|
It also proves that, despite what some say, the main reason for speed traps is to get money from the motorist; the authorities are annoyed that this man has stopped them picking up as much money in fines as they would have otherwise done.
He was presumably successful in getting other drivers to slow down as they approached the speed trap - isn't that what the speed cameras are trying to do anyway? So he has slowed the traffic down, what was wrong with that?
|
It also proves that, despite what some say, the main reason for speed traps is to get money from the motorist; the authorities are annoyed that this man has stopped them picking up as much money in fines as they would have otherwise done.
He was presumably successful in getting other drivers to slow down as they approached the speed trap - isn't that what the speed cameras are trying to do anyway? So he has slowed the traffic down, what was wrong with that?
Come on you know what's wrong with that. Otherwise you may as well have the police put up a notice several hundred yards before the speed trap, to warn motorist of the impedding trap.
|
Come on you know what's wrong with that. Otherwise you may as well have the police put up a notice several hundred yards before the speed trap, to warn motorist of the impedding trap.
That wouldn't be like those signs at the side of the road everywhere which warn motorists about speed cameras, would it?
|
|
|
Come on you know what's wrong with that. Otherwise you may as well have the police put up a notice several hundred yards before the speed trap, to warn motorist of the impedding trap.
Well, they do. I think its a legal requirement. Have you ever noticed the picture of a camera stuck on a post? They also tell me they stick up large signs, with a number or some other wierd symbol printed on it to warn you that a speed limit applies. Personally I think when they leap out and shout "cheese", its a dead giveaway....
Edited by brum on 05/01/2011 at 21:41
|
|
Only camera locations operated by speed camera partnerships have to be signed - the police can do speed checks wherever they like.
I suspect it went further than it should have because Mr 'I know better' failed the attitude test.
"where does it say in the law that preventing anybody breaking a law is prohibited?"
Obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty - which is what he was charged with.
Edited by daveyjp on 05/01/2011 at 22:07
|
|
Yes, but you do see the irony, don't you?
|
We have defended about a dozen of these cases and never lost one yet.
Under no circumstances is flashing lights to warn of a trap obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty, and the driver flashing the lights could be construed as attempting to prevent a possible offence taking place.
|
|
If what you say is correct Lucy, then surely the convicted driver should appeal? He stands a better than even chance of winning the case. Maybe best that he learns to control his public reactions to officialdom. If he loses then thousands of the country's drivers should offer to contribute to his costs and penalty.
|
|
I always warn other motorists of speed traps & always will even if it means risking a fine, rude not to, imo.
|
I always warn other motorists of speed traps & always will even if it means risking a fine, rude not to, imo.
Why? _ if they're stupid enough to speed, then they're stupid enough to be caught. And rarely do the police prosecute for a slight infringement.
You know as well as I do that they would only slow down for the trap and then carry on speeding later on.
If you knew a house was being set up to trap thiefs, would you warn potential thiefs to steer clear of that and try somewhere else instead? And if you did, is that morally right?
|
|
|
He is launching an appeal from what i read.
The bit that annoys me with these sort of things is that it is a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The entire thing embarrsases the CPS and the Police.
It does strike me, as someone else posted, that this was someone failing the police "attitude" test.
Edited by AlleyCat` on 06/01/2011 at 10:38
|
|
I think he should have been fined for being an idiot, but there is no law against that
|
I think he should have been fined for being an idiot, but there is no law against that
He may have been one.. but the CPS have been a collectively bigger one for taking it to court.
The size of the fine is vastly bigger than any speeding fine...Makes a mockery of the law and its approach.
|
The size of the fine is vastly bigger than any speeding fine...Makes a mockery of the law and its approach.
Well I don't know, he was an idiot and to me he got what he deserves. The size of the fine, well maybe it's the police/courts saying that how much lost revenue you may have costs us!
|
|
Well if the law is going to prosecute and fine on the basis of stupidity....:-)
|
|
Firstly I'm not against speed traps or cameras, in general I support their use.
However, I fail to see how it can be an offence to warn someone that there's a speed trap ahead.
The speed trap is there to catch people who are speeding. The idea is to deter people from speeding. The motorist who flashes their lights as a warning is doing the same thing - attempting to deter people from speeding. Furthermore, many of the cars approaching the speed trap would probably be observing the limit anyway. So if the warning driver flashed to an approaching driver who was intending to observe the limit anyway, regardless of whether or not there's a speed trap, it's a very shaky legal case, I'd think. Can someone be prosecuted for warning someone not to commit an offence that they weren't going to commit anyway?
|
|
That is a pretty fair question.
How do the police know that any of the vehicles they "didn't catch" were actually breaking the speed limit in the first instance?
It all seems a bit iffy in terms of logic but then again the law has no obvious way of dealing with logic and common sense.
|
|
The moral of this story is don't argue with a policeman but crucially never, ever offer so much as an opinion to a policewoman.
There are some very disturbed females dressed in blue and it's better to ignore them as much as possible.
|
He is launching an appeal from what i read.
The bit that annoys me with these sort of things is that it is a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The entire thing embarrsases the CPS and the Police.
It does strike me, as someone else posted, that this was someone failing the police "attitude" test.
Thats it sledge hammer to crack a nut! Complete waste of police resorces & time.
I agree that the person involved, possibly give the old bill a bit of lip and made it worse for himself. There again the old bill want to get real
Mate of mine was stopped over christmas for not wareing a seat belt. He said words to the effect "Aww have you nothing better to do?" Reply from early 20's copper "Show a bit of respect" that about sums the attitude of coppers these days
|
|
Typical Police-looking for a killer in Bristol and havent got a clue,detecting a motorist who flashs his lights and they are world beaters.
|
|
Dunno if I'm missing something here, but how did they catch him in the first place? Was he parked up right next to the speed trap or something?
Surely once he passed it, if he was flashing oncoming drivers, how would you ever prove that's what he was doing? I'm guessing when stopped he made the mistake of admitting that's what he was doing, thinking that nothing would come of it? If he had blatantly denied it how could you prove it otherwise. Be different if he had a big printed sign held up!
|
Mate of mine was stopped over christmas for not wareing a seat belt. He said words to the effect "Aww have you nothing better to do?" Reply from early 20's copper "Show a bit of respect" that about sums the attitude of coppers these days
And again what an idiot - he was breaking the law, the police can't ignore it if they see it. All your mate needed to do was eat a bit of humble pie and he would have been on his way. For all you know that same copper might have, at some time in his career, had to inform relatives that their loved one was killed in a crash ( who'd want that job?) and it therefore my effect his attitude to idiots
I'm not in the police but I think they have a tough job, and they are just like the rest of us. Give them a bit of respect for the job they do.
|
Mate of mine was stopped over christmas for not wareing a seat belt. He said words to the effect "Aww have you nothing better to do?" Reply from early 20's copper "Show a bit of respect" that about sums the attitude of coppers these days
And again what an idiot - he was breaking the law, the police can't ignore it if they see it. All your mate needed to do was eat a bit of humble pie and he would have been on his way. For all you know that same copper might have, at some time in his career, had to inform relatives that their loved one was killed in a crash ( who'd want that job?) and it therefore my effect his attitude to idiots
I'm not in the police but I think they have a tough job, and they are just like the rest of us. Give them a bit of respect for the job they do.
Your missing my point! The response from the copper beggars belief.
They are after all public servants
Don't play that old line about about informing relatives etc at the end of the day THAT'S what they signed up to do and get paid for
|
Your missing my point! The response from the copper beggars belief. They are after all public servants Don't play that old line about about informing relatives etc at the end of the day THAT'S what they signed up to do and get paid for
OK fair point, they signed up for the job, and they knew what they were signing up for.
However, your mate was breaking the law. How do you/he expect the police to respond to the question (from a law breaker) 'have you nothing better to do'?. Just because they are paid from the public purse does't mean they should be treated without common respect/courtesy.
Your mate was breaking the law, so they 'as public servants' have a duty to enforce the law. Or should they not do what they are paid for.?
Personally if your mate wants to drive without a seatbelt, then I don't care.....so long as, if he has a crash, he doesn't receive NHS treatment if he has injuries that a seatbelt could have prevented.
|
|
I agree we should support the police and respect the uniform they wear. Although sometimes the person in the uniform leaves a lot to be desired as an officer of the law. This is a motoring issue so I cannot see the analogy with murder or theft cases, so please keep the issue on motoring. In certain areas I quite agree with mobile speed cameras, as long as there is a genuine road safety issue to tackle. However having tried to persuade our local camera group to focus occasionally in my local area where speeding can be a problem they will not respond, but they are quite happy to 'stake out' certain spots, with no particular road safety issues, but they are cracking spots to ambush the unwary. This really brings the whole speed camera programme into disrepute and the police along with it. It just smacks of money raising and not safety. This latest thread just highlights the public perception of the 'police and road safety', what an oxymoron. It also shows the police forces who really regard the motorist as a target and cash cow. Lincolnshire, Cumbria and North Wales to name just three forces that have more roads than people so they can devote their resources to motoring, not for safety but for cash. The prosecution of the driver who warned others of a speed camera is appalling. The police really should have taken a more circumspect view. As for the CPS; where is the public interest here? I cannot see where preventing a possible offence is obstructing the police, quite the reverse. The fact the police have taken to virtually hiding with a view to observing a crime, then punishing by 'royal mail' is proof positive they have lost the plot. Surely they would prefer to prevent a crime with high profile policing. Further proof is in the fact that the grevious offence they have detected is suddenly acceptable and not worthy of prosecution provided you send them money. I hope the prosecuted driver does appeal and is successful. It may help the police to think more seriously about road safety and not money or petty transgressions. Also I hope against hope thet the CPS are made to consider and prove that the public interest is served by any prosecution. I would like to see their explanation of the public interest in this case. Concrete
|
|
"YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING, BUT..."
Hint hint.
Edited by Hamsafar on 06/01/2011 at 19:26
|
|
A seatbelt is a live safer my wife tends to forget and I have to remind her.A find local police when you are stopped and talk to them in a friendly manner they are often ok.Traffic police in my opinion are a different breed.they get the book out first and instant fine.No warning or a talk you broke the law thats it pay up.That has been my experience in driving over thirty years.
|
Seat belt saves lives, & any recovery driver will tell you when you have to go to a fatal & the hair & scalp are still are still attached to the screen, it makes putting on a belt insignifcant!
The trouble with screens these day is they crack ( not shatter ) and they stretch so as your head hits it the hair goes in the crack and as your head leaves the screen the crack closes up grabbing the hair & it will often litterally scalp you often severring serious main arturies in the scalp!
Horrendpous i know but its fact & there are a few instances that have remained with me for many years so seat belts are so important
|
|
According to Quintin Wilson on the radio the other day he did not hire a solicitor to defend his case-fatal mistake.
|
Firstly the fine was not £440. The fine was a smaller element (£175) - the larger part was court costs (£250) and anyone convicted has to pay the victims of crime surcharge (£15).
The facts are that Mr Thompson had a very good case which he spoiled with an attitude problem that endeared him to no-one.
A colleague advised him on the phone before the case that we believed we could get the charge withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service before trial given the details he gave us.
However during the course of this telephone interview it became clear Mr Thompson wanted his "day in court" with himself wielding his "sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play" (as Jonathan Aitken once put it).
This is rarely a good idea as Mr Aitken found out and unfortunately Mr Thompson is currently experiencing the consequences.
Mr Thompson has an excellent chance of winning on appeal and knows where we are if he needs us.
|
|
Aspects of this case intrigue me. Who "caught" Mr Thompson flashing his lights? Was there filmed evidence of the alleged flashing? Did someone report him for flashing his lights?
"Flashing of lights to warn of a police presence" was made a specific motoring offence in Spain some years ago and it's a catch-all, inchoate offence. I don't know how many people have been caught or what evidence is gathered but the message is clear: "Do not interfere!" I have never flashed to warn an oncoming car of a police checkpoint, simply because there are hundreds of reasons a checkpoint may be there, and speeding is one, terrorism is another. As well as a speed trap, there may be ANPR surveillance and there may be a chance that a wanted person in a "wanted" car is actually caught this way. Imagine if a "friendly flash" helped a suspect escape the law.
I think if this specific law were enacted in Britain it would make things simpler; put the onus onto a driver to justify why he was flashing and let the courts decide what is a justifiable excuse.
|
|
I believe Mr Thompson is recieving representation from a MEP Lucy who volunteerd to help him.When I saw Mr Thompson on the television who is a quit spoken man.To compare him with Mr Aitken is a bit unfair.The money Mr Thompson has to pay out is £440 which isn't chicken feed.If this offence is law fair enough but the police can't make up laws as they go along in my opinion
|
I advised Mr Thompson by email and my colleague, leading motor defence solicitor, Emma Patterson spoke to him at length. It is clear he had a good case and had he allowed us to deal with it we could probably have had it dropped by the CPS pre trial.
However in the course of Emma's advice call it was clear he wanted his "day in court" with himself in the central role. Despite our explaining the complexities he made it clear he did not want representation.
Given those circumstances there was always a likelihood of a conviction.
We have advised on about a dozen or so "light flashing" cases over the last year. For the most part these result from a somewhat heated discussion at the scene and what the police regard as an "attitude" problem. Police officers do not like to be challenged and Mr Thompson is not an "easy customer". In these cases the threat is almost always to report for "obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties" made in the heat of the moment at the roadside.
Our usual response is to talk to the CPS and make representations that by "flashing" the driver was warning others about their *possible* speed and hence preventing a *possible* offence from being committed. Generally speaking (after legal argument - see below) the CPS will accept this and the charges are quietly withdrawn an the grounds that with a decent lawyer involved and Counsel likely to be presenting the case for the defendant the prospects for a successful prosecution fall below the required threshold.
There are two recent cases where this has not happened so far as I am aware and both resulted in convictions. Significantly neither were represented. Mr Thompson is one, the other was Stuart Weller (71) who erected a sign near a car boot sale warning of "Speed Trap, 300 Yards Ahead". Looking at our own statistics it seems to be something of a "grumpy old men" offence - at least for the cases which are summonsed.
In fact although the case looks like a simple argument, a well advised bench will be directed to various precedents which suggest that this is an offence, but to obtain a conviction *there must be evidence that the vehicles the person was warning were speeding*.
If in fact they are *persuaded to slow down by the lights being flashed then ironically the chances are that this evidence is not available*.
The most recent law is (DPP) v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 Admin.
Mr Glendenning was a lorry driver and won his case.
But in fact the guiding case law goes back to Bastable v Little [1907] 1 KB 59, and on through the case of the saluting AA man and the earliest days of motoring. Outlined below.
Mr Thompson needs to start reading his case law if he is to successfully appeal it - or be seeking representation.
Bastable -v- Little [1907] 1 KB 59
1907
Lord Alverstone CJ Crime, Road Traffic
The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the 1885 Act. Held: Lord Alverstone CJ said: 'Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.' The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little's signals, although all slowed down. Darling J made this point and added:
'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'
Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885 2
Betts -v- Stevens [1910] 1 KB 1; 26 TLR 5
1910
Alverstone CJ, Darling and Bucknill JJ Crime, Road Traffic
The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were warned they were thought to have been already speeding, and the police observed this. Held: Bastable was distinguished on the ground that the action of the patrolman obstructed the police obtaining their timings. The gist of the offence lay in the intention with which the acts complained of were done. If the intention was simply to prevent the commission of crime, no offence was committed. It was otherwise if the intention was to prevent the commission of crime only at a time when there was a danger of detection.
Lord Alverstone said: "In my opinion a man who, finding that a car is breaking the law, warns the driver, so that the speed of the car is slackened, and the police are thereby prevented from ascertaining the speed and so are prevented from obtaining the only evidence upon which, according to our experience, Courts will act with confidence, is obstructing the police in the execution of their duty."
Darling J said: "The appellant in effect advised the drivers of those cars which were proceeding at an unlawful speed not to go on committing an unlawful act. If that advice were given simply with a view to prevent the continuance of the unlawful act and procure observance of the law, I should say that there would not be an obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty of collecting evidence beyond the point at which the appellant intervened. The gist of the offence to my mind lies in the intention with which the thing is done. In my judgment in Bastable v Little I used these words: 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection.' I desire to repeat those words."
|
|
What you are saying Lucy in your elegant article that its all very confusing to the motorist.Speed camaras make a lot of money for the authorities and not always to do with safety.
|
|
Actually I don`t know if anyone else can remember but back in the days of yore, when AA patrol men went about their business on motorcycles and side cars they used to salute passing members when they spotted the members AA badge displayed on the vehicle.
The origin of this practise goes back to the early days when the AA was first formed and the salute was a means of forewarning members of police speed traps ahead, no salute given, road ahead clear !
|
Firstly the fine was not £440. The fine was a smaller element (£175) - the larger part was court costs (£250) and anyone convicted has to pay the victims of crime surcharge (£15)
Sorry to disagree with a lady but actually the fine was in fact £440. A "fine" is the pecuniary penalty imposed upon a person for an offense or breach of the law.
In this case the pecuniary penalty imposed was the grand total of £440 made up by way of a "fine" of £175 plus court costs of £250 plus a further charge of £15 surcharge.
Total cost of pecuniary penalty (fine) was £440.
|
|
Too true.
I was driving multidrops at the time mandatory seatbelts came in and got whopped with a "producer" and a fine. There was much flannel at the time about an exemption for multidrop drivers, what nobody mentioned was that said exemption only applies if you are driving less than a mile* between drops A and B and can prove it. I was over the maximum distance by a bit.....
The WPC in the local station was most understanding. She said: "I don't know what happened there, you should have had a warning and clarification for that. Let's have a look at the ticket.........ah......Traffic Division. I'm afraid you were unlucky, they're all complete b______s**!"
*I think. Long time ago now.
**As in Otis Tarda
|
|
|
|
|
|
