[wtjs]

Start the New Year with a New Career! Join Lancashire TacOps’ OpSnap Lancs (HQ Operations, Safer Roads unit) ace image analysts, but first we have to see if you’re up to the job. Study the following image carefully and declare your opinion on this statement:

it cannot be accurately established at what phase the traffic lights are at as the front wheels hit the stop line

True(T) or False(F)?

Topic

[Hirsute]

How to lose the good will of
How to lose the good will of your audience.

[Oldfatgit]

The above post just makes you
The above post just makes you look like a spoiled brat, throwing their toys out of the pram because they are not agreeing with you.

Nice conflagration … Flat earthers, moon landing sceptics, anti-vaxxers … All have nothing to do with still images that do not prove *beyond reasonable doubt* that this car jumped the lights.

[AlsoSomniloquism]

You do realise the difference

You do realise the difference between single images AND moving video don’t you. You have posted single images (every time you post something it is a single image) and then telling us we can’t interpret the video properly. All most people are stating is that a singular picture does not show motion. 

[wtjs]

Little did I realise, when I
Little did I realise, when I initiated this light-hearted New Year topic, that so much nonsense would be written by so few with such over-inflated views of their own image analysis capabilities- there is indeed a job for you at hopelessly inept OpSnap Lancs.This is Jaguar XK-something EW14 VJW crossing the stop line about 1/3 of a second after the lights turned red and 3 1/3 seconds after they turned amber. They’re not going to sue me for libel because they’re guilty. Anyone who has submitted a complaint to the police in the last few years knows that nothing happens without an indisputable video, and mostly nothing happens with an indisputable video, which is indeed what Lancashire Constabulary has. There are many sceptics around- we have anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, people who assert the moon landings were faked- and they’re all as wrong as people who claim that the incidents I put on here require some sort of judging by participants. They don’t- they’re all exactly what I say they are. You can ignore the topics, you can say you don’t believe the offences etc just as anti-vaxxers can say that vaccines are more dangerous than Covid. However, inept image analysis remains inept.

[Oldfatgit]

“.. but as it’s of no
“.. but as it’s of no interest to me whether people on here ‘endorse’ the proof of obvious red light offences, ..”

Why ask then?

[Oldfatgit]

Based on how the images have

Based on how the images have been presented within this thread:

Image 1 (Test Image)
Due to the angle of the camera, it appears that the vehicle has stopped prior to the stop line. There is nothing in the image to convince a viewer that the vehicle is moving. The angle of the camera prohibit any motion blur that is likely to be evident on the wheels that would indicate movement.
Image 2 (vehicle in the ASL)
While the image shows that the vehicle has crossed the first stop line, again, it appears that the vehicle has not crossed the second stop line; and again, there is nothing to indicate that the vehicle is moving.
Image 3 (8 legger approaching the lights)
I am assuming that the target is the silver car as certainly the truck appears to have been doing nothing wrong.
There is nothing to say that the silver car passed through the lights on anything other than green.

As the images have been released as single images in different comments within the thread, and 2 out of the 3 images not even having a DTG stamp, there is nothing to link the 3 images together.

As a means of proving the silver car did indeed jump the lights, the images need to be as either a complete stills film strip, or as a video.

To the uninvolved viewer, the only thing that these stills prove is that in Image 2, the silver vehicle was stopped in the ASL box. The image clearly shows that the vehicle is stopped as there is no motion blur to indicate otherwise.

Unless you have presented this occurance as a moving video or as a complete stills filmstrip, I am not supprised that the Poice no further action was considered as in isolation, only image 2 shows a potetial offence, but even then it still shows compliance with Rule 178.

[Anonymous]

Correct on all counts.

Correct on all counts. Oldfatgit wins the internet!

[wycombewheeler]

ktache wrote:

ktache wrote:

One thing I don’t see is brake lights on that Audi.

If the car is stationary at the lights, there would be none as the hand brake should be on.
Obviously if the car is not stopping then there would be none either. Only if the car had tried to stop and failed.

[GMBasix]

wycombewheeler wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

I never even realised the wheels were the threshold. That should come as a comfort to pedestrians hit by the actual front of the car, etc.

yes its the wheels crossing that count, but if the wheel stop behind the line, anyone crossing the road should not be hit, the distance between wheels and bumper is quite small.

The offence is committed if the vehicle proceeds over the line when the signal is anything but green.  

Rule 175 says “You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green.”

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, reg 36(1)(a),  says, “…the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line”

There is no provision for part of the vehicle, such as the part between the front wheel and the tip of the bumper, to be excepted from this regulation.  Online legal web sites consistently refer to this as applying to any part of the vehicle.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that no part of the vehicle may be over the line once stopped, just that the movement that got it there must not have happened on red (or amber if the car could have stopped safely).

[ktache]

One thing I don’t see is

One thing I don’t see is brake lights on that Audi.

[wtjs]

The only point of my topics
The only point of my topics on here is to demonstrate how bent the police are, and how all these people claiming they have achieved ‘action’ from the police have generally only achieved ‘words of advice’ or the joke online driving course. That’s why there are so many hundreds of NMoTDs! I am showing how the police even try to dodge out of unequivocal offences such as red light passing, never mind the offences the bent forces claim don’t exist like close-passing. The ‘new’ Highway Code will make no difference at all. If the site managers allowed us to put videos on at will, I would do it, but as it’s of no interest to me whether people on here ‘endorse’ the proof of obvious red light offences, I’ll save my YouTube videos until I inaugurate my Bad Cops: The Preston Connection channel.

[Hirsute]

None of wtjs videos are
None of wtjs videos are viewable !
(That’s part II of the test)

[hawkinspeter]

I can only see some static

I can only see some static photos as well.

Wtjs – can you upload the videos to YouTube (or video hosting site of your choice) and then post a link to them. That’d be the easiest way for us to see them.

[Mungecrundle]

Umm, I don’t have a video to
Umm, I don’t have a video to reference, you only posted a single static image.

I understand your frustrations with Lancs Police, but even though you know what you saw and that an offence was definitely commited, maybe you need to take a step back and think about the perspective from someone without your first hand witness experience.

[wtjs]

It seems you have exactly the

It seems you have exactly the aptitude Lancashire Constabulary is looking for! An ability to deny the facts while you have the indisputable video in front of you

[Author]

Replies