Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[delboy735]

Question.
If speed cameras are really about road safety, and not cash cows, then why is it an offence to flash at approaching drivers as a warning of Scamera vans ??
Reason I ask, is that allegedly, these are "safety vans" and surely if you are warning other vehicles to just watch their speed, then that is a good thing. I recently heard of a case where a wagon driver was fined £60 for this very offence. Perhaps somebody with more legal knowledge than me can tell us exactly what offence is being committed, and perhaps also, why is it more important that motorists be caught by the "safety vans"??
Try your best to convince me it's not about the money.

[Mk3Spitfire]

I think what they go for is Obstructing an officer in the course of their duty.

[vonhosen]

delboy735 said:

Question.
If speed cameras are really about road safety, and not cash cows, then why is it an offence to flash at approaching drivers as a warning of Scamera vans ??
Reason I ask, is that allegedly, these are "safety vans" and surely if you are warning other vehicles to just watch their speed, then that is a good thing. I recently heard of a case where a wagon driver was fined £60 for this very offence. Perhaps somebody with more legal knowledge than me can tell us exactly what offence is being committed, and perhaps also, why is it more important that motorists be caught by the "safety vans"??
Try your best to convince me it's not about the money.

Each case will depend on it's merits.
It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty. The courts have held that for that to be the case, that prior evidence of speeding must have been gained & the obstruction takes place after that.
The courts are happy that they can tell the difference between somebody warning another about their behaviour & somebody warning another with a view to obstruct the required evidence of their offending being obtained.
Oddly you don't see a lot of drivers being warned by other drivers away from speed enforcement areas.
Try your best to convince me it's not about evading getting caught.

[Pixelpeep7r]

maybe the van reminded the driver that they must be in an accident black spot and then saw someone driving a little energetically and thought it would be a good idea to warn them as they may not be from the area that the road they are approaching has been identified as an accident black spot?

[vonhosen]

Pixelpeep7r said:

maybe the van reminded the driver that they must be in an accident black spot and then saw someone driving a little energetically and thought it would be a good idea to warn them as they may not be from the area that the road they are approaching has been identified as an accident black spot?

As said, the courts are happy they can spot the difference in their judgements.
They don't have to accept something on the basis it's claimed.

[Bigends]

Usually give a flash to oncoming traffic - others have possibly saved my bacon on occasion

[deeen]

vonhosen said:

Each case will depend on it's merits.
It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty. The courts have held that for that to be the case, that prior evidence of speeding must have been gained & the obstruction takes place after that.
The courts are happy that they can tell the difference between somebody warning another about their behaviour & somebody warning another with a view to obstruct the required evidence of their offending being obtained.
Oddly you don't see a lot of drivers being warned by other drivers away from speed enforcement areas.
Try your best to convince me it's not about evading getting caught.

I thought most scamera vans were not manned by real constables.

I warned other drivers about horses on the road today, maybe you are being a bit paranoid about drivers trying to help each other out with generic "hazard" warnings. Or maybe if you are sitting in a scamera van, those would be the only hazard warnings you would see?

And for your last sentence, in general, I think it's best if drivers do help each other avoid being taxed by these ridiculous, irrational, illogical money grabbing schemes.

[vonhosen]

deeen said:

vonhosen said:

Each case will depend on it's merits.
It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty. The courts have held that for that to be the case, that prior evidence of speeding must have been gained & the obstruction takes place after that.
The courts are happy that they can tell the difference between somebody warning another about their behaviour & somebody warning another with a view to obstruct the required evidence of their offending being obtained.
Oddly you don't see a lot of drivers being warned by other drivers away from speed enforcement areas.
Try your best to convince me it's not about evading getting caught.

I thought most scamera vans were not manned by real constables.

I warned other drivers about horses on the road today, maybe you are being a bit paranoid about drivers trying to help each other out with generic "hazard" warnings. Or maybe if you are sitting in a scamera van, those would be the only hazard warnings you would see?

And for your last sentence, in general, I think it's best if drivers do help each other avoid being taxed by these ridiculous, irrational, illogical money grabbing schemes.

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

For case law.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/233...

This topic has been done to death many times.

[supermono]

Cameras only collect their cash at dangerous bits of road. It seems to me letting someone who appears to be speeding know that the dead straight open bit of road they're about to drive on is actually a hugely dangerous accident blackspot with a flash of the headlights is a good idea. The camera parasites would rather have no income than have an avoidable accident happen surely?

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

Cameras only collect their cash at dangerous bits of road. It seems to me letting someone who appears to be speeding know that the dead straight open bit of road they're about to drive on is actually a hugely dangerous accident blackspot with a flash of the headlights is a good idea. The camera parasites would rather have no income than have an avoidable accident happen surely?

As said many times.
It's not an offence to warn somebody about their behaviour, it is to wilfully obstruct a constable.
The courts are happy they can distinct between the two.
Just because you claim it was the former they don't have to believe that to be the case. They will look at all the facts & pass down their judgement.
Speeding drivers risk their licence by speeding, those who obstruct officers to hep speeders evade prosecution risk theirs.

[Rovinghawk]

supermono said:

Cameras only collect their cash at dangerous bits of road. It seems to me letting someone who appears to be speeding know that the dead straight open bit of road they're about to drive on is actually a hugely dangerous accident blackspot with a flash of the headlights is a good idea. The camera parasites would rather have no income than have an avoidable accident happen surely?

Three lies/sarcasms in three sentences- impressive. I'll stick around & watch the self-righteous indignation occur.

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

delboy735 said:

Question.
If speed cameras are really about road safety, and not cash cows, then why is it an offence to flash at approaching drivers as a warning of Scamera vans ??
Reason I ask, is that allegedly, these are "safety vans" and surely if you are warning other vehicles to just watch their speed, then that is a good thing. I recently heard of a case where a wagon driver was fined £60 for this very offence. Perhaps somebody with more legal knowledge than me can tell us exactly what offence is being committed, and perhaps also, why is it more important that motorists be caught by the "safety vans"??
Try your best to convince me it's not about the money.

Each case will depend on it's merits.
It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty. The courts have held that for that to be the case, that prior evidence of speeding must have been gained & the obstruction takes place after that.
The courts are happy that they can tell the difference between somebody warning another about their behaviour & somebody warning another with a view to obstruct the required evidence of their offending being obtained.
Oddly you don't see a lot of drivers being warned by other drivers away from speed enforcement areas.
Try your best to convince me it's not about evading getting caught.

The "prior evidence of speeding" part in your answer is seriously flawed, especially when you see some of the sites chosen by the local police forces. In many instances there can be absolutely no prior evidence gained. I had a chat with a friendly policeman some time ago, who told me he simply parks his van up in fairly hidden place, and sets up his camera to record every vehicle travelling a certain speed, then reviews the tapes and chooses who to send "letters" to.

Also, given that most motorists don't warn drivers when scamera vans aren't about, just shows to me that the majority of motorists are happy with the flow rates of traffic.

On a personal note, I obviously don't drive fast enough in the wrong places......my licence is clean, and has been for 31 years.

[whoami]

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

[Bigends]

whoami said:

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

In this case the poor sod wasnt even driving - hed put a sign up warning other drivers of the speed trap

[vonhosen]

whoami said:

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

I'll give you another then

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Dr...

[Who me ?]

vonhosen said:

It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty.

My bold. In the vast majority of camera van operations, the operatives are not Constables, but employees of the SCP. So now, convince me it's not about road safety and all about income generation to stop the SCP empire going bust. What's the difference between me flashing a motorist because I might consider their driving a bit OTT for the road , and my waving down a car full of teenagers on a housing estate to warn them that there's a group of young kids ( toddlers etc) playing further up , in and around a stack of parked cars?

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

whoami said:

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

In this case the poor sod wasnt even driving - hed put a sign up warning other drivers of the speed trap

You don't have to be driving to obstruct a constable in his duty. You could be, but it's not a pre-requisite.

[vincenz]

Last April I flashed my lamps to oncoming motorists to a van parked on the other side of the road.

There were two officers / CSOs with a clipboard.

About a week later I got a letter saying i'd been seen doing this and if caught doing it again it would be three points and a fine.

The best bit was I actually thought there had been an accident as they had pulled over a bike and a car, but at first glance it looked like an RTA. I was dumbfounded I was being threatened as surely they put these cameras in 'dangerous' sections of road so whether I cause someone to slow down with my lights or the van with the camera the same result is achieved?

Double whammy of income it seems.

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

This topic has been done to death many times.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many times? I mean what other circumstances to the public act against the police? telling robbers the patrol is coming? telling a rapist to zip up, someone's coming?

While you lot carry on telling people black is white and charging them for driving normally and going about their usual daily business, setting up vans in perfectly safe locations whilst crowing about reducing accidents, guess what? We'll warn people in the hope we save them being fleeced. Motorists hate being patronised and fined for no good reason and despise those responsible for doing it.

And for the record the 'TV star' coppers tooling about at three figures to make someone stop on the insanely dangeous hard shoulder just to patronise them and write them up for driving normally, do nothing to bring credibility to the police, quite the reverse actually.

Just sayin'

[delboy735]

whoami said:

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

Especially the bit that states " the sum of £12,000 was collected in fines in one morning alone on this particular stretch of road".............Really......it's not about the money ?? The pensioner was doing a far better job of promoting road safety. I mean really, whats safe about allowing motorists to continue speeding in the hope of wilfully "trapping" them ??