red light..........

[hovercraft]

Traffic lights were on amber, braked late, light was red by the time I stopped just after the white line, reversed back. No problems with any traffic.

 

I had one some years ago in which I did jump a red light albeit unknowingly, in Dorset, yet they didn't even bother to send a photo (something about not being a criminal offence or something).

 

How long to wait until I get a ticket/fine while driving a company vehicle, and is it worth going to court to argue.

 

Thanks for any help.

[crem]

Was the junction even covered by a camera?

[hovercraft]

yes

[crem]

OK. Then I guess the next point of interest would be how far over the white line did you travel and how long after the red light came on did this occur?

[Secret Policeman]

The question is. . . .did the camera flash?? Most cameras won't activate unless you actually go through the junction, i.e. - actually continue driving through it, rather than just going slightly over the stop line.

 

However, if the camera did flash - the Police must send out an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to the registered keeper, e.g. - the lease company, so it may take a month or so, by the time the lease co. or your company reply and it then makes it's way to you.

 

Wait and see. . . If you get the NIP, then we'll worry about the next step!

[hovercraft]

Passed the line by about 1 meter, amber when passed the line, but red when stopped passed the line.

 

Flash? No idea.

 

Thanks for the replies, as said above, have to wait.

[wheelergeezer]

It doesn't matter if you cross by 1 inch or 1 mile. The offence would be failing to stop at a red light. You must stop before the white line. After the white line is an offence.

[crem]

No one is debating whether "the offence" of crossing the white line occurred, we are trying to ascertain the likelihood of a "red light camera" having flashed in this instance.

 

As for you're "1inch past the line is an offence", it is stupid to imply such "transgressions" would be prosecuted or indeed that there is any reasonable method of acurately measuring such an "offence", unless they borrow the "hawkeye" technology from Wimbledon!

 

If the OP stopped within about 1mtr of the line then reversed, I would doubt that this would have triggered a photo.

[wheelergeezer]

Stupid????

 

I think not Mr intelligent! Try parking 1 " over the line of a parking space in london and see if they think it is stupid when they slap a ticket on your car. Try only scraping an inch of paint of a police car and see if they also think it would be stupid to do anything. The law is clear. Stop before the line, not within a distance passed the line that you think is alright guv.

[crem]

Oh, I am sorry. I didn't realise we were now talking about a parking offence, which would be monitored by a human CEO, and could/should have been checked by the driver when they exited the vehicle, or damage to a vehicle (which could be criminal damage.)

 

I was under the impression we were still discussing the white line at a traffic light system which has no practical method of measuring an offence of being 1 inch over a white line and I have never heard of such a prosecution taking place. If you have, please could you refer us to the case number.

 

The OP did not come on CAG to ask if we agreed whether he had stopped "within a distance passed the line that you think is alright guv", he knows he should have stopped before the line but failed to do so on this occasion. He now is seeking opinions as to whether there is the POSSIBILITY that his lapse on this occasion may result in a prosecution.

 

I take it from your (unhelpful) contribution to this thread that you think the OP should be hung drawn and quartered for his lapse at this white line and if, in fact, no letter arrives regarding this offence in the next couple of weeks, then he should hand himself in to the nearest police station for immediate incarsaration.

[Secret Policeman]

I have to agree - what is it with people arguing the toss on these forums; they are intended to "help" people, not offer a venue for people to bicker pointlessly about the ins and outs of the case.

 

Help people, Help!

[Wriggler7]

Last time I checked, the 'Notice of intended prosecution' had to be delivered within 21 days.

 

The fine debate about 'how far over the line' is important, and I am not sure if the OP means the front of the car passed by a metre, or the back. Last time I looked at a T/L camera, it would have needed the rear of the car almost 'middle for diddle' of the junction.

 

The OP knows he 'did wrong', doesn't need the Judge Jeffreys to tell him.

 

Whenever I have needed to formulate a mitigation for a minor motoring offence, I nearly always end up proving 'careless driving' instead. Ho hum............

[hovercraft]

Thanks for the replies; the back of the vehicle was about 1m pass the line, the front was about 2m short of the middle of the junction, before I reversed.

 

My vehicle has got a binding brake problem (booked-in to fix) and no ABS, so when I initally braked, the brakes locked-up a bit, so I quickly realised the brakes and braked again. Though that said I did brake late, and was driving within the speed limit.

[buzby]

If it was a digital camera, getting a NIP is high. If film based (and there are still many of these, And are rotated) you may even have been flashed, but (a) there may have been no film in the camera, having been used up previously, or (b) no camera was in the housing.

 

There a good chance you'll hear nothing, just keep your fingers crossed....!

[patdavies]

Last time I checked, the 'Notice of intended prosecution' had to be delivered within 21 days.

 

The fine debate about 'how far over the line' is important, and I am not sure if the OP means the front of the car passed by a metre, or the back. Last time I looked at a T/L camera, it would have needed the rear of the car almost 'middle for diddle' of the junction.

 

The OP knows he 'did wrong', doesn't need the Judge Jeffreys to tell him.

 

Whenever I have needed to formulate a mitigation for a minor motoring offence, I nearly always end up proving 'careless driving' instead. Ho hum............

 

NIP needs to be with the RK within 14 days of the offence.

 

A red light offence is for any part of a vehicle to travel across the line once the light is red. If the front of the vehicle crosses the line on amber (or green), but if there is no motion once the light is red then no offence is committed. Also, there has to be motion to trigger a red light camera...

[crem]

but if there is no motion once the light is red then no offence is committed. Also, there has to be motion to trigger a red light camera...

 

but would reversing motion trigger it? and if so, would the NIP show a negative speed being travelled at the time? Interesting possibilities if it does.

Edited September 7, 2010 by crem

[buzby]

No it doesn't, and the period where the induction loops are active and capable of being triggered is tightly controlled and part of the site certification process. There's a Home Office Guidance document that provides the operational and installation guudelines available online. My brain hurt for days after reading it!