Red light does not always mean stop

derrick

A traffic police constable has told me that amber means slow down and be prepared to stop, (not stop), and that red means stop if safe to do so!

The following videos of vehicles going thorough red lights are not enough to prosecute according to him!

Video 1

Video 2

The first video shows 2 cars going through on red, having plenty of time to stop, they would have done the second car but I could not supply the registration, they would not prosecute the first one even though the reg is shown earlier in the video.

The second video showing the van, (they have the registration later in the video), going through on red they say would not be prosecuted.

Speed limit on both roads is 30mph, in the first video my speedo is showing 32mph, in the second barely 20mph as we are turning a corner and approaching a red light.

The date on the first video is incorrect, (some sort of malfunction with the date setting), but I can assure everyone that it was yesterday, 11th September 2012, (I would hardly complain to the police over 2.5 years down the line).

He has just contacted me after 3 hours and said that after speaking to an inspector he is to send them a Section 172 notice, (request of who was driving), and take it from there, but it would be out of his hands and would depend on some other department as to if they get prosecuted, a warning, a fixed penalty or nothing.

He claims that going through a red light is not cut and dry and that circumstances dictate what will happen, he denies that a traffic light camera would definitely have flashed these vehicles, again depending on circumstances and camera tolerances.

When I asked him what he would have done had he witnessed these offences from his patrol car, he said it would depend on circumstances, speed, how close to lights, time of day, weather conditions etc.


.

slyracoon

He sounds like a tool.

The facts are, red means STOP and amber means STOP if safe to do so.

To quote the highway code -

RED means STOP.

AMBER means STOP.
You may go on only if the amber apears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

Obviously wether an officer chooses not to issue a fixed penalty is upto his discretion based on the circumstances, and if it was refered to the CPS for prosecution they'll decide wether to proceed based on the evidence and likelehood of conviction. But it remains that RED means STOP.

societys_child

Are you driving around recording everything and then reporting to the police??

I'm a bit baffled

derrick

societys_child wrote: »

Are you driving around recording everything and then reporting to the police??

I'm a bit baffled

Don't see why you are baffled, I have a dashboard camera for those events where it may be needed,I do not report everything to the police, but these 3 idiots had plenty of time to stop. but did not want to loose those 40 seconds at a red light, in fact the van in the second video I caught up to at the next set of lights, then when he sped off again I caught him up at a set of lights 2 miles down the road, no gain, but I bet he though he had.

.

SleeplessinScandinavia

In any country, in any language, a red traffic light should be interpreted as 'you must stop' by road users.

Sometimes police officers are either misinterpreted, or are just incompetent about procedures, as this discussion (about a feature on Jeremy Vine's radio show suggests)

Alright! Alright! Jeremy Vine may be a 'radio troll' to some, but it hasn't stopped Martin Lewis himself appearing on the show in the past:laugh:

slyracoon

derrick wrote: »

Don't see why you are baffled, I have a dashboard camera for those events where it may be needed,I do not report everything to the police, but these 3 idiots had plenty of time to stop. but did not want to loose those 40 seconds at a red light, in fact the van in the second video I caught up to at the next set of lights, then when he sped off again I caught him up at a set of lights 2 miles down the road, no gain, but I bet he though he had.

.

I bet you stay in the outside lane of the motorway at 70mph all the time to 'police' it as well.

Joe_Horner

Got to say, watching those clips, I doubt very much whether they'd be good enough to be used as evidence. Quite apart from the issue of incorrect time / date (which is slightly important in court) the angle and quality make it very difficult to see exactly where the cars are in relation to the lights as they change. In fact, it's almost impossible to see where the light schange because of the poor colour resolution showing all phases as a sort of white-with-reddish-tinge!

In fact, in the second clip, there's no obvious change at all, suggesting that the car and minibus ahead of the van also went through on red. Seeing as you're not suggesting they did, that means that the video isn't clear on when the change takes place. By going through frame - frame it appears that it might have gone amber as he passed the bus-stop, then red about a secind later as he was at the road arrows.

That's a very short amber phase (they should be fixed at 3 seconds) and, if he was caught out by that, then he probably was too close to brake safely in those conditions when the (premature) red appeared. I'm not saying that's how it was, but it would be easy enough to argue that on the basis of the video quality. Which would make a summons almost certainly a waste of time and money.

On the first video, again, you can't be sure it's on amber until about the 4 second mark, and it turns to red at 5 seconds. So, again, the video can't disprove a claim that the sequence was incorrect and, on an apparently greasy road (again, from the prosecution's own video evidence M'lud), trying to stop when the red appeared "early" would have been potentially dangerous.

This is part of why police video equipment has to be approved, calibrated etc and they can't just "stick a dashcam" in all their cars!

JQ.

How long have you had the cam and how many things have you reported in total?

daveyjp

You aren't the police, stop acting like them and concentrate on your own failings. There's at least one in the videos.

Joe_Horner

daveyjp wrote: »

... concentrate on your own failings. There's at least one in the videos.

Was that the driving over hatchings in the first clip or the use of horn other than as a warning of his presence in the second?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Why do you sound your horn in video 1?
They know you are there as they passed you.

In video2 why do you feel it necessary to drive on the chevrons?


The first video is enough to prosecute ice you been the police and not a wannabe.