driver prosecuted for warning of speed trap

ZG002 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:25

ghop said:
Not to warn of a speed trap specifically, but just 'to warn someone'. If he had a relatively decent lawyer I'm sure this could have been used to his advantage.

It's not to "warn someone"

It's to let other road users know you are there, If you feel they haven't seen you.

ghop · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:31

ZG002 said:
It's not to "warn someone"

It's to let other road users know you are there, If you feel they haven't seen you.

Yeah, my mistake. In reality though, no one actually flashes their lights for the purpose of letting them know you're there. It's like being prosecuted for flashing their lights to let someone out of a junction.

Ant84 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:31

They're definitely not there to make money for the Government, though.

Laughable.

Draeger · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:33

Dolph said:
Surely, if the speed cameras are being used correctly at accident blackspots as per the guidelines, encouraging people to slow down is a benefit...

More evidence that they are nothing whatsoever to do with road safety then...

^^THIS.

And :-

MikeHiow said:
Depends how you view speed traps.

They are supposed to be there to reduce speeding - something the prosecuted has actually aided with, and in an arguably safer manner.

If you look at them like the cash cow they are, then yes, he may have been obstructive, but this is completely circumstantial as there is no proof the people he was flashing were speeding in the first place.

This is just the system showing its self to be a joke, yet again.

^^THIS.

Maccy · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:33

He should've said that he was flashing to tell motorists to speed up, bet he would've been let off then

Burnsy2023 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:38

Von Smallhausen said:
What is it obstructing ? The only thing I can think of is preventing a speed gun from nabbing a speeding driver.

Yes. Slowing down for a temporary trap is one thing, but perhaps an FPN would slow a driver down on a more permanent basis?

Von Smallhausen said:
To pursue such trivial matters very quickly alienates a large percentage of the population who are good, decent and law abiding.

In all fairness, traffic is all about 'trivial matters'. FPNs for illegal tyres, other vehicle defects, mobile phones and crossing solid white lines can all be thought of as trivial by some people. That doesn't mean that they are pointless though.

Von Smallhausen said:
If any offence is suitable for discretion and a word in the driver's ear then this is it.

I don't know the full facts of the case, but what if words of advice didn't work? You know the people I'm on about; the ones who scream to high heaven that they did nothing wrong and that your persecuting them. When that happens what do you do? Summons is the most likely way forward.

Von Smallhausen said:
It is a complete waste of public money to pursue such a case when CPS often duck making a decision to charge a more worthy case as they may lose. I have seen that first hand.

Don't get me wrong, the CPS make some awful decisions sometimes, but I don't think that should necessarily stop them prosecuting for offences like this.

lordrobs · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:41

ZG002 said:
Did you not LOL?

Nah, I felt bad if I'm honest. I thought the thumbs down was a nationally recognised warning but apparently not

-Ad- · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:43

Burnsy2023 said:
Yes. Slowing down for a temporary trap is one thing, but perhaps an FPN would slow a driver down on a more permanent basis?

Carrying this on a little further, why not give every driver in the UK a FPN and 3 points, then perhaps people won't go over the legal limit of say 70 on the motorway as clearly 90% of people do....

for example.

Dolph · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:49

-Ad- said:
Carrying this on a little further, why not give every driver in the UK a FPN and 3 points, then perhaps people won't go over the legal limit of say 70 on the motorway as clearly 90% of people do....

for example.

Or alternatively, we could go for a road safety policy that could actually improve road safety! Shocking suggestion I know...

SlyReaper · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:58

Jono8 said:
How on earth could they prove that this is the reason that he flashed his lights??

He probably told them as soon as they asked, not knowing they could book him for it. Then he probably got a bit lairy towards the officer in question, which is why they pushed for a prosecution. Either that, or the officer was just having a bad day and wanted to take it out on someone. He would probably have got off with a warning otherwise.

And the police wonder why the public regard them as bullies. What I find incredible is that the CPS actually picked it up and ran with it.

Kenai · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:04

"guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties."

Was he actually prosecuted for the flashing or has he been prosecuted for being an obtuse awkward git after the event in some manner? Has anyone got a link that actually describes precisely what he was convicted of and why in simple terms, rather than the ambiguous manner in which the BBC have done?

It seems to me there may be more than meets the eye to this story and I can't help but feel a little sprinkling of sensationalism has occurred in the media regarding it.

SB118 · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:08

Burnsy2023 said:
Yes. Slowing down for a temporary trap is one thing, but perhaps an FPN would slow a driver down on a more permanent basis?

Having received 15 points for speeding over the years, that method really doesn't work.

Burnsy2023 said:
In all fairness, traffic is all about 'trivial matters'. FPNs for illegal tyres, other vehicle defects, mobile phones and crossing solid white lines can all be thought of as trivial by some people. That doesn't mean that they are pointless though.

People think that unsafe vehicles, lack of control and possibly dangerous driving are trivial?

Burnsy2023 said:
Don't get me wrong, the CPS make some awful decisions sometimes, but I don't think that should necessarily stop them prosecuting for offences like this.

The offence of making people slow down before an "accident blackspot"? :confused:

SlyReaper · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:08

Kenai said:
"guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties."

Was he actually prosecuted for the flashing or has he been prosecuted for being an obtuse awkward git after the event in some manner? Has anyone got a link that actually describes precisely what he was convicted of and why in simple terms, rather than the ambiguous manner in which the BBC have done?

It seems to me there may be more than meets the eye to this story and I can't help but feel a little sprinkling of sensationalism has occurred in the media regarding it.

The way it's worded, it sounds like warning other drivers to slow down was an obstruction of the police's work. If that's the case, it's basically a flat-out admission that the primary purpose of a speed camera is to catch people out, not to enforce road safety.

Jono8 · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:08

Indeed, i think there must be more to this than meets the eye.

Burnsy2023 · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:12

SlyReaper said:
The way it's worded, it sounds like warning other drivers to slow down was an obstruction of the police's work. If that's the case, it's basically a flat-out admission that the primary purpose of a speed camera is to catch people out, not to enforce road safety.

It's a speed trap, not a speed camera. The trap may not be anywhere near an accident blackspot. The purpose is to detect speeding offences and prosecute where necessary. This isn't the same for fixed speed cameras, in theory anyway.

SB118 · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:15

Burnsy2023 said:
The purpose is to detect speeding offences and prosecute where necessary.

Ahh, the good old "Prosecution is better than Prevention" method.

Glaucus · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:16

I just don't see what law he broke, well certainly not the one he got charged with.
No offences had taken place, the officer was not investigating. It just doens't make sense and seems to be an abuse of that law.

Would you get prosecuted for trying to calm a mate down who wanted to beat someone up. Of course you wouldn't. It's a complete shambles.

Kenai · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:16

SlyReaper said:
The way it's worded, it sounds like warning other drivers to slow down was an obstruction of the police's work. If that's the case, it's basically a flat-out admission that the primary purpose of a speed camera is to catch people out, not to enforce road safety.

Well that's what I mean, it's worded to imply that but in such a way that technically, were they to be pulled up on it, that isn't what they've explicitly said.

In my experience, when news reports take such an ambiguous tone it's because they're trying to brush over an element of the story which makes it all far more normal and less controversial.

Sadly, other than the BBC, only rags like the Sun and the Daily Mail seem to have picked this up, so there's not much forthcoming that's likely to contain any more sense or illumination on the exact nature of his prosecution.

Freefaller · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:16

And as such all I can say is ****ing ****s.

SexyGreyFox · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:20

I got done for this back in the late 70's so it's not new.