He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video.
Erm, you are very wrong. OK, the cop doesn't need a 2nd person to corroborate his own evidence, and nor does he need video evidence either. However, because the cop did state that the alleged offence was recorded on video, and that that video offence would be used in any court proceedings, then to withhold, when formally requested (and a verbal/oral roadside request is classed as a formal request) ANY evidence is in clear breach of PACE, because it is deemed an obstical to natural justice. So therefore, any legal proceedings where where refusal to supply evidence is rightfully claimed can be ordered to be thrown out by a Magistrate.
Some Cops really do need to appreciate that they are not above the law.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
I agree with the Highway Code meaning for an amber traffic signal. Basically, amber means "STOP, only if it is safe to do so". So whilst you are correct to advise caution about potentially stiching yourself up for speeding. However, and this is a big HOWEVER - the "STOP, only if it is safe to do so" applies to all other road users who may be affected by your own actions. For example, if a car was tailgating you, or a car was approaching from the rear and you had real and genuine concerns that you would get whacked up the rear, then to stop on amber would be clearly unsafe, and it would therefore be lawful to go through an amber light. And this "safe/unsafe" dilemma is NOT formed by other road users - it has to be formed by the driver of the car in question.
Finally, all these traffic signal offences are ONLY valid for when the car actually and physically crosses the Stop Line. So in this instance, even if the video still proves you crossed the stop line during amber, but the lights changed to red before you had cleared the other side of the junction, then irrespective of all the above PACE advice, you can ask for the case to be dropped on the grounds that the cop is an unreliable witness (ie, the cop lied because he stated "crossed a red", when it was actually amber).
HTH
If you think I am wrong about the video being shown then fine.
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong in the video issue. Whilst cops, particularly traffic cops or those from 'road policing units' are generally always spot on with the Road Traffic Act, and the various other traffic laws, I think you will find that not all cops are proficient with PACE. Afterall, how often do you find that a cop (for whatever kind of offence, be it traffic, drugs, sexuall or whatever) will do his job to the best of his abilities, then send the file off to the CPS. Then subsequently, the CPS take NFA because of some 'procedural error', or it goes to Court and gets thrown out on some kind of 'technicality' - which can include non-disclosure.
Going back to the OP, if he was clearly advised that his alleged offence was recorded on video, and was then refused access to that 'evidence', then that IS non-disclosure, and is prejudical to natural justice. If, on the other hand, the OP was NOT advised at the scene that the alleged offence was recoded on video, and/or the OP didn't actually ask to view any such video evidence, then there has been NO withholding of evidence, and the case can be progressed through the normal channels.
I am not going to get into an argument about evidence and the rules of disclosure for motoring matters. The driver needs to get legal advice if they feel that something is wrong and go 'not guilty'.
I fully agree. But I also think it is important to look at the wider picture too.
FWIW I do have quite a bit of knowledge in this area .... over 18 years worth. I am more than happy what I say is correct in relation to a stop at the roadside for viewing a video - after that yes it can be different ......
I'm not doubting that there can be different scenarios, which can all lead to different ways of case progression.
As for the amber light - yes, we can speculate about different circumstances but I am not going to as they weren't mentioned in the original post.
Agreed again. However, what is NOT clear to the average 'joe-public' is that a red or amber light has a very definate and specified point of measurement - ie, the exact time the target vehicle crosses the white stop line. But I would find it very difficult to believe that the occasional unscrupolous <sp?> cop hasn't tried to push his luck, especially if they think the motorist in question was clueless about the finite detail of the alleged offence. And what about if the cop had actually made a genuine mistake? We are all human, and we all fcuk up from time to time, weather we like to admit it or not. Maybe in the OPs case, the cop was genuinely mistaken, and thought he HAD crossed a red, but on reviewing the video evidence, the tape actually showed the car crossed on amber, but very shortly aferwards, changed to red. I'm sure you can accept the 'devil is in the detail'.
Anyhow, I'm not here to slag of cops in any way (and I apologise if my previous post appeared that way
). The vast majority do an honest and decent job, and get very little, if any praise for their hard work. So to all the cops out there, and all our other chaps and chapesses from all the other emergency services - I'd like offer my thoughts of appreciation and thanks, and to encourage you all to stay safe, and be proud of your uniforms.
