Spped Camera

avantra

If you go to magistrate’s court they WILL convict you for having a head. My sister lost her license and had to be re-tested after she was flashed by a red light camera.

She pleaded guilty and gave her reasons which were simple: similar reason to yours, her boys in the back seat disconnected the seat belts and was fighting. She turned around to them for one second and was flashed.

It was a very early Sunday morning and the light is only used for a crossing bus lane (no buses on early Sunday here) but the court didn't believe her as the light was on for more than 30 sec and took her license for 3 month, and gave her a £60 fine (but no points). She was driving with a clean license for 17 years but they did not wanted to listen as she couldn’t prove anything, I mean how do you prove it anyway?
The magistrates said something about ‘justice need to be seen’ etc’ and disqualified her.

I personally think that this down to human reflexes and one can always be disturb if his child do something very dangerous no matter how many convictions the court will impose. Parent’s instincts are there for a reason!

It has led her marriage and family to some very difficult times and financial hardship, which is grossly disproportionate to what she actually done. (Living in a rural area on a low income with one car can be a real problem).

She re-took her test and was back on the road in 4 months so what did the court achieved other than getting her to pay all the fees for the test and making her life very difficult?

This portrayed a picture of a nasty court system which is not helping for drivers to drive better.

Gorgeous_George

It is the Police's job to prove guilt. YOU do not need to admit to anything.

If YOU go to court and the Police cannot provide sufficient evidence that YOU committed the offence, then the court cannot (legally) convict.

If you cannot remember who was driving then, I suggest, it would be illegal to admit to an offence that you may not have committed.

I wonder how they manage with identical twins?



GG

MarkyMarkD

avantra wrote:

If you go to magistrate’s court they WILL convict you for having a head. My sister lost her license and had to be re-tested after she was flashed by a red light camera.

She pleaded guilty and gave her reasons which were simple: similar reason to yours, her boys in the back seat disconnected the seat belts and was fighting. She turned around to them for one second and was flashed.

It was a very early Sunday morning and the light is only used for a crossing bus lane (no buses on early Sunday here) but the court didn't believe her as the light was on for more than 30 sec and took her license for 3 month, and gave her a £60 fine (but no points). She was driving with a clean license for 17 years but they did not wanted to listen as she couldn’t prove anything, I mean how do you prove it anyway?
The magistrates said something about ‘justice need to be seen’ etc’ and disqualified her.

This is a quite ridiculous sentence for the conditions you describe.

Passing a red light is not a particularly serious offence and most people don't get banned for it.

Or did she actually get convicted for dangerous driving on the basis that she admitted she wasn't paying attention and HENCE drove through a red light - which is rather more serious?

avantra

To MarkyMarkD,

No, the only endorsement in her new license is a TS10 with no points.

She was not convicted for dangerous driving it just that she had no witness to bring apart from her kids (8+5 years old).

Justice is blind apparently when you pass a red light after 30 sec..

That’s who we are the low fruit the one’s easy to pick..

MarkyMarkD

Then, avantra, that sentence is ridiculous. Have you considered contacting a specialist motoring solicitor to appeal the sentence as the consequences will be quite expensive as you've already noted.

I note from the Pepipoo site that the recommended penalty for a traffic light offence is 3 points, but that disqualification may apply. I can see that it COULD be sensible to disqualify in a case of aggravated signal ignorance (e.g. driving through a red light at a busy junction at 90 mph in the rush hour ) but not in the circumstances you described.

avantra

I think if I will ever get into a situation like this I will consider a solicitor, my dear sister can't afford things like this, when she went to get advice from the CAB they told her not to worry as she may get 3 points and that's it.

Well at the same day this court (Chelmsford) took the licenses of 3 other motorist at the same junction (one of them a single mom). I think they had a blood letting day.

The camera recorded her going in at 25 mph while amber was on for 6 seconds (I read it to you from the police report) and red for 38 seconds.

We went to see this junction after the trial and took our video camera with us, the sting in the tail is that at no point amber was on for 6 seconds (same hour on Sunday)
The most we managed to record was 2.5-3 seconds. So obviously the camera was wrong somehow.

I know we should have done it before the trial, but didn't as she never got the time or money and anyway she was expecting 3 points as you said.

MarkyMarkD

You would appear to be quite right about the 6 second thing.

This site: http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=227&threadid=9046&enterthread=y states that it is a statutory requirement for the amber phase to last 3 seconds.

If the evidence submitted for the prosecution states that the amber period was 6 seconds, it is clearly wrong and surely that puts the whole of the prosecution's evidence into question?

That said, she did commit the offence so it's more the undue harshness of the sentence which wants challenging IMHO.

Silent_Bob_3

MarkyMarkD wrote:

They do NOT have to have 10% tolerance for speedometer accuracy - sorry, but that's rubbish.

Speedometers are legally required to not under-read AT ALL but they are allowed to over-read by up to 10%.

Therefore, someone who is doing an indicated 70 mph must be travelling at between 63 and 70 mph - hence why 71 mph actual is a prosecutable offence.

Thre IS a 10% tolerance - I never said they could UNDER read. Upto 10% over-reading + 2mph = 79mph - well thats what you think you were doing anyway.

Can I refer you to this link that says in better words what I meant.

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm

Throbbe

MarkyMarkD wrote:

You would appear to be quite right about the 6 second thing.

This site: http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=227&threadid=9046&enterthread=y states that it is a statutory requirement for the amber phase to last 3 seconds.

If the evidence submitted for the prosecution states that the amber period was 6 seconds, it is clearly wrong and surely that puts the whole of the prosecution's evidence into question?

Amber must show for a minimum of 3 seconds as stated, but that is not the time from one traffic stream to stop and another to go. Depending on the signal layout, the intergreen time is increased to allow one stream of traffic to clear before another enters, which on a major signalised junction is often more than 3 seconds.

Intergreen is measured as the time from green on one signal phase, to green on the next (yes, it is a bit obvious!). Not only does that include the amber phase on the first signals, but the amber/red on the second set, and an all red phase. It sounds like there might be some confusion between amber phase time and intergreen time, although your point that the prosecution evidence is technically incorrect still stands.

*removes hi-vis anorak*

Can't advise on the OP's dilema, but I do know that when my daughter is in danger I probably couldn't make a balanced decision on where to stop in a split second, and I probably would have done the same thing. I have many years experience of working on live carriageways, and as a result I don't stop on them if I can possibly help it.

MarkyMarkD

Silent_Bob wrote:

Thre IS a 10% tolerance - I never said they could UNDER read. Upto 10% over-reading + 2mph = 79mph - well thats what you think you were doing anyway.

Can I refer you to this link that says in better words what I meant.

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm

There is NOT a 10% tolerance - the ACPO "advice" referred to in your link is not followed by all police forces and doesn't form part of the law (despite the very misleading URL). Driving at 71mph on a motorway IS an offence.