|
A Grimsby motorist has been fined £175 for flashing his headlights to warn motorists of the presence of a mobile enforcement camera. Seems odd to me. I would have thought that any action by any person which results in a reduction of speeding would be a GOOD thing. I know that this has been done to death before but it leads me to suppose that letting motorists speed and then catching and fining them is more seen to be more worthwhile than stopping them from speeding in the first instance. Ah - I overlooked the financial aspect!!!
|
|
I meant to look this up after reading it, something tells me that there was a Stated Case on it...
|
|
As you say done to death but if you tip someone off who is committing an offence that the police are coming round the corner you are breaking the law. Why should it be any different if the law they are breaking is exceeding the speed limit?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 4 Jan 11 at 18:20
|
|
Are you though, I do it to motorcyclists, unlike speeding that actual behaviour is not specified in statute....I reckon he was a gobby git.
|
>> As you say done to death but if you tip someone off who is committing
>> an offence that the police are coming round the corner you are breaking the law.
They might not be committing an offence. In fact you could be preventing crime.
|
>> They might not be committing an offence. In fact you could be preventing crime.
I think it is a bit of a stretch Zero. If the police were doing covert work to catch burglars in your area, and one of your neighbours told everyone that he saw in the street, when the police were and were not on duty, then he would probably mainly be telling innocent people, and maybe only be telling innocent people, but would he be doing a good thing?
|
|
One has no way of knowing whether the motorists are speeding or not! Are signs warning that there are speed cameras are around, thus making motorists comply with the limit, illegal? If I see someone about to throw a brick through a shop window and stop them from doing so I may have saved a window and prevented a crime being committed. Protects property, prevents a crime and saves hours of police and court time. Sounds like a winner all round. FT - I don't think that there is much evidence that driving bans are complied with much more than the payment of fines!
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Tue 4 Jan 11 at 18:41
|
>> If I see someone about to throw a brick through a shop window and
>> stop them from doing so I may have saved a window and prevented a crime
>> being committed. Protects property, prevents a crime and saves hours of police and court time.
>> Sounds like a winner all round.
I don't think it is a good parallel. A better example would be for you to point out to the guy about to throw the brick that the police are around, giving him the chance to throw it (or speed) when they are not around.
|
|
Its not being caught at it that deters speeding: its the points, sometimes the fine, and eventually the insurance hike. I don't want the efforts of the police to be thwarted in catching idiots.
|
|
That won't deter anybody, much, when/if they go over to training courses. Costly but no points and no insurance implications SFAIK as one has volunteered to take the course and there is no conviction involved or to report to anyone.
|
|
That's if the speeding is within whatever parameters are set: seems quite reasonable to try to educate the educable. For those outside the pale, I think the usual pain is to be inflicted. Which will be all the more drastic as the flagrancy is increased.
|
Isn't the offence "wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty" so it matters not a jot whether the oncoming vehicles are speeding or not.
|
|
Country's gorn ruddy mad.
|
|
His "duty" is to operate the speed trap/camera and note the speed of the vehicles going along the road. He is not being obstructed in that duty by people slowing down, for whatever reason. Of course, the law is sometimes thought to be an ass and this seems to one such occasion; a bit like an £80 penalty for one's wheelie bin lid not being shut - petty money raising nonsense!
|
His duty is to detect people who are speeding so that they can be dealt with (fines, points etc) to serve as a deterrent.
There is no doubt that the guy convicted was attempting to help people to avoid getting caught by the police, not just trying to get them to slow down for safety purposes.
Many may not agree with speed limits or trying to catch/deter people from speeding, which is fine, but a separate matter.
However, suggesting that someone can obstruct the police from detecting speeders, sounds pretty stupid when you replace speeders, with burglars, armed robbers or murderers.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 4 Jan 11 at 19:43
|
"His "duty" is to operate the speed trap/camera and note the speed of the vehicles going along the road. He is not being obstructed in that duty by people slowing down"
Obviously not a view shared by the magistrates. Stupid thing to do really. How did he think police would react?
|
|
Weren't the AA set up for that purpose? By the antics of the early AA Patrolmen to disguise their efforts I assume it was illegal then, and thus still is?
|
The forum's favourite newspaper has a decent report on the case:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html?ITO=1490
Seems there was an argument between this guy and the policewoman at the roadside.
Looks like he could have avoided prosecution had he shown a different attitude.
I'm not saying he should have done, just making the observation.
|
>> How did he think police would react?
You make it sound as if this isn't commen practice - I always do it whenever possiblei, making sure BiB can't see me first, of course! It's just a common courstesy - like pointing out dog crap on the pavement before some steps in it.
|
My own personal policy is not to do anything. It's none of my business if others want to speed and I'm not going to risk a fine or major delay in my journey by being stopped.
It makes no difference to me if the guy coming towards me at 10 mph over the limit gets stopped....I'll be long gone by then and I won't be losing any sleep.
Selfish ?......self-preservation !
Ted
|
I'm always wary of making signals to other motorists.
My headlamp flash aimed at the driver speeding towards me could be misinterpreted by the driver just about to emerge from a T-junction who I have yet to see.
"Drive your own" is not a bad motto.
Signals are fine when needed, but there's no need to tell the goon coming the other way he's going too fast.
|
Imagine an odd world.....
(I am sure that I have seen a similar post before so sorry for borrowing the premise!)
Walking through the town centre (in mine there are often BIB around) I spot some people wearing masks about to entre a local bank.
(Ignore for a moment the fact that I would probably get beaten up or shot.)
Being a good sort I stop and chat to them and persude the people that entering the bank would not be the best thing to do and if they do want some cash, work is often the best way of earning it.
These people head my advice and head off home. (Now I know they could still be done for consipacy but play the game for a moment.)
The BIBs were on a stake out awaiting these villans.
Could I be done for perverting the course of justice or obstuction?
I would suggest I was preventing a crime!
|
|
If you knew that the police were watching these men and your intention was to prevent them being arrested, then I would say yes, you are obstructing the police in the course of their duty. If you did not know the police were watching them then no crime has been committed.
|
I estimate the speed/type of driver coming t'other way and act accordingly, quite right though Iffy about flashing (nearly typed willy nilly..snigger) indiscriminately.
Thumbs down was and still is the old school vocational (posh word that Dave) driver's way, non pro's? look gone out at such a signal.
Lorry driver's attitude to each other has changed to such an extent that i get flash only warnings by far more car driver's and increasingly rarely by truck drivers, usually old school if at all.
|
|
I wonder what legal whizz Nick Freeman would have of this if he had been defending?
|
|
One of the more interesting aspects of this case is that the convicted driver maintains (perhaps quite honestly) that he was acting out of a sense of civic duty. His dogged determination to stick to his guns on this point clearly didn't go down well.
|
|
Quentin Wiklson is on BBC1, as I write. He says inter alia, that a similar case was thrown out by the Hight Court in 2005, on the basis that the person flashing had no way of knowing whether the people were speeding or not. It seems to me that this sort of activity is a part of the much vaunted Big Society - people being kind and considerate to each other etc.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Wed 5 Jan 11 at 08:32
|
THe CPS are completely correct and acting in accordance with their principles: ignore the seriously guilty but difficult cases and prosecute the easy to win ones which are not serious.
Why is anyone surprised?
If the CPS were judged on results, they would be all guilty.
|
‘It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation,’
If they were flashing to warn of an upcoming *hazard* (such as a slow moving farm vehicle on a narrow road) then I would agree with that statement, but since when has a speed trap become a hazard?!
Catching someone who is speeding and giving them a fine/points is surely a better way of discouraging speeding than flashing someone and letting them know so they avoid the trap, which only encourages them to carry on speeding elsewhere... It certainly doesn't encourage them to drive safely in the future (well, I suppose it does for the few minutes after they've been warned until they've passed the trap!)...
I'll admit do doing it in the past, but after watching one of those police progs a few years ago I don't now, I can't be bothered getting a telling off or worse just to prevent someone getting done who can't read their speedo and road signs...
|
I was saved in Spain by one of these philanthropists.
As usual people are telling us how virtuous and law-abiding they think they are and coming up with rationalisations to explain why they themselves wouldn't go out of their way or risk trouble to help one of these speeding criminals. Very dull.
Probably though, like me, they seldom notice speed traps aimed at the other carriageway.
|
>> As usual people are telling us how virtuous and law-abiding they think they are and
>> coming up with rationalisations to explain why they themselves wouldn't go out of their way
>> or risk trouble to help one of these speeding criminals. Very dull.
>>
>
Is that the same rationalisation as those who give a warning to all and sundry about a trap without actually knowing if that person is speeding or not? Unless the driver coming the other way was way over the limit then how would most of us know they other driver was a few miles over the limit? Answer is we wouldn't, so his argument falls flat on its face, as does yours...
Now to narrow down the discussion... If you knew that the driver coming the other way was *way* over the speed limit would you tell them by flashing them? You obviously would, AC, but me? I'd let them get their just deserts... Call me callous, but if someone deliberately breaks the limit by a large margin then I don't see any reason to try and help them not get done as its their sort who tend to cause problems for the rest of us...
Oh, and its damn all to do with being virtuous or law abiding, AC, its called self preservation...
|
>> deliberately breaks the limit by a large margin then I don't see any reason to try and help them not get done as its their sort who tend to cause problems for the rest of us...
This is really where we part company hobby. Once in a blue moon I see a driver who I think is reckless or driving dangerously fast. Even they don't 'cause problems' for me, or they never have so far.
The drivers who cause problems for me are the waddling, cud-chewing, incompetent mimsing hordes who don't even know what the speed limit is but go very slowly and get in the way just to be on the safe side.
No doubt they too would call it 'self-preservation', although I like to think that you yourself aren't one of them. Even if you don't gallop, I imagine you at a stylish canter just a couple of mph over the limit according to your speedometer.
I wonder why the Swansea drive-through thread reminded me of you?
:o}
|
>> >> deliberately breaks the limit by a large margin then I don't see any reason
>> to try and help them not get done as its their sort who tend to
>> cause problems for the rest of us...
>>
>> This is really where we part company hobby. Once in a blue moon I see
>> a driver who I think is reckless or driving dangerously fast. Even they don't 'cause
>> problems' for me, or they never have so far.
>>
Different experiences, AC... I've seen far too many of the results of drivers who feel that speed limits don't apply to them and the damage they cause when things go wrong... I don't have an issue with small breaches of the limit, I do it myself, like most other drivers... But if I see someone approaching the trap at a vastly ott speed I would see no reason to warn them!
As I said before I doubt if there are any of us who could actually tell if the car coming the other way was breaking the limit by a small (say 10% or so) margin, only those who are driving well over the limit would be noticeable... So a blanket approach like that bloke would be a waste of time for most drivers anyhow!
I like the "stylish cantering, though not sure if you can do it in a Roomster?!
BTW a link to that other thread you mentioned?
|
that other thread you mentioned?
PU's thread 'Time for a nosebag' in Non-motorinng... just teasing!
|
Just watched it! LOL!
I'll have to show it to my youngest, she works at one!
|
|
So long as most traffic policing is handled by automated, discretion free, impersonal machines I shall continue to warn motorists of "Hazards" whether they are cows on the road, giant pot-holes or speed cameras.I personally regard graffiti and gum on the pavement as having more impact on my life than someone doing 33 in a 30. However, as the problems can't/arent handled by cameras they continue unabated, despite the fact that rarely enforced legislation exists to deal with both problems. Where are the police and CPS when yoiu need them to deal with all aspects of law breaking rather exercises in selective money grubbing?
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Wed 5 Jan 11 at 10:58
|
|
Its the same speed trap that would catch those doing 60 in a 30. As for gum on the pavement, thats an urban myth. Its actually a fungus:)
|
In a (sort of) similar vein, there's the old joke about a man staggering back to his car from the pub, with a bottle of booze in his hand. The guy gets stopped by watching police as he drives off down the road. His occupation transpires to be "professional decoy" (groan).
Assuming (just for curiosity) that such an event took place, could the man be charged with 'obstructing the police'?
|
Knowledge of the siting of speed traps is often already in the public domain, published by the police themselves in the local paper. Mr Loophole could make a good case I'd have thought.
But basically I don't care. I'm happy for others to make contributions to the voluntary speed trap tax.
|
"A judge has slammed police after a superintendent caught speeding at nearly 30mph over the limit was let off by a PC.
Helen Chamberlain was caught with a speed gun driving her Audi at 79mph in a 50mph zone but given a verbal warning."
Well that's a result on the level playing fields of law enforcement!
PS she was subsequently prosecuted - 6 points and £1500 fine!
|
|
Its as well that unfortunate bloke didn't warn her, or she'd still be at liberty to take liberties.
|
|
The Grimsby man was done because he admitted to warning other drivers of the speed trap. Had he maintained that he was flashing his lights to alert other drivers of his presence as stated in the Highway code it would be difficult to see how the CPS would have got a conviction.
|
Sounds like a typically petty minded plod getting huffed because someone dared question their 'authority'.
|
>> If they were flashing to warn of an upcoming *hazard* (such as a slow moving
>> farm vehicle on a narrow road) then I would agree with that statement, but since
>> when has a speed trap become a hazard?!
When people see it at the last second, and hit the brakes hard.
This can, and has caused multiple vehicle accidents, as the cars further back have to brake harder due to reaction time..... ie 1st car brakes, 2nd car brakes 0.25secs later, 8 cars back the overall reaction time is 2 seconds....
BANG.....BANG.....BANG.....
Last edited by: swiss tony on Wed 5 Jan 11 at 18:59
|
|
So in addition to breaking the limit they've all been tailgating? Which means that it's all their own fault. Not that I've actually heard that such scenarios are real or significant in the toll of injuries.
|
Why did the police conclude flashing of light was to warn others about speed trap?
Somone might touch the stalk accidentally. IIRC Highway Code says one flashes light to warn others about his/her presence on road.
Surely someone has targets to catch motorists. Otherwise it would not justify sitting all day long with a camera van.
Even though govt. is trying to make us belive speeding is a crime, it is not in most of the cases.
|
"Somone might touch the stalk accidentally."
I used to do that frequently on my last car. The cruise stalk was just below the headlamp stalk so when pulling back the cruise stalk to cancel it I'd sometimes accidently flash the lights. And since I'd always be cancelling the cruise as I was approaching coppers with radar guns, I quite often ended up flashing them.
|
...Why did the police conclude flashing of light was to warn others about speed trap?...
Reading between the lines, the guy was quite militant with the policewoman who stopped him.
In other words, he deliberately dropped himself in it.
His remarks after the case suggest this has become a personal crusade for him.
Which is fine, the nation needs its campaigning martyrs.
I think he could have picked an issue which had at least a modicum of importance, but it's his choice.
|
Motorist fined for warning others of speed trap - R.P.
