amber light

ziggyboy4435

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

ziggyboy4435

waamo

You would face an uphill battle in court. It would be your word against his and he would be seen as a reliable eye witness.

You may well get offered a course which would mean no points. Court would be a gamble.

facade

If any part of your car, even the towball, crossed the stopline when the light was red then you are guilty of the offence.
Actually, the same is true for amber, but there is a statutory defence of "unsafe/impossible to stop"
Unless you have a dashcam which clearly shows the lights turned red when you were in the middle of the junction, you are going to lose in court.


Although the officer has to see you go through on red, if he testifies that he saw you go through when his light was green the court will still convict you, unless you have evidence that the lights were faulty, and display green for him whilst still on amber for you- this would have caused no end of accidents by now.

AndyMc.....

facade wrote: »

If any part of your car, even the towball, crossed the stopline when the light was red then you are guilty of the offence.
Actually, the same is true for amber, but there is a statutory defence of "unsafe/impossible to stop"
Unless you have a dashcam which clearly shows the lights turned red when you were in the middle of the junction, you are going to lose in court.


Although the officer has to see you go through on red, if he testifies that he saw you go through when his light was green the court will still convict you, unless you have evidence that the lights were faulty, and display green for him whilst still on amber for you- this would have caused no end of accidents by now.

I don!!!8217;t think they will, if he hasn!!!8217;t got sight of the stop line and red light and was on his own then the prosecution will fail.

It will also be the prosecution need to prove the lights weren!!!8217;t faulty not for the op to prove they were.

wgl2014

Not sure I agree with the last post....

Corroboration is needed for most speeding offences but not for other traffic matters.

If the officer can say he saw the OP pass the stop line whilst the opposing lights were on green I would suggest that is enough. Obviously depends what is included on their statement.

AIUI Traffic lights will be assumed to be functioning correctly as is the case with speed cameras so unless the OP has some evidence to cast doubt that they were faulty it's not a get out.

AndyMc.....

wgl2014 wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the last post....

Corroboration is needed for most speeding offences but not for other traffic matters.

If the officer can say he saw the OP pass the stop line whilst the opposing lights were on green I would suggest that is enough. Obviously depends what is included on their statement.

AIUI Traffic lights will be assumed to be functioning correctly as is the case with speed cameras so unless the OP has some evidence to cast doubt that they were faulty it's not a get out.

Why not, if he couldn!!!8217;t clearly see the stop line and lights how will the prosecution be successful?

What!!!8217;s to say both lights weren!!!8217;t green?

waamo

Running a technical defence like that is fine but if the prosecution decides to counter the defence (which is highly likely) the costs can get eye watering. Certainly more than accepting a fixed penalty or a course.

wgl2014

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Why not, if he couldn!!!8217;t clearly see the stop line and lights how will the prosecution be successful?

What!!!8217;s to say both lights weren!!!8217;t green?

Generally not how traffic lights work!

Just saying they could have been faulty with nothing to back that assertion up isn't something I would like to rely on.

AndyMc.....

wgl2014 wrote: »

Generally not how traffic lights work!

Just saying they could have been faulty with nothing to back that assertion up isn't something I would like to rely on.

But it’s how the court system works, innocent until proven guilty.

lincroft1710

AndyMc..... wrote: »

But it’s how the court system supposedly works, innocent until proven guilty.

Fixed that for you