Failing to comply with red traffic light

[n44bbo]

Back in Aug. of last year, I went through a set of traffic lights while on amber. A police car parked near by, followed me, and eventually stopped me, accusing me of having driven through a red light.

They gave me a ticket and took my driving license, which would have been endorsed with 3 points and a £ 60.00 fine. On the bottom of the ticket a tear away section showed I had a choice to go to court or pay the fine. I choose to go to Court as matter of principle as I had not driven through red lights, in addition this particular sets of traffic lights have a camera which will take picture of anyone going through red.

Last week, I received the summon from the Magistrate Court for the hearing to be held towards the end of March.

In the Court letter, there were two statements one from each police officer, one dated the 12 and the other the 21 of Jan 2008 (five months after the event) also, the facts in the statements, were quite strong and untrue (obviously to substantiate their claims) anyway; I ask any of you if:

 

a) The length of time between the event and the statement's date is normal, or could be used in my favor.

b) No picture taken by the camera is a proof of the fact that I did not go through red, and in my favor.

c) Can the words of these two officers be gospel or I can somehow show abuse.

d) What chance of success I have.

 

I will really appreciate if any of you have experiences of this sort or knows how to go by in court to bring out justice.

I feel that, the fact I wanted to go to Court have put the officers in a position to make claims to defend their contravention.

 

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

[dpick]

Hi I cannot help re your ticket but just for info I live on Teesside and there are a number of camera boxes near traffic lights and not all have camera's in them it would seem that while there are say 10 camera sites possible only 4 or five have a camera in them. The way I found this out is one of the camera poles was knocked down in a traffic accident and the kids soon noticed it was empty. Further info from taxi driver friend they soon spot which cameras are not working/empty and that info gets passed round them. So it could be possible that the camera did not take a photo due to it being empty or US.

 

dpick

[Nemeses]

a) The length of time between the event and the statement's date is normal, or could be used in my favor.

b) No picture taken by the camera is a proof of the fact that I did not go through red, and in my favor.

c) Can the words of these two officers be gospel or I can somehow show abuse.

d) What chance of success I have.

 

a) Police officers I believe are still required to make entries in a 'Pocket Book' of events/offences they deal with. These notes should be a contemporaneous record, made 'at the time' or as soon as practicable thereafter.

Have you received copies of the pocket book entries made by both the officers? I suspect not in which case request that these be disclosed to you. Compare then the accuracy & detail between the entries and that given in the statements.

If there are any significant discrepancies/additions/omissions between the two, it could be reasonably argued that 5 months after the event, the accurate recollection of the incident by the officers will have faded.

As a generality, it's not that unusual for witness statements to be made some considerable time after an incident depending on circumstances, although I'm surprised it should be so in this case.

 

b) On the face of it a good point and one that could assist you - however bear in mind that some cameras are dummies or may be non-operational for other reasons. I suggest you make enquiries to ascertain the status of this camera at the time & date in question. Bear in mind the authorities may be reluctant to disclose that a particular camera is a dummy for obvious reasons.

 

c) I would advise that you tread very carefully on this one - the officers are corroborating each others evidence and a court would not take kindly to your suggesting they are 'being uneconomical with the truth' without compelling evidence to the contrary. By all means dispute the evidence of the officers to try and convince the court that they are mistaken and that you went thro' the lights on amber & not red.

 

d) This has to be totally your call - sticking by your principles often carry a price so be prepared to lose - it may well boil down to your word against theirs. If you do lose the case, bear in mind also that you will no doubt have to pay prosecution costs as well as incurring a fine & penalty points.

 

Good Luck!

[emsgeorge]

Dont forget that amber means that 'traffic should stop unless it safe to do so'. (Source: The Highway code.)

 

Pedantic as it seems - if it was totally reasonable for you to stop, and it was say a 30mph limit, then they may consider 'driving without due care and attention'. Which can attract a lot more points !.

 

Was it a traffic car ?. Is there any mention of in car video or ProVIDA kit installed ?.

[patdavies]

 

Pedantic as it seems - if it was totally reasonable for you to stop, and it was say a 30mph limit, then they may consider 'driving without due care and attention'. Which can attract a lot more points !.

 

 

This was August '07. Unless the OP has already been summonsed for this, it is now too late for information to be laid - there is a 6 month time limit from date of alleged offence for summary offences.

[emsgeorge]

Yes Pat, you are right, it is too early for me !.

 

Not that they wont suggest it to try to get them to change their pleas though ........

 

To the OP: Get a brief, let them see what they can make of it. As others have said, it boils down to who the magistrates believe, unless there is any other supporting evidence you or they can provide.

[Tony P]

b) On the face of it a good point and one that could assist you - however bear in mind that some cameras are dummies or may be non-operational for other reasons. I suggest you make enquiries to ascertain the status of this camera at the time & date in question. Bear in mind the authorities may be reluctant to disclose that a particular camera is a dummy for obvious reasons.

 

This probably could be demanded under the Freedom of Information Act if the powers that be drag their heels.

 

The point you previously KNEW of the camera's existance at this junction and would therefore be exceedingly stupid to cross on red light should be a further argument in your favour.

 

The same for if you could have seen the Police car (marked?) before crossing the line.

[patdavies]

Back in Aug. of last year, I went through a set of traffic lights while on amber. A police car parked near by, followed me, and eventually stopped me, accusing me of having driven through a red light.

 

An amber light also means stop. The offence regarding a red light is complete if any part of the vehicle crosses the stop line whilst the red light is showing (even the back bumper).

 

Amber lights are set for 3 seconds duration - so if the light went red as you passed it, it is perfectly possible that for at least some of the length of the vehicle you crossed a red light.

[Tony P]

Slightly off topic -

 

Reading Pat above (whose knowledge I am in awe of, and respect) - it seems unreasonable for it to be an offence if the red light comes on before the rear bumper crosses the line yet after the driver has crossed it and cannot even see the light go red - even a forward set that often is only a matter of inches forward of the first lights.

 

But unreasonableness is not a concept in interpreting traffic regulations.

[n44bbo]

Thank you all for your input, really appreciated.

Really, I am not concerned about the fine, are the penalty points that I don't like. This exercise is to gather as much as useful info which I could use in Court in my defense.

In addition to what I wrote, I would like to make few points that I omitted;

a) I was virtually underneath the lights when they turned amber, I faced the choice of slumming on the brakes (and stopping in the middle of the road) or quickly accelerate through it.

b) One of the officer, reported in the statement that I went through at 80 mph.

c) The marked police car, did not chase me right away with lights on; but they followed me for about 1/4 mile before they flashed me to stop (even though we passed a big lay by).

 

I drive a Bentley Conti GT, and unfortunately I raise gelousy and envy. Police officers are just like any other human being, if anything (not many, fortunately) abuse their status.

 

I thought of adding below my defense statement sent to the Court.

Thank you once more

 

Peppino

 

Statement of facts of (EDIT)

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

My name is (edit), I am the legal owner and driver of the motor vehicle (EDIT). I have a business in Worthing and I live in Oxted, consequently I travel most days to and from work, I am very familiar with that section of road where Shoreham Airport and the Lancing College converge into the A27 and the “Sussex Pad” is located. Here there is a big set of traffic lights to coordinate viability. To this purpose and because of the danger driving through it, it exist a traffic light camera on the A27 westbound carriageway for all those people that pass through a red light.

In the afternoon of the11th of August 2007, I was as usual going to work driving westbound on the A27. As one can see the traffic lights way back to the Shoreham flyover I reduced speed in preparation to a change in the traffic lights.

I was, virtually underneath the lights when they turned into amber, I had a choice, to slam on the brakes or to quickly pass through.

I decided to pass, as, before it would turn into red I would have been through it.

Once, passed the sets of traffic lights, I noticed a police car well behind me. I continued driving normally not thinking of anything. At about a 1/4 mile from the traffic lights the police lights went on and they signed me to stop. I quickly stopped at a bus lay by.

An officer came to the car and told me that I had passed through a red light. I denied the charges and I stated that I had passed on amber, but, the officer proceeded with the contravention.

I did not say anything after that as, knowing the existence of the camera at that particular place I would be cleared of the contravention in a Court of Law. I would also like to say, that, had I knowingly passed through the red lights as stated by the officers I would have paid the fine and not have wanted to come to Court to waist anybody’s time.

In answer to the report about the powerful sound, the type of car I was driving has a set of sport exhaust system as standard and do make a bit of a loud noise under any circumstances.

 

To conclude, I would like to say that, no one, not even a mad man will drive through a set of traffic lights at 80 mph (as stated by one of the officers) specially the one sets which I am accused of on the A27.

 

 

 

(EDIT) Date

[patdavies]

when they turned into amber, I had a choice, to slam on the brakes or to quickly pass through.

I decided to pass, as, before it would turn into red I would have been through it.

 

Out of the mouths....

 

This statement alone condemns you. You had the opportunity to stop on amber and failed to do so.

 

If they lights were amber as you crossed, then you have 3 seconds and they cannot have been red when any part of the vehicle crossed the line.

 

Out of interest, what was your speed and what is the speed limit?

[n44bbo]

I was doing 40 mph at the time.

The speed limit on that road is the standard 70 mph found on motorways, the A27 is a dual carriageway.

Traffic lights warning signs are well posted before as is the position of a camera.

 

I think you are right in saying that I incriminated myself in that statement. I was not required to send one anyway, and I know very well not to say more than you need to. I just thought the camera would do me right.

It is not my fault if it is a dummy one; I didn't know that.

 

I guess...I will have to face the music and dance!

 

Thank you

[pin1onu]

In the afternoon of the11th of August 2007, I was as usual going to work driving westbound on the A27. As one can see the traffic lights way back to the Shoreham flyover I reduced speed in preparation to a change in the traffic lights.

I was, virtually underneath the lights when they turned into amber, I had a choice, to slam on the brakes or to quickly pass through.

I decided to pass, as, before it would turn into red I would have been through it.

 

Out of the mouths....

This statement alone condemns you. You had the opportunity to stop on amber and failed to do so.

I'd have to agree with you Pat, although I would suggest there are some mitigating circumstance which the OP has alluded to.

 

A former policeman once told me "it is sometimes the way a statement is phrased that can get you in hot water. It is sometime a matter of convincing a judge that you behaved reasonably. "

 

In this situation you should use a phrase like "in my judgement I could not stop safely in the time and distance available, I therefore proceeded through the lights..............."

 

This shows that you gave the matter some conscious thought and that you weren't driving carelessly or without due care and attention.

[green_and_mean]

70 mph is the max speed limit not the speed you MUST drive at, if you see traffic lights it would be advisable for any sensible driver to slow down, you wouldn't drive around a roundabout at 70 mph.

[n44bbo]

You sound like the policeman now. I was not and I wouldn't never drive through a traffic light at 70 mph let alone at 80 mph.

That brings to mind; how on earth were the policemen able to assess my speed, they were not following me. They were simply stationary on a slip road.

I think, more and more, that I should have never send my statement to the court; and politely argue my case in court. Instead I have appeared arrogant and guilty.

But then again I am not English and I do not have control of the language.

[Tony P]

Others may correct me.

 

I believe you can withdraw your statement to the Court any time prior to the actual Court Hearing. If you do this and tell them you will attend in person, you can then go along and present your case in person - or better with a Lawyer, particularly as you did say the money was not your concern, only the points.

 

The Magistrates see and know nothing about the case until the case is put before them. Anything withdrawn is not mentioned. They only consider what they hear from you and the Police, whether it be written or spoken.

[n44bbo]

Thank you for your very constructive advise. I will call the Court on monday to check if I can withdraw my statement without it to cause problems.

It was not required by the Court, and I will attend anyway.

I think I will stand a better chance to have the charges reduced somehow, if I orally explain (having had the opportunity to hear all of your views) my case.

I have a business locally, and contribute in the local community, in addition I am 58 years of age and i don't drive like a maniac.

I will let you know of the outcome in due course; if in the meantime anyone might have some good points that could help to my case I will appreciate your comments.

Thanks again to all of you for your help.

Ciao

[Conniff]

Out of the mouths....

 

 

If they lights were amber as you crossed, then you have 3 seconds and they cannot have been red when any part of the vehicle crossed the line.

 

 

The traffic regulation don't actually say that:

 

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

Section 36 (e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, 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 shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it.

 

 

Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113

[Conniff]

I would also find out on what date the police lodged the paperwork with the court as it must be within six months of the date of the offence. You can be notified way past the six month mark, but the papers must be in court before the six months.

[JonCris]

You sound like the policeman now. I was not and I wouldn't never drive through a traffic light at 70 mph let alone at 80 mph.

That brings to mind; how on earth were the policemen able to assess my speed, they were not following me. They were simply stationary on a slip road.

I think, more and more, that I should have never send my statement to the court; and politely argue my case in court. Instead I have appeared arrogant and guilty.

But then again I am not English and I do not have control of the language.

 

When a policeman, even with a camera, accuses you of speeding it's his opinion & not the camera that's important. The camera is merely a tool which is used to support his opinion.

 

So even an officer on foot patrol can accuse you of speeding & expect the court to uphold his accusation

[Nemeses]

When a policeman, even with a camera, accuses you of speeding it's his opinion & not the camera that's important. The camera is merely a tool which is used to support his opinion.

 

So even an officer on foot patrol can accuse you of speeding & expect the court to uphold his accusation

 

Sorry JonCris - you're way off beam, your statement is plain wrong & completely misleading for the OP as well as others who may read it.

 

No court in the land would accept the uncorroborated 'opinion' of a single officer to convict a driver in a speeding case. I also very much doubt that they would do so solely on the opinions of two officers without other corroborative evidence.

More to the point, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would never seek to bring such a case before the Courts in the first place.

 

Opinion evidence of 'excessive speed' may well be accepted in support of other charges such as dangerous/reckless/careless driving.

 

Cameras are a different issue - they have to be approved devices, subject to requisite calibration & accuracy checks & of course don't always need a police presence to function.

[Chesterexpress]

No court in the land would accept the uncorroborated 'opinion' of a single officer to convict a driver in a speeding case. I also very much doubt that they would do so solely on the opinions of two officers without other corroborative evidence.

More to the point, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would never seek to bring such a case before the Courts in the first place.

 

Nemeses, you obviously have no understanding of the way in which these matters work. Throughtout the UK motorists are convicted in court daily on the evidence of a single Police officer who has used nothing other than his calibrated speedometer.

[JonCris]

Correct Chesterexpress but the speedo is only admitted as additional evidence. A successful prosecution is not reliant upon it

 

I stand by my post that a police officer, even on foot patrol, can & do prosecute motorists for speeding, not Due Care, not Dangerous Driving, although these may be additional charges, but for speeding alone

 

The only place in the UK where 2 officers, one to corroborate the other, are required for a successful prosecution is Scotland.

 

The CPS bring such cases to the courts all of the time & as they are normal & do not involve any major point of law they are not a matter for media attention

[n44bbo]

To JonCris:

This is a further prove that we do live in a police state.

So, when it suits them, the support of a camera picture, video clips and many other aids are used and are of vital importance. When no other evidence is available, the police officer can just do anything he feels like.....Very good !

I hope I don't ever meet an officer that doesn't like the color of my eyes.

 

I would like to remind the fact that I choose to go to court for the simple reason that I did not pass wjth the red light as stated by them, but amber. Had I done wrong I would have paid and got on with my life.

Niether I passed through the lights at 80 mph as stated by them. I am not a crazy guy or an old lady's killer.

What I am facing here is a blatant show of power abuse nothing different from the many plonkers that work as security officers at airport. Harassing fellow passengers for petty things just to show who is in charge !

[Tony P]

What I am facing here is a blatant show of power abuse nothing different from the many plonkers that work as security officers at airport. Harassing fellow passengers for petty things just to show who is in charge !

 

 

Maybe. But that is your opinion.

It might be my opinion too. It might not. But this changes nothing.

 

These opinions have no place in front of the Magistrates. Similarly your reference to jelousy, employing local people, etc are irrelevant and might suggest an arrogance or power wielding - just as you may think above.

 

All the Magistrates want to know about is the facts and explanations surrounding those facts - as presented to them by the CPS/Police and you. Include your opinion that it was safer to continue than stop unsafely because it is relevant to what you did. Say you had full knowledge over many years of the lights and presence of a camera. Describe your driving record if it is good. This will present a better picture of you being a responsible driver, than blasting those accusing you.

 

Speed is not the issue here but say what your speed was if it was at a responsible level for the conditions. If the Police refer to incorrect speed, just refute it as wrong and that they had no measurement of it. Had you been speeding why did they not cautioned and charge you for it?

 

Keep it factual, polite and relevant. Explain what and why.

 

Good luck. Let us know.

 

PS. Could the Police see the actual lights that you saw as you approached? Or were they assuming they were red for you because they were red elsewhere? Assumptions are not facts.