Failure to comply with a traffic signal - appeal?
Discussion
Asking for a friend who received a charge through the post. He stopped his transit at a red light, though somewhat exceeding the stop line after anchoring up (he admitted he noticed it change later than he should have, somewhat concerning in and of itself) but as you'll see from the picture the speed taken at the time was 0mph, so it is clear he had made an effort to stop. The question is does he have grounds for a not guilty plea or is this cut-and-dry? Thanks in advance.
I'd say that's cut and dry guilty. If you cross the line whilst the red light is on you've committed the offence. The two photos clearly show this as in both pictures the light is red and you have a before and after showing the line being crossed.
If he had crossed whilst braking on orange and stayed over it when red then it wouldn't have flashed.
The offence is passing the line while the light is red which you have done.
If he had crossed whilst braking on orange and stayed over it when red then it wouldn't have flashed.
The offence is passing the line while the light is red which you have done.
Edited by Joeguard1990 on Tuesday 28th November 19:44
The offence is actually failing to stop at the line. The trigger loop on the road is just at the line and if you cross it when the light is red the camera takes 2 photos usually about a second apart. This would normally show the vehicle crossing the line and half way across the junction when the light had been run. In this case the vehicle has just gone over the line but the offence has still been committed. Harsh but you know what these money grabbing bustards are like.
On a trip from Wales to Kent, I lost count of the number of people who stopped mid-ships over the stop line at, usually, lights on roundabouts. I think there will many more posts, and indeed threads, about traffic light cameras coming up.
A bit harsh, but I would say the evidence is plain to see, even though there is no danger to others, AFAICS.
A bit harsh, but I would say the evidence is plain to see, even though there is no danger to others, AFAICS.
SS2. said:
That's not right - the offence is committed if any part of a vehicle proceeds beyond the stop-line with the red light showing.
This.The offence has, quite clearly, been committed. You could go for the de minimis ploy but I doubt it will work. That's a fair bit over the line.
You can put in a mitigation letter although I'm not sure anyone will read it. The speed is not relevant and, I'd suggest, is not likely to be useful in mitigation. Nor is the fact the driver was not paying attention.
I'm sorry but I see no way out for you. Or him.
SS2. said:
stevensdrs said:
The offence is actually failing to stop at the line. .
That's not right - the offence is committed if any part of a vehicle proceeds beyond the stop-line with the red light showing.wilwak said:
That’s very harsh.
We all sometimes go over the line when not wanting to brake too sharply. Eg. When being tailgated or maybe have a delicate load in the back.
Prosecuting for being a foot over the line isn’t really in the spirit of the law.
I wouldn’t be happy if it was me.
I wouldn't be too happy if I was on a crossing and a van overshot it by that much and took me off my feet... The spirit of where a vehicle should stop is well before the line and in a controlled manner - I'll bore off now.We all sometimes go over the line when not wanting to brake too sharply. Eg. When being tailgated or maybe have a delicate load in the back.
Prosecuting for being a foot over the line isn’t really in the spirit of the law.
I wouldn’t be happy if it was me.
wilwak said:
That’s very harsh.
We all sometimes go over the line when not wanting to brake too sharply. Eg. When being tailgated or maybe have a delicate load in the back.
Prosecuting for being a foot over the line isn’t really in the spirit of the law.
I wouldn’t be happy if it was me.
The amber light timing is set up that all vehicles in normal circumstances should be able to stop safely before the light turns red. We all sometimes go over the line when not wanting to brake too sharply. Eg. When being tailgated or maybe have a delicate load in the back.
Prosecuting for being a foot over the line isn’t really in the spirit of the law.
I wouldn’t be happy if it was me.
In your examples in court I think you'd have to argue against:
- If you knew you were being tailgated you should have slowed down
- If you had a delicate load you should have been traveling more slowly so that you didn't need to brake harshly
An offence probably was committed.
However, the authorities have NO EVIDENCE of said offence. Nada.
The two photos both have the light on red. The van hasn't moved. (Correction: it has, but maybe the handbrake wasn't on quite enough, OP realised?). The offence is proceeding beyond the stop line while the light is red.
This photo could result from a vehicle stopping (albeit over the line) while the light is amber.
Or, you know, there was a queue of traffic, the lights changed, and OP did not proceed.
I know this is unlikely what happened, but spirit of the law and all that, I would consider it moral to fight. After all, the friend may have remembered things a bit wrongly, couldn't they? I mean, it's not that notable.
However, the authorities have NO EVIDENCE of said offence. Nada.
The two photos both have the light on red. The van hasn't moved. (Correction: it has, but maybe the handbrake wasn't on quite enough, OP realised?). The offence is proceeding beyond the stop line while the light is red.
This photo could result from a vehicle stopping (albeit over the line) while the light is amber.
Or, you know, there was a queue of traffic, the lights changed, and OP did not proceed.
I know this is unlikely what happened, but spirit of the law and all that, I would consider it moral to fight. After all, the friend may have remembered things a bit wrongly, couldn't they? I mean, it's not that notable.
Edited by Solocle on Tuesday 28th November 22:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff