Possibly flashed at Piccadilly Circus last night
Discussion
... coming South from Regent Street going towards Haymarket. A bit difficult to know if I really was, the car is new to me and seems to show bright and distracting reflections at night. Also Piccadilly is lit up to the max with the xmas decs up, and for all I know it was a tourist taking snaps of the lights. There may not even be a camera on the junction!
My issue is, I know the light wasn't red as I went through it. So if I do get a ticket, what will the picture show? Does it show me crossing the line as it's on red (which it can't do as it wasn't red), or me halfway through the box as it changes to red? I have a horrible feeling I'm going to get fined for something I didn't do, since no doubt whatever the evidence is it can't be disputed as it's a camera!
Any ideas what the fine is, and if there's points?
My issue is, I know the light wasn't red as I went through it. So if I do get a ticket, what will the picture show? Does it show me crossing the line as it's on red (which it can't do as it wasn't red), or me halfway through the box as it changes to red? I have a horrible feeling I'm going to get fined for something I didn't do, since no doubt whatever the evidence is it can't be disputed as it's a camera!
Any ideas what the fine is, and if there's points?
Nothing behind me at all, and nothing in front either because a cabbie was d
ing around making a nuisance of himself. As soon as he cleared I gunned it (no pedestrians), then lights started to change, thought better of braking since the car behind was an Aston and I wasn't sure if he had gone for it too. I was very aware of the Amber and that it hadn't changed as I entered the box.
I think it was just a reflection or someone taking a snap of the Circus / lights.
ing around making a nuisance of himself. As soon as he cleared I gunned it (no pedestrians), then lights started to change, thought better of braking since the car behind was an Aston and I wasn't sure if he had gone for it too. I was very aware of the Amber and that it hadn't changed as I entered the box. I think it was just a reflection or someone taking a snap of the Circus / lights.
Two pictures one second apart.
The first will show how long after red (light will be visible) you crossed line, second will be one second later. They can show speed as well.
www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/road/redlt.html
The first will show how long after red (light will be visible) you crossed line, second will be one second later. They can show speed as well.
www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/road/redlt.html
markmullen said:
No RLCs at Piccadilly Circus IIRC, was there on Thursday and pretty sure there aren't any.
Thought the same, but either way the OP should relax and not make the mistake of actually worrying about anything, the people who need targeting are those that wouldn't worry. This systemic pressure tactic is part of the mindgame from traffic mismanagers and safety ignoramuses. Fk them, smile and drive. It would be a rare example of leadership in action, and instructive, to have continuous in-car cameras and black box data for every private vehicle of any town hall minion, westminster politico, senior BiB, magistrates and judges, scamera managers and operators. Qualification for particular attention - anyone lacking true moral fibre who has opened their mouth without engaging their brain to denounce 'speeding' or made any other crass statement, or abused statistics. Daily clips and data to be published on the internet.
The rank hypocrisy of these holier than thou types and the futility of a failing 'policy' would be laid bare for all to see.
Except, of course, for those bigmouth braveheart pinkogreens who can't even drive a car, such as Kengestion Livingdrone
vonhosen said:
Two pictures one second apart.
The first will show how long after red (light will be visible) you crossed line, second will be one second later. They can show speed as well.
www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/road/redlt.html
The first will show how long after red (light will be visible) you crossed line, second will be one second later. They can show speed as well.
www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/road/redlt.html
Took a look at some of the other pictures, this was quite interesting image:
If the first of that sequence of two images showing a red cannon into a white is typical, then the system is flawed.
The first picture shows the car already over the line at red. The second shows it even further over. OK in that case there is also a crash on film. But what if there are no other vehicles to add corroboration of any kind?
To 'prove' by a photo that a driver jumped a red light you need the first photo with the car still in front of the white line with the lights already at red, and the next with the whole car over the white line and still moving, otherwise you will catch and penalise people trying (and succeeding) in stopping, in what is very likely to be a safe but not ideal position.
You would also need to photograph (and then delete the images) of every car as there is no way a camera can tell what's really happening - sound familiar? So, this is too complex or costly or whatever, officialdom calls in the Lowest Common Denominator muppets.
It's not enough to say "but the sensor only triggers the camera when the lights are alerady at red". Proof in every instance? Malfunction? Logic gates can fk up. The photo should establish guilt - not electrons that have moved on a long way since the event and cannot be interviewed.
Another half baked system. Which is a shame as red light jumping is clearly very risky in some hands.
The first picture shows the car already over the line at red. The second shows it even further over. OK in that case there is also a crash on film. But what if there are no other vehicles to add corroboration of any kind?
To 'prove' by a photo that a driver jumped a red light you need the first photo with the car still in front of the white line with the lights already at red, and the next with the whole car over the white line and still moving, otherwise you will catch and penalise people trying (and succeeding) in stopping, in what is very likely to be a safe but not ideal position.
You would also need to photograph (and then delete the images) of every car as there is no way a camera can tell what's really happening - sound familiar? So, this is too complex or costly or whatever, officialdom calls in the Lowest Common Denominator muppets.
It's not enough to say "but the sensor only triggers the camera when the lights are alerady at red". Proof in every instance? Malfunction? Logic gates can f
k up. The photo should establish guilt - not electrons that have moved on a long way since the event and cannot be interviewed. Another half baked system. Which is a shame as red light jumping is clearly very risky in some hands.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 17th December 11:42
turbobloke said:
If the first of that sequence of two images showing a red cannon into a white is typical, then the system is flawed.
The first picture shows the car already over the line at red. The second shows it even further over. OK in that case there is also a crash on film. But what if there are no other vehicles to add corroboration of any kind?
To 'prove' by a photo that a driver jumped a red light you need the first photo with the car still in front of the white line with the lights already at red, and the next with the whole car over the white line and still moving, otherwise you will catch and penalise people trying (and succeeding) in stopping, in what is very likely to be a safe but not ideal position.
The first picture shows the car already over the line at red. The second shows it even further over. OK in that case there is also a crash on film. But what if there are no other vehicles to add corroboration of any kind?
To 'prove' by a photo that a driver jumped a red light you need the first photo with the car still in front of the white line with the lights already at red, and the next with the whole car over the white line and still moving, otherwise you will catch and penalise people trying (and succeeding) in stopping, in what is very likely to be a safe but not ideal position.
It looks very clear to me. If there had been no crash the second photo would show the red car near the opposite side of the junction. So the first photo shows the car just over the line and the second shows the car much further over. The driver has clearly driven through the red light. Why not prosecute?
herewego said:
It looks very clear to me. If there had been no crash the second photo would show the red car near the opposite side of the junction. So the first photo shows the car just over the line and the second shows the car much further over. The driver has clearly driven through the red light. Why not prosecute?
My point is that you don't necessarily violate the ATS signal unless you cross the white line when the signal is already at red and keep moving across the junction. The initial photo doesn't show that the driver moved across the line when the signal was at red, it only shows that the car was a couple of metres over the line when the light was at red. The signal could have changed in the space of time between the driver's peripheral vision having its last chance to see amber in front of the line, and the photo being taken. It matters.
Of course officialdom will say 'but the sensor only operates the camera when the light has already changed to red' but like I said earlier logic gates can stuff up, the first sensor is past the white line anyway, and officialdom is inept.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 17th December 13:21
oes this help?
The current approach takes the first photo with the car over a sensor a metre or so past the white line. BUT the car might have crossed the line when the signal was still at amber and if it was unsafe to try and stop the driver should have continued across, the phasing should allow this for safe ATS junction operation.
The current approach takes the first photo with the car over a sensor a metre or so past the white line. BUT the car might have crossed the line when the signal was still at amber and if it was unsafe to try and stop the driver should have continued across, the phasing should allow this for safe ATS junction operation.
turbobloke said:
herewego said:
It looks very clear to me. If there had been no crash the second photo would show the red car near the opposite side of the junction. So the first photo shows the car just over the line and the second shows the car much further over. The driver has clearly driven through the red light. Why not prosecute?
My point is that you don't necessarily violate the ATS signal unless you cross the white line when the signal is already at red and keep moving across the junction. The initial photo doesn't show that the driver moved across the line when the signal was at red, it only shows that the car was a couple of metres over the line when the light was at red. The signal could have changed in the space of time between the driver's peripheral vision having its last chance to see amber in front of the line, and the photo being taken. It matters.
Of course officialdom will say 'but the sensor only operates the camera when the light has already changed to red' but like I said earlier logic gates can stuff up, the first sensor is past the white line anyway, and officialdom is inept.
OK I see. You're saying the first photo should be taken with the nose? of the car on the line? Because you don't trust the timer that indicates the lights changed several seconds ago? Should be possible.
Does this help?
The current approach takes the first photo with the car over a sensor a metre or so past the white line (lower sequence, second position). BUT the car might have crossed the line when the signal was still at amber (lower sequence, first position) and if it was unsafe to try and stop the driver should have continued across, the phasing should allow this for safe ATS junction operation.
The upper sequence shows what should be photographed to prove pictorially that the driver ran a red light by crossing the white line when the aignal was already at red.
The current approach takes the first photo with the car over a sensor a metre or so past the white line (lower sequence, second position). BUT the car might have crossed the line when the signal was still at amber (lower sequence, first position) and if it was unsafe to try and stop the driver should have continued across, the phasing should allow this for safe ATS junction operation.
The upper sequence shows what should be photographed to prove pictorially that the driver ran a red light by crossing the white line when the aignal was already at red.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff