Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Can I contest a red light NIP?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
Hooli744
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - May 2021
Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Laurel Terrace at Warmsworth Road, Balby, Doncaster (N)
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 3
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was travelling west at these lights & turned left onto Hall Flat Lane through a green light. I'm certain I didn't pass a red light as I use these lights regularly and am fully aware the left turn has a stop line etc.

However I've received a NIP for passing a red light. I'd like to contest it if there is any chance of proving the facts of the case, however my experience is the police happily lie in court to support what they've decided happened & this makes me wary.


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:20:50 +0000
The Rookie
Well this appears to be based on the camera placed there (link below) as such the honesty or otherwise is irrelevant (noting that stating an honestly held belief isn't lying even if you are wrong).

The usual advice here is to write and ask for photo's 'to help confirm the drivers ID' or similar subterfuge as that is the only way, without going to court, to see the photos at this stage. Obviously you have to do that before stating who was driving Is it possible the vehicle was over the white lane divider and could have triggered the sensors for the turn right lane which was presumably red at the time?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5043086,-...6384!8i8192
cp8759
Is there any indication whether this was an automatic camera detection, or possibly a dashcam video from a member of the public? If a police officer had seen you it would be unusual for them not to just stop you at the time. Obviously if there are photos or video evidence, then the police's willingness to lie becomes largely immaterial.
Hooli744
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 10:52) *
Well this appears to be based on the camera placed there (link below) as such the honesty or otherwise is irrelevant (noting that stating an honestly held belief isn't lying even if you are wrong).

The usual advice here is to write and ask for photo's 'to help confirm the drivers ID' or similar subterfuge as that is the only way, without going to court, to see the photos at this stage. Obviously you have to do that before stating who was driving Is it possible the vehicle was over the white lane divider and could have triggered the sensors for the turn right lane which was presumably red at the time?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5043086,-...6384!8i8192


Yes that could be the place. I think from the timing I was going home, but there wasn't much time between trips. I'd been to the garage to get a tyre fitted, they didn't have a hex key for the bike wheel, so I popped home for mine & went back again. Resulting in four trips through these lights that day.

My description was for a trip homewards. If going towards town, as is quite possible as your google link shows the location of the camera, then both left & right turns go green together.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 10:56) *
Is there any indication whether this was an automatic camera detection, or possibly a dashcam video from a member of the public? If a police officer had seen you it would be unusual for them not to just stop you at the time. Obviously if there are photos or video evidence, then the police's willingness to lie becomes largely immaterial.


It doesn't say anything about the source, so I'd suspect the fixed camera on the lights.
cp8759
If you reply asking for "photos to aid in the identification of the driver" they will normally oblige, these might provide some clarity.
Jlc
If it was that ACD then the evidence will be binary - either it shows your vehicle moving over the stop line whilst red is displayed or not. (No need for the police to lie)
Hooli744
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 11:22) *
If you reply asking for "photos to aid in the identification of the driver" they will normally oblige, these might provide some clarity.


I've just rung them & asked about that, they've said they should be able to if I email a request. I've explained, quite truthfully, that I maintain bikes for a couple of mates too so they might have borrowed mine when I was fixing theirs. As it happens I've got a friend's bike in my garage currently for a similar reason. I shall email them shortly & update this thread with the outcome.

I'll be really surprised if I did pass a red light here, considering traffic on that junction it'd be suicidal more a few seconds each side of a green light.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 11:33) *
I've explained, quite truthfully, that I maintain bikes for a couple of mates too so they might have borrowed mine when I was fixing theirs.

Will this give you any difficulty in naming the driver?
Hooli744
To update this, here's the email request I sent. I believe my reason is reasonable and gives them no reason to deny a view of the picture to confirm the rider.

Dear Sir,

I have just spoken to Margaret in your office concerning this alleged offence. I don’t recall using my bike at the time of this offence so would like to confirm it was myself involved before returning the section 172 form. Therefore I’m requesting to view the photo evidence if possible to ensure my declaration is correct.

To clarify why I’m unsure, I do maintain a couple of bikes for friends and they often use mine whilst I’ve got theirs. I know this occurred around this time, but we can’t recall the exact timings to say who was riding at the time. A picture showing the riding gear should help resolve this problem.

I hope you can help so that I can ensure my official response the correct one.

Yours sincerely,




QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 11:39) *
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 11:33) *
I've explained, quite truthfully, that I maintain bikes for a couple of mates too so they might have borrowed mine when I was fixing theirs.

Will this give you any difficulty in naming the driver?


It shouldn't do, I'm the only one with plain helmets for starters.
Jlc
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 14 Jun 2021 - 11:44) *
I'm the only one with plain helmets for starters.

Helmets/leathers can assist in the driver identification indeed. Whilst they may provide a photo they are not duty bound to do so at this stage.

Upon receiving the s172 request you are to use reasonable diligence to identify the driver (rider). If you do not know who was riding and could not identify them with the aforementioned diligence then there is a statutory defence option - but hopefully the pictures will resolve everything... (Asking for the photo's isn't likely to be considered enough)
Hooli744
Indeed, I'll see how they respond.

Like I've said, I don't believe I've run a red light but I've not lost anything by asking to confirm the rider. I doubt I'll be 'let off' but it'll be nice to see some evidence of an offence I don't think I committed before accepting a punishment for it. My last experience of this process was when a scamera van clocked me doing 50 in a 40 & sent me a NIP for 60 in a 40, hence I'm rather cynical of the process being all above board. I did post about that on here, but with another account I can no longer access.
Hooli744
Just to update this, I've received a surprisingly quick response saying they are posting a copy of the pic to me. I've got till Tuesday next week to respond to the S172 so I'll see what arrives.


Thanks for the help so far all.
Hooli744
Well I got the pic in the post, turns out it was my first trip into town as I've got the new tyre riding pillion. So I've returned the S172 confirming it's me.

I'm still convinced the light wasn't red when I passed the line & the timing on the pic saying 1.17sec of red light time suggests it was changing just as I crossed at worst. Isn't there any leeway on these? I'm sure I heard of 2secs years ago, like the 10%+2 on speed cameras.

Click to view attachment
Jlc
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 15:29) *
I'm still convinced the light wasn't red when I passed the line & the timing on the pic saying 1.17sec of red light time suggests it was changing just as I crossed at worst. Isn't there any leeway on these? I'm sure I heard of 2secs years ago, like the 10%+2 on speed cameras.

You're not the first to have thought they didn't pass at red until they've seen the snap.

Amber is illuminated for 3 seconds (+/- 0.25s) - so the light was jumped by over 4 seconds. (The picture says amber was 3.19s)

When seeing amber you should stop (treat the light as red) unless you are so close to the stop line you cannot stop (treat it as green). It's potentially an offence to pass at amber but ACD's don't enforce that.

However, there's no leeway for passing on red but you might be referring to the activation time - the camera has a small delay before enforcement - the picture confirms this is 1 second for which you were a fraction over...
The Rookie
For future reference, you crossed the line 1.17s after the light went red or about 4 seconds after you knew you should have stopped when it went Amber, that’s over 90 feet travelled even if just doing 15mph, and you travelled over 25 feet after it went read. So no it wasn’t changing just as you crossed the line, far from it. Just explaining, we all make errors but don’t think this was somehow marginal or you won’t learn from it.
Hooli744
Cheers, it must be that 1 sec delay for activation time I was thinking of.

I'm still damn doubtful of the times shown, I'm one of those people who do stop on amber & annoy people behind at times by doing so. However I'm sure there is no point arguing them as plod would never admit they are wrong even if they turned out to be.
Jlc
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 15:43) *
I'm one of those people who do stop on amber & annoy people behind at times by doing so.

Me too - very few obey amber lights properly...

QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 15:43) *
I'm still damn doubtful of the times shown. However I'm sure there is no point arguing them as plod would never admit they are wrong even if they turned out to be.

There should be 2 pictures? (They may not have supplied both) One of the loop activation and another shortly afterwards showing the line was crossed at red - it's extremely hard to argue against.

Whilst the possibility of an error is not zero it's highly unlikely... e.g. the amber turned to red much sooner than the 3 seconds. (It would probably do this every time if it was genuinely faulty - they are usually very reliable)
Hooli744
There is another pic, after the first one, showing me roughly where the van is in the first pic. Timed 3secs later.
Jlc
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 15:50) *
There is another pic, after the first one, showing me roughly where the van is in the first pic. Timed 3secs later.

Yup, just to prove you were moving.

Looks like the activation was from the second loop - you can see them here.
Hooli744
Aye that'd make sense from where the pics are.
The Rookie
The likely hood that your memory is defective is about 1000 times more likely than there being any error in the system. In effect there would have had to have been almost no Amber phase to speak of at all (the law requires 3s with a 0.25s tolerance), something you would remember had you been paying as much attention to the lights as you think you were.
andy_foster
To recap, the OP has received 2 photos taken by the ACD - the first showing his bike having entirely passed the line (albeit not by much) at a time 1.17 seconds after the lights turned red, and another photo showing the bike further into the box junction at some later time.

Would anyone else like to comment on this?
Jlc
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 18:36) *
To recap, the OP has received 2 photos taken by the ACD - the first showing his bike having entirely passed the line (albeit not by much) at a time 1.17 seconds after the lights turned red, and another photo showing the bike further into the box junction at some later time.

Normally the 1st photo does show the vehicle over the stop line (with red displayed) - the subsequent photo proving that any part of the vehicle had crossed the stop line during that phase.

The Rookie
I think what AF is suggesting may be possible is to submit a not guilty plea on the basis that the evidence (as shared anyway) doesn’t show the bike crossing the line, that a plausible explanation is that the bike was across the line before the light turned red.

While the OP is clear about what he thinks happened that is not proven by the photos.
FuzzyDuck
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 18:36) *
To recap, the OP has received 2 photos taken by the ACD - the first showing his bike having entirely passed the line (albeit not by much) at a time 1.17 seconds after the lights turned red, and another photo showing the bike further into the box junction at some later time.

Would anyone else like to comment on this?

It would suggest they have no viable evidence that the bike actually passed the stop line on red. The bike may have been beyond the stop line when the light turned red.
Jlc
Yes, but the camera didn't arm until 1 second after red was illuminated so it wouldn't be a hard leap to conclude the bike (or part of it) did pass the stop line during red.

The length and velocity of the vehicle may be a factor too.

Whether they would pursue such a case is a fair question.
cp8759
If the OP goes to court and somehow persuades the bench that the light was still amber when he passed, will he not be proving his own guilt? After all he'd be proving that he crossed the line towards the very end of the amber phase.
andy_foster
The issue is not what the defence can try to prove, but whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lights were red (or amber) when the OP's bike went through. From the photos, it seems entirely plausible, particularly with it being a yellow box junction, that the bike went through lawfully when the lights were green, but he was unable to continue through the junction until traffic ahead of him cleared. That explanation would appear to be at odds with the OP's account of events, but that is not the point. The issue is whether the prosecution would be able to prove their case.
Logician
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 - 21:56) *
The issue is not what the defence can try to prove, but whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lights were red (or amber) when the OP's bike went through. From the photos, it seems entirely plausible, particularly with it being a yellow box junction, that the bike went through lawfully when the lights were green, but he was unable to continue through the junction until traffic ahead of him cleared. That explanation would appear to be at odds with the OP's account of events, but that is not the point. The issue is whether the prosecution would be able to prove their case.


Indeed, two pictures of the bike on the far side of the stop line do not prove that the bike crossed the stop line when the light was red. The only hope for the prosecution would seem to be to investigate exactly how These sensors operate. If the bike was stationary no picture would have been taken, but does the fact that the picture was taken indicate that the sensors before the stop line had been crossed, or could the bike inching forward over the sensors on the far side of the line have triggered the camera? Probably the prosecutor on the day would have no idea, so if the defence submits no case to answer after the prosecution evidence, om the basis that there is no picture of the bike crossing the stop line, that could probably not be refuted.
IanJohnsonWS14
Doesn’t this route open the OP to extra costs if the prosecution do show that the bike must have crossed the line? After all the two photos show the bike moved, it must have passed the sensor to trigger it and I don’t recall seeing the riders feet on the ground so it was moving.
The Rookie
It would, but how do they prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
andy_foster
It could be that a court could properly find on the evidence that there was a case to answer and then take an inference when the accused declined to give evidence.
Hooli744
Interesting idea there, as you say the pics don't prove I crossed the line at red.

I doubt my chances of succeeding with that defence though. As I've lost in court years ago to a plod who just straight up lied about what he saw, I'd expect them to come up with something or the court to just believe them.

For what it's worth, this is both pics I got. I originally only posted one as I didn't think the info on them would be readable if I did this, I'm not used to how much better my new phone cam is yet.

Click to view attachment
IanJohnsonWS14
You need to think about this, look again at the first picture, where was the bike 1/2 a second before if it didn't cross the line.

It isn't a helicopter or an autogiro and the photos show it wasn't stopped. If it could teleport you wouldn't have been there but would have gone directly to base.

That it isn't leaned over at a crazy angle mean that it hasn't just driven along the side of the white line and done a 90 . . .

Where could it be but the other side of the white line so it must have crossed the line, is your argument that the timings are out on the system.
Hooli744
Indeed I believe the timing is out on the system as I don't believe I crossed a red light.

I am however fully aware that just saying that won't work as a defence.
cp8759
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 09:36) *
Indeed I believe the timing is out on the system as I don't believe I crossed a red light.

So do you think you crossed on amber, or on green?
Jlc
On a technical level the snaps are 1 second apart - the bike travelled just over 6 metres in that time which is around 14mph.

Assuming a constant velocity, the bike wouldn't have even passed the first set of sensors when red was allegedly displayed. Given the camera doesn't arm until 1 second after red is displayed then it's not a large leap to demonstrate the line was crossed whilst red was displayed (assuming the device was working correctly).

As I said before the length of the bike is a factor - a car would have clearly shown the rear wheels over the line.

However, whether the prosecution would go to these lengths, if challenged, is debatable as an expert witness would have to be called.
The Rookie
I'm absolutely certain you crossed on red, If you were honest with yourself you would probably think the same, however can the prosecution prove it, there is nothing that says you weren't stationary over the line when the light turned red and then moved.

This is all the evidence that exists, the police cannot lie (or be mistaken which was much more likely) about anything, this is ALL there is.
Jlc
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 11:44) *
...there is nothing that says you weren't stationary over the line when the light turned red and then moved.

That is true - the photo's alone could support that hypothesis. After all, if you had fully clearly the stop line prior to red illuminating then you can proceed when it is safe to do so.

As noted above, it would require an expert witness to detail how the piezo sensors are triggered to show that this did not happen but the OP knows they were moving.
cp8759
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 11:44) *
This is all the evidence that exists, the police cannot lie (or be mistaken which was much more likely) about anything, this is ALL there is.

But the OP can't lie either, he therefore can't take the stand and say that he was stationary past the line and then moved. If he gives evidence and the magistrates accept what he says, there is a distinct possibility he might be convicted of going through an amber light, which is still an offence. If he doesn't give evidence, the magistrates can draw an adverse inference.
The Rookie
The OP doesn't have to take the stand, he can present the no case to answer summary at half time, simply pointing out it shows no offence and that the vehicle could have been stationary. Even if he presents the defence, he doesn't have to take the stand (and it would be foolish to do so).

Again, no evidence the amber light was contravened either, how that becomes a distinct possibility is beyond me.
cp8759
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 11:55) *
The OP doesn't have to take the stand, he can present the no case to answer summary at half time, simply pointing out it shows no offence and that the vehicle could have been stationary. Even if he presents the defence, he doesn't have to take the stand (and it would be foolish to do so).

Again, no evidence the amber light was contravened either, how that becomes a distinct possibility is beyond me.

If the bench accepts the no case to answer submission, then sure it's game over. However it seems I'm not the only one who thinks the magistrates might not accept such a submission so readily. Of course there is always the option of appealing to a higher court on the basis that the magistrates were wrong in law not to accept the submission, but the outcome of that is not a slam-dunk either and considering all this is just to avoid a driver improvement course or an FPN, it hardly seems worth the effort.
The Rookie
I haven't said they would accept it readily, I've merely pointed it out. And that taking the stand would be foolish in the extreme.

In fact I think the chances in a magistrates court are worse than 50:50 and an appeal to a hopefully more knowledgeable judge only probably slightly better than 50:50.

The acid question is whether or not what the defence opines constitutes reasonable doubt, so is the 'doubt' here reasonable?

All this has nothing to do with the OP's borderline irrational fear of 'bent coppers'.
NewJudge
In those two photographs your distance from the van seems near enough constant. If the court makes the assumption that the van was moving in the first shot (not unreasonable as it was in the middle of the junction and had no reason to have stopped and it also appears to be leaning slightly to the left, as it would be if it was moving) then they will almost certainly conclude that you were moving as well. To conclude that you were stationary they would have to make a couple of leaps and be left with some unexplained features:

1. That you had crossed the stop line on green but had stopped in the position shown in shot #1.

2. In the one second between the two pictures, you pulled away and closed the gap to the van to precisely the same as it was when you were stationary.

3. At the very least your right foot was not on the ground in shot #1. Your left foot may have been, but...

4. The bike appears to be leaning slightly to the right, exactly as it would if you were about to turn right.

Yes, (1) and (2) could have happened but they both appear considerably weakened when considering (3) and (4). In my view picture #1 demonstrates fairly conclusively that you were moving when it was taken. When examined in conjunction with #2 I believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that you were moving when photo #1 was taken. If the device was working correctly it was taken more than one second after red had been displayed and the rear of your bike was only marginally clear of the stop line. Even if the device was faulty and red had only been displayed the instant the photo was taken (which is most unlikely and would be for you to prove), you had clearly crossed the line in the preceding three seconds when amber was displayed. I believe the court would find that you do have a case to answer and that you will be in some difficulty trying to counter the evidence from those two photographs. Personally I would not even think about taking this to court.
The Rookie
To counter that with explanations created by looking at it logically.
If both were stopped the van would have then pulled away first creating a gap, you can't say where the van could have stopped and pulled away from based on when the OP could then set off to trigger the sensors. You are recreating the storyline to suite what you think it is rather than using an alternative plausible explanation.

Why would the OP's foot be on the ground when the bike is moving (as it has to be to trigger the sensors)?

The bike may be leaning slightly for the turn, it's moving?
NewJudge
I'm sorry, Rookie, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that picture #1 does not provide a reasonable indication that the bike is moving?
The Rookie
No, I'm not saying that. The bike IS moving as only a moving bike can trigger the sensors, what you don't know and can't tell (for 100% certain - although maybe beyond reasonable doubt) is whether it's crossed the line at 15mph or moved 1 foot from where it was stationary and then triggered the sensors.

A stationary bike doesn't trigger the sensors.
Hooli744
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 10:23) *
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 09:36) *
Indeed I believe the timing is out on the system as I don't believe I crossed a red light.

So do you think you crossed on amber, or on green?


Amber, I'm quite happy to say I crossed an amber. But my belief is it was 'just amber' rather than 'almost red' if you follow me. I was under the impression passing an amber was perfectly legal as my recollection of the rules were 'continue if it's unsafe to stop', being as I believe I crossed at the beginning of the amber phase then I'd have been too close to stop safely. I appreciate that the pics don't appear to support that, hence my thoughts the timings on the system aren't accurate.

I will end up just accepting a FPN or course depending on what arrives in the post, but that doesn't change my belief I didn't cross a red light. My experiences of the system suggest to me that it's pointless fighting such processes unless you've got a lot of money & time to devote to it. It's been an interesting discussion around how the process & systems work during this thread for me so I'm grateful for the contributions.

I'll update what turns up in the post as & when plod respond to the S172 I returned last week.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Hooli744 @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 15:05) *
But my belief is it was 'just amber' rather than 'almost red' if you follow me. I was under the impression passing an amber was perfectly legal as my recollection of the rules were 'continue if it's unsafe to stop', being as I believe I crossed at the beginning of the amber phase then I'd have been too close to stop safely. I appreciate that the pics don't appear to support that, hence my thoughts the timings on the system aren't accurate.

Forget about the system timing. Assuming you rode straight across (and didn't stop and restart as per the hypothesis mentioned) the rear of your bike was photographed about 50cm beyond the stop line when the light was red. Amber is displayed for three seconds. so if the light changed to red the instant the photo was taken your eyes were no more than about two metres (maximum) beyond the stop line. Unless the timing of the lights was faulty, amber is displayed for three seconds and would have been in your view for all of its phase bar the time it took you to pass the lights and get to where you were in photo #1. If you did cross on amber it must have been at the very end of that phase, not at the beginning. I think you are very wise to accept any out of court disposal offered, but not for the reasons you state.
Jlc
Just as an aside, have you been back to the junction since? Have you checked the timing appears to be correct?

There was one case on here (a long time ago) where a malfunction was identified. A 'permanent' issue is far more likely that a one-off case - they are extremely reliable systems.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.