Pulled for 'red' light jump but witness can dispute. |
Pulled for 'red' light jump but witness can dispute. |
Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 09:57
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 27 Jan 2021 Member No.: 111,386 |
Good morning
I'm looking for help /advice please... A driver got pulled over not so long ago for supposedly running a red light. The driver told the police officer it was an Amber light but the police officer clearly was not likely to be reasoned with as their response was to say it was red but I'm going to put down careless driving down then. The driver said no more and let the officer go through the motions. The letter received does state careless driving with the usual 3 options of a course /points-fine /court. What the driver failed to mention to the officer, was that the car behind with a dash cam was traveling with them.... The camera footage shows the lights were on Amber when the car was fully across the line for the lights. There is no careless driving what so ever. Footage will of course need editing to show this clearly, watching the footage in real time doesn't show this as clear as I would like. Should add that the footage does not have the correct time stamp, can't see Reg number but does show the unmarked police car Reg and it lighting up to pull over etc. I do have it uploaded to YouTube unlisted atm. So I have a couple of questions.... Is being booked for careless driving the same as running a red light when it comes to it? Can the driver use the dash cam evidence in court and does it have to be unedited? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 09:57
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 21:08
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
@ineedhelp can you give us a location, GSV woukd be good Here? Note that at this point the car is on "slow" road marking. The distance from that point to the stop line is approx. 70 metres. Yeah that's why i wanted to see the gsv. I can see why plod pulled him. QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 11:19) As noted above, the video evidence may actually 'prove' the alleged offence and not actually offer a defence. I think it does. In fact id go as far as to say it looks like he floored it when the went amber |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 21:17
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
In fact id go as far as to say it looks like he floored it when the went amber It's hard to tell but the car does appear to accelerate. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 23:44
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,496 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,899 |
The car in front ended up putting some serious distance between it and the camera car even taking account of the weird zoom factor of the edit. It looks to my eyes that they floored it to beat the lights, which is pretty much the opposite of what you’re supposed to do.
As has been said I would not want that video shown at court. Some pretty major accidents happen when two people try to beat their respective lights. |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 01:08
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,864 Joined: 2 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,040 |
If it is indeeds 70m from the point at which the light turned amber is there any merit in:-
The HC suggests a 96m distance for a hard stop at 70mph in good conditions. There was a vehicle with the camera behind. Against that is whether it was reasonable to be approaching at that speed, but if not why is it not a lower limit. |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 04:01
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,784 Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Member No.: 18,956 |
If it is indeeds 70m from the point at which the light turned amber is there any merit in:- The HC suggests a 96m distance for a hard stop at 70mph in good conditions. There was a vehicle with the camera behind. Against that is whether it was reasonable to be approaching at that speed, but if not why is it not a lower limit. It's a limit, not a target. |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 07:54
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
If it is indeeds 70m from the point at which the light turned amber is there any merit in:- The HC suggests a 96m distance for a hard stop at 70mph in good conditions. There was a vehicle with the camera behind. Against that is whether it was reasonable to be approaching at that speed, but if not why is it not a lower limit. The limit is irrelevant. The DVSA advice (Driving - The Essential Skills) is: "Approaching green traffic lights, Approach traffic lights as you would ay other junction. Keep your speed down. Don't speed up to 'beat the lights'. Be ready to stop, especially if the lights have been green nfor some time." As that is part of the syllabus for the driving tests, it is reasonable to argue that it is what is expected of a careful and competent driver |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 09:29
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 26 Jan 2005 From: West Midlands, UK Member No.: 2,258 |
It doesn't directly help the OP, but the (unmarked) police car does seem to go past at one hell of a lick!
It is almost as if he was expecting the first car to run the lights (with blue lights on straight away) and i doubt whether plod could have actually stopped before the lights (should the accused have pulled off an amazing braking manouver). Maybe there is more to this that we are being told (e.g. was plod already taking an interest before the lights)? |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 10:54
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It is almost as if he was expecting the first car to run the lights (with blue lights on straight away)... The complete lack of braking might have given him a clue? Anyway, we all know that police officers who've done their advanced driving course acquire superhuman powers. As that is part of the syllabus for the driving tests, it is reasonable to argue that it is what is expected of a careful and competent driver +1. I knew I'd read that advice somewhere but couldn't find it, thanks for digging it up. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 10:57
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
It doesn't directly help the OP, but the (unmarked) police car does seem to go past at one hell of a lick! It is almost as if he was expecting the first car to run the lights (with blue lights on straight away) and i doubt whether plod could have actually stopped before the lights (should the accused have pulled off an amazing braking manouver). Maybe there is more to this that we are being told (e.g. was plod already taking an interest before the lights)? I thought the same. |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 11:15
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 497 Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,087 |
Maybe there is more to this that we are being told (e.g. was plod already taking an interest before the lights)? In fairness, neither of the two cars are going to know if an unmarked police car was taking an interest or not, so I'm not sure it is a case of not being told everything. There is nothing to indicate in that video that he was already being pursued at that point. With regard to it going past at a fair lick. The camera car has come to a near standstill before it finally goes past him. Hardly Nigel Mansell type scenes here. |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 18:34
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
As noted above, the video evidence may actually 'prove' the alleged offence and not actually offer a defence. If plod is watching this thread and assuming that they can identify the person with the dash cam, can they foce him to hand it over as evidence? Should the video be erased/destroyed (and removed from youtube) to stop the Police using it as evidence? |
|
|
Thu, 28 Jan 2021 - 18:39
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
If plod is watching this thread and assuming that they can identify the person with the dash cam, can they foce him to hand it over as evidence? Well I imagine they could seize it, but I don't see how they're going to identify who has it. Should the video be erased/destroyed (and removed from youtube) to stop the Police using it as evidence? Deliberately destroying evidence could well amount to PCOJ (or at least the CPS guidance suggests as much), so I really wouldn't go there. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 02:01
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Deliberately destroying evidence could well amount to PCOJ (or at least the CPS guidance suggests as much), so I really wouldn't go there. Have to say I think this is rubbish. Anyone with a dashcam will knowingly record dozens of criminal offences on every journey. By your logic every time I record a car that sets off a speed or red light camera then I am legally obliged to retain the footage because I am aware the police may be investigating the offence, or risk jail time. Such an idea is implausible in a world where we all generate staggering amounts of data every day. That said, as the footage shows almost certainly any defence is doomed, so it's a somewhat moot point. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 09:45
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Deliberately destroying evidence could well amount to PCOJ (or at least the CPS guidance suggests as much), so I really wouldn't go there. By your logic every time I record a car that sets off a speed or red light camera then I am legally obliged to retain the footage because I am aware the police may be investigating the offence, or risk jail time. But here the person with the footage has certain knowledge that the police are investigating, and if the OP has relayed the outcome of this thread, that person know knows as a fact that the evidence in his possession corroborates the case the police are pursuing. If the OP tells his mate to destroy it, that sounds like conspiracy to me. Not saying anything would come of it, just that we can't advise people to commit a crime. Think of it this way: My mate works in a shop and I'm a shoplifter. I get nicked on suspicion of shoplifting and released under investigation. The police don't know / realise the shop has CCTV, but I ask my mate who works at the shop to check the footage as I think it'll get me off. My mate checks the footage and because there's a camera I didn't know about, it shows me concealing items before leaving the shop. What do you call it if my mate agrees to delete the footage for me? The fact that the same camera system catches countless instances of shoplifting that go undetected is neither here nor there IMO. This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 09:46 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 10:01
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: 2 Aug 2005 Member No.: 3,508 |
Sounds very much like the driver failed the attitude test.
Amber means stop (there is a defence in some cases for not stopping) Red really means stop - no excuses The driver would have to demonstrate that (1) he passed on amber which could be tricky and (2) that the defence of not safe applied. The position of the car when the lights went amber gave sufficient time to stop if the driver saw them change, if he claimed that he didn't see them until it was too late wouldn't the charged offence be proved. The police will probably have similar video from their car (possibly better quality), does the driver really want them to start doing an assessment of their video to see if his speed increased after the lights changed to amber? -------------------- Speeding tickets, like lottery tickets, are a voluntary tax. You don't have to get them.
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 13:47
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,496 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,899 |
The Poiice being close is not relevant, I don't think. They may have been considering a pull from an earlier point in the video, and in any event they are trained to react quickly.
As said previously the video posted does not (in my opinion) provide a defence, in fact quite the opposite. Destroying it is somewhat of a moot point in any case since the Police aren't relying on it for conviction, the OP is relying on it to try and provide a defence. All destroying it does, or would do - if it were actually beneficial to show - would be to hamper the defence. As for attitude tests etc - to my eyes the leading car floored it when the lights changed to amber, so that's why they were pulled, and given it was a deliberate act rather than inattentiveness the outcome was probably assured as soon as the blue lights went on. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 - 15:50
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: 2 Aug 2005 Member No.: 3,508 |
This is the slip road off the northbound M6, what puzzles me is why a motorway traffic car would be leaving there unless he was already following a vehicle, their base is a little further south at Gaydon and services northwards if he was going for coffee & doughnuts.
-------------------- Speeding tickets, like lottery tickets, are a voluntary tax. You don't have to get them.
|
|
|
Mon, 1 Feb 2021 - 15:06
Post
#38
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 6 Jan 2021 From: Manchester Member No.: 111,144 |
Watched the video. I don't think it will help him with that. He should slow down on the slow road marking. So the video might get it worse.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:29 |