Seems you CAN warn other motorists of speed traps....
Discussion
Good good!
This is the insane thing about how obvious a cash cow the speed system is.
After all, if someone is zapped for speeding, all the warnings etc about road safety has failed. The driver has gone through the supposed accident zone at above the speed limit.
The system has not worked, people are still driving above the speed limit. After all the whole 'supposed' point about why the camera are there are to make people slow down.
If someone wants to make hand signals at a cost to the taxpayer of zero, and this is *more successful* in slowing drivers than the camera itself, then surely this in not obstructing the system, but it is in fact making it work!
Unless of coure, the real reason for the camera to be there is to make money, and add to the 'people caught' statistics, which are then spun into a propaganda press statement. If this is the real reason, (the answer to this I think we all know) then he has willingly obstructed the system as charged...
This is the insane thing about how obvious a cash cow the speed system is.
After all, if someone is zapped for speeding, all the warnings etc about road safety has failed. The driver has gone through the supposed accident zone at above the speed limit.
The system has not worked, people are still driving above the speed limit. After all the whole 'supposed' point about why the camera are there are to make people slow down.
If someone wants to make hand signals at a cost to the taxpayer of zero, and this is *more successful* in slowing drivers than the camera itself, then surely this in not obstructing the system, but it is in fact making it work!
Unless of coure, the real reason for the camera to be there is to make money, and add to the 'people caught' statistics, which are then spun into a propaganda press statement. If this is the real reason, (the answer to this I think we all know) then he has willingly obstructed the system as charged...
Gixer said:
Once went back to a roundabout and chalked on a 5'x5' sheet of wood near by 'speed trap ahead' and the date and left it up at the side of the road. Hope the to55er had a real boring day
Good on you! If something like that became common knowledge it would effectively make the mobile system useless as a cash cow.
It could catch on: Where I live backs onto a main road with a grass verge on the way to an edge of town retail park with good amenities. It is for this fact that gypsies use the site of a couple of months each summer. When they eventually left last year, it took a team with two pick up trucks, four days to remove the rubbish left from a 100 metre stretch of the grass verge.
This summer, I started to hear a lot of horn beeping every couple of minutes from the back of my house. It was only the next day when I drove past, that everyone was beeping their horn within a few feet of the gypsies 'camp'! Needless to say they werent there for two months this summer and they were gone within two days.
It just shows, when the system is not there to protect you, the public *do* pull together when injustices are being done.
Not sure how you would stand if caught though? I was on the bike that day, the wood was available due to building work near by so I was there for seconds. What happend to the 3 flashes???? The French still do it.
Remember the story of the old boy that was done for slowing traffic b4 a speed trap last year?
Remember the story of the old boy that was done for slowing traffic b4 a speed trap last year?
Gixer said:
Remember the story of the old boy that was done for slowing traffic b4 a speed trap last year?
He was local to me in Farnborough, Hants.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103468&f=10&h=0
I still regularly park up down the road on my pushbike and warn oncoming motorists of the scamera van which is often near my house. Get a great buzz from doing it and knowing that I am helping out both my fellow motorist by saving them money/points as well as helping the police in their aim to slow people down *cough*
Boys, I hate to piss on your bonfires but my reading of the summary gives completely the opposite impression!
So, prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those approaching the trap were likely to exceed the speed limit surely with the number of people caught and the siting of the traps that is fairly easy to prove. It seems this particular chap got lucky because the video evidence suggested those behind him were not speeding ergo, it was not "likely" that others would be speeding at that point.
Telegraph said:
The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
So, prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those approaching the trap were likely to exceed the speed limit surely with the number of people caught and the siting of the traps that is fairly easy to prove. It seems this particular chap got lucky because the video evidence suggested those behind him were not speeding ergo, it was not "likely" that others would be speeding at that point.
8Pack said:
OK, Just the other week, I had seen a speed trap scamming cars coming the other way. On my return along that stretch a few minutes later, I slowed, for about 2 miles and collected a nice LO....ONG tailback of vehicles doing 25 mph ......
Am "I" guilty Officer?..
That is a very good point, and I guess that on the same principle you would be! I still believe that the concept of this case if so fundamentally wrong I am not sure why it has to come to technicalities to prove these people not guilty. That would mean technically you would be travelling at under the speed limit, yet still guilty of another offence!? On the principle of the case heard, I cannot see a difference though.
In practice however, I would say that it would be impossible to prove that the oncoming cars were going to pass the camera at above the limit. In fact I am astonished that the magistrates came up with the ruling they did. After all if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an oncoming car is already breaking the speed limit, then technically that is enough evidence to convict anyway, without the camera.
I really feel that the first decision was more proof of the magistrates falling into blindly supporting the system, whilst so blindly missing out common sense.
Muncher said:
Boys, I hate to piss on your bonfires but my reading of the summary gives completely the opposite impression!
Telegraph said:
The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
So, prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those approaching the trap were likely to exceed the speed limit surely with the number of people caught and the siting of the traps that is fairly easy to prove.
No, I think it's a big problem. 'Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt' means a measured speed, in excess of the speed limit AND that the person doing the waving knew that speeding was taking place AND prevented it.
So here's the conundrum. If you measure that the car is speeding the waver did not prevent speeding. If you measure that the car is NOT speeding, you can't prove that the waver slowed the car - it may never have been speeding. Either way it's cool to wave...
.......? What A Load Of Bollocks! in my opinion!
Its easy to see that there out to make MONEY And if anyone is going to stop there going to crush them with bans and points and nights in the cell and then there going to shame you by sticking your name in the local paper!
The magistrates are a bunch tossers in high chairs who are fed baby food by the plod mixed with sum bull shit!
The law is a joke!
An easy hundred billion million made with out any come backs!
Would you say no?
Its easy to see that there out to make MONEY And if anyone is going to stop there going to crush them with bans and points and nights in the cell and then there going to shame you by sticking your name in the local paper!
The magistrates are a bunch tossers in high chairs who are fed baby food by the plod mixed with sum bull shit!
The law is a joke!
An easy hundred billion million made with out any come backs!
Would you say no?
Muncher said:
So, prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those approaching the trap were likely to exceed the speed limit surely with the number of people caught and the siting of the traps that is fairly easy to prove.
The law really is an ass.
If anyone could say beyond doubt that a car that wasn't speeding would undoubtedly be speeding at the site of the trap, then the only reason I can think of is because the trap is sited where it would be common sense that a higher speed is reasonable, hence the majority of drivers speeding up there. In which case, the trap isn't improving safety at all, just raking in cash?
This is just like that case of the old fella that got fined / points on his licence for putting up a warning sign - how on earth we got to the situation where the authorities can endorse your driving record for a non-driving "offence" is beyond me. And, as somebody else pointed out, surely the powers that be should be pleased that some noble individual is helping their "safety" cause at no cost to the taxpayer. Oh, hang on - its about the revenue isn't it?
P.S. The French thing with flashing to warn of speed traps has always been done and still is. It has, however, been illegal there for a very long time! If you get caught doing it, les cochons get a bit upset.
Is it just me that thinks this is not an offence you can be prosectued for.
Ignore the legal arguments, thats just a bunch of lawyers trying to make money having a sensless argument. Look at the ramifications if that point was upheld.
Here I am driving along the road. I see a talivan in the distance and I slow down to the legal limit.
As I approach the talivan a poilceman steps out and says. Goodday sir I think were gonna do you for obstructing justice.
Hows that I say.
Well he says, you willfully slowed your car down in order to avoid prosecution, and in doing so slowed all those cars that were driving behind you that we could have made money on if they hadn't been as observant as you.
So despite the fact that x number of taxpayers money got thrown into the pockets of the legal pondlife. I ask you do they have a braincell between them?
Ignore the legal arguments, thats just a bunch of lawyers trying to make money having a sensless argument. Look at the ramifications if that point was upheld.
Here I am driving along the road. I see a talivan in the distance and I slow down to the legal limit.
As I approach the talivan a poilceman steps out and says. Goodday sir I think were gonna do you for obstructing justice.
Hows that I say.
Well he says, you willfully slowed your car down in order to avoid prosecution, and in doing so slowed all those cars that were driving behind you that we could have made money on if they hadn't been as observant as you.
So despite the fact that x number of taxpayers money got thrown into the pockets of the legal pondlife. I ask you do they have a braincell between them?
As i said people Would You say No if some one said that there is a way of making millions of £ with no combacks and no way anyone can stop you!
I bet 99.9% of us would and the other 0.01% that wouldn't would either already be multi squilionaires or just plain dumb!
Were all being slaped with the old dong!
I bet 99.9% of us would and the other 0.01% that wouldn't would either already be multi squilionaires or just plain dumb!
Were all being slaped with the old dong!
safespeed said:
No, I think it's a big problem. 'Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt' means a measured speed, in excess of the speed limit AND that the person doing the waving knew that speeding was taking place AND prevented it.
Nope it is far simpler than that, the waver doesn't need to know that the others were speeding, only that it is likely they would be.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff