driver prosecuted for warning of speed trap

Janesy B · 4 Jan 2011 at 23:52

Burnsy2023 said:
For all I know, they may not have been handing out FPNs at all, it could just be a operation to raise awareness.

Does that ever actually happen?

Leeroy Jenkins · 5 Jan 2011 at 04:21

there are scumbag rapists and serial killers out there yet they decide to pick on the innocent person that has probably never done anything wrong in his whole life. it's just sick wat the police are like nothing better to do than break people's balls.

Uther · 5 Jan 2011 at 06:52

It has been featured on BBC news this morning,so its been picked up by the mainstream press now.
The Police were heavily ripped in to by people in the story,so another own goal for the cops!
The driver is going to appeal...

mejinks · 5 Jan 2011 at 07:19

Von Smallhausen said:
I can think of better priorities for the CPS.

Unfortunately, its all about going for the easy targets that will bring the most likelyhood of securing a conviction. Its all about the stats these days you know.

I heard the above from a conversation between two CPS workers when I worked in the same building. They were openly discussing cases. Such a totally professional outfit eh?

The Edge · 5 Jan 2011 at 07:19

post went to pot never mind

markweatherill · 5 Jan 2011 at 08:00

The article doesn't say that the act of flashing headlights was the actual wilful obstruction the man was prosecuted for.
He could have been pulled over and asked not to flash his lights in such a manner as it might confuse other road users, and on your way, and decided to hang around instead and wilfully obstruct the officer in some way. For example.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Jan 2011 at 08:02

markweatherill said:
The article doesn't say that the act of flashing headlights was the actual wilful obstruction the man was prosecuted for.
He could have been pulled over and asked not to flash his lights in such a manner as it might confuse other road users, and on your way, and decided to hang around instead and wilfully obstruct the officer in some way. For example.

Indeed, there is a lot of information we don't have.

bledd · 5 Jan 2011 at 10:47

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

He probably just admitted to it when they asked him.

"I thought I recognised them" may have been a better excuse

Lum · 5 Jan 2011 at 12:19

The Edge said:
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.

Sorry but this is rubbish.

This has never been the law. The closest it got to law was was under the hypothecation scheme that ran until 2006 where camera partnerships were allowed to keep the profits from the cameras providing they painted the cameras yellow and put up little white camera signs before their identified camera sites.

Mobile cameras are sometimes run by camera partnerships who generally stick to predetermined identified sites, but they are also run by the police who can enforce wherever they like.

As for this court case. It's obstruction of justice if you warn someone who is currently over the speed limit as then you are preventing a crime from being detected. If they are below the speed limit then you are merely preventing a crime from being committed and that is fine.

edscdk · 5 Jan 2011 at 12:24

Von Smallhausen said:
CPS worker ?

Let his tyres down.

thats pointless... why would you let down the tyres on a car you have jsut set fire to?

BigglesPiP · 5 Jan 2011 at 14:39

pIf speed traps really are a deterrent and not a cash cow, there would be no issue with this, the speed trap will be seen by the drivers if they were warned or otherwise. The only difference being that the drivers aren't caught and fined.

The police who prosecuted him and the CPS clearly believe it's important to fine people, why?

I do this every time I see a mobile speed tarp and will continue to do so. I would be happy to test this case as high as is needed to reverse the precedent. I'll bet there's a lawyer out there who would love to take that case if they try this again.

snapdragon · 5 Jan 2011 at 14:52

Alibaba99 said:
Interestingly the rules do require them to be positioned on safe roads where the general speed of the traffic is above the speed limit.

Think that ought to read "on safe roads where the general speed of the traffic is of a sufficient level to raise some cash"

what a complete joke

Lum · 5 Jan 2011 at 16:26

snapdragon said:
Think that ought to read "on safe roads where the general speed of the traffic is of a sufficient level to raise some cash"

Once again that comes from the hypothecation scheme. Police can, and always could, enforce wherever they liked, but if Camera partnerships wanted to keep the money they had additional rules to adhere to, such as the yellow boxes previously mentioned.

The rules regarding new camera sites were that there had to have been 5 KSIs (Killed or Seriously Injured) within a certain time period and be on a road where there is a significant number of speeding vehicles (I forget the exact number but it was fairly high).

Now anyone who has ever heard of the term "85th percentile rule" will be able to tell you that if there are a significant number of speeding vehicles then the speed limit is too slow, but that's OK because there's also that 5 KSI rule right?

Wrong. It's debatable whether the intial rule was created this way due to ****-up or conspiracy but what actually happens is that you'll get a road with lots of speeding but no real accidents for years, then in, say, 2004 along comes Kev the drunken 16 yr old in a stolen Vauxhall Nova, carrying 15 yr old Wayne, 15 yr old Waynetta and Waynetta's 1 and 3 yr old babies. Kev approaches the one single corner on the road that is even slightly sharp, one that everyone else slows down for but Kev chooses to wrap his Nova around a tree instead. This is one of those fluke things or in statistical terms an "outlier"

However the road now has persistent speeding and 6 KSIs so they can now fill the whole 10 mile stretch with cameras.

In 2005 we don't have a repeat of Kev's lack of talent, not because of the camera but because in reality most people aren't like that, so the number of KSIs drops to zero. In statistical terms this is called "Regression to the Mean" and anyone who did A level maths would know about it and know to be wary of it.

Camera partnership statistics

2004: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 6
2005: avg speed: 67, Deaths: 0

Actual statistics

1999: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 0
2000: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 0
2001: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 0
2002: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 0
2003: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 0
2004: avg speed: 80, Deaths: 6
2005: avg speed: 67, Deaths: 0

The KSI rule basically causes this to happen over and over again, building up a bogus body of evidence that speed cameras work.

Glaucus · 5 Jan 2011 at 16:38

Uther said:
The driver is going to appeal...

Good, I don't see how he broke the law he was charged with, at that point no crime had been committed and it is a total joke. You would not get charged for trying to calm a mate down who wanted a fight.

even if he did technically break the law, it must be extremely badly written and abused like the uproar about councils spying.

Freefaller · 5 Jan 2011 at 17:01

Technically, they would have to prove that the people he flashed were speeding or were intending on speeding. Only then is he perverting or obstructing as if they weren't speeding then the flash would have not altered their speed.

Furthermore, I heard it would costs in the 10s of thousands for this prosecution... what a waste of money. :/