RE: What are speed cameras for?
Friday 28th October 2005
Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.ukA man who was warning motorists of a mobile speed camera was acquitted recently of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
What are speed cameras for?
Court judgement confirms cash cow argument
Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk
A mobile camera van had been set up on a dual carriageway, and the man, who in the report has been named only as 'G', was making slow-down signals to drivers. He was arrested and charged with obstruction, but was acquitted on appeal on the grounds that the cars were not exceeding the limit anyway, and so weren't slowing down. If his actions had no effect, then he was doing nothing wrong, was the gist of the judgement.
This of course ignores the issue at the heart of the action: is a speed camera there to slow cars down -- the official justification for the arsenal of devices -- or is it there to raise money? If the former, then G was performing a public service. If not, then the law could (and did) argue that, if his actions had obtained a reaction, then he was indeed obstructing the law.
Funny old world, ain't it?
Discussion
Well I'm glad someone is finally pointing out the fallacies of the system. We should organise a go slow week or something so that the government revenue from speed cameras nose dives for a day. Unlike the similar petrol protests, you don't have to speed, so they cannot easily recover the lost earnings :evil:
r988 said:
Well I'm glad someone is finally pointing out the fallacies of the system. We should organise a go slow week or something so that the government revenue from speed cameras nose dives for a day. Unlike the similar petrol protests, you don't have to speed, so they cannot easily recover the lost earnings 
But then they'll say the speed cameras are a success.
My argument is - surely a police officer has to make themselves known before an offence can be cautioned or whatever the term is.
Also I'd like to hear their argument as to how a speed camera *prevents* an offence if the only warning you get of it's presence is when you drive past it.
I bet they'd argue that the speed limit sign is the warning...
Oh yes and why do they have amber lights and not blue on top?
Let me get this straight....
1) If (s)camera's are there to slow people down, then by warning people to slow down you are supporting the law.
2) If (s)camera's are there generate revenue, then by warning people to slow down you are obstructing the law.
As a firm supporter of the law, it's gonna have to be option 1 for me all the way!!
1) If (s)camera's are there to slow people down, then by warning people to slow down you are supporting the law.
2) If (s)camera's are there generate revenue, then by warning people to slow down you are obstructing the law.
As a firm supporter of the law, it's gonna have to be option 1 for me all the way!!
Absolutely shameful! :thumbfirmlydown:
How this ever got to court is beyond me and why the hell can they not publish the motorists name?
Speed cameras are there to generate revenue for the authorities. Plain and simple.
The motorist was warning other road users of the presence of a mobile speed camera, causing drivers to slow down and adhere to the speed limits. Now call me old fashioned but what's the problem here?
Glad to see the Judge's agree.
How this ever got to court is beyond me and why the hell can they not publish the motorists name?
Speed cameras are there to generate revenue for the authorities. Plain and simple.
The motorist was warning other road users of the presence of a mobile speed camera, causing drivers to slow down and adhere to the speed limits. Now call me old fashioned but what's the problem here?
Glad to see the Judge's agree.
cacatous said:
Also I'd like to hear their argument as to how a speed camera *prevents* an offence if the only warning you get of it's presence is when you drive past it.
They would probably use the 'fear' argument, i.e. if you could be caught at any time then you are more likely to stick to the speed limit. Similar to Foucalts Panopticon prison principle. If you think they are behind every bush you will be more likely to stick to the speed limit.
If you knew where they were then you would just slow down for them.
Of course if everyone was well behaved then there wouldn't be any revenue from the speed cameras and they would no longer be able to justify the cost (PR boasting aside)
The crux of the argument is that to warn someone who is commiting an offence that they are in danger of being caught is obstruction. The argument here was that there was no evidence that any offences were being committed and so the case was thrown out.
The fact is that everytime i see a cash van i flash my lights and make slow down signals to those approaching. If I get caught then it looks like i have presedence on my side now...
The fact is that everytime i see a cash van i flash my lights and make slow down signals to those approaching. If I get caught then it looks like i have presedence on my side now...
I always do this.
I quite happily flash my headlights and wave out of the window at drivers approaching a cash machine.
They can take me to court if they want - i'm a student so I have no money!
As far as i'm concerned i've made people check their speed which is exactly what they do when they see the camera anyway.
I quite happily flash my headlights and wave out of the window at drivers approaching a cash machine.
They can take me to court if they want - i'm a student so I have no money!
As far as i'm concerned i've made people check their speed which is exactly what they do when they see the camera anyway.
All this sort of tripe is what has driven the publics respect of the police to extremly low level. Whats worse is when a phone call is made to police and you state that attempted robbery/violence is occuring and plod turn up 2 hours after the call.
Don't blame the officers just the poxey politics of the system.
Don't blame the officers just the poxey politics of the system.
This just shows how stupid the whole thing is ....
imagine a street gets a guy to watch out for burglars, and when one shows up he warns them off before they do anything and they run off - has this guy obstructed the law ?
By this set of logic the plod would rather a burglar broke a window and smashed up someones property, but was caught red handed !
Also, I noticed looking at the scandalous scameras on the M4 J18, they're yellow, but deliberately a non glow in the dark yellow (unlike all the other signs) so you can't see them at night..........
They're so dodgy it makes me vomit..
imagine a street gets a guy to watch out for burglars, and when one shows up he warns them off before they do anything and they run off - has this guy obstructed the law ?
By this set of logic the plod would rather a burglar broke a window and smashed up someones property, but was caught red handed !
Also, I noticed looking at the scandalous scameras on the M4 J18, they're yellow, but deliberately a non glow in the dark yellow (unlike all the other signs) so you can't see them at night..........
They're so dodgy it makes me vomit..
r988 said:
Similar to Foucalts Panopticon prison principle.
The Panopticon was Jeremy Bentham's idea.
http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm
cacatous said:
Also I'd like to hear their argument as to how a speed camera *prevents* an offence if the only warning you get of it's presence is when you drive past it.
On a sort of similar theme to this. My theory has always been that a "safety camera" is there to make things safer. However, how does this theory work. If a mobile camera catches someone (for arguments sake) doing 80 in a 30, how does it make things any safer at that point in time?
I have warned people to slow down near so called safety camera's many times. Even the local "bobby" has been warned by me, he just gave a curtious wave back. I have also stood infront of the camera in the back of the van, and if it is a "Safety" partnership van there is nothing they can do. You are not obstructing the law, just a sad bloke in the back of a van with a camera.
I can't see how any decent Police man/woman could entertain arresting someone for slowing people down. If that is what the camera van is there for, someone else doing there job has to be a good thing allowing the Police to get on with far more important matters. If however you are arrested for slowing cars down, then the van/camera is there only to raise revenue. (Which it is anyway but it proves it)
I can't see how any decent Police man/woman could entertain arresting someone for slowing people down. If that is what the camera van is there for, someone else doing there job has to be a good thing allowing the Police to get on with far more important matters. If however you are arrested for slowing cars down, then the van/camera is there only to raise revenue. (Which it is anyway but it proves it)
My local newspaper and radio station give out the location of mobile speed cameras (albeit a bit vague, usually just stating the town rather than an exact road location).
Will the editors and traffic presenters now be prosecuted?
I thought the whole idea was to be open about there locations to stop speeding in blackspots.
The next thing you know, they'll be prosecuting people with GPS detectors, and maybe the importers/manufacturers/retailers. This is after all obstructing the law from a potential prosecution of "criminals". Having lost the argument for prosecuting radar detector use under the previously used "receiving of transmitted data not intended for the receiver", a legal precedence such as this could be used against both radar and GPS detectors.
Will the editors and traffic presenters now be prosecuted?
I thought the whole idea was to be open about there locations to stop speeding in blackspots.
The next thing you know, they'll be prosecuting people with GPS detectors, and maybe the importers/manufacturers/retailers. This is after all obstructing the law from a potential prosecution of "criminals". Having lost the argument for prosecuting radar detector use under the previously used "receiving of transmitted data not intended for the receiver", a legal precedence such as this could be used against both radar and GPS detectors.
lambo cop said:
As I've said before on another thread...
When doing a speed hit (with a Prolaser 3, not 20-20 or van) people see me slow down, people going the opposite way slow down and flash on commers that then slow down. Everyone slows down my job is done no paperwork everone is a winner !!
why don't you put a big sign like 200 meters in front of the van saying "Mobile Speed Camera ahead - Limit XX - SLOW DOWN if above XX - thankyou" ? if people still "speed" though the trap then they deserve more than 60 and 3 points IMO! surely thats effective road safety? (preaching to the converted i'm sure
)lambo cop said:
As I've said before on another thread...
When doing a speed hit (with a Prolaser 3, not 20-20 or van) people see me slow down, people going the opposite way slow down and flash on commers that then slow down. Everyone slows down my job is done no paperwork everone is a winner !!
Wise words.
The main coast road to Brid/Scarborough runs near to our village and the cash van parks just inside a 40 limit, this is at the end of a 2 mile straight ! so when I and all others flash oncoming vehicles they are well outside the 40 limit so technically I cannot be commiting an offence ?
Either way we all keep flashing
Mike
Either way we all keep flashing
Mike
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff