I have to get this out of my system!

[paulrstaylor]

I vaugly remember that tempoary restrictions at roadworks are non-endorsable, i.e. fine but not points? I cant remember if thats just for speeding or if it includes other restrictions and also I dont think its applies on motorways.....

May be worth some further investigation?

 

[camerafodder]

Don't take the fixed penalty,take the court option,they will drop it rather than play the video of themselves jumping the lights.

You have a point, the problem is that the two events took place 10 minutes apart from each other. I wonder what the chances are that the constable's indescretion would not be included in the evidence.

 

[camerafodder]

I vaugly remember that tempoary restrictions at roadworks are non-endorsable, i.e. fine but not points? I cant remember if thats just for speeding or if it includes other restrictions and also I dont think its applies on motorways.....

May be worth some further investigation?

Thanks Paul, I'll investigate but I think that's just for speeding.

 

[Neiltodd]

You could ask for the extra bit to question his integrity in court in front of a jury, that would stir them up.

 

[flango]

I vaugly remember that tempoary restrictions at roadworks are non-endorsable, i.e. fine but not points? I cant remember if thats just for speeding or if it includes other restrictions and also I dont think its applies on motorways.....

May be worth some further investigation?

They are fully endorsable fine and points. Even if the traffic car went through on red without blues and twos no offence would have been committed.

They would quite happily show the video in court ( I have seen it) it would be your word against a highly trained class 1 traffic officer, absolutely no doubt on whos side the magistrate would come down on.

By challenging this and going to court I suspect you will come away with more than £60 and 3 points although its difficult to really comment without a diagram or photo as we all probably interpret the incident differently.

If you are thinking of going to court ask for a copy of the video so you can review it, although some forces will only provide it if you elect to go to court and need it as part of your defence.

 

[st13phil]

Don't take the fixed penalty,take the court option,they will drop it rather than play the video of themselves jumping the lights.

So the Police work on a "I won't nick you if you don't report me" basis do they? I don't think so

Regarding the OP's post:

1. The driver of the van did contravene a stop signal, and admits he did. He has a CoFP notice at the moment which he should probably take as he's "bang to rights"
2. It's a conditional offer at this stage and so could be withdrawn (unless he's the Home Secretary, which he isn't), and it may well be if he (or his passenger) stirs up enough effluent
3. Whatever Mr Plod did or didn't do with respect to the second set of lights is totally irrelevant to the detection of the offence in (1)
4. Without access to video or other independent evidence there is no realistic prospect of proving that Mr Plod went through a red light, and even less of proving that if he did it was without just cause and/or in a dangerous fashion

This probably isn't what you the OP wants to hear, but the best thing to do is for his mate to take the fixed penalty and for the OP to leave well alone and just quietly fume about any perceived injustice

 

[DME]

I see what you are saying but the two incidents are separate. The copper could just say that he intended to pull you over at the next safest place. That is his discretion not yours, don't forget while he was following you, he would have been radioing in to find out if your car was insured etc. It could have been that he just got all the information in just before the second set of lights and that was when he decided to pull you. The fact he ran a red light doesn't matter because he was technically in pursuit. He doesn't have to have blues and two's on to do that, (at the moment, although there is call for this to be mandatory).

Even if you went to court, that part of the film is not relevant to the incident and would be dismissed.

Sorry but I think you have been a victim of target based policing.

 

[camerafodder]

I see what you are saying but the two incidents are separate. The copper could just say that he intended to pull you over at the next safest place. That is his discretion not yours, don't forget while he was following you, he would have been radioing in to find out if your car was insured etc. It could have been that he just got all the information in just before the second set of lights and that was when he decided to pull you. The fact he ran a red light doesn't matter because he was technically in pursuit. He doesn't have to have blues and two's on to do that, (at the moment, although there is call for this to be mandatory).

Even if you went to court, that part of the film is not relevant to the incident and would be dismissed.

Sorry but I think you have been a victim of target based policing.

And I think you're absolutely right!

By the way folks I don't want the original offence committed to cloud the issue, no-one diputes what happened at the roadworks although the circumstances were such that it would have been difficult to do otherwise. It would have taken less than 10 mins to PNC our vehicle (not a van as has been suggested) and the copper could have stopped us safely without dangerously running a red light himself however 'highly trained' he is. I can assure everyone that this training does not embue police drivers with esp!

 

[rag1873]

The sirens and blue lights on a car are there for officer safety. They do not require by law to use them to go thru a red light or to speed etc. If that was the case the police would have to put on their blue lights and sirens to go to all calls that are ongoing. It kinda gives the housebreakers a step fot a hint that the police are on their way!!!
Basically the car you were in went thru a red light then an amber light... how can you complain!

 

[LimitedSlip]

camerafodder, however it all pans out, good on you for standing your ground as far as was possible, as is your right. Too many people are now quietly cowed into defeatism by the creeping authority muscle of recent years. The officers themselves are under too much pressure to achieve numbers.

This probably isn't what you the OP wants to hear, but the best thing to do is for his mate to take the fixed penalty and for the OP to leave well alone and just quietly fume about any perceived injustice

st13phil, I have to disagree with this part of your post... see above. It's becoming all too much of a technological turkey shoot (when it suits) for what are often meaningless peccadillos without consequence. I'd push all the way to see the film. They can instantly review the section that suits them in the car but not the other part? How convenient. I'd also be interested to hear how they actually framed the offence, since if this is correctly remembered and described by cannonfodder....

The lights changed to red but we were immediately behind the vehicle in front and had already pulled out so deeming it safer/better to continue rather than block the road trying to reverse back into position my colleague continued.

...then just what was the offence?

I can confirm there were different rules and application of them pertaining to temporary road works, though my knowledge is 15 years out of date. It's all worth a look at. There are defined distances and positions relating to where the "When red light shows wait here" sign should be. If it's incorrect, then it theoretically is not a standard site, and the prosecution may not be possible.

It's all down to what the driver wants to do here, spit or swallow. What the authorities want is for everyone to just roll over and pay, hence the fines are set at a lucrative level, but a level that doesn't motivate people to attend court.

 

[CE230]

Some local authorities require a permit for temporary red lights, if the ones in question were not permitted is the 'offence' prosecutable. ?

 

[kth286]

Had a similar situation many moons ago re the amber/red light and was stopped by police.

Felt I was OK in my actions and my partner asked a police friend for an opinion.

It seems what we did was to 'COMPLETE OUR MANOEUVRE' which commenced whilst the lights were in fact green.

It seems that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and the police were over zealous.

So, wrote a letter to chief constable and received prompt reply that and everything was cancelled.

So, all you were doing was 'completing a manoeuvre' that was started whilst the light was on green.

 

[rag1873]

So, all you were doing was 'completing a manoeuvre' that was started whilst the light was on green.

What twice in ten mins?? I dont think so!!

I have to admit this post has got my back up, two offences were comitted in a short space of time yet you still want to argue.

 

[CE230]

The highway code states that "AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident." Therefore by going through after it changed there was no offence committed.

 

[andy_k]

Eventually we were able to move as the temporary traffic lights were on green (the roadworks were on our side of the road). Whilst in the queue of slow moving traffic we reached the lights and pulled out to go past the roadworks. The lights changed to red but we were immediately behind the vehicle in front and had already pulled out so deeming it safer/better to continue rather than block the road trying to reverse back into position my colleague continued.

I think you missed something (quite important) out of that paragraph.

Maybe you and your friend should have a look at this page before arguing any further.

 

[pos.k]

Question to OP - did this happen in your local area or close by? because if it did you are in a lose - lose situation. Taking on the local coppers for a relatively insignificant issue like this is possibly unwise

Even if it didn't then you are still in a no win situation. your mate is prepared to accept the fine and points and move on. Suggest that you do the same - you made a point tothe copper in question - he may think more carefully next time he is about to nick someone on a possibly borderline incident.

I felt as you did when I saw a cop car in our local village pulled up outside sainsburys on the kerb at double yellows to go in for paper/fags/milk just a few minutes after ticketing someone who did the same. It was definitely the same copper - and this is just across the square from the nick. My (sensible) other half made me see sense as complaining would simply make them 'mark my card' and I could be made to suffer later on.
I do not mean to offend any of the forum members who are in the job - many of my friends and acquaintances are in the police, and they mostly do acknowledge when the subject comes up that the application of the letter of the law is variable.

Until we get Robocop / Judge Dread then that's how it will be.

 

[tim.100]

Dont waste your time....

The police do what they want when they are in a car. I have witnessed countless times, coppers jumping red lights, putting their blues and twos on just to avoid waiting at traffic lights, parking on double yellows to pick up pizzas, ....

Agreed. Not universal behaviour but very common.

While cycling recently on a track in Bushy Park, with a 10mph limit, I was passed by a police car. No emergency lights on. At the very least, he was tripling the speed limit.

 

[PXW]

Another possible interpretation - the police saw the first offence, followed to see what the driver's general road behaviour was, saw another 'close call' and decided to pull him over. Perhaps the second close run to amber was what sealed the decision on the first offence, so in effect the police were using discretion?

 

[cleverdicky]

Doesn't give them the right to break the law does it.
But then neither does it to stop and kill innocent people, or smack you in the face, shove you to the ground causing fatal injuries, give you a good kicking, and fire SEVEN dumb dumb bullets in to the back of your head, and much more all while filmed, they can certainly screw you for questioning them for jumping a red light.

 

[st13phil]

st13phil, I have to disagree with this part of your post... see above. It's becoming all too much of a technological turkey shoot (when it suits) for what are often meaningless peccadillos without consequence.

While I agree with much of your post, and I too rail against the "presumed guilty" culture that seems to pervade most aspects of motoring law enforcement in the UK today, life has taught me to recognise when the odds are stacked against me.

Like it or not - and I don't like it one bit - the Police have the odds stacked heavily in their favour when it comes to motoring infractions (your "turkey shoot"). While we may have the right to have our day in Court to defend a charge, the cost of exercising that right if we lose (and the chances are that we will lose unless we have Nick Freeman on our side, even if we really should win) has been cynically set to be grossly disproportionate to the cost of accepting the Fixed Penalty.

The British legal system has for centuries relied upon occasionally dispensing what most would view as grossly excessive "exemplary" punishments (albeit just within the boundaries of the maximum tariff so it can't be challenged) apparently at random so as to encourage compliance by the masses. The current regime for dispensing "justice" with respect to motoring offences does not have that element of apparent randomness within it but instead is much more insidious. It has been deliberately loaded against the individual to ensure that even if the charge is false, most will simply roll over rather than risk defending themselves against it and almost certainly suffer a substantially greater punishment. If anyone doesn't believe me then take a look at the various S172 charges where two people claim to genuinely be unable to determine who was driving at the time of an alleged speeding offence. The law provides for a defence in these circumstances, but the acid test is whether the Magistrates will believe them or not. To suggest that anyone finding themselves in those circumstances isn't being coerced into taking 3 points and £60 on a FPN rather than risking 6 points and a fine of several hundred pounds is living in cloud cuckoo land.

This is a sad indictment of how the UK operates and most certainly isn't "justice" in any accepted sense of the word, but if you lose sight of these facts you are likely to suffer considerable pain.