Red Traffic light camera
Discussion
The Metropolitan police claim that I went through a red light 11.8 seconds after it went to red on the busy A41 in Finchley at 12:04hrs,the alleged incident took place a month ago and I do not recall anything about it. I find this impossible to accept and do not recall the incident and if in fact it had happened I would have had problems doing this due to traffic crossing this busy junction. They will not supply the photographic evidence and my question is can these cameras make mistakes and go off when the lights are in fact green and not red. 11.8 seconds is a long time. Does anyone know the answer to this? Can I win in court? The Police told me it took them a long time to inform me as my car is a company car, this however makes no sense to me as I ma the one being asked to say who was driving and who can remember things in deatil that took place 5 weeks ago.
Do what the police do when they get caught by their own cameras - claim that you dont know who was driving the car at the time. Legally not a lot that they can do - they can claim that they will prosecute you, but the problem is that you (by European law) dont have to incriminate (not sure if that is spelt right) anyone else - that is against your and the other persons human rights.
Worked for a CID Policeman in Cleveland. Also worked for other police too - if they can do it then we sure can.... Sod em.
But please seek professional help on this - dont just take my word for it please.
Cheers,
Paul
Worked for a CID Policeman in Cleveland. Also worked for other police too - if they can do it then we sure can.... Sod em.
But please seek professional help on this - dont just take my word for it please.
Cheers,
Paul
Red light cameras work on a loop system ( wires in the road surface) the system is only live when the lights are on red. The usual system is to invite you to see the film not to send you the picture. If they don't have the picture they don't send out the paperwork. So contact them and ask for a viewing. The camera is set up to take 2 photos one as you pass the stop linr the other 1/2 a sec later. The pictures will also show the lights so you can see what colour they were showing.The camera is also able to show your speed through the junction, this will also be on the picture.
did you get caught up in traffic, and had to stop in the middle of the junction? that would explain 11.8 seconds.. unless you just got impatient one day and went through. But surely not, otherwise you wouldn't be posting.
Ok, "DATA PROTECTION ACT" states that you may see all the evidence they hold. Read up on it, and quote it to them, and tell 'em they are breaking the law if they do not comply.
Good luck !
Ok, "DATA PROTECTION ACT" states that you may see all the evidence they hold. Read up on it, and quote it to them, and tell 'em they are breaking the law if they do not comply.
Good luck !
Yes its possible I got caught up in between the junction it happens to me all the time in Finchley as the drivers in front have to stop for some reason and it may have been 11.8 secs when I moved away but of course I had already passed the white line and I guess triggered the system. So I guess I have no way out of it? but that can happen again with ease on this busy road. My Main problem is I cannot be clear what happend over 5 weeks ago as they have only just told me about the offence.
Edited by CMP on Sunday 25th November 23:08
Edited by CMP on Sunday 25th November 23:08
hmmm. Sounds like you really need the pix in order to get your defense sorted out.
Sorry I can't help here, but the theory goes that they must have "reasonable grounds" to find you guilty. Take it to court, and explain the situation once you have ascertained ;-
A) if it was your car
B) if you got caught in traffic
C) if you got caught by a faulty camera
D) if the sensor was triggered by something else.
If you are innocent, you should get let off. Ha ha ha. Cynical laugh there, 'cos I have a similar thing going on with a speeding ticket and mitigation. Somehow I think they WANT to get you done for something. One of Bliar's new policies?
Sorry I can't help here, but the theory goes that they must have "reasonable grounds" to find you guilty. Take it to court, and explain the situation once you have ascertained ;-
A) if it was your car
B) if you got caught in traffic
C) if you got caught by a faulty camera
D) if the sensor was triggered by something else.
If you are innocent, you should get let off. Ha ha ha. Cynical laugh there, 'cos I have a similar thing going on with a speeding ticket and mitigation. Somehow I think they WANT to get you done for something. One of Bliar's new policies?
No-one in their right mind would go through a red light 12 seconds after it turned red. As mentioned, traffic in the other direction would be in full flow. Had the light sequence been changed for some reason, although the lights should "tell" the ccamera when to work. The photos won't be much help unless they catch the lights on red at the same time. What happens at lights where one set changes to amber at the same time as the opposite side? A lot of traffic lights in Sheffield are like this, particularly at roundabouts, and you get people jumping the lights when traffic is already moving across the junction.
If you go through a red light which has been red for more than 6 secs or if your speed is more than 36 mph then the conditional Fixed penalty goes out the window and you get a court summons, I can't confirm the above applies country wide but it should be around those figures. The idea behind it is you get more than 3pts/£60
So picture the scenario I got caught in this morning.
Lights green move through them when cut up by golf GTI in the bus lane (Commercial Road East London) so I stop short of the yellow hatched box junction when lights go to red I am effectively caught wrong side of line on a red. So if my wheels had triggered a loop at any time after this I may well have ended up a lot of secounds past the red and been done by camera !! I obeyed the lights I went through on green and the road markings (didn't enter hatched box) but could have been in trouble.
Nothing did happen but worth thinking about.
Lights green move through them when cut up by golf GTI in the bus lane (Commercial Road East London) so I stop short of the yellow hatched box junction when lights go to red I am effectively caught wrong side of line on a red. So if my wheels had triggered a loop at any time after this I may well have ended up a lot of secounds past the red and been done by camera !! I obeyed the lights I went through on green and the road markings (didn't enter hatched box) but could have been in trouble.
Nothing did happen but worth thinking about.
Just as a follow on from this, a business associate has recently received a court summons for jumping a red light
He's obviously going to be up the creek with this one as he's only recently received a UK licence (he's Canadian & has been using that licence until now).
However, he seems to think he's been told to take proof of earnings with him to court....Is this still the case ? I was under the impression that means tested fines had ben scrapped ????
Lets just say that he's a higher rate tax payer so surprisingly isn't too keen to show that to the court.
Any suggestions/views appreciated.
He's obviously going to be up the creek with this one as he's only recently received a UK licence (he's Canadian & has been using that licence until now).
However, he seems to think he's been told to take proof of earnings with him to court....Is this still the case ? I was under the impression that means tested fines had ben scrapped ????
Lets just say that he's a higher rate tax payer so surprisingly isn't too keen to show that to the court.
Any suggestions/views appreciated.
Sorry to re-itterate this point - but Hertsbiker has a ultra valid point - Data Protection Act.
You can "invoke" the act and demand to see all computerised information held about or on you. This goes for anything - banks, government and the like. They have to supply EVERYTHING they have and you have the right to get it double checked or removed (according to the correctness and validity).
The act is there to protect all of us from the incorrect filing of information on computer systems. Use it, it is there for us all. In the case of this - get the police to provide ALL relevant information to you (they cant withhold it - if they do get a solicitor and he will get it for you). Then you can have this independantly reviewed. If it proven to be incorrect or invalid (failure of the system or record integrity) you can have the case thrown out - this has been done before...
There was a case that someone got done for doing something like 75 over a cross-roads junction. Mathematics worked out that they would have needed a Porsche Turbo to get to that speed from the corner just before - therefore invalid data. However, Police took the angle that the figure might be wrong, but the fact that they crossed a red light at speed was still there - however, due to the data of the offence being either gathered incorrectly or stored incorrectly the case had to be thrown out. This cast doubt on the whole system due to the incorrect information - it was certain that the person broke the law, but due to the data being incorrect, they had to dismiss it.
Do it you know it makes sense.
Cheers,
Paul
(p.s. work in Information Security and this is something that comes up regularily).
You can "invoke" the act and demand to see all computerised information held about or on you. This goes for anything - banks, government and the like. They have to supply EVERYTHING they have and you have the right to get it double checked or removed (according to the correctness and validity).
The act is there to protect all of us from the incorrect filing of information on computer systems. Use it, it is there for us all. In the case of this - get the police to provide ALL relevant information to you (they cant withhold it - if they do get a solicitor and he will get it for you). Then you can have this independantly reviewed. If it proven to be incorrect or invalid (failure of the system or record integrity) you can have the case thrown out - this has been done before...
There was a case that someone got done for doing something like 75 over a cross-roads junction. Mathematics worked out that they would have needed a Porsche Turbo to get to that speed from the corner just before - therefore invalid data. However, Police took the angle that the figure might be wrong, but the fact that they crossed a red light at speed was still there - however, due to the data of the offence being either gathered incorrectly or stored incorrectly the case had to be thrown out. This cast doubt on the whole system due to the incorrect information - it was certain that the person broke the law, but due to the data being incorrect, they had to dismiss it.
Do it you know it makes sense.
Cheers,
Paul
(p.s. work in Information Security and this is something that comes up regularily).
Not sure if this will help 'cos I don't know where you were snapped, but I was approaching the junction of A41 and Cricklewood Lane on my bike this morning on the A41 southbound carriageway. The red light camera on the northbound carriageway was going off like the paparazzi taking pictures of the sides of cars that were crossing E/W on Cricklewood Lane.
I'm sure John's right about the induction loop, but this camera had lost the plot big time. If this was your juntion, there may be some mileage in mentioning this to them. It also shows that these devices aren't faultless.
I'm sure John's right about the induction loop, but this camera had lost the plot big time. If this was your juntion, there may be some mileage in mentioning this to them. It also shows that these devices aren't faultless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff