need to go and visit some traffic lights – especially the one which you apparently crossed and watch them carefully for maybe half an hour so that you understand fully the pattern and see if it was possible for the police officer to see a green light and yet for you driving across the lights, to see a green and then an amber

Also, you need to calculate your stopping distances on an emergency stop because that would be very useful evidence to produce in court as well.

If the lights on the officers side were green that means you went thru a red light. Not only that the red light would of need red for at least 2 seconds.

If It comes down to court then its your word against the offices and unless you come up with videos, pictures or other concrete proof you didnt/couldn't have then unfortunately you will lose.

As a foot note an Amber light means stop/prepare to stop not go faster with caution

You will probably be offered either a course or a Fixed Penalty (£100 and three points). Take it to court and the cost of failure is high - an income related fine of at least half a week's income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (Minimum £30) and prosecution costs which will be at least £350 and may reach £600 depending how much work is needed to prepare the case for court. You takes your choice and pays your money.

This is a very rough diagram sorry for the poor drawing lol

I am the blue blob and the officer is the green

red lines are lights

Black arrows outlining which direction traffic flows

It doesn't really matter. The officer will say his light was green and that necessarily your light was red. Your task, if you take the matter to court, will be to get the Bench to believe that either (a) he was mistaken about his light or (b) that because his light was green yours was not necessarily red. You should be easily able to show if (b) was true by having a look at the location. Personally I doubt it is true as I imagine the people who install traffic lights check these things, but you never know. Getting the court to believe he was mistaken may be a little tricky.

Very many years ago (before The Beatles were known) I read a report in a national paper of a motorist as adamant as the OP he similarly had not crossed on a red light at a complex junction.

After receiving the Summons, he returned there and spent a long time watching the lights

After several sequences he saw 'his' light was momentarily amber simultaneously as another was green. This repeated itself after several more sequences.

He spent a long time trying to take photographs showing the two on at the same moment. With one such successful photograph, the Court accepted his Not Guilty plea..

I'm not saying this could still happen with modern traffic light controls and better sensors than the pneumatic rubber strips in the road - but worth going to check.

Looking at the diagram, as you had to cross two lanes of traffic to get infront of the officer, depending on your speed, it could be likely that if you crossed the line on amber, his lights would be showing green by the time you appeared infront of him.

In other words, did the officer take into account the distance and travel time between the lights?

If you want to fight this youwill need to ask the council about the light timings and when they were last checked.

There was a very tragic accident near Buckingham Palace when a coach ran over a pedestrian because the pedestrian had to cross 4 lanes of traffic when there was no pedestrian sequence and the lights changed at a speed where it was impossible to cross.

Now the event isnt the same but as suggested it may be the police officer's light was on green and you hadnt actually crossed the line when yours was on red. however i very much doubt if your light was on green as you passed it unless you were crawling in traffic and that isnt suggested so you might be swapping on offence for another

I wonder if one single witness statement of assumption that the op passed a red light would be sufficient for prosecution.

After all there's no video, only the lone officer visual of his own light, not that of the op.

It's a lot of maybe in this, but as said, nowadays motorists get convicted without evidence at all.

Did someone said "money making system"?

Sorry it was probably in my head.

Taking the points and penalty or the awareness course is the easy route, pleading not guilty is a gamble.

To be honest i would plead not guilty and let them prove their case without direct evidence, even at risk of spending a lot more money.

My strong advice is to get a dashcam for any future incidents.

They don't cost much and they provide hard evidence of what happened from the driver's point of view.

Surely it would have recorded the light colour, so you could argue your point or accept your mistake.

I wonder if one single witness statement of assumption that the op passed a red light would be sufficient for prosecution.

Yes, its a police officer. That's what they are paid to do.

...nowadays motorists get convicted without evidence at all.

Really? Perhaps you could provide us with some examples where a motorist has contested a matter and been convicted without any evidence. Or, for that matter, where one has pleaded guilty without being served the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on.

I'm no expert on ATS, but have gained the following knowledge in my previous employment if it's any use.

The minimum requirements in the UK from a green phase are:

Amber phase. 3 seconds.

All Red phase. 2 seconds

Red/Amber phase. 2 seconds.

Making what is called the intergreen phase a minimum of 7 seconds.

Then there is a variable "interstage", this is the period between the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next. This is usually fairly short (

Now, the problem is if the 'intergreen' is set to short, let's say to the minimum allowed (7 seconds), traffic coming from one controlled approach *could* be put in to conflict with vehicles coming from another controlled approach which has already started it's cycle. i.e red/amber, then green.

At the absolute minimum, from the moment an ATS changes from green to amber and assuming that you are crossing the stop line at that moment, you would have 7 seconds to clear the junction before other traffic was being shown a green light.

So, if the ATS were set at the minimum allowed and you weren't travelling all that quickly, it would be feasible (just about) for you to cross the stop line as (or moments after) the ATS changed to amber and still be crossing a junction, and therefore be in conflict with other traffic that were being shown a green light.

That also assumes that the traffic that was being shown a red, hasn't started moving on red/amber, which would also reduce the conflict free time.

However, you're going to need some damn good evidence to show this in a court of law. Time coded video would be a start, and you'd need 2 (ideally 3) synchronised cameras for the junction pictured above. Accurate measurements of the road layout so that you can work out speed/distance and therefore time.

It'd be easier to take the course, even if you are innocent

I wonder if one single witness statement of assumption that the op passed a red light would be sufficient for prosecution.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, its a police officer. That's what they are paid to do.

That's exactly my point.

Just because they are police officers their word is more reliable of that of anyone else and they cannot be mistaken.

Really? Perhaps you could provide us with some examples where a motorist has contested a matter and been convicted without any evidence. Or, for that matter, where one has pleaded guilty without being served the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on.

Anyone who has been convicted based on the witness statement of a single police officer and no other evidence.

King.... Really... Are you going down that route???

I'm not going to waste my Time in explaing why the courts would take a police persons word over an ordinary civi if the civi only said " I didn't do it"

You need proof or be credible, and the police are.

If you disagree you need to bring evidence.

And as for your other post.

No one has been ever, been convicted WITHOUT evidence.

A witness statement from the police is considered evidence

Anyone who has been convicted based on the witness statement of a single police officer and no other evidence.

Your earlier contention was that motorists "get convicted without evidence at all". The witness statement of a single police officer (or indeed of anybody else) is evidence. Whether or not it is sufficient to secure a conviction is a matter for the court (in the event of a Not Guilty plea) or the defendant (if he decides to plead guilty). Additionally, if the contents of a written statement are contested it cannot be admitted as evidence. The defendant has the right to have the witness attend, give evidence in person and face cross-examination.

We're saying the same thing.

The word of a police officer is not better of that of anyone else in principle, but in a court of law, without any other evidence it is taken as the gospel on many occasions.

In this case the officer didn't see the op's light.

He's only assuming it was red because he saw his going green.

Could he be mistaken?

Of course, that's why i wonder what the cps would think.

If the op was another police officer, how would that pan out?

He's only assuming it was red because he saw his going green.

And do you know why?

That's because traffic lights, by design, dont have 2 green lights on opposing flows of traffic.

That's to stop accidents.

Defence asks officer: "Did you see my client passing a red light?"

Answer: "No, but..."

"Thank you, you might step down, you answered my question"

No solicitor would let the police officer continue with their story.

Isn't the same as saying "i was doing 70mph and he passed me, so he must have been speeding".

It's all assumptions.

It would have been very different if the copper had been driving behind the op and seen him pass the red light.

I'm not convinced it's enough for a conviction, but then it's true that the word of a copper is gospel compared to that of a common man.

The copper is assuming, he hasn't seen anything.

Defence asks officer: "Did you see my client passing a red light?"

Answer: "No, but..."

"Thank you, you might step down, you answered my question"

No solicitor would let the police officer continue with their story.

.

Which might happen if the police officer is so green that they’ve never given evidence before .....

So, what happens when the police officer has given evidence before, realises the trap that is being set, and instead:

Defence asks officer: "Did you see my client passing a red light?"

Answer: "The defendant passed in front of me when my light had already turned green. From the way the lights are set, I concluded they had passed through a red light, which is why I stopped them”

What happens to your Perry Mason moment then?

If the defence tries to insist on a “yes or no” answer the prosecution will intercede to challenge it, (again, unless it is their “first trip out of the barn”) precisely to prevent the scenario you are hoping for ......

I concur with the BazzaS post above.

Also, with the majority of traffic lights, you can see the reflection under the cowling of the lights pointing across the junction at the conflicting traffic stream. In particular the amber change alerts the spatially aware (as the police officer would be) that a change is about to take place and forward gear can be engaged in preparation for moving on when permitted by the lights.

Forget about all arguments.

The copper never witnessed the offence, he's assuming.

There's no"beyond any reasonable doubt" here.

But then again, the word of a police officer will be better than that of any other man, against the law.

That's why i strongly recommend to all motorists to install a dashcam, no assumption there.

If the officer testifies that he crossed his light on green and the Bench believes him it will be a fairly reasonable assumption for them to make that the OP crossed his light at red. Magistrates are entitled to make assumptions based on the evidence they have heard. The fact that the officer may not have seen the OP pass a red light would not prevent them making that assumption. To decline to make that assumption they would have to consider the possibility the lights provided concurrent greens for conflicting movements - one they would probably quickly dismiss.

If it were me and I was offered either a course or a Fixed Penalty I'd be inclined to accept it. But not a choice we can make for him and as I said earlier, you makes your choice and pays your money. I would suggest the likelihood of paying no money at all is somewhat slim.