drivers fined for flashing lights ....

daviesee

Pross wrote:

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).

Government report here - http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn218.pdf

From which

"In 2001/2002, £11.4 million of speeding fine receipts, collected in a central fund, were returned to the 14 existing Partnerships to cover operating costs, and an excess of £4.3 million was kept by the Treasury."

No mention of speed reduction / accident prevention there.

If someone can find a more up to date report, be my guest.

Pross

I'm pretty sure that pre-dates the changes to the system.

spen666

shm_uk wrote:

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

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

No, its an offence to help someone evade capture for an offence.

In the same way, it would be an offence for me to tell a burglar the police are coming.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

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

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

No, its an offence to help someone evade capture for an offence.

In the same way, it would be an offence for me to tell a burglar the police are coming.

Presumably not if you're saying it in order to persuade said burglar to leave your property.

spen666

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure that pre-dates the changes to the system.

It does.

The SCPs do not get money from fines now, hence why some areas, eg Oxford have stopped using the cameras as they get no funding to operate them

bails87

Okay, there's no evidence that they were already speeding before he flashed, maybe we need more speed cameras?
But maybe it's more analogous to following the police's drug raid team around with a massive loudspeaker, with a message on repeat saying "the police are coming. Flush your drugs away now. The police are coming. Flush your drugs away now....".

The police turn up, raid the house, all the drugs are gone, so you can;t prove a crime therefore the guy with the loudspeaker was doing nothing wrong presumably?

StillGoing

A Garmin sat nav will only alert you to speed camera sites just like a road atlas. It doesn't interfere with the signal from the camera or its operation. If it did, it would be illegal to use it. There are devices which detect devices and that are presently not illegal.

This isn't a new case and is all based on an old stated case. Every excuse and preamble has been tried to get out of it with it being argued between prominent judges and experts on law. It is obstruction and only someone possessing high levels of naievity would believe the driver in this case was trying to carry out his own kind of speed limit enforcement rather than prevent offending drivers being caught..

Speed enforcement funds are fed back into road safety schemes and the government. Stats analysis will identify where road improvement is needed and therefore where the money for the road safety project is spent. The road safety project is a local authority concern as required by central government. The police cannot use the money to finance new buildings, fleet replacement, overtimem additional recruitment or anything else.

andyrm

northernneil wrote:

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

Agreed. There is no proof that the approaching motorists were speeding.

So on the same lines of thinking, is the force in question now going to start prosecuting their own PCSOs for approaching gangs of teenagers on an evening and seeing what they are up to, in case it prevents said teenagers committing an offence for which they can then be caught and prosecuted? Is every Neighbourhood Watch group now going to be herded up in meat wagons in case they prevent someone potentially burgling somewhere?

Seems absolutely ludicrous that taking a course of action to deter someone from potentially doing something illegal before they have done it. I was under the impression that our legal system was based on the notion of innocent until proven guilty - if we knowingly allow or through "permission by inaction" allow an offence to happen, surely that could be argued (if you wanted to waste more taxpayers' money) by some highly expensive barristers that failing to act to prevent was complicity............

Bigger and better things for them to be focusing on that this IMO

northernneil

spen666 wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

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

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

No, its an offence to help someone evade capture for an offence.

In the same way, it would be an offence for me to tell a burglar the police are coming.

a burglar is already committing an offence, for you to use that analagy you have to have evidence that each driver he warned was already in the act of committing an offence.

bails87

northernneil wrote:

spen666 wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

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

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

No, its an offence to help someone evade capture for an offence.

In the same way, it would be an offence for me to tell a burglar the police are coming.

a burglar is already committing an offence, for you to use that analagy you have to have evidence that each driver he warned was already in the act of committing an offence.

bails87 wrote:

But maybe it's more analogous to following the police's drug raid team around with a massive loudspeaker, with a message on repeat saying "the police are coming. Flush your drugs away now. The police are coming. Flush your drugs away now....".

The police turn up, raid the house, all the drugs are gone, so you can;t prove a crime therefore the guy with the loudspeaker was doing nothing wrong, presumably?

CyclingBantam

andyrm wrote:

northernneil wrote:

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

Agreed. There is no proof that the approaching motorists were speeding.

So on the same lines of thinking, is the force in question now going to start prosecuting their own PCSOs for approaching gangs of teenagers on an evening and seeing what they are up to, in case it prevents said teenagers committing an offence for which they can then be caught and prosecuted? Is every Neighbourhood Watch group now going to be herded up in meat wagons in case they prevent someone potentially burgling somewhere?

Seems absolutely ludicrous that taking a course of action to deter someone from potentially doing something illegal before they have done it. I was under the impression that our legal system was based on the notion of innocent until proven guilty - if we knowingly allow or through "permission by inaction" allow an offence to happen, surely that could be argued (if you wanted to waste more taxpayers' money) by some highly expensive barristers that failing to act to prevent was complicity............

Bigger and better things for them to be focusing on that this IMO

Your quotes are incorrect. I never said that.

The burgler analogy is fine. How do you know they were burgling your house? They may have found a bag of swag outside the house and have climbed back in to put it all back. That is exactly the same as claiming he didn't know anyone might be speeding.

Surely them speeding or not is irrelevant. He was obstructing the police being able to check in exactly the same way the other analogy about the drugs squad and the loud speaker analogy you have ignored puts across.

Cut all the crap on this. He was flashing cars to warn them. This is not for any benefit other than to avoid being caught for speeding. It is not to stop speeding in general. How anyone can claim this is not a bad thing to do has standards very different to mine.

Pross

Does anyone think that this driver constantly drove around flashing his lights to get other motorists to slow down? Or is it more likely that he was doing it in this particular instance in order to stop drivers getting caught breaking the law? I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but surely no-one believes he was doing this to assist in keeping vehicle speeds low in the area!

Giant Jon

northernneil wrote:

spen666 wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

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

In this case, The Law definitely is an Ass

No, its an offence to help someone evade capture for an offence.

In the same way, it would be an offence for me to tell a burglar the police are coming.

a burglar is already committing an offence, for you to use that analagy you have to have evidence that each driver he warned was already in the act of committing an offence.

If the driver flashing his lights was doing so to warn the other drivers to slow down to avoid being caught by the police, then the driver is committing an offence whether the others are or not. I assume he had no other reason to be flashing his lights in these circumstances, hence it can be reasonably assumed he was warning other drivers. Either that or he suddenly developed non-roadworthy lights, another offence?

Another example is a person who approached a drug dealer and buys what they BELIEVE are class A drugs. They are guilty of possession once they have them, regardless of whether or not they are class A drugs. What the guilty party says either at the side of the street or in interview determines this. Hence you're read your rights before you open your mouth... and the right to remain silent...

pneumatic

according to the BEEB, he was basically prosecuted for dissent. The officer who stopped him told him he was going to let him away with a warning for obstructing a police officer in his duties, but the driver decided to argue the toss and got himself charged instead.

What is more, he decided to defend himself and therefore did not know to look up a very similar previous case that was successfully won by a lawyer for the client. On the basis of that case, any appeal he lodges is likely to succeed.

So what we have here is a mouthy provocative git who wanted to stir up trouble and get a bit of publicity for himself and for aggrieved motorists everywhere.

result, I reckon. :roll:

beverick

pneumatic wrote:

according to the BEEB, he was basically prosecuted for dissent. The officer who stopped him told him he was going to let him away with a warning for obstructing a police officer in his duties, but the driver decided to argue the toss and got himself charged instead.

What is more, he decided to defend himself and therefore did not know to look up a very similar previous case that was successfully won by a lawyer for the client. On the basis of that case, any appeal he lodges is likely to succeed.

So what we have here is a mouthy provocative git who wanted to stir up trouble and get a bit of publicity for himself and for aggrieved motorists everywhere.

result, I reckon. :roll:

i think that would make more sense in relation to the charge laid. I could see how the officer could reasonably say that they were being obstructed from doing their lawful duty in having to deal with the guy.

He wasn't charged with preventing the otther drivers from committing an offence but with preventing a police officer from catching anyone who may commit a traffic offence.

Bob

paultheparaglider

I think this is another example of the police shooting themselves in the foot. Indeed, the whole way that the speed camera process has operated has been a total pr disaster for the police.

The police operate within a framework that is set by society. Most people are not criminals and are naturally inclined to want to support the police, as, generally, the police should be acting in our interests. For most otherwise law abiding citizens, most of us will only ever feel the long arm of the law in respect of motoring offences. Accordingly, this is an area where the police should be especially careful to ensure they operate in a manner that engenders public support.

I don't think there are many people that support the idea of unrestrained speeding. However, I think we all have come across examples of cameras placed specifically to catch offenders in places where it is reasonable to assume safety is not the primary purpose of the location. Stick speed traps by schools or similar locations, and they get public support. Place them at the bottom of a hill on an empty country road and then prosecute drivers that are just a few mph over the limit and you get general public derision. There are too many of the latter, and not enough of the former.

Many years ago, the police operated in a manner whereby speeding prosecutions had general public support - even, perhaps somewhat reluctantly, of those convicted of the offence. They took into account such considerations as the road conditions at the time, the manner of driving, and usually only prosecuted where the speed was materially over the limit. Relatively few people were caught up in the process, and those that were mostly deserved to be sanctioned.

Nowadays, it is much more common to find people that have speeding convictions. The margins allowed are fine, the prosecutions relentless and impersonal, and the safety justification often highly dubious. It has created a real them and us barrier for many people that would otherwise have been natural supporters of the police.

If I see a speed trap, I incline towards flashing oncoming drivers. I do this because I have general empathy against the way the police and safety camera partnerships operate in regard to speeding these days. I'm not alone, and many others do so too. I do this to stop the other driver getting caught up in a system and process I do not support. I don't do it to stop them committing an offence. I do it primarily to stop them getting caught, and I suspect it is slightly dishonest and even disingenuous for people to argue otherwise if they flash similar warnings.

The police rely on public support. When they get a significant number of otherwise reasonable people not giving them that support they need to question their operational methods.

Putting this case forward for prosecution was an extremely bad judgement call on the part of the senior office that came to that decision. I'm assuming commonsense would at the very least have taken this well up the chain of command. Whatever the black and white of the law might be, this will have cost the police a lot more than it has gained them. It will have helped to further the division between them and us, and that is an outcome that is bad for everyone.

pneumatic

paultheparaglider wrote:

Putting this case forward for prosecution was an extremely bad judgement call . . . .

Yes, but if the person you want to caution refuses to accept a caution and continues to provoke you into taking it to the next level whilst all the time refusing to settle the case nor to use legal representation, it may be that you have no choice but to prosecute?? (Spen will tell us, no doubt).

Gene Hunt would have taken him up a dark alley and kicked the sh1t out of him, but I don't think the paperwork allows for that any more.

spen666

Giant Jon wrote:

....
Another example is a person who approached a drug dealer and buys what they BELIEVE are class A drugs. They are guilty of possession once they have them, regardless of whether or not they are class A drugs.......

Not quite.

You cannot be guilty of possession of class A drugs if they are not class A drugs.

You would in your example be guilty of attempted possession of class A Drugs

rc856

[/quote]

Yes, but if the person you want to caution refuses to accept a caution and continues to provoke you into taking it to the next level [/quote]

He well and truly failed the attitude test by the looks of things. Don't think it was a bad path for the cop to take.
The guy had his chance to take a warning and go on his way but didn't take it - FAIL
He then chose to represent himself at court - EPIC FAIL

spen666

pneumatic wrote:

paultheparaglider wrote:

Putting this case forward for prosecution was an extremely bad judgement call . . . .

Yes, but if the person you want to caution refuses to accept a caution and continues to provoke you into taking it to the next level whilst all the time refusing to settle the case nor to use legal representation, it may be that you have no choice but to prosecute?? (Spen will tell us, no doubt).

Gene Hunt would have taken him up a dark alley and kicked the sh1t out of him, but I don't think the paperwork allows for that any more.

Pretty much right

If suspect refuses to accept a caution, the options are:
a) take no action OR
b) prosecute

singlespeedexplosif

However, I think we all have come across examples of cameras placed specifically to catch offenders in places where it is reasonable to assume safety is not the primary purpose of the location.
does that matter? The driver shouldn't be speeding, wherever it is. No matter how many paragraphs of Daily Mail/Top Gear-esque 'rationale' you try to pad it out with.

andy162

I see a hooded miscreant with a crowbar looking through a car window eyeing up the contents....

I stop to speak to said miscreant & tell him to f*ck off sharpish like....

I prevented a crime did I not? I also prevented the Police from seizing the offender & carting him off to chokey.

...same difference?? Did I obstruct the Police doing their job?

Fella does sound like a prat though, he should've taken his roadside talking too & had done. Or got Mr Loophole to get him off.

Stewie Griffin

andy162 wrote:

I see a hooded miscreant with a crowbar looking through a car window eyeing up the contents....

I stop to speak to said miscreant & tell him to f*ck off sharpish like....

I prevented a crime did I not? I also prevented the Police from seizing the offender & carting him off to chokey.

...same difference?? Did I obstruct the Police doing their job?

Fella does sound like a prat though, he should've taken his roadside talking too & had done. Or got Mr Loophole to get him off.

No because your scumbag is just going to do someone else's motor around the corner. In this situation you should form your hand into a gun shape and put it in your jacket pocket and shout "FREEZE" then call the Police using your other hand & detain him until the cavalry arrives. The best bit would be after the Police arrest him you can show him that you didn't have a gun, imagine how big a mug he would feel.

CyclingBantam

andy162 wrote:

I see a hooded miscreant with a crowbar looking through a car window eyeing up the contents....

I stop to speak to said miscreant & tell him to f*ck off sharpish like....

I prevented a crime did I not? I also prevented the Police from seizing the offender & carting him off to chokey.

...same difference?? Did I obstruct the Police doing their job?

Fella does sound like a prat though, he should've taken his roadside talking too & had done. Or got Mr Loophole to get him off.

This is exactly right when you add in the key fact you have bizarrely missed out that is, you do this knowing the police are waiting for him round the corner.

Do you still believe this was the right thing to do?

StillGoing

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

However, I think we all have come across examples of cameras placed specifically to catch offenders in places where it is reasonable to assume safety is not the primary purpose of the location.
does that matter? The driver shouldn't be speeding, wherever it is. No matter how many paragraphs of Daily Mail/Top Gear-esque 'rationale' you try to pad it out with.

It's actually incorrect. The Road safety partnership can't just site cameras where they want. They have to be sited where the stats show there is the most likely prospect of an collision occurring. And once and for all; THE POLICE DO NOT GET ANY REVENUE FROM SPEED CAMERAS.

Mobile cameras are operated by support staff in most forces and not police officers so there is no waste of resources. These staff will be employed by the road safety partnership to operate mobile cameras and collect the film from the static sites. Police officers do not like them as a camera has no power of descression. Speeding on a Sunday morning at say 8 mph over the limit on a dual carriageway will get you fined just as much as doing 10mph over the limit on a weekday afternoon on the main road just as the schools are kicking out. A police officer is able to see what merits action and what doesn't.

As said in the previous post by me, there is a stated case on this subject and until the courts rule that decision was wrong, no one is going to get off with warning other motorists of a speed camera. The only permitted flashing of the headlights is as a warning to other road users of YOUR presence. As he was on the opposite side of the carriageway he could hardly use that as an excuse.

MattC59

As I understand the law surrounding this, he can only be prosecuted if it's proven that the drivers which he was flashing were speeding.

If they weren't speeding, then his flashing wasn't preventing the police from doing their job and no offence was committed.

The guy is appealing.

pneumatic

MattC59 wrote:

The guy is appealing.

I don't find him at all appealing!!

I'll get my coat.

Pross

Have to disagree with most of what Paraglider Pete wrote. The reason why 'law abiding citizens' have a problem with speed cameras is nothing to do with poor police PR it is because they like to feel that they aren't criminals when in fact they are (I'm no angel when it comes to speed myself!) and there is a powerful motor lobby within the media who like to feed that sentiment. Even though camera sites have to fit stringent selection criteria, and have done for about a decade, it really doesn't matter where a camera is located as you shouldn't be exceeding the speed limit anywhere. If in doubt drive lower than the speed limit, the marginal aspect doesn't come into play although several places now offer the option of a speed awareness course for those who are 'only' marginally over the limit.

As I say, I'm no angel and have had a fine and 3 points for speeding (37 in 30 zone - my fault, I was in a rush and knew what I was doing) and I opted for a speed awareness course after going through a light (unintentional and still don't know how I missed the light changing but still my own fault as I was in charge of the car and obviously let my concentration slip).

We can't have laws where people think "it's OK, it doesn't really apply to me here and it is only breaking the law a little bit", a law has to be definitive. Plenty of people may think it's OK to beat up a paedophile but in reality it is still assault no matter how justifiable you may feel it is. If people like Clarkson think driving over 30mph is fine as long as there is no school or because it is early in the morning / Sunday then they should lobby for a change to the law not argue that the law should only apply when they decide it is right.