Thursday 3rd June 2004
Man Penalised for warning of Speed Trap
Pensioner banned from driving for reminding motorists not to speed
A 71 year old man has been banned from driving for warning other motorists of a speed trap up the road - even though he wasn't in his car at the time! He was also ordered to pay £364 in costs.
Stuart Harding stood on the A325 near Farnborough with a sign saying "Speed Trap - 300 yards ahead". He had stood there on previous occasions warning motorists to slow down because of a car boot sale up the road which generated a lot of pedestrian traffic. Police however took exception when Harding warned of their speed trap.
The court was told that Sgt Sarah Cashman confiscated his sign and was told by the defendent - under caution - "I stop people speeding down here. I am only doing what I think is right ".
Harding pleaded not guilty when he appeared in front of magistrates in Aldershot. He said: "I have been convicted of breaking the law because I was trying to stop others from doing so. It is totally unjust ."
An appeal is to be lodged but the Magistrates passed up on the option to suspend his driving ban and implemented it immediately.
This is a terrible misuse of our justice system. Why this pensioner should lose his driving licence for this 'offence' is a bizarre anomoly in itself, but the concept that stopping people breaking the law is in some way an offence surely needs to be challenged? It sends out a clear message that the police's main concern wasn't with safety that day, but with securing prosecutions. |
Discussion
I wonder if the wording had been different on his sign he would have got away with out.
For example,
"WARNING: SLOW DOWN, HAZARDS AHEAD"
would have worked just as well as
"SPEED CAMERA AHEAD" (misquote)
but he would not have been getting in the way of police work. Or at least he could deny he knew the speed camera was there!
For example,
"WARNING: SLOW DOWN, HAZARDS AHEAD"
would have worked just as well as
"SPEED CAMERA AHEAD" (misquote)
but he would not have been getting in the way of police work. Or at least he could deny he knew the speed camera was there!
Some more detail at : www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103466 (posted contemporaneously).
The great bit is this: "Robert Manley, prosecuting, said: "In displaying this sign the defendant was giving motorists advanced warning of a road safety camera being operated by the police 300 yards further along the road."
He said the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would avoid doing so having been given notice of what the police were doing."
Let's just restate that, "He said the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would slow down having been given notice of a (so-called) safety camera" And isn't that what the scamera partnerships claim they are doing? - Streaky
The great bit is this: "Robert Manley, prosecuting, said: "In displaying this sign the defendant was giving motorists advanced warning of a road safety camera being operated by the police 300 yards further along the road."
He said the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would avoid doing so having been given notice of what the police were doing."
Let's just restate that, "He said the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would slow down having been given notice of a (so-called) safety camera" And isn't that what the scamera partnerships claim they are doing? - Streaky
What an ass the law is! or rather what an ass that copper and those dim magistrtates are - but then speed traps fill the coffers of coppers.
Disillusioned? You bet! I wouldn't lift a finger to help or assist any copper today - I gave up after the last two occasions - followed a lorry with loads of dangerously loaded pallets falling off (phoned 999 and they were more interested in who I was and where I came from etc) - chased a thief and got some goods retrieved; (not even a thank you). Sad inditement of Blair World so I just look after number 1 - totally.
Disillusioned? You bet! I wouldn't lift a finger to help or assist any copper today - I gave up after the last two occasions - followed a lorry with loads of dangerously loaded pallets falling off (phoned 999 and they were more interested in who I was and where I came from etc) - chased a thief and got some goods retrieved; (not even a thank you). Sad inditement of Blair World so I just look after number 1 - totally.
What an ass the law is! or rather what an ass that copper and those dim magistrtates are - but then speed traps fill the coffers of coppers.
Disillusioned? You bet! I wouldn't lift a finger to help or assist any copper today - I gave up after the last two occasions - followed a lorry with loads of dangerously loaded pallets falling off (phoned 999 and they were more interested in who I was and where I came from etc) - chased a thief and got some goods retrieved; (not even a thank you). Sad inditement of Blair World so I just look after number 1 - totally.
Disillusioned? You bet! I wouldn't lift a finger to help or assist any copper today - I gave up after the last two occasions - followed a lorry with loads of dangerously loaded pallets falling off (phoned 999 and they were more interested in who I was and where I came from etc) - chased a thief and got some goods retrieved; (not even a thank you). Sad inditement of Blair World so I just look after number 1 - totally.
Maybe a bad analogy but imagine your house has been burgled many times and then the police get a tip off that it is going to be burgled again so lay in wait for the burglars to turn up. You're all waiting for the crims but no-one turns up because some moron has put a sign up warning the crims not to commit the burgle because of a trap ahead.
No comparison I know, but I guess that's the logic behind the offence. However I can't believe they've banned him from driving and it sure as hell won't stop me from flashing to warn people of speed traps ahead.
I guess this is similar to someone noticing police lying in wait for burglars to rob a house, who then pus a sign up to warn burglars of the trap.
No comparison I know, but I guess that's the logic behind the offence. However I can't believe they've banned him from driving and it sure as hell won't stop me from flashing to warn people of speed traps ahead.
I guess this is similar to someone noticing police lying in wait for burglars to rob a house, who then pus a sign up to warn burglars of the trap.
This is an outrage. Wasn't the reason that they painted the damn things fluorenscent yellow to stop people speeding? Well the guy stopped people speeding! I think the only thing they could charge him with is impersonating a police officer, except that wouldn't stick because he wasn't taking money from motorists!
leosayer said:
I guess this is similar to someone noticing police lying in wait for burglars to rob a house, who then put a sign up to warn burglars of the trap.
You're right, that was a very bad analogy.
Burglars cause misery and are criminals. Police do not catch burglars to make money. Burglary is a criminal offence.
Drivers going a bit over the limit are not criminals.
cacatous said:I'd say that the difference is in the stated intention.
I guess this is similar to someone noticing police lying in wait for burglars to rob a house, who then put a sign up to warn burglars of the trap.
Burglars cause misery and are criminals. Police do not catch burglars to make money. Burglary is a criminal offence.
Drivers going a bit over the limit are not criminals.
The stated intention of a trap laid to catch a burglar on the job is to get proof to secure a conviction.
It is claimed that the intention of "safety camera" is to reduce the speed of the traffic.
In the former, alerting the "offender" would go against the claimed intention.
In the latter, it serves only to aid the claimed intention - therefore the real intention must be something different - to secure convictions as in the burglary analogy.
Which, quite frankly, stinks.
For a start, it's very bizarre that he should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing as all the official 'speed camera ahead' signs.
But how the hell can they justify taking his licence away? It wasn't even a motoring offence, surely? Can any BiB's explain this one please?
The whole thing just proves that reducing speed is not the main aim of these people. If it was, they should have given him a pat on the back.
But how the hell can they justify taking his licence away? It wasn't even a motoring offence, surely? Can any BiB's explain this one please?
The whole thing just proves that reducing speed is not the main aim of these people. If it was, they should have given him a pat on the back.
mondeoman said:
what a disgrace!
the saddest thing about this whole story is that none of it really comes as a surprise- 15 years ago if the police did something that was unjust in the eyes of the general public then there would have been outrage - now its all just another part of everyday life.
the coppers i know are all great people and very down to earth so they're not all bad. you have to wonder about the plods recruiting system - i bet they're just glad if people apply and thats only going to get worse if the public continue to lose respect for them... viscious circle.
>> Edited by cacatous on Thursday 3rd June 10:25
So what are those little rectangular signs with the cam sign depicted supposed to do?
In fact - are not all hazard signs supposed to aid the motorist to drive safely?
Hardly "perverting the course of justice" or whatever - simply reminding people to keep to the law! And if they did slow down at his sign - then think of all the pedestrians at the car boot sale he had protected by his earlier warning system!
Absolutely ridiculous treatment of a thoroughly decent-minded person.
And the authorities have simply confirmed to all and sundry that road safety is certainly not the aim of their game - but revenue and potential "driver licence theft" is!
In fact - are not all hazard signs supposed to aid the motorist to drive safely?
Hardly "perverting the course of justice" or whatever - simply reminding people to keep to the law! And if they did slow down at his sign - then think of all the pedestrians at the car boot sale he had protected by his earlier warning system!
Absolutely ridiculous treatment of a thoroughly decent-minded person.
And the authorities have simply confirmed to all and sundry that road safety is certainly not the aim of their game - but revenue and potential "driver licence theft" is!
He must have had crap representation. A decent lawyer would surely have got him off the driving ban at least? What the hell has the offence got to do with driving licences? By that reasoning if I obstruct an officer from performing his duty by blocking his path while he's on foot chasing a burglar, does that mean I loose my license? What utter tosh.
Our justice system is a load of complete and utter bollox that is full of inequalty. Just compare Mr Hardings 'offence' to this one which I read in my local rag under court appearances: man found guilty of driving whithout a license, tax, mot or insurance and drink driving - 3 month ban and £350 costs. It beggars belief doesnt it.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Thursday 3rd June 10:29
Our justice system is a load of complete and utter bollox that is full of inequalty. Just compare Mr Hardings 'offence' to this one which I read in my local rag under court appearances: man found guilty of driving whithout a license, tax, mot or insurance and drink driving - 3 month ban and £350 costs. It beggars belief doesnt it.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Thursday 3rd June 10:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff