OAP fined £100 for V-sign
Discussion
Have they nothing better to do FFS 
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13131728,00.html
OAP FINED £100 FOR V-SIGN
A pensioner who flashed a double V-sign at a speed camera has been fined £100 for not being in control of his vehicle.
Frank Benson,71, from Selside, Cumbria, made the gesture to a camera in Kendal.
Three weeks earlier the plumber had been fined £60 for doing 44mph in a 40mph zone.
Mr Benson's son Tom said the two-finger salute was a "spur of the moment reaction" in response to a previous fine.
He was fined £100 by South Lakeland Magistrates and ordered to pay £35 costs.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13131728,00.html
OAP FINED £100 FOR V-SIGN
A pensioner who flashed a double V-sign at a speed camera has been fined £100 for not being in control of his vehicle.
Frank Benson,71, from Selside, Cumbria, made the gesture to a camera in Kendal.
Three weeks earlier the plumber had been fined £60 for doing 44mph in a 40mph zone.
Mr Benson's son Tom said the two-finger salute was a "spur of the moment reaction" in response to a previous fine.
He was fined £100 by South Lakeland Magistrates and ordered to pay £35 costs.
Undoubtedly the SCPs will clock this one up as an example of a scamera detecting "dangerous driving" ( see: <a href="http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=106652&f=10">www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=106652&f=10</a> ) 
- Streaky
PS - and I might be wrong (read: probably am!), but I seem to recall reading on here an authoritative poster saying that mobile speed cameras (for that is what it was) were not aimed at motorists who were not speeding. As Mr Benson was only travelling at 20mph, how does the scamera operator justify using the camera? Someone correct or agree with me please - S
PPS - and another thing, having seen what is apparently the photograph in question in a newspaper, how did the prosecution confirm these were Mr Benson's hands? I presume he wasn't stopped at the time. He (or his brief) should have argued that there was no proof these were his hands, albeit that it was his face. They could have been hands brought from a joke-shop and arranged on the dashboard so as to give the appearance of being Mr Benson's hands. They could possibly have charged him with a public order offence, but it might have been more difficult to make that stick - S
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 19th June 09:49
- Streaky PS - and I might be wrong (read: probably am!), but I seem to recall reading on here an authoritative poster saying that mobile speed cameras (for that is what it was) were not aimed at motorists who were not speeding. As Mr Benson was only travelling at 20mph, how does the scamera operator justify using the camera? Someone correct or agree with me please - S
PPS - and another thing, having seen what is apparently the photograph in question in a newspaper, how did the prosecution confirm these were Mr Benson's hands? I presume he wasn't stopped at the time. He (or his brief) should have argued that there was no proof these were his hands, albeit that it was his face. They could have been hands brought from a joke-shop and arranged on the dashboard so as to give the appearance of being Mr Benson's hands. They could possibly have charged him with a public order offence, but it might have been more difficult to make that stick - S
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 19th June 09:49
Cumbria's SteveC is adamant that his prat's behave according to rules.
Told you before - like Lancs - they zap anything that moves on offchance it will be "just over" I know this for fact - as my laser alert goes off each time talivan is around! Give away for their hidey hole here? Lucrative straight road - no ramblers!
Not a black spot at all!
Would be interesting to hear his comments on this!
But we know from last time - he runs off and hides in his talivans when answer requires reply other than the party dogma!
Told you before - like Lancs - they zap anything that moves on offchance it will be "just over" I know this for fact - as my laser alert goes off each time talivan is around! Give away for their hidey hole here? Lucrative straight road - no ramblers!
Not a black spot at all! Would be interesting to hear his comments on this!
But we know from last time - he runs off and hides in his talivans when answer requires reply other than the party dogma!
Streaky, they're supposed to have suspicion that a vehicle is speeding as you say, but no they dont have to justify using the camera if the vehicle is not speeding because they dont have to follow the guidelines, not to mention the fact that they are a law unto themselves and do as they please!
I think the scamera operator here was probably pi55ed off with the many deserved abusive gestures and this was the breaking point! The chip on his shoulder telling him most people think he's a despicable little 7wat must be hard to bear .
I think the scamera operator here was probably pi55ed off with the many deserved abusive gestures and this was the breaking point! The chip on his shoulder telling him most people think he's a despicable little 7wat must be hard to bear .
Isn't it irrelevant what he was doing with his hands since they were both off the wheel?
He could have had his fingers interlocked and behind his head. I mean is both hands off the wheel 'not in proper control' in all circumstances or only when you show disdain towards 'the establishment'?
TBH, I drive without any hands on the wheel on many occasions simply cos I can and relieves a bit of boredom.
He could have had his fingers interlocked and behind his head. I mean is both hands off the wheel 'not in proper control' in all circumstances or only when you show disdain towards 'the establishment'?
TBH, I drive without any hands on the wheel on many occasions simply cos I can and relieves a bit of boredom.
Mr2Mike said:Well, four-fingered, actually. That makes it £33.75 a finger. Still not a bargain though
£135 for a two fingered salute? Just what the hell is happening in this country?
. Tonyrec said:
Lol.... a 71 year old should know better than be rude to a mechanical device.
Do you mean the camera ... or its operator?
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 20th June 07:09
You're absolutely right townfooter..
These people who are defending the pensioner would be doing so if the old guy had lost control or got his slippers stuck under the accellerator (True case) and collided with another vehicle or a pedestrian...
At 71 and following this, I would assume that the police/courts will be applying to DVLA to remove the guys driving licence.
I'm all for the elderly and we owe them a great deal, but it could have all ended up very differently and tragically wrong...
These people who are defending the pensioner would be doing so if the old guy had lost control or got his slippers stuck under the accellerator (True case) and collided with another vehicle or a pedestrian...
At 71 and following this, I would assume that the police/courts will be applying to DVLA to remove the guys driving licence.
I'm all for the elderly and we owe them a great deal, but it could have all ended up very differently and tragically wrong...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff