|
angrymoby
104 posts
47 months
|
rewc said: Perhaps it was the Officer's themselves who were dazzled or discomforted? I have not seen anything regarding anyone declining the FPN but opted for a day in court - not surprising really with the costs involved. I'd hazard (no pun intended) a guess that the 'flashers' who were stopped didn't use HC 110 as an excuse/defence? ...& hence the FPN? 110 Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
|
|
|
rewc
1,603 posts
102 months
|
angrymoby said: I'd hazard (no pun intended) a guess that the 'flashers' who were stopped didn't use HC 110 as an excuse/defence? ...& hence the FPN?
110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users. I would hazard a gues that the FPN would have been issued whatever xcuse/defence was given. The decision to issue a FPN in this type of event must have been discussed by the Police prevously and senior management agreement obtained. They know that drivers are unlikely to want a day in court as opposed to a £30 FP. If a driver did contest it then it is possible it would not reach court but is it a risk that most of us would take?
|
|
|
SS2.
7,383 posts
107 months
|
rewc said: If a driver did contest it then it is possible it would not reach court but is it a risk that most of us would take? I think I would..
|
|
|
pitmansboots
1,058 posts
56 months
|
If the drivers contested it in court on the grounds they were not flashing to warn other drivers that there was speed enforcement up the road they would all be lying and perjuring themselves.
Everyone knows what they were up to. If there is no specific offence perhaps there should be one.
|
|
|
SS2.
7,383 posts
107 months
|
pitmansboots said: If the drivers contested it in court on the grounds they were not flashing to warn other drivers that there was speed enforcement up the road they would all be lying and perjuring themselves. The prosecution would need to prove that the defendant's headlamps were [mis]used so as to cause dazzle or undue discomfort to other road users. And that would have little to do with why those headlamps were being flashed. Accordingly, why would a defendant feel the need to lie about anything ? pitmansboots said: Everyone knows what they were up to. If there is no specific offence perhaps there should be one. There is - but it appears that the police couldn't / wouldn't gather sufficient evidence to make the cases stick..
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
veryRS
409 posts
14 months
|
pitmansboots said: If the drivers contested it in court on the grounds they were not flashing to warn other drivers that there was speed enforcement up the road they would all be lying and perjuring themselves.
Everyone knows what they were up to. If there is no specific offence perhaps there should be one. For once Pitsman I agree with you. We all know what they were up to...they were helping improve road safety. Or isnt that what you actually want?
|
|
|
XDA
1,836 posts
54 months
|
pitmansboots said: If the drivers contested it in court on the grounds they were not flashing to warn other drivers that there was speed enforcement up the road they would all be lying and perjuring themselves.
Everyone knows what they were up to. If there is no specific offence perhaps there should be one. Innocent until proven guilty? 
|
|
|
XDA
1,836 posts
54 months
|
veryRS said: they were helping improve road safety. Or isnt that what you actually want? Steve only wants that if there's money to be made.
|
|
|
veryRS
409 posts
14 months
|
XDA said: Steve only wants that if there's money to be made. I would be very interested (purely for research purposes you understand) if Mr Pitsman and co have really managed to get to their current (I assume) adult age without ever breaking any single rule, law or regulation ever anywhere. I sincerely doubt that is the case, in which case they are quite frankly nothing more than hypocritical, cynical self interested unpleasant characters IMHO and nothing they say holds any weight as far as I am concerned. Its like the plod who pulls you for speeding then proceeds to do exactly that when off duty. No respect im afraid.
|
|
|
rewc
1,603 posts
102 months
|
veryRS said: Its like the plod who pulls you for speeding then proceeds to do exactly that when off duty. No respect im afraid. I suspect that all those involved in traffic enforcement break the speeding laws at sometime whether they be Police Officers, magistrates, council staff or camera partnership employees.
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,450 posts
57 months
|
rewc said: I suspect that all those involved in traffic enforcement break the speeding laws at sometime whether they be Police Officers, magistrates, council staff or camera partnership employees. I suspect that almost everyone breaks the speed limit at some time or other.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
27 months
|
vonhosen said: Gene Vincent said: vonhosen said: Gene Vincent said: vonhosen said: Gene Vincent said: vonhosen said: Gene Vincent said: vonhosen said: Parliament created the offence of wilfully obstructing a constable long ago, people have been prosecuted for this action (obstructing gaining evidence of speeders) for over 100 years. I haven't seen evidence to suggest that the majority of the population disagree with the way the law is enforced. Very true, but there was no internet then and very little chance to collate grievances or discuss misuse/over zealous use of what is a good law in principle. There is now a very good medium that highlights such stupidity. You could,rightly in my opinion, see this as a counterpoint to the States wide use of computers against us. I don't see evidence on the internet that suggests the majority of the population disagrees with the way the law is enforced. I suggest to you that the reason this thread even exists is due to a growing concern. In fact it is self-evident. The original article has no support at all except from those that would mourn its demise as a lessening of their powers to impose another kafka-esque bit of petty-minded Oblomovism. You'd be hard pushed to seriously suggest that a petrol heads forum represents the views of the majority of the population. I would, but that's where the original article in the newspaper becomes rather inconvenient for you. You know... the Blackpool Gazette piece that started this thread? Hardly inconvenient, they can't claim to speak for the majority of the population either. It doesn't do you any favours either. So, just to get this clear, despite there being no concerted voice raised in favour of this bit of over-zealousness and the opposite, in fact, being the case you are unwilling to concede that there might be a concern here... a concern that could additionally undermine the reputation of the Police? Oh I'm sure their is a concern in some quarters, I just believe you are exaggerating the extent. I've seen no evidence to back any claim that the majority of the population are concerned. If I were to stop a thousand people in the street at random & ask them on a scale of 1-10 how concerned they were that the Police are being heavy handed in the use of 'obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty' as an offence, I don't think it would show anything like what you are suggesting. Just because some shout loud (& those who are concerned might), it doesn't follow that the majority of the population share their concern. I think that is a far too flippant dismissal to be taken seriously. I can't dismiss this as any sort of exaggeration, the reasons are that when the article appeared there was a general dismay at the over-zealous use of this law and this was compounded by the fact that the matter appeared as a money raising exercise, either in the initial use or for the further sum to be garnered by the trap down the road, a sort of 'double-bubble' effect. Ask the vox populare about that and your flippant dismissal would be slammed to the ground rather conclusively. The law itself (if appropriately used) is a good one and essential for good order and I would never advocate its removal from the Codex. It is being abused in these circumstances, it alienates one driver from another (which encourages anti-social behaviour, the real cause of bad driving) and is therefore self-defeating overall, the gain of thirty pieces of silver at the roadside garners a greater loss elsewhere in the driving domain. Yet you promote its continued abuse within the community and seem to take pride in your fervency. Socio-paths come in many guises, those that knock people on the head and steal for the sake of it right through to those that rejoice in the letter of the law and its fervent and strict application even when the most impoverished of minds could see the net ill-effect. Knowing the law and even living strictly by the letter of it, does not make a for a good invigilator, in fact, such a person is the worst possible type of enforcer imaginable.
|
|
|
Springbok
334 posts
123 months
|
Is there not a saying something like "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the slavish observance of fools"
|
|
|
drew.h
442 posts
58 months
|
If you get caught speeding by a speed trap, camera or marked car you should be done for driving without due care and attention and have an eye test as well. If you can't see someone in day glow what chance does my cat have.
|
|
|
ChrisDB7
143 posts
24 months
|
Gene Vincent said: The law itself (if appropriately used) is a good one and essential for good order and I would never advocate its removal from the Codex.
It is being abused in these circumstances, it alienates one driver from another (which encourages anti-social behaviour, the real cause of bad driving) and is therefore self-defeating overall, the gain of thirty pieces of silver at the roadside garners a greater loss elsewhere in the driving domain. This is the main point for me. I'm sure that applying the law in this way is perfectly lawful, but that doesn't mean it is a use of the law which is good for society in general. Whether you like it or not it does make people question whether speed trap are there to improve safety or simply to increase revenue. One of Sir Robert Peel's principles in founding the modern police force was that "the police are the people and the people are the police". Do these actions really sit happily with that principle? Not to me. I would leap at the chance to help the police catch a mugger, a murderer, a drink driver. Would I help the police to catch a man warning others of speed traps? No f  king chance, and I'd guess (although I have to admit vonhosen I haven't commissioned a yougov poll  ) that the vast majority of citizens would feel the same way. It also raises another question: Is it a crime to flash your lights at someone to warn them that there is a copper lying in wait to catch people flashing their lights to warn of speed traps? My head hurts.
|
|
|
rohrl
3,756 posts
14 months
|
ChrisDB7 said: This is the main point for me. I'm sure that applying the law in this way is perfectly lawful, but that doesn't mean it is a use of the law which is good for society in general. Whether you like it or not it does make people question whether speed trap are there to improve safety or simply to increase revenue. One of Sir Robert Peel's principles in founding the modern police force was that "the police are the people and the people are the police". Do these actions really sit happily with that principle? Not to me. I would leap at the chance to help the police catch a mugger, a murderer, a drink driver. Would I help the police to catch a man warning others of speed traps? No f king chance, and I'd guess (although I have to admit vonhosen I haven't commissioned a yougov poll ) that the vast majority of citizens would feel the same way. It also raises another question: Is it a crime to flash your lights at someone to warn them that there is a copper lying in wait to catch people flashing their lights to warn of speed traps? My head hurts. Anyone who supports this has been spending far too much time with the enforcers and far too little time with the general public. I said right at the very start of this thread that I had no doubt that it is legal for the police to do his but that they are misguided in doing so. I've seen nothing since to change that.
|
|
|
agtlaw
1,470 posts
75 months
|
ChrisDB7 said: One of Sir Robert Peel's principles in founding the modern police force was that "the police are the people and the people are the police". quite. i was in my local court yesterday when the chairman of the bench made some very interesting sentencing remarks about what the people of Leeds would expect as a sentence in the particular case i was dealing with.
|
|
|
jaf01uk
1,514 posts
65 months
|
drew.h said: If you get caught speeding by a speed trap, camera or marked car you should be done for driving without due care and attention and have an eye test as well. If you can't see someone in day glow what chance does my cat have. Problem with your theory is that it depends on the "catchers" playing by the rules (or guidelines as we keep getting told) They don't! Hiding in bushes and very carefully placed vans, using builders vans, horse boxes etc, favourite up our way is sitting in side roads at night with banks high enough to hide all the markings and only have the window height upward visible so no clue they are there, hardly fair play is it and possibly a reason that people feel they have the right to warn others of the cops sneakiness? Gary
|
|
|
veryRS
409 posts
14 months
|
agtlaw said: quite. i was in my local court yesterday when the chairman of the bench made some very interesting sentencing remarks about what the people of Leeds would expect as a sentence in the particular case i was dealing with. The law and the Judiciary are there to serve the will of the people only.
|
|
|
Digby
3,145 posts
115 months
|
drew.h said: If you get caught speeding by a speed trap, camera or marked car you should be done for driving without due care and attention and have an eye test as well. If you can't see someone in day glow what chance does my cat have. Plenty of people panic brake and cause all kinds of chaos due to any form of hi-vis vest they spot these days.I mentioned before that the most classic example I have seen of this, was when a guy in a layby in a hi-vis put what turned out to be a flask on the roof of his car.Nobody was speeding, yet still the brake lights all came on and the dodgem ride began.That's just one of a hundred examples I have seen on my travels. The problem with the current money grabbing policy is that people have become nervous of anything they see hanging off a gantry or sat at the side of the road etc.Variable limits, lowered limits and the general underhanded approach of sitting scam vans on dead straight pieces of road etc, lead people to crap themselves for no reason. "Road safety".You couldn't make it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLrkIPqTZoAnd of course, the best video on youtube.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-iUpmynIBE&fea...
|
|
