Warning drivers to slow down leads to criminal conviction

SimonAH

I flash other drivers and will continue to do so.

- On the other hand I bought a house earlier this year and spent some time staking out the area to make sure it was 'nice'.

Didn't stake it out on a Friday evening when the yobs come out of the pub district a quarter of a mile away and show off in their cars down the road outside my house....

Ah well.
:oops:

You see, there I would support a speedtrap - and not just because I live there. What the yobs are doing is dangerous (witness three parked cars wiped out in August when one lost control). This is not the same as someone being nicked for 45 in a 40 on an empty dual carriageway......

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?

What if they simply didn't know?

You move to Nearanairfieldville, you really ought to expect planes.

If you are unaware of a nearby airfield when moving to an area, you're a muppet.

Simple!

Define near. People in Richmond complain about the noise, I'm told, and that isn't exactly near IMO.

So, when is a reduction in the number of speeding motorists, or the destruction of prohibited drugs, not a good thing?

On drugs, when the elimination of one softer but illegal drugs leads to more use in the stronger more dangerous type. Such as policing weed all the time, diverts attention and sees an increase in cocain.

On speeding, when the alternative is traffic jams, noise, polution and increased poor judgement from due to stress. There are, I'm told, junctions (normally roundabouts) put in place to prevent speeding, that have done so but also seen more accidents because of it.

mybreakfastconsisted

The road is next to playing fields and near a school apparently.

Flashing other drivers is daft anyway, loads of motorists would have no idea why you're flashing them and would think you are showing off or asking to pull their penis.

I suspect Mr Thompson got lippy with Johnny Law, he could have said he was trying to turn the washers on or something. If he admitted what he was doing he's a numpty who deserves everything he gets. The moral is be polite to the cops and get rid as soon as.

The ACPO guideleines for speeding prosecutions are 10% plus 2mph, whatever the limit, but the difference between 30mph and 35mph is a vastly increased risk of killing any pedestrian you hit.

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?

What if they simply didn't know?

You move to Nearanairfieldville, you really ought to expect planes.

If you are unaware of a nearby airfield when moving to an area, you're a muppet.

Simple!

Define near. People in Richmond complain about the noise, I'm told, and that isn't exactly near IMO.

What do you mean not near? It's directly under the heathrow flight path (for half the day). Live there or where I am and you've got to expect plane noise. Due diligence is an intrinsic part of the biggest purchase you're likely to make

singlespeedexplosif

What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?

What if they simply didn't know?

they could move house.

mybreakfastconsisted

Areoplanes are allowed by law to fly around in the sky.

Speeding is against the law.

Hope this helps.

dhope

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Areoplanes are allowed by law to fly around in the sky.

Speeding is against the law.

Hope this helps.

Who said they were speeding? :twisted:

mybreakfastconsisted

dhope wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Areoplanes are allowed by law to fly around in the sky.

Speeding is against the law.

Hope this helps.

Who said they were speeding? :twisted:

It looks like there is a problem on that road:

http://lesbonner.mycouncillor.org.uk/20 ... announced/

The first fixed speed cameras in North East Lincolnshire will be installed on the Laceby Bypass. It is the first step being taken by the council in a £100,000 scheme to cut road deaths on the notorious stretch of the A46. The cameras - which will be fitted within four months - needed special permission from the Home Office because of their permanent nature. Step two of the scheme will be to cut the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph, while step three will reduce the road to one lane by the Laceby junctions.The move follows years of campaigning by residents and road users concerned about the high number of accidents on the bypass and continuing A46 in both directions.On the bypass stretch from the A18 roundabout to Cottages Plot there have been 109 casualties from 50 crashes in the last 10 years. They have resulted in 34 people killed or seriously injured.


http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles ... n37096146/

TWO young friends were knocked down and killed when a car involved in a 'criminally stupid' road race ploughed into them on the pavement, a court has heard.

Amy Jones and Kayla Young, both 13, 'just happened to be in the wrong place' as two men raced along a dual carriageway at speeds of up to 100mph...


So was Mr Thompson performing "a civic duty" by flashing his lights at other drivers? I don't think so; he was simply making a bit of a nuisance of himself. However, if he'd kept his mouth shut he would apparently have just been given a telling-off, as he himself said: "Because I challenged the officer he would not let me off with a warning."

Clever Pun

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?

What if they simply didn't know?

You move to Nearanairfieldville, you really ought to expect planes.

If you are unaware of a nearby airfield when moving to an area, you're a muppet.

Simple!

ignorance isn't an excuse; you're spending a really significant amount of money look about if you see a stream of airplanes coming in to land or taking off... walk away

rjsterry

I think I'm with MBC on this one. I very much doubt Mr Thompson was really trying to help people reduce speed safely, and if he'd just shut up and not tried to be a smartarse, it would never have gone to court.

I may have a different perspective on this having grown up round the corner from a stretch of what was a very fast main road with sweeping bends, blind brows, and sections of dual carriageway, but is now mostly a 30mph road with lots of hatched off sections of road to slow drivers down because people kept repeatedly killing themselves (different people, not the same person over again) by driving into each other or the railway viaduct piers. When the bunches of flowers become commonplace, you start to think that speed reduction measures might be a good idea.

mybreakfastconsisted

I feel we should explore the airport analogy further, it's strictly relevant to this thread and provides illuminatory insights.

To employ another pertinent comparison, I lived in East London and really felt part of the community so I left my front door unlocked. When I came home all my stuff had been nicked and someone had taken a sh1t in the kitchen sink. Who was at fault?

dhope

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I feel we should explore the airport analogy further, it's strictly relevant to this thread and provides illuminatory insights.

To employ another pertinent comparison, I lived in East London and really felt part of the community so I left my front door unlocked. When I came home all my stuff had been nicked and someone had taken a sh1t in the kitchen sink. Who was at fault?

Sorry, that was me, I got bored of the smug replies.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

....

Speeding fines don't pay for parties for police officers. The fines are hypothecated for road safety so muppet drivers pay to make the roads safer, result!

Not anymore.

The Safety Camera partnerships no longer ger any of the fine monies raised. Hence why some areas eg Oxford have turned off the cameras

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

....

Speeding fines don't pay for parties for police officers. The fines are hypothecated for road safety so muppet drivers pay to make the roads safer, result!

Not anymore.

The Safety Camera partnerships no longer ger any of the fine monies raised. Hence why some areas eg Oxford have turned off the cameras

I was wondering when you'd rock up.

So, there's nothing in any of the reports I can find that suggest there was a policeman in place who could give evidence that the flashed drivers were speeding before Thompson flashed them. CPS Prosecutor, defendant in person, and a magistrate. Whadda reckon are the odds that Glendinning wasn't cited?

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

....

Speeding fines don't pay for parties for police officers. The fines are hypothecated for road safety so muppet drivers pay to make the roads safer, result!

Not anymore.

The Safety Camera partnerships no longer ger any of the fine monies raised. Hence why some areas eg Oxford have turned off the cameras

I was wondering when you'd rock up.

So, there's nothing in any of the reports I can find that suggest there was a policeman in place who could give evidence that the flashed drivers were speeding before Thompson flashed them. CPS Prosecutor, defendant in person, and a magistrate. Whadda reckon are the odds that Glendinning wasn't cited?

a) this thread is also on cake stop
b) not sure what point you are making re Glendinning
c) why does there need to be evidence of anyone speeding?

nmac_2011

Not being a legal person myself, Does this this mean anybody preventing an observable crime from occuring can be done for obstructing a police officer :?:

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

a) this thread is also on cake stop

No it isn't

Philcho

I know the road just outside our sideroad we live on used to be bad for people speeding, still is really they installed speed bumps and two chicanes along with a raised platform, and a sign that lights up only when you are doing above 40mph All of this along a mile and a half stretch and people will still speed along it. Our "flash" next door neighbour drives like an ass in his skyline never obeys speed limits. I think the only thing that really slows drivers down are speed cameras because of the high penalty of 6 points and a 60 quid fine, if that was on our road it'd get people doing 30 as they should.

nmac_2011

Just another thought.
What happens if a police officer introducing radar data into court, can not when challenged produce calibration records for the equipment under consideration?

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

....

Speeding fines don't pay for parties for police officers. The fines are hypothecated for road safety so muppet drivers pay to make the roads safer, result!

Not anymore.

The Safety Camera partnerships no longer ger any of the fine monies raised. Hence why some areas eg Oxford have turned off the cameras

I was wondering when you'd rock up.

So, there's nothing in any of the reports I can find that suggest there was a policeman in place who could give evidence that the flashed drivers were speeding before Thompson flashed them. CPS Prosecutor, defendant in person, and a magistrate. Whadda reckon are the odds that Glendinning wasn't cited?

a) this thread is also on cake stop
b) not sure what point you are making re Glendinning
c) why does there need to be evidence of anyone speeding?

a) Cake Stop = Commuting Chat for the Unemployed. Don't go there myself.
b) there's a summary of it on page 1 of this thread
c) see point b) above.

waddlie

DonDaddyD wrote:

...[P]olicing weed all the time, diverts attention and sees an increase in cocain.

What?

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

...a) Cake Stop = Commuting Chat for the Unemployed. Don't go there myself.
b) there's a summary of it on page 1 of this thread
c) see point b) above.

Re point C, you are missing a part of the Glendinning case- police do not have to prove motorists were speeding, it is enough to show there was a likelihood of them speeding.

now given police had set up speed trap- I think this is a very low standard to meet. I mean why would police be there if there was no liklihood of motorists speeding.

Also, why was defendant flashing motorists if he didn't think there was a likelihood of them speeding?

I think that case is of little help in reality

nmac_2011

ACE !!! I have a carbon framed TT bike with a 55 tooth chainring. Nice to know that because old bill have decided that I am capable of breaking a given speed limit at some arbitrary point ( even though speed limits don't apply in our case ) I must be going equipped to aid & abeit some possible offence ( or maybe not ) of furious cycling.
People wonder why the general population are getting a little bit sick of some judicial decisions.

The Rookie

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Appeal dismissed.



That is NOT someone promoting road safety, it is someone preventing the police from catching people who break the law.

What are you saying exactly? Gelndinning was aquitted, yet you are saying he should be found guilty?

So are the people who put up the speed camera warning signs that form part of the DFT guidelines for camera use likewise guilty?

Speed camera's are meant to be a deterrant, so adding to the deterrant is surely right and proper?

Simon

lost_in_thought

The Beginner wrote:

Speed camera's are meant to be a deterrant, so adding to the deterrant is surely right and proper?

Simon

Wot he said.

mybreakfastconsisted

Thompson wasn't deterring people from speeding, he was warning them they may get caught.

He then got lippy with Johnny Law.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thompson wasn't deterring people from speeding, he was warning them they may get caught.

He then got lippy with Johnny Law.

Presumably they slowed down in response to his warning.

Is the objective of the speed trap to catch offenders or reduce speeding in the area?

mybreakfastconsisted

nmac_2011 wrote:

ACE !!! I have a carbon framed TT bike with a 55 tooth chainring. Nice to know that because old bill have decided that I am capable of breaking a given speed limit at some arbitrary point ( even though speed limits don't apply in our case ) I must be going equipped to aid & abeit some possible offence ( or maybe not ) of furious cycling.
People wonder why the general population are getting a little bit sick of some judicial decisions.

Um, no.

Nearly every car on the roads is capable of exceeding the speed limit but the old bill don't go around nicking every car driver for having the potential to break the law.

However, on a road with a history of fatalities and injuries and accidents and drivers breaking the limit, where residents had clamoured for action taken for drivers to stop using the road as their own personal racetrack, and where the police were exercised enough to set up a speed trap, a driver who takes it upon himself to warn drivers to slow down, not in order to save lives but in order to save them a fine, it is clearly obstructing the cops.

Consider a recidivist speedophile, what's more likely to get them to address their behaviour, flashing headlights or a £60 fine, 3 points and a bump in their premiums?

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thompson wasn't deterring people from speeding, he was warning them they may get caught.

He then got lippy with Johnny Law.

Presumably they slowed down in response to his warning.

Is the objective of the speed trap to catch offenders or reduce speeding in the area?

Well both, I'd have thought - they're not mutually exclusive. I'd also guess that those who were speeding, but then slowed down briefly, would likely put their foot down once past the radar gun, whereas those fined and given points on their license might (possibly) take the whole thing a bit more seriously.

bails87

So does a burglar's lookout prevent crime by telling him to stop nicking stuff while a police car goes past?