What offence?

[BertBert]

Not seen this before. Urban four lane road (2 each way) with junction lights. There is a 3rd lane right turn only.

Boy racer pops into the 3rd lane. Straight ahead lights go green (straight-on arrow) rh lane lights stay red.

Boy racer speeds away, cuts from l3 to L2 and gets a nice set of 3 flashes from the camera.

Did he jump the light and go on red even though he didn't turn right?

Bert

[cossy400]

Cameras there for a reason.

So if it's flashed him it thinks he's jumped a red.

when it sounds like he's just made what's looking like it's going to be an expensive que jump?

[Alex Z]

If the right turning lane is controlled by a separate ATS then he needs to obey that one.

The camera will have evidence of him passing a red light, and if he uses “I was going straight on” as a defence then he’s admitting “...due care..”

[anonymous-user]

Or possibly a speed on green camera.

[BertBert]

Definitely a traffic light camera as the lights were red so the cars were stationary until they turned green.

Bert

[Derek Smith]

It's more down to what his brief will argue.

They'll say he did not fail to comply with the ATS as they were signalling green. However, the best thing to do is go for the dead cert. There would, most likely, be an offence of failing to comply with the indications given by . . . etc, the 'turn right only' one(s).

There might well be evidence of careless/dangerous. That's almost always an option.

[BertBert]

It's an interesting one. There were three cars together doing some extremely enthusiastic antics. Undertaking, lane changing, forcing in. Utterly inappropriate driving, certainly if their driving had been witnessed by BiB, they would be discussing racing and dangerous driving. I was quite impressed what they got up to and very impressed by the ingenuity of going into the turn right lane at the red lights to get ahead of his chums!

So to me with the photos from the red light camera (being the evidence), you'd expect him to get a fixed penalty (or course) offer for the red light offence. I'm wondering if a defence of going straight on would work.

Bert

[Red 4]

Derek Smith said:

It's more down to what his brief will argue.

They'll say he did not fail to comply with the ATS as they were signalling green. However, the best thing to do is go for the dead cert. There would, most likely, be an offence of failing to comply with the indications given by . . . etc, the 'turn right only' one(s).

There might well be evidence of careless/dangerous. That's almost always an option.

Careless/ dangerous ? A NIP is required for that and I've never known a NIP for careless/ dangerous be generated by an ATS camera flash/ the procedure that follows.

[meatballs]

Derek Smith said:

It's more down to what his brief will argue.

They'll say he did not fail to comply with the ATS as they were signalling green. However, the best thing to do is go for the dead cert. There would, most likely, be an offence of failing to comply with the indications given by . . . etc, the 'turn right only' one(s).

There might well be evidence of careless/dangerous. That's almost always an option.

I didn't think arrow/lane markings on the road were enforceable?

[jmcc500]

Different circumstances but I once got flashed when I crossed the line in a straight-ahead lane (showing red) but turned right (green right turn arrow). It was a junction which pushed right turn traffic back across the straight on lane so I had elected not to move over to move back again.

Two flashes, second would clearly have shown me going in the direction of the green light, and I got nothing through.

[IJWS15]

Son did a course for this in Slough a few years back.

If there are separate lights for each lane you have to obey the light for the late you are in, not the light for the direction you are going.

If you are in the wrong lane - tough.

[BertBert]

On this bit of road there are several of the same junctions with rh lanes with turn right filters on the lights.

The signage is different though. On one junction the lights also have the blue circle white arrow mandatory turn right and straight on signs. This junction however doesn't have them.

We'll never know, but I think he'll not get penalised.

Bert

[Red 4]

meatballs said:

I didn't think arrow/lane markings on the road were enforceable?

On their own, no. (Although some are - double white lines, etc).
But these were supported by a traffic light so they are - or rather the traffic signal applies to that lane IYSWIM.

Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 31st December 12:09

[Derek Smith]

Red 4 said:

Careless/ dangerous ? A NIP is required for that and I've never known a NIP for careless/ dangerous be generated by an ATS camera flash/ the procedure that follows.

You missed the point.

The driver's actions were careless/dangerous, I think there's little argument against that. It's got nothing to do with the reason the camera was set up. There's nothing to stop such images as might have been captured can be used in evidence for careless/dangerous.

[Red 4]

Derek Smith said:

Red 4 said:

Careless/ dangerous ? A NIP is required for that and I've never known a NIP for careless/ dangerous be generated by an ATS camera flash/ the procedure that follows.

You missed the point.

The driver's actions were careless/dangerous, I think there's little argument against that. It's got nothing to do with the reason the camera was set up. There's nothing to stop such images as might have been captured can be used in evidence for careless/dangerous.

There's plenty of argument against your posts, Derek.
Good luck getting a dangerous home based on the circs in the OP !

And no, I haven't missed anything.
A NIP being required for a prosecution for careless/ dangerous for one ...

[BertBert]

Red 4 said:

There's plenty of argument against your posts, Derek.
Good luck getting a dangerous home based on the circs in the OP !

And no, I haven't missed anything.
A NIP being required for a prosecution for careless/ dangerous for one ...

Could the photos not be used to generate a NIP for careless/dangerous when reviewed? There were 3 sperate flashes, so I assume 3 photos? I don't know whether they will show the driver going straight on, but I suspect they will.
Bert

[kiethton]

Surely on the conditions that:

- There is no blue-circled turn right sign
- The lane is not separated by a physical kerb and that there are no solid lane divider lines immediately following the stop line (none/dashed indicate its ok to change lane when safe to do so)
- He's gone straight (when straight ahead lights are green)

No offence has been committed and if any paperwork comes through (for a red light offence) he should string it out for as long as possible then plead NG and get a decent RT lawyer to present the case and claim costs.

[Red 4]

BertBert said:

Red 4 said:

There's plenty of argument against your posts, Derek.
Good luck getting a dangerous home based on the circs in the OP !

And no, I haven't missed anything.
A NIP being required for a prosecution for careless/ dangerous for one ...

Could the photos not be used to generate a NIP for careless/dangerous when reviewed? There were 3 sperate flashes, so I assume 3 photos? I don't know whether they will show the driver going straight on, but I suspect they will.
Bert

The photos will show the vehicle crossing the stop line ( triggering the camera ) and then proceeding across the junction.

That's all the evidence they need for contravening a red ATS.

No idea why some people think they would go for a careless or dangerous in these circumstances.
Some people just want to win the internet, it seems.
Dangerous, in the real world, is never going to happen. It is, technically, careless I suppose but the red light is what they will go for because the evidence proves that offence.
It's an ATS camera, not a careless driving camera ...

[BertBert]

I'll check the road for solid white line markings this afternoon (this has turned into a regular route for hospital visiting over the last few days!).

Bert

[Derek Smith]

Red 4 said:

BertBert said:

Red 4 said:

There's plenty of argument against your posts, Derek.
Good luck getting a dangerous home based on the circs in the OP !

And no, I haven't missed anything.
A NIP being required for a prosecution for careless/ dangerous for one ...

Could the photos not be used to generate a NIP for careless/dangerous when reviewed? There were 3 sperate flashes, so I assume 3 photos? I don't know whether they will show the driver going straight on, but I suspect they will.
Bert

The photos will show the vehicle crossing the stop line ( triggering the camera ) and then proceeding across the junction.

That's all the evidence they need for contravening a red ATS.

No idea why some people think they would go for a careless or dangerous in these circumstances.
Some people just want to win the internet, it seems.
Dangerous, in the real world, is never going to happen. It is, technically, careless I suppose but the red light is what they will go for because the evidence proves that offence.
It's an ATS camera, not a careless driving camera ...

I said, quite simply,

Derek Smith said:

There might well be evidence of careless/dangerous. That's almost always an option.

It is a clear case of careless. Or, to put it another way, technically another offence. Or to put it another way, another offence. This is basic policing.

I’m not sure what your problem is with sending an NIP.

I’ve passed any number of careless/dangerous in my time i/c a process unit, and on evidence more easily challenged than a photograph. There’s more to deciding what charge to pursue than considering what type of camera was triggered.