driver prosecuted for warning of speed trap

SlyReaper · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:45

Burnsy2023 said:
I disagree. I think this is perfectly in the public interest. I also think that perhaps the CPS should peruse other offences with this vigor, but that's a different argument.

You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

Are you joking? Please explain exactly how it's in the public interest? How does punishing this man serve the greater good?

As for being obstructive, of course it bloody isn't. If drivers are slowing down, that's what the scamera was there for in the first place. The only way you can argue it's obstructive is if you admit their only purpose is to catch people out, and to raise money.

The Edge · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:46

Burnsy2023 said:
You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

Speed traps exist to discourage speeding. By law there has to be a sign saying "Police Slow" before them and/or a blue camera sign with the speed limit on it before the speed trap to warn drivers.

Does this mean that the council who put the signs up, or the copper who placed the slow warning are also to be prosecuted for obstruction?

Surely if the aim of speed traps it to reduce speed and this happens everybody is happy?

Cosimo · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:48

For Christ’s sake don’t they have anything better to do? What complete waste of time and money. This country is turning into a dump policed by some idiots.

Von Smallhausen · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:48

Burnsy2023 said:
I disagree. I think this is perfectly in the public interest. I also think that perhaps the CPS should peruse other offences with this vigor, but that's a different argument.

You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

I can say it Burnsy and I am.

What is it obstructing ? The only thing I can think of is preventing a speed gun from nabbing a speeding driver. The driver sees the flash and slows down. Exactly the same effect as seeing the speed gun or whatever.

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

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

Lopéz · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:50

Von Smallhausen said:
I can say it Burnsy and I am.

What is it obstructing ? The only thing I can think of is preventing a speed gun from nabbing a speeding driver. The driver sees the flash and slows down. Exactly the same effect as seeing the speed gun or whatever.

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

If any offence is suitable for discretion and a word in the driver's ear then this is it. It is a complete waste of public money to pursue such a case while the CPS often duck making a decision to charge a more worthy case as they may lose and I have seen that first hand.

I wholeheartedly agree, as does my friend who is a police ops controller and former CPS liason

Von Smallhausen · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:51

CPS worker ?

Let his tyres down.

physichull · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:52

What I don't quite understand is how they can prosecute this man for flashing his lights and not bat an eyelid at the fact that you can get your Satnav to flash up warning messages when you are nearing a speed trap! What is the difference exactly??

Wicksta · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:58

Burnsy2023 said:
I disagree. I think this is perfectly in the public interest. I also think that perhaps the CPS should peruse other offences with this vigor, but that's a different argument.

You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

This must be one of the most amusing things I've ever read. Telling someone to stop breaking the law is 'obstruction' now? No wonder you are called 'Specials'.

Scania · 4 Jan 2011 at 18:59

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

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

Freefaller · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:09

Burnsy2023 said:
I disagree. I think this is perfectly in the public interest. I also think that perhaps the CPS should peruse other offences with this vigor, but that's a different argument.

You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

Oh come on....... Really?!

Von Smallhausen said:
I can say it Burnsy and I am.

What is it obstructing ? The only thing I can think of is preventing a speed gun from nabbing a speeding driver. The driver sees the flash and slows down. Exactly the same effect as seeing the speed gun or whatever.

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

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

Here here.

Jono8 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:12

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

MikeHiow · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:13

Burnsy2023 said:
You can't say that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers isn't being obstructive?

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.

ghop · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:15

I thought that flashing your headlights was the official and proper way to warn someone according to the highway code, iirc? How the hell did he get prosecuted?

Lethal` · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:17

lordrobs said:
I've heard of people getting their ear bent over this but never a prosecution before

I stopped flashing people a while back though after I flashed and "thumb down"ed a young guy in a modified Corsa. He obviously got the wrong end of the stick and dropped a couple of cogs and gunned it towards the corner, around which was a Scamera van

Serves him right lol.

I can't say I would read your signal as a warning of a speed trap, but I wouldn't react how he did.

ghop said:
I thought that flashing your headlights was the official and proper way to warn someone according to the highway code, iirc? How the hell did he get prosecuted?

The Highway Code has an official way to warn someone of a speed trap up ahead? News to me, at least there wasn't anything when I did my theory test a year and half ago. I think it said that you should only use it to warn someone of your presence, like the horn.

MikeHiow · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:20

Highway Code said:
110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

ZG002 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:21

ghop said:
I thought that flashing your headlights was the official and proper way to warn someone according to the highway code, iirc? How the hell did he get prosecuted?

I think you need to go over your highway code again..

ghop · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:22

Lethal` said:
Serves him right lol.

I can't say I would read your signal as a warning of a speed trap, but I wouldn't react how he did.

The Highway Code has an official way to warn someone of a speed trap up ahead? News to me, at least there wasn't anything when I did my theory test a year and half ago. I think it said that you should only use it to warn someone of your presence, like the horn.

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.

Jono8 · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:24

Why didnt he just say he flashed his lights by accident whilst turning his lights on/off or something :confused:

I don't see how they could have proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was flashing motorists to obstruct the speed trap ( i.e. stop them making more money..)

I think there might be more to this story than meets the eye..

Dolph · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:24

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...

PhillyDee · 4 Jan 2011 at 19:25

Jono8 said:
Why didnt he just say he flashed his light by accident whilst turning his lights on/off or something

Flashing what lights? Must have been a bump in the road causing refraction . . . .