English Law

[exgranger]

I've been booked in England for allegedly going through a red light. I was DEFINITELY on amber etc.etc.etc. My passenger verifies this and potential second witness in the vehicle in front who went through on green and I was directly behind him. How can a patrol car with only one officer claim that I went through on red with no other witnesses. This happened yesterday in England.

Been booked with a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. I'm gutted because I know I didn't do anything wrong.

Can give all the ino if anyone out there is interested in my story.

 

[johnmc]

Hi,
My brother went through a red traffic light in Glasgow right in front of a patrol car and got nailed by them on the other side, blue lights etc.

But, he decided he didn't want to pay up and take the points and defended himself in court. He believed that another car had been behind him on the day and it was that car that gone through the red lights and turned left. The police attended but had not taken anything like enough notes (assuming it was an open and shut case) and couldn't describe any details.

My brother was believed and got off. You've got witnesses, it could very well be worth your while to challenge it. The plods won't have decent notes.

John

 

[jberks]

If you're certain of your case, you have the right to fight it. as with any "Justice" system, if you argue and lose, they will nail you to the wall but as John say, you have a reasonable chance of winning. It's a gamble and the authorities simply play the odds. Perhaps it's the sceptic in me but I suspect the fine is only £60 to encourage you to just take it as they can't prove it but if you can afford the time and the risk, I'd fight the buggers!.

 

[Hibbo]

Just one thing (as Columbo would say), in law, does amber not mean stop, just as red does?

If that's not the case (as it probably isn't!) then aye, fight it. With many things the police just use the blunderbus approach and try and bulldoze you into submission. They won't have done the paperwork properly and you will have a good case in court.

However, if you a proved to be lying (were there cameras at the lights?) they will nail you.

 

[daveenty]

Highway Code says

88: You MUST obey all traffic light signals and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs.
Make sure you know, understand and act on all other traffic and information signs and road markings.
Laws RTA 1988 sect.36, TSRGD regs 10,15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 38 & 40

*AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident*

 

[television]

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


This I have just taken from the current Highway Code.

Malcolm

 

[littlebrooklyn]

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


This I have just taken from the current Highway Code.

Malcolm

Wonder how many people know that but choose to ignore it. I am always seeing cars in front of me go through amber lights even when they aren't going so fast that to stop could cause an accident. It is just a case of people being in too much of a hurry all the time.

 

[jberks]

Wonder how many people know that but choose to ignore it. I am always seeing cars in front of me go through amber lights even when they aren't going so fast that to stop could cause an accident. It is just a case of people being in too much of a hurry all the time.

I would hope we all know that, though watching people on the road, I suspect a large proportion don't or at least aren't paying enough attention to care. We all do it to be fair, normally when frustrated - nothing to be proud of perhaps, but we do. That said, it depends a lot on where you were when the light changed and how hard you'd have to brake. Thats for you to know, but very hard to disprove in court.

 

[television]

Many town centers now have camaras just for this purpose.

Malcolm

 

[exgranger]

I'm still trying to establish whether in England one officer in patrol car can book. I thought it should have been two.

It was raining so obviously the road was wet, the speed limit was 40mph and I was approaching the traffic lights with caution and was 'committed' to go on amber. The only moving traffic was in my forward direction, the junction was completely clear - absolutely no moving traffic from my left or right. I went through on amber because it was safe to do so!! I would not go through an amber light otherwise - I would stop.

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

So you're saying that you would have stopped if the road wasn't clear, that means you had time to stop when the light was on amber. The highway code says stop when on amber. Guilty as charged, unlucky.

 

[jberks]

I'm still trying to establish whether in England one officer in patrol car can book. I thought it should have been two.

One officer can arrest you so I believe ..yes.

It was raining so obviously the road was wet, the speed limit was 40mph and I was approaching the traffic lights with caution and was 'committed' to go on amber. The only moving traffic was in my forward direction, the junction was completely clear - absolutely no moving traffic from my left or right. I went through on amber because it was safe to do so!! I would not go through an amber light otherwise - I would stop.

I believe this is known as an admission of guilt!
Ok - we've all done it and I can see where you are coming from - but if you said that in court they'd quadrouple the fine and send you on your way.
Whatever the justification, you did it.
In the same way, you can't say that you were speeding to overtake another car. The law clearly states that if you want to overtake a car doing 35 in a 40, you can only do it with a 5mph increase. If that means you risk hitting something else, then you can't overtake. The law is black and white, reason doesn't come into it.

 

[Speedmaster]

It is my understanding that a solo office can book you in England but in Scotland there must be two officers. Something half the police force do not seem to know up here. Seen a good number of people get off with serious driving issue due to that artlicle.

There are ways to get out of these things, tricks lawyers use such as asking so see the pre-shift check that is meant to be done on police cars before each shift and officers rarely do it. Legally they have to. Seen that used to scare police off taking things further

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Why would a police officer need a witness? The notion is rather silly.

If that officer thought you went through on red, but you think you went through on green/amber, then you have the option to defend yourself.

The £60 and 3 points offer is designed to save going through the court system.

If you believe you're innocent, then you should deny the offence and plead not guilty. I should warn you though, if you are found guilty then you'll be paying a few hundred quid, not £60.

 

[exgranger]

It is my understanding that a solo office can book you in England but in Scotland there must be two officers. Something half the police force do not seem to know up here. Seen a good number of people get off with serious driving issue due to that artlicle.

There are ways to get out of these things, tricks lawyers use such as asking so see the pre-shift check that is meant to be done on police cars before each shift and officers rarely do it. Legally they have to. Seen that used to scare police off taking things further

Thanks for that Speedmaster - this is the info I wasn't clear on as I knew in Scotland there had to be two but wasn't sure of the English version.

I'm just trying to collate all the help I can get for this injustice and a wee loophole could have supported my fight. However, I'm asking for camera evidence as I feel so strongly. Many thanks.

 

[Speedmaster]

Mind you, it could prove much more expensive to try and get out of it! Innocence is expensive!!

 

[Shambolic]

It is my understanding that a solo office can book you in England but in Scotland there must be two officers. Something half the police force do not seem to know up here. Seen a good number of people get off with serious driving issue due to that artlicle.

There are ways to get out of these things, tricks lawyers use such as asking so see the pre-shift check that is meant to be done on police cars before each shift and officers rarely do it. Legally they have to. Seen that used to scare police off taking things further

What he said about officers is true in Scotland 2 officers are stil needed for corrobaration(spl) but in England 1 and his camera are enough.
Was it a traffic car or just a panda??? As panda dont have cameras...might be a silly question but...?

 

[OmniCognateNeutronRangler]

What he said about officers is true in Scotland 2 officers are stil needed for corrobaration(spl) but in England 1 and his camera are enough.
Was it a traffic car or just a panda??? As panda dont have cameras...might be a silly question but...?

The obvious thing is that if it is just one person, with no camera then it is just your word against his. Obviously the authorities are more likely to take his word but I would have thought in law they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and one persons word against another would not be reasonable doubt.

However, given this is just over going through a red light I would expect the only way you'd win it is to get a good lawer. There are plenty that specialise in traffic law, just google them. It all depends on how much you value 3 points on your license.

As others have said, they expect most people to just pay up. I did with my speeding fine (38mph - £60 and 3 points) because the time and location were about right and as its very easy to be doing 38 in a 30 limit I just accept it as a hazard of driving. I wish now that I'd asked them for proof but the letter goes out of its way to make it sound like you really shouldn't ask any questions and just send them the money or else.

 

[CLK Man]

Slightly off topic??? but can anyone confirm the "myth" that the Police in uniform has to wear his helmet to arrest you. (heard this was needed ages ago, and sort off confirmed last night in Heartbeat when PC Plod went back to get his helmet to arrest the guy in the van)

 

[OmniCognateNeutronRangler]

There was a page of these on MSN not so long ago. As you'd expect it's not true.