[Closed] Remember my other half got the police letter about running a red light?

Get her to tell the judge that she had to accelerate through lights to avoid another vehicle.

They love that stuff.

Worst would be a small fine and 3 points?

should be a "plead guilty by post" as well I would have thought - no court appearance needed. 3pts and a couple of hundred quid would be my guess

1. In England/Wales - possibly offered a course (depending on time past the red).
2. Anywhere in UK - likely to be offered fixed penalty £100, 3pts.
3. In England/Wales at court, 3pts + fine = 1/2 weekly income, + prosecutions cost (£80 for guilty plea?) + victim surcharge (about £20).
4. In Scotland at court - no guidelines but probably £140-250 depending on income, 3pts, circumstances etc + £10 surcharge. No prosecution costs.

Thanks guys, happened in England by the way.

tjagain
Full Member
should be a “plead guilty by post” as well I would have thought – no court appearance needed. 3pts and a couple of hundred quid would be my guess

Hopefully that's the case tj.

(@tjagain off topic but I've not read your second PM yet my friend for the reasons I gave in my PMed reply... but I will, I assure you. Huge thanks again.)

Its only a good wishes message

I would have thought driving through a red light is defined as dangerous or reckless driving? or maybe driving without due care and intent? this would be considerably more serious than 3 points and a fine for doing 35 in a 30.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points

TS10 - 3 points

From the same link as above. Possibly careless driving. CD-10 or CD-20, 3-9 points.

The way I read their reply a fixed penalty is out as there was ample time to stop. I’d hazard a guess at no. 3 from `poly’s list.

I don't think they normally waste court time to issue the same points as a fixed penalty with a small increase in the fine. I am guessing they will add careless driving into the mix.

But they should say what offence they are charging you with.

She could tell them she's a driving goddess of STW, was merely making progress, and tell them she's pleading superiority.

TS10 is a specific offence for going through a red light. By default its careless, they are unlikely to add anything else to the bundle for the one incident they have evidence for.

I can't add anything, but do update the neighbour thread as well when you get time.

🙂

I would have thought driving through a red light is defined as dangerous or reckless driving? or maybe driving without due care and intent? this would be considerably more serious than 3 points and a fine for doing 35 in a 30.

Its almost never prosecuted as dangerous driving - you really need to try quite hard to get prosecuted for dangerous. It could be careless driving (which is often described as driving without due care and intent) - that carries a minimum of 3 pts. It is unusual to see it prosecuted as such; it has its own offence which is easier to prove than careless driving - so (1) no point making unnecessary work for yourself as a prosecutor; (2) more likely a defence lawyer will think it worth the effort to fight; (3) the higher points "risk" means the driver is more likely to be determined to escape conviction.

That said, even if it was prosecuted as s3 (careless) rather than s36 (failing to obey a traffic signal) its unlikely that the sentence would be substantially different anyway. I'm not sure what your point is about comparing it to 35 in a 30 - the fixed penalty system isn't about fairness, its about the efficiency of the justice system. However, I suspect if you asked many magistrates they'd say 35 in a 30 and jumping a red light are the same ballpark of culpability; both come with their own list of excuses - almost all of which fail at court.

stopped for red light, after 10 mins decided it wasn't working so cautiously drove through the red, whilst checking the road was clear.

always easiest to prepare to stop for red lights when the amber comes on

The way I read their reply a fixed penalty is out as there was ample time to stop. I’d hazard a guess at no. 3 from `poly’s list.

there's always ample time to stop - otherwise they don't prosecute! 1. only red after being on amber for enough time to stop; 2. there's a cut off after it goes red for front wheels to trigger the sensor before they prosecute... you might be right, I didn't go back to read the original post but given the backlog and workload in the courts I'd be surprised if CPS aren't encouraging fixed penalties for anything they can. Otherwise its likely to be about 5-6 months from the offence (in England - up to 12 north of the border!) before you hear from them again!

She probably just needs to go and plead guilty, no contest or excuse making, make it clear she's sorry...

The court may then choose to bollock whoever brought the case in front of them (wasting time and money) rather than using FPN for it's intended purpose.

3 points.

In the same way a fixed penalty for speeding only applies if you only just break the speed limit but if you smash it you wont get a fixed penalty, the same logic applies with red lights. You've run the red light so that is not the debate, and ignorance is no excuse and there are no excuses really, but there is a difference being made between just being an 'amber gambler' and being in the process of crossing the line when the light turns red, or at the very least turning red just before you cross the line, and the light being red for some seconds as you cross the line.

I got collared for speeding on the motorway a couple of years ago and the speed was too high for a fixed penalty. I was not summoned to court, but was going to get the points and a much larger fine (several hundred pounds instead of the fixed penalty), but I chose the option of the 'Motorway Safety Course' to be re-educated, which actually was a very positive and useful exercise. Its amazing how much you forget after 30+ years of driving and some things that were not even taught when I was learning to drive.

Just take your punishment and learn from it, turn a negative into a positive and crack on.

there is a difference being made between just being an ‘amber gambler’ [...] and the light being red for some seconds as you cross the line.

Yeah, arguably one is intentional impatient behaviour and the other is more likely to be a simple mistake.

I don't really understand why they would be choosing to make a fuss in this case. It sounds very irritating. Good luck.

seems to me that default position for many drivers nowadays is 'that light up ahead is green, I'd better speed up before it turns red'. Is it only me that thinks 'it's been green a while now, I'd better be ready for it to change'?

‘it’s been green a while now, I’d better be ready for it to change’?

[Smug]It's not just you[\smug] but I doubt you're the majority. Round here red means next two cars/hgvs still go at a lot of junctions.

What wobbliscott says - its not valid for a FPN as the delay is too long - so instead of the 3 pts and £60 fine she will get 3 points and a couple of hundred quid

it will be done by post

years ago I got done for speeding at a speed too high for a FPN. I got 3 points and a couple of hundred fine

Round here red means next two cars/hgvs still go at a lot of junctions

Manchester? Friends who moved here from elsewhere got to calling red ‘manchester green’. I’m now fairly cautious about setting off on green at some junctions.

I'm in sensible law abiding home counties Surrey and I've slowed for a light that was changing onto amber to have 2 cars pull out from behind and overtake to jump the red light.

It's on a narrow bridge where there is a delay between both sides going, but even so

"Manchester green."

Crossroads by the Hilton tower anyone?

She probably just needs to go and plead guilty, no contest or excuse making, make it clear she’s sorry…

Unless there is something truly exceptional about the case she won't need to "go" if she pleads guilty. It will be dealt with via the "Single Justice Procedure" - which is a paperwork based process. Sometimes people try to write explanations on the pleading guilty form which they think makes their case seem less serious / more acceptable but actually make things worse; or fail to fill in part of the form; or whilst ticking the guilty box write something that sounds like they are denying it (or claiming some sort of special reason). Those people are often made to come to court to explain in person better than they manage on paper! The other time people plead guilty and are made to appear is if disqualification is a consideration - unless we are missing something here that shouldn't be the case.

The court may then choose to bollock whoever brought the case in front of them (wasting time and money) rather than using FPN for it’s intended purpose.

Courts don't bollock prosecutors for bringing cases - its what the court exists for; its the police/CPS prerogative to decide if/when to offer a fixed penalty. With a guilty plea under the single justice procedure in England I don't think the magistrate even sees a prosecutor. They may reflect it in sentencing / awarding costs, but with the single justice procedure it would be difficult to justify not following guidelines without adding the cost/time of allowing parties to be heard which would undermine such an argument.

What wobbliscott says – its not valid for a FPN as the delay is too long – so instead of the 3 pts and £60 fine she will get 3 points and a couple of hundred quid

TJ - you are showing your age - FPN's haven't been £60 since 2013!

Get her to tell the judge that she had to accelerate through lights to avoid another vehicle.

I'm pretty sure the only time I got nobbled was because there was an ambulance right behind me in that there London, took the 3pts on the chin but always wondered if they'd have taken that into consideration had i been able to get the evidence.

always easiest to prepare to stop for red lights when the amber comes on

Amber means stop unless you have all ready crossed the stop line.

EDIT going the other way red & amber show together.

Always plead guilty by post if you are going to plead guilty. You will then get the default fine/points. If you turn up in person you will either get the same or the magistrate will decide they don't like you and give you a worse penalty.

You will only get a same or worse penalty, never a better one, by appearing in person.

always wondered if they’d have taken that into consideration had i been able to get the evidence.

Nope. Reason being that it's nearly always more dangerous for you as an untrained driver to go through the red light than it is for the emergency vehicle to find a way around or overtake you. Speaking pragmatically if there's no camera on the lights and I judged it was safe I'd go through slowly and just enough that they could get past. If there's a camera I'd just wait.

Though I did once watch a fire engine use their vehicle to literally push a car ahead of them through a camera-enforced red light and wondered what became of the ticket afterward.

Amber means stop unless you have all ready crossed the stop line.

... if it is safe to do so. That's the point of amber, you're not expected stand the car on its nose. The amber light should give you sufficient to time to either pass or stop depending how close you are when it changes.

EDIT going the other way red & amber show together.

... which does means stop. You're not supposed to cross the line until it actually goes green.

If you turn up in person you will either get the same or the magistrate will decide they don’t like you and give you a worse penalty.

Is that actually the case?

I used to know a JP and I learned a bit about the process from him. He told me there's a standard base penalty for everything (well, everything common), IIRC this is usually advised by the Clerk, and if they want to increase that then they have to justify it. They don't / can't just add on fines because they don't like your haircut.

Though, that was probably 15-20 years ago so... /shrug

[i]Is that actually the case?[/i]

You are right that there are standard tariffs and if guilty then you will get whatever is on the card.

You are right that they shouldn't get upset if you turn up to court in full lycra, sweating profusely and swearing about some tosser in a Range Rover who nearly ran you off the road and then point at the magistrate and identify him in court as the culprit but it can affect their judgement for things like fines where they might have a range of £100 - £200

Also you might accidently confess to other crimes by mistake - I admit I was speeding but I wasn't drinking, I never drink when I am high on cocaine you honour - which apparently does happen and then you get charged again and ...

Reason being that it’s nearly always more dangerous for you as an untrained driver to go through the red light than it is for the emergency vehicle to find a way around or overtake you.

I saw an incident once where a police car with blues and twos on was trying to get through a junction across a dual carriageway which was traffic light controlled. It was one of those funny feeder lanes across the central reservation and there was no way it could get round the car in front which was stopped at a red light.

Despite the police frantically gesticulating at the driver to move forward so they could get passed she kept pointing at the red light and resolutely refused to move.

So, could they have done her for obstructing the police given they had given her an explicit instruction to move or was she right to refuse given the clear red light?

... but that behaviour is then justifiable, no? They can't just double the fine because, say, you're Asian, but they probably can if you say you're glad you did it and call the judge a ****. Contempt of court, lack of remorse?

It was an extreme example. Also, when more intelligent people want to be racist or any other ist, they tend to be more subtle. The fine is higher because of your respected role in the community and you should have lead by example. I must not be seen to be unduly lenient simply because of your background so I therefor...

Which ever way you cut it, if you are not there then it can't happen so best not be there. Just what I was advised by a solicitor when dealing with a traffic conviction about 15 years ago.

Can you think of any advantages to being there?

Can you think of any advantages to being there?

... is a good point. An interesting day out? (-:

I had a summons forever ago, which I've spoken about before and isn't directly relevant here. I did a written guilty plea in absence because the notion of turning up in person terrified me. I explained what I thought were mitigating circumstances and came away with points and a fine. In hindsight they probably just glanced at it, rubber-stamped it and moved on to the next.

I've often wondered whether if it'd have gone differently if I'd turned up but as you say, if it had then it probably wouldn't have been in my favour. They're unlikely to adjust down from the base penalty (are they even able to?), "guilty" is binary. As Bill Engvall almost said, "here's your fine."

Danny as I understand it breaking the rules to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle is no defence. In most cases the driver of the emergency vehicle wants you to get out of the way in a safe controlled way so they can predict what you are going to do. Hammering on the brakes or swapping lanes randomly isn't helpful. Also got to remember if an emergency vehicle goes through a red light they are culpable if there is an accident. So despite the police articulating I reckon the woman you saw probably did the right thing in staying put.

Thanks for the further info and discussion guys!

I've told her in summary that:

Its likely to be handled via paper without going to court.

Show compete contrition in anything she sends off, if there is an option to state/ "say" anything.

Likely outcome is 3 points and around £300 fine (going by poly's info above.)

Added note of admitting the guilt,sorry for wasting courts time etc etc, it was a complete oversight, attention lapsed for a split second, NEVER going to happen again, etc etc, and hope the court accepts it all, issues the requisite points, under a hundred fine, some costs. and that would be that.

So, could they have done her for obstructing the police given they had given her an explicit instruction to move or was she right to refuse given the clear red light?

No they couldn’t “do” her.

In the event you can’t filter through traffic, or get past a vehicle at a junction, traffic lights etc. A standard (blues & twos, response trained) Emergency services driver is trained to turn off the sirens, and possibly even blue lights depending on circumstances and wait until they can get past. For example, would the same driver weave past a level crossing because he or she has blues displayed?

Once the other driver can safely move out the way then they would switch blue and twos back on and continue. No emergency warrants putting someone else’s life in danger. Police trained drivers are paid to manage risk, but they’re not paid to displace that risk into someone else. Their standard of driving, with only few exemptions such as speed, red lights & keep left bollards, is judged to the exact same standard as any other road user. To barge/bully another driver into a live lane would be considered inconsiderate at best, but could also be judged dangerous. It would also breach numerous force policies and the policing code of ethics.

With regard to the red light offence - this is an absolute offence; there is no defence to it - you either do it or don’t. It’s also a specific offence intended to deal with the exact circumstances you describe. To then charge someone with a further offence would be seen as having two bites of the cherry and would likely be a breach of process. However, a magistrate may decide that the time length somehow aggravated the original offence and apply a higher penalty. In my experience the red light offence would stand.

Many years ago a friend was driving through the Clyde tunnel in the north of Glasgow, tow lanes, no changing lanes, he was in the outside lane, a police car with sirens and blue lights approached from behind very fast, rather than change lanes he sped up to get out the tunnel and let them pass, and they nicked him for speeding.

I suspect they suspected him of about to go tearing through the tunnel and couldn't believe their luck when he bolted, I thought it was hilarious at the time but he didn't.

I did 50 or so in a 40 limit just after lockdown, I was picking up a bike in York, never heard of a 40mph limit before so did 50..thinking I was being good sticking to the limit...offered a speed awareness course which was done online, conviction vanished when it was done, surprisingly informative.

Added note of admitting the guilt,sorry for wasting courts time etc etc, it was a complete oversight, attention lapsed for a split second, NEVER going to happen again, etc etc, and hope the court accepts it all, issues the requisite points, under a hundred fine, some costs. and that would be that.

Really I wouldn't bother... its difficult to write anything that sounds sincere. It is perhaps slightly easier to look genuinely terrified in person (or to seem totally nonchalant!). Nothing written above is mitigation so other than *possibly* being considered remorse would not reduce a fine. In general, remorse seems to be presumed unless you do something to call it into question.

@cougar - yes "they" can deviate from the guidelines (downwards or upwards!) if there is a justification. They are only guidelines, however, they need to be prepared to state that reason in court and therefore face the prospect of the other side appealing if the reason is not considered just. I think WCA has a somewhat simplistic outlook; his advice is probably true in some cases whilst in others, it may be less valid. There's no doubt at the moment that the aim is to reduce footfall in the courts so it will be appreciated if you aren't turning up to make lame excuses! Its unlikely you'd have come off much better appearing in person, but also unlikely you'd have come off much worse either. Given appearing often involves sitting around a courtroom for several hours waiting for other cases to call before yours, unless you value your time little or would genuinely find everyone else's misdemeanours fascinating you probably are "better off".

@dannybgoode - very unlikely that they would get a conviction for obstructing police if you don't cross the stop line at a red light when they sit behind with blues and twos.