driver prosecuted for warning of speed trap

Cosimo · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:26

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

Was that warning drivers of the copper at the roadside taking snaps with a Brownie?

Alibaba99 · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:35

Burnsy2023 said:
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.

According to this page on Safe Speed mobile camera placement doesn't depend on either KSI or PIA numbers.

Interestingly the rules do require them to be positioned on safe roads where the general speed of the traffic is above the speed limit.

SexyGreyFox · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:41

simulatorman said:
Was that warning drivers of the copper at the roadside taking snaps with a Brownie?

CaptainRAVE · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:49

Just read this. Crazy, no wonder the public have no respect for the police. I guess in future I will wave my hands or something rather than flashing the lights.

Von Smallhausen · 4 Jan 2011 at 20:53

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.

Perhaps not but discretion is available in most of them.

As for minor vehicle defects, a VDRS was designed for such things.

Gaijin · 4 Jan 2011 at 21:14

Absolutely ridiculous. So if I met my mates up the pub and said "Be careful on the A27 as theres a trap up there" and a copper overheard it, I'd be nicked?

At risk of sounding like a Don-Bummer™, what Von Smallhausen said is bang on the money, discretion is key and pulling someone up on this is only going to dim people's view of the Police, which is a far greater cost than fining one man for this "offence".

The more Von posts on here, the more I see that he is the sort of copper we want on the streets, who actually has some life skills and common sense to apply. Jobsworth coppers on the other hand just make life more difficult for people like him and serve only to fuel public resent for the force.

Muncher · 4 Jan 2011 at 21:14

The court got it wrong as a matter of law, he'll be successful in his appeal (he defended himself in the Mags).

The authority for such a case is the High Court decision of Glendinning, here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html

Exactly the same facts but the guy appeals to the crown court and wins. The DPP then further appeal it to the High Court which agrees with the decision of the Crown Court.

To achieve a conviction there must be:

1) Evidence that those receiving the warning were likely to commit and offence (extremely hard to prove as you can't predict the future)

OR

2) That those receiving the warning were in fact breaking the speed limit (if there is evidence of this one could argue there is no obstruction as the police have already detected the offence in having that evidence)

Freefaller · 4 Jan 2011 at 21:20

Gaijin said:
Absolutely ridiculous. So if I met my mates up the pub and said "Be careful on the A27 as theres a trap up there" and a copper overheard it, I'd be nicked?

At risk of sounding like a Don-Bummer™, what Von Smallhausen said is bang on the money, discretion is key and pulling someone up on this is only going to dim people's view of the Police, which is a far greater cost than fining one man for this "offence".

The more Von posts on here, the more I see that he is the sort of copper we want on the streets, who actually has some life skills and common sense to apply. Jobsworth coppers on the other hand just make life more difficult for people like him and serve only to fuel public resent for the force.

Indeed. People who apply the rules black and white, get no respect for me. You have to take a much more holistic and broad take on such things. Blindly applying rules is pointless.

MikeHunt79 · 4 Jan 2011 at 21:33

wohoo said:
He must have had a crap lawyer, this is a ridiculous prosecution, have the police any actual proff that the drivers were going to break the law? are they going to prosecute the speeding camera signs that also warn us of the upcoming speed camera?

Surely for obstruction a crime has to have been committed?

I think he defended himself, which may explain a few things...

Burnsy2023 · 4 Jan 2011 at 21:57

Muncher said:
The court got it wrong as a matter of law, he'll be successful in his appeal (he defended himself in the Mags)

The fact he defended himself makes me think he would be less likely to take words of advice on board. Maybe he will win an appeal though.

Kenai · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:05

What words of advice would he be given though, if he has been convicted of what the article implies?

"Sir, don't warn people of a speed camera ahead, the aim is to make money not slow people down and you are reducing our profits and conviction statistics"

I'd be interested to hear what pearls of wisdom you would have had for him, had you been the officer involved.

[J.D.C] · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:08

Never really do this much myself as I'm not the sort of person who's constantly checking for police, cameras etc.

Still, I know plenty who do.

Crazy thing to get stung for. Wonder could the same happen for flashing your lights at anything?

=VTA=MANFACE · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:23

At the bottom of our lane is a 30MPH road. To the right is quite a big hill - 30 MPH - Trying to pull out to turn left or right is a nightmare with speeding motorists hitting 70 or above coming down that hill.

Once or twice a week, we have the mobile speed camera van there catching the morons who speed down there like lunatics. When I pull out and go up the hill, I never warn them, hoping they get caught. We've had three deaths there, in the last 30 years before they introduced accident black spots, two from the same family.

I have no sympathy for this guy getting caught and prosecuted. Speed limits are there for a reason, as are speed guns.

Speed KILLS.

Jono8 · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:28

=VTA=MANFACE said:
At the bottom of our lane is a 30MPH road. To the right is quite a big hill - 30 MPH - Trying to pull out to turn left or right is a nightmare with speeding motorists hitting 70 or above coming down that hill.

Once or twice a week, we have the mobile speed camera van there catching the morons who speed down there like lunatics. When I pull out and go up the hill, I never warn them, hoping they get caught. We've had three deaths there, in the last 30 years before they introduced accident black spots, two from the same family.

I have no sympathy for this guy getting caught and prosecuted. Speed limits are there for a reason, as are speed guns.

Speed KILLS.

Yes but that IS dangerous. Doing 70 in a 30 is moronical.

Fining people for doing 45 in a 40 in good conditions with a clear road is the sort of thing that is so irritating. At those sort of speeds one could argue that its far safer going 45mph in a sports car with fantastic brakes and stopping ability than going 40mph in a old snot box.

I suppose a line must be drawn somewhere however.

Burnsy2023 · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:37

Kenai said:
What words of advice would he be given though, if he has been convicted of what the article implies?

"Sir, don't warn people of a speed camera ahead, the aim is to make money not slow people down and you are reducing our profits and conviction statistics"

I'd be interested to hear what pearls of wisdom you would have had for him, had you been the officer involved.

For all I know, they may not have been handing out FPNs at all, it could just be a operation to raise awareness.

Neil79 · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:42

=VTA=MANFACE said:
Dangerous Driving KILLS.

Speeding Doesn't kill, driving dangerously does!. If i was to do 100 down the motorway on a clear night, nobody else on the road that doesn't kill. If i was to do 100 on a busy motorway in wet conditions that most likely would

. Or i could say if i was driving faster i might have missed that person walking along the road

-Ad- · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:42

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

Don't say that too loudly, they are listening.....Shhhhhhh.

Wish it was this way, but can only see it getting worse. It seems that everyone these, especially those in power only care abut teh politics, the monies, the headcount etc etc. Doubt that will change.

Kenai · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:44

Neil79 said:
Speeding Doesn't kill, driving dangerously does!. If i was to do 100 down the motorway on a clear night, nobody else on the road that doesn't kill. If i was to do 100 on a busy motorway in wet conditions that most likely would . Or i could say if i was driving faster i might have missed that person walking along the road

No you're wrong, I've personally died 17 times just from doing 76mph on the motorway.

Bubo · 4 Jan 2011 at 22:49

I heard the officer was going to let him off with a warning but changed his mind after the bloke said something, probably just basic sarcasm given the likely circumstanes. Must have been his time of the month.

Fr0dders · 4 Jan 2011 at 23:49

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...

exactly

I thought the aim of these things was to reduce accidents ??

This is proof once and for all, its all about money.