I thought I went through what I thought was an amber light, two in a car chased me and said they were waiting in the right filter and see me go through red.
There was also a gatso there and I said I knew it was there so would have stopped if it was red, but they changed to amber when I was too close and the road was wet.
I tried to dispute it and was told to shut up or be done for due care and attention AS WELL.
I even looked in the mirror for the flash as I crossed and could even see the opposite carriage way still on amber.
I was not speeding 50mph limit,yet they replied I should have slowed down ANYWAY just in case the lights changed, and then told the camera dont work, and that everyone knows that round here.
I went home fuming with a fine and points.
I returned next day and after watching people go through red, It was true camera did not work.
If it had it may have PROVED my innocence.
My view is the amber to red time should be at least the time to stop safely at the max speed of the road with the lights on.
If it is not surely in court someone could prove mathematically that there would then be a minimum distance from the lights where driving at the legal road speed, this point once passed, if the light changed to amber, it would not physically be able to safely stop before the red shows.
Perhaps by timing the lights amber to red and using the highway code stopping distances, that distance can be calculated.
If someone could then prove it, I wonder where they would legally stand.
This same formula could be reversed to work out the length of amber needed to safely stop
Another time I prepared to take a traffic light case to court, they then said I had to get proper detailed scaled and measured plans of the busy junction.
This alone was in excess of £200 so I reluctantly gave up