MACCLESFIELD Silk Road/Mill Lane fixed RED LIGHT CAMERA.

re-posted

I few examples of multi lane fixed cameras where the measurement markings are all starting at different distances.

*including the traffipax camera that is of the same type used at Macclesfield Mill Lane/Silk road.
which is three lanes wide.. then down to two... and i question the ability of the camera there to give correct accurate speed measurement from one single line across the road.









i obviously need to read the installation manual for the traffipax... but every single traffic light camera has completely different distance set up, so its very difficult to know the radar areas exactly, taking into account that its difficult enough to get the simple laser video from them, or CCTV from Cheshire East council, let alone the installation data for every traffic light camera to compare set ups.

Further request to Cheshire East council for CCTV footage. These councils & police collaborate to be as un-cooperative as possible to mankind.

There are Human Rights act issues with the way the Crown prosecution service are treating drivers in traffic light offences from different parts of the UK. Under the same code of practice and policy code of conduct.

If it is true that drivers in Dorset are not being prosecuted for times of under 1 second into red, because of legitimate law and rationale that the vehicle would be still close to the line within that time... then that should be applied everywhere. And drivers should not need to defend themselves and should not be being sent legaly abusive N.I.P. letters that in all respects treat people as guilty before being proven innocent, with forcefull and unreasonable communications, using fear and threat to order people to submit to their will and pay money and take abusive insults onto their driving licences without even being shown any real full evidence. The entire franchise is completely and unquestionably terrorist and illegal perversion of the course of justice.

This legislation is Poet lauriette and Scarlet pimpernell rubbish anyway. An intended contradiction. It itself is giving options for both prosecution and defence, just like the Police car speed limit rule... And as the Poluce always go with - on their part the defensive side of the argument on that.. them why is the Amber light not always used on the defensive side of the driver? like the Dorset police time of 1 second which covers the Amber phase time being near the line, right up until the last second. And what record is there at all of the traffic light timing anyway?





Why are they using the Camera sign with the traffic light sign, two pedestrian crossings before the fixed taffic light camera set?
It is a contradiction. The pedestrian crossings are not going to be at red much, thus no queing traffic. Fair enough, the Silk road set has a straight line view approach, but loads of other traffic lights do as well that use the sign! Also the lights are rigged so that you drive all the way towards them (if its a clear run) and they annoyingly change just as you get to them... afr all that way.. which makes you change speed when you have made a momentum and intent to get through them AT GREEN, as you are driving towards them... and THAT would constitute for at AMBER being made to alter or change your speed. Because it has been set up to fish for you to have a run at them... and if not, at all other times there is standing traffic! Plus the big sign board for the FORK in the road.. Psrk Green and Silk road.. which to the right hand side position is a distration just at the right time on approach as well.

And with the left filter give way flowing cars so fast... it itself merits some kind of warning to drivers because it is an influential aspect of the road feature.




The other pedestrian crossings, i believe entirely placed and set-up for purpose to enable the "traffic light" set up ahead for the fixed camera trap.. so that the entire section of road is part of the plan. And as they did place the camera sign back at the first crossing.. it is obviously within the area of question. and 150 meters is incorrect, it should be 85meters.. and there is, as i said little queing at a push button crossing compared to the actual red light camera lights.



Any right thinking person concerned with road safety, would choose to place these signs 100-85 meters before the actual enforced traffic lights themselves. Every time without question as adequate warning. No question about it. Not place them together 2 sets of crossings before the enforced camera set.. and there should be a sign for each set because after one set you are going to be accelerating away... Plus why even is the camera sign there?! when for example in Hazel Grove there are multiple sets of pedestrian crossings with no signs at all, and its buisier there and more people and traffic.




the fact anyway is this.... that the Crown prosecution service themselves publish the threshold allowances for speed. On their own website. And if Dorset police are publishing a 1 second threshold for RED light cameras... and it is in the search results online for traffic light offence information... Then as UK fair legislation and code of Practice.. it would be misleading and CAUSING DRIVERS to believe that this would be the case for all RED light cameras in the UK, and it would (AS IT DID WITH ME AFTER READING THAT INFORMATION) cause me to believe that i was good to continue through an Amber light, when close and at steady speed, without fear of prosecution.

And there is no evidence to suggest that I was over 1 second into red. And if those figures are not correct.. then they are nothing but misleading..

And CPS Cheshire has no option under human rights but to withdraw charges of times under 1 second into red. And also why am i being charges with failure to give details of the driver when i write to both CPS Cheshire and Cheshire police on multiple occasions immediately after the N.I.P. was recieved.... I can draw up my own N.I.P. reply, as long as you give information. I gave MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION. The N.I.P. process is not the only law.. the automated system is retarded, because in law.. even a COURT ITSELF WRITES SCRIBBLES ON PAPER IN A COURT ROOM AFTER A HEARING OR SENTANCING.

ANY MARK ON PAPER IS A NOTICE AND LETTER, PRINTED OR NOT. IT IS ACCEPTABLE NOTICE THAT YOU REPLY IN LETTER TO THE TICKET OFFICE SAYING YOU WERE THE DRIVER IN COMMENT, WITHOUT EVEN FILLING IN THE N.I.P. YOU HAVE GIVEN DETAILS. FURNISHED AND GIVEN STATEMENT.

I have done some more times from the Macclesfield video.. of the Land rover and Occado van, with a different, more accurate online calculator.. Also we dont know the radar detection set up of this custom insall, and if there is the "bike lane" section included in the detection zone like with the other cameras and a further back stop line.

This one reckons the Land rover speed at about 12.7mph and the Occado van at about 28.7 mph apparently around the speed i was driving at. But the Occado van seems to cover a lot more distance between the 0.7 seconds and 1.3 seconds than i am doing in the Police camera photos.. so.. i am going to have to go back there and draw some better markings, get a better view and do the timing again.. so i can in fact do a really accurate pre-stop line reverse calculation for 0.7 seconds...

See if these work out any better than the previous calculator.. although if the police camera IS really accurate then it might need every half meter measuring out as well.. or feet instead. But i am confident that i was at least upto or over the stop line when the light was not red... but unless i get the CCTV video from the council.. it will be impossible to prove the colour of the light before the vehicle is in their first photo. And there is NO evidence at all of thetraffic light timing on the day of the event. No matter how many police camera film changing demos you do or calibration.. it is a pratt standing with a metal dummy case saying this and that. Like Keith & orville. And as Police officers go with measurements... I know from fact that their tyre measurements are LIES. And i know i AM being prosecuted illegally by very sinister and dangerous people in positions of power and authority serving legal abuse against me.

Land rover 12mph?







Occado 27mph?

07 March 2016


Doncaster Traffic light example exactly like what happened at Macclesfield


(note that the van to the right beside me, sets off from the lights a lot faster & quicker than me as well! in fact he is off and away! and that is the only reason why the time between these lights stopping and the other cars setting off from the right, looks close. They are very eager to set off.)

Doncaster Example of my traffic light event at Macclesfield in slow motion




The Imperial van is in position and at a speed to best continue through the traffic lights, but also the car on the outside lane is carrying the imperial van through the lights as well because they are travelling together. This effect would also be similar and comparable to the left hand give way lane in Macclesfield at the Silk road traffic lights. On this Doncaster occasion in this video, i am in a position slightly back from the imperial van and slightly slower.. so i stop ..just naturally, but if i had been the imperial van, i would most likely have continued through as well. The 1 second prosecution threshold that Dorset police publish on their website gives account for this effect so that times between 0 and 1 second into red are not required to be argued. Thus any instance of a vehicle being anywhere close to the stop line itself through the amber phase until it reaches the line are not contested or required to be defended. So if you are upon the line itself (or bike lane box area if painted) is not an offence up until after 1 second of RED light.



This IS correct and in line with the legislation. That if you are at a speed and position of approach during amber, you are to treat amber as GREEN and continue through. Obviously over 1 second of RED light time would completely remove that possibility from the situation, by virtue of distance. This saves a great deal of un required court and CPS time and defence expences to the public. Where any time under 1 second (0.7) seconds can only locate the vehicle AT or VERY close to the stop line at Zero time and during amber phase. This is assisted by the vehicle speed .. example 27mph so that an exact position at Amber and zero red time can be worked out. But the road measurements should really be provided with the device fixed camera so that can be measured actually on the police device photos. a driver should not have to go and draw their own lines on the road themselves.

The only thing here, is that i didnt have a stopwatch to show the exact timing. Or road markings to work out the distances.

The main evidence is the video at normal speed to give example of the type of event, the flow, the reaction speed, how different people react and how other vehicles carry and effect you. The legislation AND the Dorset 1 second time would remove any doubt from the case against me by Cheshire police. So the question is.. why do they want to prosecute me? Or anyone else?

Here are the photos.... you will see that the Imperial Van gets EXACTLY to the Stop line just as the amber fades before switching to RED. and the time and position at 0 TIME into RED is ZERO distance over the line, so that 0.1 second into RED the imperial van has crossed the line. This also shows the CAR in the right hand outside lane going through slightly earlier than the Imperial van. Which i think does cause the driver of the imperial to continue through as well. If i had been going a few MPH faster and if i had been a little closer, i would have gone through as well.. but on this occasion, i subconsciously decided to brake & stopped.

As i have said.. the LEFT filter give way lane at the Silk Road traffic lights, Macclesfield does have cars passing alongside other cars in the other 2 lanes, and that effect WOULD subconsciously carry to drivers approaching the traffic light lanes as well... especially if they have driven all the way towards the traffic lights and then they went to Amber, it would have been a wasted distance to keep speed all that way to have to stop... Thus with the Macclesfield lights... A decision is usually made a lot earlier on if you are going to go through the lights... and as they are at GREEN.. these is nothing wrong in that at all.... as someone unfamiliar with the AREA you do not have a feel for this set of lights, its timing, or the changing patters and phases. Thus continuing through at Amber, after you have decided earlier that you have time to get through before they change is not anything bad or wrong. You have to make a decision. In fact a lot of it is subconscious.

Green light final illumination...



Orange light first illumination Zero seconds orange....



This frame shows the Oranbge light has FADED OUT!? but come BACK on stronger!? this can "reset" the brain reaction to think orange reset time again! to 0 orange!



See! Orange brighter again! its better to burn out than to fade away?! i hope no-one has epileptic fits from the strobe effect!?



About 1-2 meters before the stop line at orange. (freeze photo does NOT convey the speed/distance/motion at all or the event)




HERE! look at THIS! COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POSITION! LOOK AT THE OTHER TRAFFIC LIGHT BEHIOND THE VAN! BUT THE *FRONT* APPEARS TO BE IN A VERY VERY SIMILAR POSITION/DISTANCE! this is the DEPTH OF FIELD/DISTANCE TRICK! from the BAD DESIGN ANGLE OF THE CAMERA POSITION! DESIGNED FOR PROSECUTION NOT DEFENCE! it is NOT AN ACCURATE ANGLE TO SHOW THE TRUTH AND PHYSICAL REALITY OF DISTANCES! (corruption, malicious design - man ape machines)



This next frame is in the first illumination of RED... we are talking 0 ZERO into red or 0.1 or 0.2 into red... (we will watch with the timer ... bear with me on this...



THIS IS THE PHOTO!! SAME POSITION APPROXIMATELY AS THE FIRST MACCLESFIELD PHOTO! And it IS (About) 0.7 seconds-ish! so this video IS an accurate example.. in fact i covered less distance as this is faster than 27mph... so i would have been even closer to the stop line and not go as far after for the 1.3 second photo, as i would in total covered less distance! so both start and end point both drawn in closer to the line! This is the perfect position to calculate 0.7 seconds from in REVERSE.. back to the line.



Here we are just clear of the line.. whole vehicle is over it, but not yet gone as far as the 2nd Macclesfield camera photograph.



THIS IS IT! CLOSE POSITION to the 2nd Macclesfield photo! in fact this one is slightly further.. by half a meter or so..



Here the vehicle is obstructing view of the actual traffic signal itself...



And away.... I have stopped. He went through... If i had been at the same distance and speed on that occasion by nothing other than mostly chance and odds.. i would have most likely gone through as well... and in real-time video it is nothing out of the ordinary. no red light was blanently ignored or "Ran".. it was an Amber light at circumstances that by LAW state you can treat the Amber signal as GREEN and continue, not to brake hard or suddenly.




Also, just to note... a few other things today which i am going to update in the main section Hello & Welcome thread.

today i was driving past Bradley traffic lights.. we were stopped, there were only 2 cars in front of me and the lights went to GREEN... the two cars set off and then the lights went straight back to RED again!! I am certain i wasnt imagining it! after only a couple of seconds at GREEN! I went back to film it, and then i was in the exact same position at the lights... and we all got through in one go.. the lights were green for a LOT longer!? something very strange going on with the timing!? Also it was just after i had taken a photo of a car up on a wall, abandoned!? was it an accident or had someone just driven it up onto the wall?! THEN, as i was leaving the petrol station.. a car drove past with one headlight out! but what were the lights even doing on as it was sunny?! THEN at the roundabout immediately afterwards, an Asian buisness guy had scraped the car of a White buisness guy, both well suited and smart, exchanging details!? i went back to film it, as i missed it, but it was too late!! I am convinced that it is possible for the vehicle electronics to be messed with and the indicators not flash when you use them, ad a person behind would not see your signal and if you changed lane, they would not know and could be caused to make contact/collision/scrape youe vehicle! obviously there is human reaction, which would be why it would be only a scrape and not a worse crash.. but the same goes for brake lights as well, if the brake lights did not light up when you slowed down.. they could cause an impact as well... obviously more evidence would be needed. As yet i only have my own statement to these traffic lights and others i have seen displaying out of the ordinary behaviours.. including a set on the roundabout at Warrington M56, this could be related to the sensors that detect traffic being there waiting at the lights or approaching. or other reasons, related to the control station that sets the timing.

I will write more about this in the main Hello & welcome thread with todays updates.. as i have just noticed a new lamp post has been installed and it is next to an old one that is leaning backwards! but the new one is not straight either!? and it is the first time i have noticed it.


Anyway... i need to get another 27mph video with proper measurements at Macclesfield.. but god knows why the CPS and Cheshire police are doing this to me.. as Dorset drivers do not have to put up with this legal abuse, hassle and waste of time money and the worry... and it IS against human rights and CPS code to treat drivers differently and not equal. Thus the 0.7 second time, well under 1 second and in accordance with the actual amber light legislation should be in effect and obvious enough for the CPS and police to not need to or WANT to take this to court.

I shouldnt have to have all this hassle.

And i DID write to both the CPS AND Cheshire police with Statement AND DETAILS BEFORE the time was up and thus i DID GIVE DRIVER DETAILS & FURNISH A STATEMENT, STATE I WAS THE DRIVER AND SUPPLY EVIDENCE AS WELL. So a charge of failing to give details is absoloutely unfair and in fact wrong. The CPS got my letter very quickly after the event as did the police.


Also, these new mline traffic lights without the backing border are a lot more difficult to see and have a glare. We dont need them and they are costing money. Also more difficult to see.