Warning drivers to slow down leads to criminal conviction

dhope

bails87 wrote:

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

Not really comparable, lookout and burglar go out with intention of working together to commit a crime, this guy I doubt went out with similar intentions.

Sounds like he only got prosecuted because he was an antagonistic arse to the police when they did stop him, and I should hope most people would have the common sense to not try and push what what likely starting out as a ticking off.

Anecdotal only, but the one time I've been caught speeding was at 2am on a 3 lane wide, fully lit and otherwise completely empty road, doing 58 in a 30 area. Police clocked me, pulled me over and I was duly extremely apologetic. My reasoning was that the conditions were good, the visibility was good, there were no other cars on the road and I felt that it was not unsafe to be driving at that speed, but that I was aware that I was driving faster than was permitted and had no valid excuse.
They agreed on all points (including that it was not unsafe driving, simply fast), breathalyzed me (clear, but it was 2am so fair enough), gave me a £30 fine and 3 points and wished me well. I duly skulked off at 29mph feeling like I'd probably done alright out of the encounter.
I'm sure had I gone off at them, asked if they had nothing better to do etc then I'd have ended up in court with a few more points and a heftier fine.

rhext

Seems simple to me: flashing an oncoming motorist says 'old bill round the corner, slow down, you can speed up again tomorrow'. To me the whole point of speed traps is to catch the idiots who habitually ignore the law of the land. A law which was put in place to improve the safety of all of us.

I too live on a busy road. I can recognise most of the idiots, although their number has admittedly reduced by two over the last few years: one crashed into a wall, and the other went headfirst into another car. Good job it wasn't my kids in the way. I welcome the sight of the coppers with their speed guns and I'd never dream of warning other drivers. If they're obeying the law they're safe. If they're not then a ticket might help them to do so in future.

tailwindhome

bails87 wrote:

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

Do the council obstruct the police by putting up signs warning of speed cameras?

jds_1981

I've got one of these

http://www.talex.co.uk/

It tells me (amongst other useful warning advice) where there are fixed speed cameras, and locations where police may have mobile cameras.
Even Garmins do a similar thing but to a lesser degree of accuracy

If this sort of tool is used by people to judge when it is safe to speed, are the manufacturers guilty of the same thing?

rhext

jds_1981 wrote:

I've got one of these

http://www.talex.co.uk/

It tells me (amongst other useful warning advice) where there are fixed speed cameras, and locations where police may have mobile cameras.
Even Garmins do a similar thing but to a lesser degree of accuracy

If this sort of tool is used by people to judge when it is safe to speed, are the manufacturers guilty of the same thing?

That's presumably why they were illegal until a fairly short while ago. Not sure what happened there, but I assume some multinational electronics company decided that profits were more important than road safety and employed some lawyers to prove that they weren't ilegal after all.

Honestly, we spend hours agonising over what motorists think about us for jumping red lights and there's a whole bloody industry devoted to ensuring that speeding criminals can continue to break the law without fear of detection.

bails87

TailWindHome wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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

Do the council obstruct the police by putting up signs warning of speed cameras?

Do the councill obstruct the police by putting up signs displaying the speed limit?

rjsterry

dhope wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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

Not really comparable, lookout and burglar go out with intention of working together to commit a crime, this guy I doubt went out with similar intentions.

Sounds like he only got prosecuted because he was an antagonistic ars* to the police when they did stop him, and I should hope most people would have the common sense to not try and push what what likely starting out as a ticking off.

Anecdotal only, but the one time I've been caught speeding was at 2am on a 3 lane wide, fully lit and otherwise completely empty road, doing 58 in a 30 area. Police clocked me, pulled me over and I was duly extremely apologetic. My reasoning was that the conditions were good, the visibility was good, there were no other cars on the road and I felt that it was not unsafe to be driving at that speed, but that I was aware that I was driving faster than was permitted and had no valid excuse.
They agreed on all points (including that it was not unsafe driving, simply fast), breathalyzed me (clear, but it was 2am so fair enough), gave me a £30 fine and 3 points and wished me well. I duly skulked off at 29mph feeling like I'd probably done alright out of the encounter.
I'm sure had I gone off at them, asked if they had nothing better to do etc then I'd have ended up in court with a few more points and a heftier fine.

Exactly, if you break the law, and are caught doing so, getting all self righteous and trying to claim that the police should be 'doing something more worthwhile' is only going to make things worse.

jds_1981

rhext wrote:

Honestly, we spend weeks agonising over what motorists think about us for jumping red lights and there's a whole bloody industry devoted to ensuring that speeding criminals can continue to break the law without fear of detection.

Fixed that for you

rhext

jds_1981 wrote:

rhext wrote:

Honestly, we spend weeks agonising over what motorists think about us for jumping red lights and there's a whole bloody industry devoted to ensuring that speeding criminals can continue to break the law without fear of detection.

Fixed that for you

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Exactly, if you break the law, and are caught doing so, getting all self righteous and trying to claim that the police should be 'doing something more worthwhile' is only going to make things worse.

Agree, no point failing the 'attitude test' when stopped by plod if you have transgressed. Only the bloke being prosecuted hadn't committed an offence - see the Glendinning case.

rhext

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Exactly, if you break the law, and are caught doing so, getting all self righteous and trying to claim that the police should be 'doing something more worthwhile' is only going to make things worse.

Agree, no point failing the 'attitude test' when stopped by plod if you have transgressed. Only the bloke being prosecuted hadn't committed an offence - see the Glendinning case.

Unfortunately for him, he didn't know that and decided to defend himself. You can probably tell from earlier posts that I still think that justice was served!

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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

Do the council obstruct the police by putting up signs warning of speed cameras?

No-one going to properly deal with this point then?

rhext

Oh, go on then. I'll bite.

The council warnings are effectively permanent speed reduction measures which will encourage drivers to slow down along a dangerous stretch of road. You'll find that they're generally located such that you can't say 'oh, there's a warning sign, there must be a camera in 50 yards, better slow down'. In fact, you'll often find them on large stretches of road where there aren't actually any cameras. So they're a cheap and genuinely effective road safety measure.

Flashing your lights at oncoming traffic to warn them of a speed trap is not a road safety measure: the same idiots will be speeding again tomorrow. What you're doing is helping them to evade detection, not modifying their dangerous behavior. It's like the drugs analogy: flashing your lights is like ringing round to warn known dealers that there's a raid tomorrow; council warnings are like government advertising campaigns telling you that they're cracking down on drugs and if you carry on dealing you can expect a visit from the police!

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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

Do the council obstruct the police by putting up signs warning of speed cameras?

Do the councill obstruct the police by putting up signs displaying the speed limit?

If I'm speeding, and I see the police pointing a hairdryer at me, but manage to brake and get below the speed limit before they take a reading, am I obstructing the police?

W1

Greg66 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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

Do the council obstruct the police by putting up signs warning of speed cameras?

Do the councill obstruct the police by putting up signs displaying the speed limit?

If I'm speeding, and I see the police pointing a hairdryer at me, but manage to brake and get below the speed limit before they take a reading, am I obstructing the police?

Surely in that instance the police are obstructing the police? And should then charge and prosecute themselves?

spen666

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Exactly, if you break the law, and are caught doing so, getting all self righteous and trying to claim that the police should be 'doing something more worthwhile' is only going to make things worse.

Agree, no point failing the 'attitude test' when stopped by plod if you have transgressed. Only the bloke being prosecuted hadn't committed an offence - see the Glendinning case.

The Glendinning case is a very specific case on its unique facts.

This chap was guilty and IMHO correctly convicted

Stevo_666

W1 wrote:

Surely in that instance the police are obstructing the police? And should then charge and prosecute themselves?

Unlikely if they can't fine anyone. Let's not forget that under the guise of road safety and deterrance, there is still a strong interest in gathering revenue even if the money doesn't go directly back to the scamera partnerships. Hence the arbitrary setting/lowering of speed limits below the 'natural' safe speed on many roads, combined with the introduction of a speed camera on said stretch of road :roll: Anyone who has driven on the downhill dual carriageway stretch of the southwest bound A3 in SW London leading to the Robin Hood roundabout will know a good example of this.

W1

Stevo 666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Surely in that instance the police are obstructing the police? And should then charge and prosecute themselves?

Unlikely if they can't fine anyone. Let's not forget that under the guise of road safety and deterrance, there is still a strong interest in gathering revenue even if the money doesn't go directly back to the scamera partnerships. Hence the arbitrary setting/lowering of speed limits below the 'natural' safe speed on many roads, combined with the introduction of a speed camera on said stretch of road :roll: Anyone who has driven on the downhill dual carriageway stretch of the southwest bound A3 in SW London leading to the Robin Hood roundabout will know a good example of this.

Let's not get started on that. I fear Brekkie's head may explode, Mars Attack style....

spen666

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Exactly, if you break the law, and are caught doing so, getting all self righteous and trying to claim that the police should be 'doing something more worthwhile' is only going to make things worse.

Agree, no point failing the 'attitude test' when stopped by plod if you have transgressed. Only the bloke being prosecuted hadn't committed an offence - see the Glendinning case.

The Glendinning case is a very specific case on its unique facts.

This chap was guilty and IMHO correctly convicted

rhext

W1 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Surely in that instance the police are obstructing the police? And should then charge and prosecute themselves?

Unlikely if they can't fine anyone. Let's not forget that under the guise of road safety and deterrance, there is still a strong interest in gathering revenue even if the money doesn't go directly back to the scamera partnerships. Hence the arbitrary setting/lowering of speed limits below the 'natural' safe speed on many roads, combined with the introduction of a speed camera on said stretch of road :roll: Anyone who has driven on the downhill dual carriageway stretch of the southwest bound A3 in SW London leading to the Robin Hood roundabout will know a good example of this.

Let's not get started on that. I fear Brekkie's head may explode, Mars Attack style....

He's not the only one! One man's 'natural safe speed' is another man's 'you can't be serious'. And given that speed limits are routinely broken and rarely prosecuted, it seems to me that there's a very strong argument for setting limits below the 'natural safe speed' should such a thing exist.

If speed cameras were really about revenue generation, all they'd need to do would be to mount a few on some motorway bridges, not tell anyone they were there, set them for 71 MPH, and we'd have the national debt paid off in a month!

W1

rhext wrote:

And given that speed limits are routinely broken and rarely prosecuted, it seems to me that there's a very strong argument for setting limits below the 'natural safe speed' should such a thing exist.!

Or equally a very strong aregument for increasing them....

[must resist]

mybreakfastconsisted

Speed cameras are for revenue collection in the same was as fines for spraying graffiti or fines for urinating in the streets are revenue collectors.

You can avoid donating the extra revenue by not speeding, not spraying spaffing cocks on walls and not taking a wazz in the gutter.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Speed cameras are for revenue collection in the same was as fines for spraying graffiti or fines for urinating in the streets are revenue collectors.

If it were the case that you could be fined for spraying graffiti/peeing (a) because you were caught doing so by CCTV; (b) you could be traced to your home address from the CCTV; (c) a demand to pay a fine could be made against you without the prior inconvenience of a trial or conviction, then you'd have an excellent point.

Only just missed it though.

rhext

W1 wrote:

rhext wrote:

And given that speed limits are routinely broken and rarely prosecuted, it seems to me that there's a very strong argument for setting limits below the 'natural safe speed' should such a thing exist.!

Or equally a very strong aregument for increasing them....

[must resist]

Don't quite understand what that argument might be....

Seems to me that as a society we set speed limits to ensure that there's no doubt about whether someone is breaking the law or not. From my point of view I don't want to be in a position where the judgement of a 'safe speed' is in the hands of what's admittedly a small number of people who feel themselves to be driving gods. And I suspect that there are a substantial number of people who wouldn't want to give the police the discretion to arrest anyone they felt was 'driving a bit too fast'.

What actually happens in practice is that the police exert a huge amount of discretion in how they detect and prosecute people who speed. Speed traps and mobile cameras tend to be sited on known blackspots: it's actually pretty difficult to get them set up just because you feel that speeding on a particular stretch of road poses a risk. You usually have to wait until people have actually died. So the reality is that if driving a bit over the speed limit down a particular stretch of road really is safe, chances are you won't get prosecuted.

Maybe some councils appear a little risk-averse in how they classify some roads. Maybe not! They'll be baseing their judgement at least partly on accident statistics that you won't routinely have sight of. And even if they are a little risk-averse at times, so what? Nobody dies if they err on the side of caution!

mybreakfastconsisted

rhext wrote:

W1 wrote:

rhext wrote:

And given that speed limits are routinely broken and rarely prosecuted, it seems to me that there's a very strong argument for setting limits below the 'natural safe speed' should such a thing exist.!

Or equally a very strong aregument for increasing them....

[must resist]

Don't quite understand what that argument might be....

Seems to me that as a society we set speed limits to ensure that there's no doubt about whether someone is breaking the law or not. From my point of view I don't want to be in a position where the judgement of a 'safe speed' is in the hands of what's admittedly a small number of people who feel themselves to be driving gods. And I suspect that there are a substantial number of people who wouldn't want to give the police the discretion to arrest anyone they felt was 'driving a bit too fast'.

What actually happens in practice is that the police exert a huge amount of discretion in how they detect and prosecute people who speed. Speed traps and mobile cameras tend to be sited on known blackspots: it's actually pretty difficult to get them set up just because you feel that speeding on a particular stretch of road poses a risk. You usually have to wait until people have actually died. So the reality is that if driving a bit over the speed limit down a particular stretch of road really is safe, chances are you won't get prosecuted.

Maybe some councils appear a little risk-averse in how they classify some roads. Maybe not! They'll be baseing their judgement at least partly on accident statistics that you won't routinely have sight of. And even if they are a little risk-averse at times, so what? Nobody dies if they err on the side of caution!

Exactly, excellent post.


There are two things men never admit to being bad at, I think the outrage from certain sections about speed cameras (since when did opposition to catching criminals become acceptable?) mostly comes from men drivers who view efforts to curtail their criminal behaviour as JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!

Speeding fines are a voluntary tax paid by those too stupid or arrogant to think the rules apply to them.

rjsterry

I really can't get my head round why it's such a huge problem to stick to the speed limit, even if as a (self-appointed) expert motorist, one might have concluded after exhaustive research that the limit was set lower than was strictly necessary in the interests of road safety. I mean what exactly is one going to do with the extra 15 seconds that one might save by driving at the 'natural safe speed' rather than the (presumably) slower speed limit?[/quote]

W1

I am determined not to be drawn into a speeding debate, firstly as I have work to do and secondly because it's drifting off topic.

But you kindly make my argument for me anyway. Laws should be there to prevent "the public" from harm. But if in fact a huge number of said public break that law, then there is a strong argument that in fact they do not wish to be so protected. What often appears to be the case is that those who shout about their local road being a "racetrack" and scream about "the children" are often happy to break speed limits elsewhere. I.e. there's a lot of hyocritical nimbyism around.

This is reflected, as you outline, in enforcement. Speeding is probably the "crime" with the most discretion in terms of policing. I would say that a vast majority of breaches of the speed limit are never enforced. Why do you think that is? Because everyone does it, and to penalise everyone (everytime) would perhaps lead to a more strong movement to increase limits (because, as I say above, most people break them). So even when there is "no doubt" about a breach of the law, it is often not enforced unless it is a substantial breach. That again reflects the regard that speeding is held in by both the public and the police.

And that brings me to my third point. Speed limits are necessary. But they are arbitrary figures. In terms of "harm" there's no reason why the speed limit shouldn't be 29.6867 mph, instead 31.2567 and so on. It really is a number on a stick, and takes no account of the specifics of each driver or car at the time of the offence. Therefore enforcement is also fairly arbitrary.

And finally speed limits tend to err on the side of the lowest common denominator, rather than the average or even above average driver or car (or road conditions or time of day for that matter). They are based on braking distances that any modern car can beat, and on vehicle technology which is 40 years out of date. I would fully support increasing regular driver training and assessment if more sensible speed limits were then allowed, but at the moment the blanket one off driving test means that councils seem to set limits for the "worst case", which is of course unjust (and faintly ridiculous) for the remainder who are quite capable of driving safely at 38mh in a 30 zone, or 85mph on the motorway.

rhext

'The public' also includes substantial numbers of people who don't drive and they need protection too. And of the people who do drive, there are also a substantial number who find that they are willing and able to obey the law. Your argument is a little like saying 'there are a large number of members of the public who feel that beating women is OK, they clearly don't want to be protected from wife-beating, so it should be legal'.

Anyway, in a way I agree with you. Speed limits are arbitrary. Some of them may be too low. I don't have any objection to people lobbying for an increase in speed limits, although I won't be joining them. And if you can get enough support for that position then I guess you might succeed in getting them changed. I wish you luck (although not good luck).

But although they're arbitrary, they're necessary and once they're set, breaking them is against the law. So I have no sympathy with people who get caught and then carp about it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

I really can't get my head round why it's such a huge problem to stick to the speed limit,

rhext wrote:

But although they're arbitrary, they're necessary and once they're set, breaking them is against the law.

One might assume, therefore, that both of you would tend to applaud someone who took action intended to draw drivers' attention to the need to observe the speed limit.

Unless, of course, you were of the view that every driver who was so warned was, in truth, an inveterate and recidivist speedster. That being something for which there is no evidence...

To labour the point somewhat, perhaps if I find I have exceeded the speed limit, I should not get the car back under the speed limit, but rather I should seek out the nearest speed trap asap and speed through it, thereby incurring the lawful punishment for my sin.

mybreakfastconsisted

rhext wrote:

'The public' also includes substantial numbers of people who don't drive and they need protection too. And of the people who do drive, there are also a substantial number who find that they are willing and able to obey the law. Your argument is a little like saying 'there are a large number of members of the public who feel that beating women is OK, they clearly don't want to be protected from wife-beating, so it should be legal'.

Anyway, in a way I agree with you. Speed limits are arbitrary. Some of them may be too low. I don't have any objection to people lobbying for an increase in speed limits, although I won't be joining them. And if you can get enough support for that position then I guess you might succeed in getting them changed. I wish you luck (although not good luck).

But although they're arbitrary, they're necessary and once they're set, breaking them is against the law. So I have no sympathy with people who get caught and then carp about it.

I think many drivers justify their behaviour, as human beings are wont to do, by saying "I sped, nobody died, no problem".

But speeding's almost never a victimless crime. Other people use the roads, it is entirely reasonable for them to assume other people will obey the law. Speeding is aggressive, anti-social and bullying. The chances of getting caught are tiny, yet people still bitch and moan about a "stealth tax" they could easily have avoided.