drivers fined for flashing lights ....

northernneil

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/01/04/driver-fined-for-cop-speed-trap-s440-for-warning-people-to-slow-down-86908-22826522/

the police really know how to make themselves popular dont they, a very worthwhile and valuable use of resources and court time I am sure.

One thing strikes me though, how can he be prosecuted as the court would have to prove that any car he was warning was intending to break the law in a minute or two. Is it now obstructing a poilce officers duties if you remind people that they face consequences if they intend to break the law ? (taking the keys of a driver about to drive drunk for examplw?)

spen666

The reality is the driver was flashing his lights to warn people of the police speed trap. Thus deliberately trying to thwart the speed trap.

Ask yourself a few questions:
a) How did driver know oncoming cars were speeding and needed to slow down?
b) does driver flash every car he sees to warn them of the need to slow down
c) would you say the same about someone who warns a burglar the police are coming as you do in this case?

verloren

I was struck by a similar thought - the purpose of speed limits is to get people to drive at temperate speeds. The guy flashing his lights assisted in that aim, and should therefore be praised, rather than fined.

daviesee

Similar story from the other side.

The police in Edinburgh actually applaud the local radio station for warning drivers as everyone slows down and the objective is achieved.

It couldn't be that the other staion just want to bolster financies. Could it? :twisted:

bompington

daviesee wrote:

Similar story from the other side.

The police in Edinburgh actually applaud the local radio station for warning drivers as everyone slows down and the objective is achieved.

It couldn't be that the other staion just want to bolster financies. Could it? :twisted:

No it coiuldn't, because they wouldn't get a penny from either the speed trap or this guy's fine.

surreyxc

I am quite happy for people to be fined. I reckon on my daily commute 99% of drivers are over the speed limit, in a 5 mile country commute I see at least 5 people on phones, some texting. And over half of those that pass me do so with under 1.5 ft of space into oncoming traffic. And unless I take a dominant position on the ride people over take on blind summits and round corners, would anyone over take a moped in such circumstances, and at times I am going as fast.
And lets not forget, injurying or killing someone with a car is not considered to be a serious crime evident by the lenient sentences issued. How about the man who left a 12 year old girl to die, he had a string of driver convictions, punishment was 4 months in prison and then granted residency in this country. Only this week I know of someone in hospital after hit and run.

bails87

surreyxc wrote:

. How about the man who left a 12 year old girl to die, he had a string of driver convictions, punishment was 4 months in prison and then granted residency in this country. Only this week I know of someone in hospital after hit and run.

That's different seeing as there was no evidence he was at fault (in terms of how he was driving) in that collision. His conviction was for failing to report a collision or something like that, not death by dangerous/careless driving.*


*These may not be the exact legal definitions, but I'm sure it's obvious what I mean, before the forum lawyers turn up.

Rodrego Hernandez

The CPS get all high and mighty justifying this but will never go on the record to justify the derisory charges brought against drivers who kill bike riders.

surreyxc

Hmm, so we really think a person who has a string of driving offences and leaves someone to die only merits 4 months in prison and then to be granted residency in this country.

And whilst you maybe correct in the details of that specific case. There are countless other instances of driving fatalities which are giving shamefully low sentences.

Clearly you know best, but here are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.brake.org.uk/inadequate-crim ... -in-the-uk

http://road.cc/content/news/28648-years ... ed-cyclist

Every 6 seconds someone is killed or seriously injured on the world’s roads. With 1.3 million road deaths each year this is a global epidemic comparable to Malaria or Tuberculosis. http://www.makeroadssafe.org

http://road.cc/content/news/28728-drive ... free-court

If you or a family member are left to die, or end up in a vegative state, how will you feel when they sentence them to a few months and 12 month driving ban.

surreyxc

bails 87, interesting flag by the way, where is it from?

daviesee

bompington wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Similar story from the other side.

The police in Edinburgh actually applaud the local radio station for warning drivers as everyone slows down and the objective is achieved.

It couldn't be that the other staion just want to bolster financies. Could it? :twisted:

No it coiuldn't, because they wouldn't get a penny from either the speed trap or this guy's fine.

Not directly, but their "bosses" would collect. If it is all about driving speed they shouldn't have a problem with drivers slowing down other drivers.

northernneil

spen666 wrote:

The reality is the driver was flashing his lights to warn people of the police speed trap. Thus deliberately trying to thwart the speed trap.

Ask yourself a few questions:
a) How did driver know oncoming cars were speeding and needed to slow down?
b) does driver flash every car he sees to warn them of the need to slow down
c) would you say the same about someone who warns a burglar the police are coming as you do in this case?

'speed trap'

there was me thinking they were safety cameras .... :roll:

Pross

If they were genuinely allowed to be traps then they would be more effective as safety cameras. I'm surprised at a cyclist complaining at measures being put in place to slow motorists down. I've picked up points for speeding in the past, it was my own fault I knew the speed limit and exceeded it - I suspect that the vast majority of drivers caught speeding are the same. If someone is speeding then they should suffer the consequences rather than be warned by others, it's not like most of them don't know they are doing it!

northernneil

Pross wrote:

If they were genuinely allowed to be traps then they would be more effective as safety cameras. I'm surprised at a cyclist complaining at measures being put in place to slow motorists down. I've picked up points for speeding in the past, it was my own fault I knew the speed limit and exceeded it - I suspect that the vast majority of drivers caught speeding are the same. If someone is speeding then they should suffer the consequences rather than be warned by others, it's not like most of them don't know they are doing it!

I am not complaining about a driver speeding, in this case he wasn't prosecuted for speeding at all, but quite the opposite. He seems to have been prosecuted just for warning people that if they do speed they may face legal ramifications - quite rightly. There is no mention that this driver was speeding at all.

Pross

Do you really think he was trying to get people to stop speeding or just warning them to slow down until they pass the speed camera? May be my view is skewed due to the road safety work I've done, courses I've attended and police I've spoken to who have to deal with accidents but I think speed cameras are a good thing. I'd like to see a return to the days when they weren't painted yellow and could be concealed as wondering whether there is a camera around is more of a deterent than knowing where they are and when to slow down. A mix may be best so that the high accident sites / school frontages etc. have obvious cameras.

bails87

surreyxc
Don't get me wrong, the guy seems to be a grade A tw4t-melon. But he can only be prosecuted for the stuff that's illegal, if the only illegal thing he did was drive whilst disqualified and leave the scene/not report an accident then he can only be charged and sentenced accordingly. Whether the sentences are too short or not is a different argument.

The flag is Cambodian, I spent 8 weeks in that part of the world in October and November and loved it.

The drivers are good there because everyone is mental, so they all pay attention all the time!

Back to the OP:

He claimed the officer involved was a ‘Rambo character’ who was acting like ‘Judge Dredd'

It's not like I was in some kind of Death Race, this is a ridiculous Police Story, they've destroyed civil liberties like a Demolition Man. There's no place to hide from these people who are just after your (Tango and) Cash, it's like a Cop Land. I shan't be driving again. When I go to the airport to fly to Las Vegas I'm going to Get Carter to call a Taxi (3) so I can be Driven there before heading off to Escape To Victory and live The Good Life. The response was completely Over The Top, it won't long until you end up in the Lock Up and there'll be No Place To Hide. Now Stop! Or My Mum Will Shoot.

shm_uk

So now it's a criminal offence to try and help prevent criminal offences?

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

andyrm

Given that speed traps were intended to deter people from speeding as opposed to being revenue generators, I think this is totally against the spirit of the law. In essence, the Police are saying by their actions that they are more interested in catching than preventing. By the same logic, they should allow burglaries to happen and sit in wait to catch burglars, or maybe hide out on dodgy estates and wait until someone is murdered so they can catch a murderer red handed.

Speed traps are meant to be in accident blackspots to discourage people from speeding and so prevent further accidents – if by flashing oncoming cars, this driver has made them slow down, he has potentially reduced the risk of accident if the speeding stats are to be believed.

Makes me wonder about the real intention of the speed trap – is it really prevention, or is “trap” very much the operative word here.....?

bails87

How is it a trap? They don't put signs up telling you that you can drive at 50 when the limit's actually 30, and then fine you for doing 45 do they?

They catch people breaking the law. It would be the same as when they have those metal detector things in town centres, if someone waited down the road telling people the police were doing checks on people, so dump your knife or go a different way.

I'm suprised he got convicted for it, but I don't think cameras can be called traps, it suggests there's 'bait' or an attempt to trick people into breaking the law.

beverick

I must admit if I'd been his barrister I'd like to have run the defence that he was actually assisting the officer in 'policing' (ie enforcing) the speed limit rather than obstrucing her in catching offenders and that his actions were totally in line with the national roads polciing strategy of reducing anti-social use of the road network.

Bob

northernneil

on a side issue and slightly cycling related ...

whats the difference between what he was doing and my Garmin sat nav ?

it tells me where mobile cameras are wether they are there or not as I am sure Tom Tom and other sat navs do as well. Are these manufacturers going to be prosecuted for exactly the same offence ?

ilm_zero7

verloren wrote:

I was struck by a similar thought - the purpose of speed limits is to get people to drive at temperate speeds. The guy flashing his lights assisted in that aim, and should therefore be praised, rather than fined.

totally with you on this one.... they always say it is the deterrent that is the issue - but clearly the police see it as a threat to an income stream

if warnings you are about to break the law then half the population must be guilty as shouting at a potential Oik or vandal would also be stopping a crime happening and obstructing the police in there detection and arrest duties too!!!

beverick

northernneil wrote:

on a side issue and slightly cycling related ...

whats the difference between what he was doing and my Garmin sat nav ?

it tells me where mobile cameras are wether they are there or not as I am sure Tom Tom and other sat navs do as well. Are these manufacturers going to be prosecuted for exactly the same offence ?

...and whilst your at it, those speed limit signs are a bit of a givaway as well. We should prosecute the responsible road authority for putting them up.

Bob

bails87

Felt so Good wrote:

verloren wrote:

I was struck by a similar thought - the purpose of speed limits is to get people to drive at temperate speeds. The guy flashing his lights assisted in that aim, and should therefore be praised, rather than fined.

totally with you on this one.... they always say it is the deterrent that is the issue - but clearly the police see it as a threat to an income stream

if warnings you are about to break the law then half the population must be guilty as shouting at a potential Oik or vandal would also be stopping a crime happening and obstructing the police in there detection and arrest duties too!!!

No, you're warning people who are already committing a crime, to stop committing that crime while the police are looking, and then having avoided detection they''re free to go back to committing the crime.

It's like seeing a burglar breaking into a house, then seeing a police car coming up the road, so you shout "Oi mate, hide", at which point he ducks behind the hedge as the police go past. Then you walk off, leaving him free to go back to committing the crime.

I think the sat nav things only cover published sites, maybe the police also use random spots as well.

beverick

Interestingly I've just been discussing this and the general view is that we could see how the driver could have been convicted of aiding an offender - which, from our position on the top of the Clapham Omnibus, he clearly was - but not obstructing an officer - which, from our lofty position, he equally clearly wasn't.

Bob

Pross

Why do people still trot out the myth that speeding fines are a revenue earner? If that were the case why are some places getting rid of cameras in order to save money? Any revenue raised by speed cameras goes back into the pot to provide speed reduction / accident prevention measures (I'm not sure if this is the case in Scotland but it is in England and Wales).

Pross

northernneil wrote:

on a side issue and slightly cycling related ...

whats the difference between what he was doing and my Garmin sat nav ?

it tells me where mobile cameras are wether they are there or not as I am sure Tom Tom and other sat navs do as well. Are these manufacturers going to be prosecuted for exactly the same offence ?

I believe that the devices that detect speed guns ahead are not legal - sat nav that warns when you are exceeding the speed limit are as they are theoretically warning you in case you didn't know. There's a subtle difference as the one is warning you you are about to be caught and the other is just giving you advice.

northernneil

bails87 wrote:

Felt so Good wrote:

verloren wrote:

I was struck by a similar thought - the purpose of speed limits is to get people to drive at temperate speeds. The guy flashing his lights assisted in that aim, and should therefore be praised, rather than fined.

totally with you on this one.... they always say it is the deterrent that is the issue - but clearly the police see it as a threat to an income stream

if warnings you are about to break the law then half the population must be guilty as shouting at a potential Oik or vandal would also be stopping a crime happening and obstructing the police in there detection and arrest duties too!!!

No, you're warning people who are already committing a crime, to stop committing that crime while the police are looking, and then having avoided detection they''re free to go back to committing the crime.

It's like seeing a burglar breaking into a house, then seeing a police car coming up the road, so you shout "Oi mate, hide", at which point he ducks behind the hedge as the police go past. Then you walk off, leaving him free to go back to committing the crime.

I think the sat nav things only cover published sites, maybe the police also use random spots as well.

there is no evidence that the drivers he was warning were committing an offence

CyclingBantam

bails87 wrote:

How is it a trap? They don't put signs up telling you that you can drive at 50 when the limit's actually 30, and then fine you for doing 45 do they?

They catch people breaking the law. It would be the same as when they have those metal detector things in town centres, if someone waited down the road telling people the police were doing checks on people, so dump your knife or go a different way.

I'm suprised he got convicted for it, but I don't think cameras can be called traps, it suggests there's 'bait' or an attempt to trick people into breaking the law.

+100 Why on earth are people going on about it being a trap. It is always clear what the speed limit is. There is no 'trap' if you get caught. Whilst it is a surprise this guy has been charged I don't see how anyone can really defend him. Claiming he was simply trying to get drivers to stick to the law is simply being obtuse.

It is exactly like someone shouting to burglers that the police are coming.

I think it is ludicrous that speed cameras have to be visable. It renders them, in the main pointless as people simply stick to the safe limit for 100 meters out of every 5 miles.

nwallace

daviesee wrote:

Similar story from the other side.

The police in Edinburgh actually applaud the local radio station for warning drivers as everyone slows down and the objective is achieved.

It couldn't be that the other staion just want to bolster financies. Could it? :twisted:

Don't know about in England but the Scottish Forces and Camera Partnerships publish what roads and sections of road there will be a camera on in the local press.

northernneil

BenBlyth wrote:

bails87 wrote:

It is exactly like someone shouting to burglers that the police are coming.

I say again that it certainly is not. Someone breaking into a house is ALREADY committing an offence. There is no evidence that any drivers he was indicating to were actually breaking any law at all. He has been prosecuted BEFORE any alleged offence has been committed by anyone.

There is a big difference between that and someone already engaged in an illegal act