Shawn,

You are a victim of a legal "principle" known as "strict liability", which means that even if your illegal act was unintentional, you're still regarded as guilty. The stupidity of applying such a principle in an environment as complex as the road one beggars belief, in my opinion, and it is utterly amazing to hear that the lights cannot be seen in the photograph which is being used against you. However, it is not unusual. I have had the same problem with red light cameras at a level crossing in my area - and I have been fighting it for nearly 12 years now.

The court will know nothing about the perceptual difficulties that have led to your situation - its advice is worthless. It is very unlikely that there will be anything wrong with the lights - in your case, it probably is the low sun that is causing the problem.
So-called safety cameras are a disgrace to this country - as is the use of photographic "evidence". They both obstruct progress towards safer roads, cameras because ignorant people think that prosecution solves problems, whereas it merely stops us asking "Why did the driver do what he did?" and photographs, because they tell us nothing about what the driver has or has not seen and they will almost certainly provide only the most distorted view of the circumstances, anyway.

You need to make your concerns clear to your MP and, perhaps, enlist the help of an academic working in the field of the psychology of perception. The RAC really ought to be able to help, as it does have some of the right connections.

A useful web-site is http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...accidents.html

I am afraid that our blame culture is not making us safer - and our judicial system is not helping matters. Simply making rules and exacting penalties is not sufficient - but there's lots of money to be made out of it.

Best of luck,

Andrew.