- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Lancashire Constabulary Crack Image Interpretation Squad Aptitude Test
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)?
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 17 min 16 sec ago
Yeah ... but remember: e.g. not speeding is (presumably still) taught to learners, then having passed the test a very high percentage leave that...
- quiff 27 min 50 sec ago
I take the point, but road.cc periodically surveys its readership on income, bike spend etc. I suspect the answers indicate there is an audience...
- leaway2 1 hour 10 min ago
£12 million for 6km, crikey.
- Miller 1 hour 20 min ago
Got to love Pogacar, always diplomatic and sensible. Not in his racing style though.
- Gd29 1 hour 29 min ago
That's true enough. But doesn't address my point that the chainset you get as a replacement will not physically fit chainrings from the chain set...
- brooksby 1 hour 59 min ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
- mitsky 2 hours 19 min ago
1) I'd love to see anyone tell an EV driver that they shouldn't be on the road or move out of the way because they pay less VED....
- wtjs 6 hours 30 min ago
Many of my fellow Tories sincerely hate bike schemes, and our friends sincerely hate these schemes, and road changes create enormous noise on...
- anotherflat 8 hours 9 min ago
Clearly a design fail for them to make these 3D printed sections too stiff....
- wtjs 8 hours 48 min ago
Norfolk Police said the woman has since been reported for driving without due care and attention. Motorists charged with the offence face a fine of...
Add new comment
36 comments
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.
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.
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
It's difficult to read rubbish like this without laughing. The only files which can be posted at will on this site are png gif jpg jpeg. YouTube is indeed the place for video and I am working up to my channel Bad Cops: The Preston Connection. The people who actually post images here, which are purely for entertainment and information and not for proof, will already be aware that these are still image formats. I can see why the site doesn't allow random video images, because topics would soon be filled with rubbish, and they don't have the resources of YouTube to cope with that. What they could do is allow people to upload and download .pdfs which could include a succession of images- I'm already making those for my own record purposes, although I don't send them to Lancashire police any more. They demand pure video without any overlay, and that's what they get
What I'm telling several people on here is that they can't even interpret the still images which I selected and cropped to make it easier for them. Anybody who is any good will be able to see why even the 3 video stills I presented are proof of the red light offence- clue: it's the white vehicles. However, for the hard-of-seeing, here's an easier one. This is Toyota IQ ML58 YFK about to go through on red
The Toyota could be doing 100mph about to crash the red light, 3 mph and about to stop at the light, or has already stopped short of the line. You have the benefit of being a first hand witness to what occured, it may be obvious to you but to the rest of us, all we have is a frozen in the moment image. I'm beginning to understand why Lancs Police might have you tagged as a serial nuisance complainer if this is what you consider incontravertable evidence.
Maybe it would help to switch seats as it were. Can you tell from the photo alone (shown below) whether the car in front is braking gently to stop at the red light, about to jump the lights or is brake checking the following vehicle in a crash for cash scam attempt?
It's difficult to read rubbish like this without laughing.
Pretty much my response when I see your E-Bike rants.
I understand you can't upload videos, however as shown further down you have posted links to external locations hosting said videos. Just don't get angry that people are stating a still image can't be used to show anything that you claim (even though we all believe you when you state what it would have shown as a video).
This video does show multiple cars deciding that red lights are not for them and also then catches that the light wasn't stuck on red. (I think the first two were looking for the changing of the other directions lights and not their own and didn't take into account the crossing light was going to come on. The rest just lemming through like on some of your videos).
Anyway, best of luck with your constant battles for Dangerous driving convictions with LP. I do admire you for that.
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.
How to lose the good will of your audience.
I know the Met won't prosecute a red light run unless it's clearly three seconds after the lights turn red, there's just too much extenuating circumstance wriggle room for lawyers with anything closer. It shouldn't be like that but that's the way it is. A prosecution for running a red by a third of a second would be almost doomed to fail I'm afraid if challenged by any halfway competent lawyer.
It's almost as though there was no amber light to act as a warning to the upcoming red...
Indeed - not saying it's right but amber means stop if safe to do so, something that can be argued as a matter of personal opinion, and running an amber is not (as far as I know) a prosecutable offence unless it can be proved to be dangerous/careless driving, e.g. accelerating hard to make the amber. So we are left with a misjudgment of a third of a second on which to build a case, no prosecutor working on "reasonable possibility of conviction" would take this on.
Wouldn't it have been so much better if LCC had explained the situation to wtjs as clearly as you. The problem, in a nutshell then, is that a good lawyer can get a motorist off almost any traffic offence in court.
Wouldn't it have been so much better if LCC had explained the situation to wtjs as clearly as you. The problem, in a nutshell then, is that a good lawyer can get a motorist off almost any traffic offence in court
Not always, unless Rendel claims that CyclingMikey or the Met is lying!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8zegSOp2s4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdw1SSnejmM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkT69jiCJCo
You're strangely aggressive in all this old chap, pehaps you need a nice relaxing ebike ride to chill out? Neither of those cases were tested in court, one was accepted without a court case and the other was guilty in absentia, so my point that a good lawyer could introduce sufficient doubt remains. As for saying that the Met are lying, I can only say what I heard directly from an officer, as for Cycling Mikey it was actually on one of his Twitter posts that I first heard that a substantial gap was required between red and crossing for prosecution. Furthermore in neither of the videos you've linked was there a 0.3 second gap between red and crossing which is what you're complaining about in your own example.
I know the Met won't prosecute a red light run unless it's clearly three seconds after the lights turn red
Well, we'll have to disagree on this! Let's see your evidence for this assertion- 3 seconds is a really long time at traffic lights. Even if it were true, we shouldn't be condoning dangerous lawbreaking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y28Fjp9ardU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4Ok0uDPpU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLf8LWoYM78
I'm not condoning it in the slightest, I think it's ridiculous, I'm just saying that's the way it is with the Met. I can't show you evidence I'm afraid as I was told this in the course of a telephone call with a Met officer whom I specifically asked why they weren't prosecuting what I regarded as a "slam dunk" red light jumper.
Comment withdrawn.
Can't be bothered to waste any further oxygen
I know the Met won't prosecute a red light run unless it's clearly three seconds after the lights turn red
No, I think it's my point that remains.
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.
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.
".. but as it's of no interest to me whether people on here 'endorse' the proof of obvious red light offences, .."
Why ask then?
Looking forward to 'The Preston Connection' - when do you expect to have it up and running?
(PS - come on you Lillywhites!!!)
In response to a letter from Ben Wallace MP last year, Lancashire Constabulary undertook to do better on red light offences. The 'doing better' consisted of ignoring several bad ones which I have posted on here, and the failure of Sgt. Lavin of OpSnap Lancs to reply to my detailed query on these offences convinces me of this. I then write to Ben Wallace again, asking whether he can do anything other than relay the pathetic Lancashire Constabulary lies back to me- when he says 'essentially, no' I then set up the channel on the grounds that I have no alternative
Is this one of those Heisenberg uncertainty type thingies?
No, no uncertainty here!
Rule 175
You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.
Rule 178
Advanced stop lines. ... If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area...
This is 1/3 second later, as shown by the white van in the background
I fully accept your witness statement that the car proceeded through the lights and I'm not doing a Garage on you, but the problem with the photo alone is that whilst it shows the exact position of the vehicle, nothing can be inferred about its velocity and although it has certainly entered the advanced stop area, you have covered that particular circumstance in your extract from rule 178.
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
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.
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.
None of wtjs videos are viewable !
(That's part II of the test)
One thing I don't see is brake lights on that Audi.
Pages