Warning Drivers about Speed Traps !
Discussion
Ive just read that the CPS are to close a loophole to make it easier for a person (driver) to be prosecuted and convicted for warning other drivers about an approaching Speed Camera or Speed Trap.
I have first hand experience of standing by the road and after a few minutes of my prescence, all approaching drivers have slowed down to the Speed Limit.
I think to myself, well thats my job done, i will move onto some other accident blackspot and slow the traffic down there too.
However, the powers that be say that the other drivers should be prosecuted for doing something which comes naturally to humans.
Oh well, we will see what happens here but its not something that im interested in. I will concentrate my efforts to more serious matters.
I have first hand experience of standing by the road and after a few minutes of my prescence, all approaching drivers have slowed down to the Speed Limit.
I think to myself, well thats my job done, i will move onto some other accident blackspot and slow the traffic down there too.
However, the powers that be say that the other drivers should be prosecuted for doing something which comes naturally to humans.
Oh well, we will see what happens here but its not something that im interested in. I will concentrate my efforts to more serious matters.
I find that I quite often mistake other vehicles for cars belonging to my friends. They must go past me thinking "Who was that and why was he waving?" and I feel a bit silly. I suppose they might also slow down in case I might have been waarning them of an accident ahead. Or perhaps a stray dog. Or ducks. Or ickle furry bunnies.
It's a bad habit that, I can see that now. I really must stop waving to people I think I know.
It's a bad habit that, I can see that now. I really must stop waving to people I think I know.
TonyRec said:
Ive just read that the CPS are to close a loophole to make it easier for a person (driver) to be prosecuted and convicted for warning other drivers about an approaching Speed Camera or Speed Trap.
I really don't understand how they can prosecute for this, next they'll be laws convicting anyone who even talks about a speed camera. And I thought it couldn't get any worse
According to the latest ABD mag, After a driver was found Not guilty at a Crown Court of obstructing a bib in the execution of his duty, by flashing lights warning approaching drivers they were about to enter a safety zone , the DPP appealed against the verdict.
The appeal was Dismissed, one reason was that there was no evidence that the oncoming drivers that were warned were exceeding the speed limit WHEN warned.
It is also stated that as this was decided on appeal, its sets Case Law,and the ruling is now binding on all lower courts-YOU cannot be prosecuted for warning someone of a speed trap ahead.
So if there is a change of law once again, perhaps drivers will just put their None flashing headlights on, the reason will soon catch on--will the law be changed for that as well??.
The appeal was Dismissed, one reason was that there was no evidence that the oncoming drivers that were warned were exceeding the speed limit WHEN warned.
It is also stated that as this was decided on appeal, its sets Case Law,and the ruling is now binding on all lower courts-YOU cannot be prosecuted for warning someone of a speed trap ahead.
So if there is a change of law once again, perhaps drivers will just put their None flashing headlights on, the reason will soon catch on--will the law be changed for that as well??.
TonyRec said:
Ive just read that the CPS are to close a loophole to make it easier for a person (driver) to be prosecuted and convicted for warning other drivers about an approaching Speed Camera or Speed Trap.
I have first hand experience of standing by the road and after a few minutes of my prescence, all approaching drivers have slowed down to the Speed Limit.
I think to myself, well thats my job done, i will move onto some other accident blackspot and slow the traffic down there too.
However, the powers that be say that the other drivers should be prosecuted for doing something which comes naturally to humans.
Oh well, we will see what happens here but its not something that im interested in. I will concentrate my efforts to more serious matters.
If you could speak for em all Tony.................
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10.07 this morning:
PR273: "We don't want your money" lie exposed
news: for immediate release
The Daily Telegraph today reports that the case of a motorist who was
acquitted on appeal for warning others of a speed trap will be appealed to the
House of Lords.
The Telegraph says: "Charles Glendinning was arrested last year for attempting
to obstruct a police officer in the execution of his duty.
But he was cleared in the Court of Appeal in October when the judge ruled that
the police could not prove that any speeding motorists had slowed down as a
result of his actions.
Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the Court of Appeal for
leave to take the case to the House of Lords for clarification on a point of
law.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said that it fears that the case will set an
'unwelcome legal precedent'."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The camera partnerships tell us continually
that: 'they don't want our money, they just want us to slow down'. They can't
have it both ways. Motorists warning others of speed traps is extremely
effective in slowing traffic. If they don't want our money, then why appeal
this case?"
"The DPP's claim that they 'just want to clarify a point of law' has a nasty
hollow ring to it as well, because the appeal court has recently provided the
required clarification. We're left assuming instead that they don't like the
appeal court decision."
"Authority's obsession with speed cameras is extremely bad for road safety.
Everyone is focussed on the wrong safety target and lives are being lost as a
result. British road safety cannot be restored while a single speed camera
remains on our roads. They are a dangerous distraction from much more
important safety factors."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
Daily Telegraph article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/30/nspeedcam30.xml
PR273: "We don't want your money" lie exposed
news: for immediate release
The Daily Telegraph today reports that the case of a motorist who was
acquitted on appeal for warning others of a speed trap will be appealed to the
House of Lords.
The Telegraph says: "Charles Glendinning was arrested last year for attempting
to obstruct a police officer in the execution of his duty.
But he was cleared in the Court of Appeal in October when the judge ruled that
the police could not prove that any speeding motorists had slowed down as a
result of his actions.
Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the Court of Appeal for
leave to take the case to the House of Lords for clarification on a point of
law.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said that it fears that the case will set an
'unwelcome legal precedent'."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The camera partnerships tell us continually
that: 'they don't want our money, they just want us to slow down'. They can't
have it both ways. Motorists warning others of speed traps is extremely
effective in slowing traffic. If they don't want our money, then why appeal
this case?"
"The DPP's claim that they 'just want to clarify a point of law' has a nasty
hollow ring to it as well, because the appeal court has recently provided the
required clarification. We're left assuming instead that they don't like the
appeal court decision."
"Authority's obsession with speed cameras is extremely bad for road safety.
Everyone is focussed on the wrong safety target and lives are being lost as a
result. British road safety cannot be restored while a single speed camera
remains on our roads. They are a dangerous distraction from much more
important safety factors."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
Daily Telegraph article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/30/nspeedcam30.xml
Surely the driver falshing his lights has gone past the speed trap and the headlight flashing will not be visible from the speed trap site.
You could also an error, I actually meant to wash my windscreen but thought the jets were blocked as I was pulling on the stalk numrous times ...
You could also an error, I actually meant to wash my windscreen but thought the jets were blocked as I was pulling on the stalk numrous times ...
How on earth would they prove this. I could be flashing lights to let person know I am there..und I beep my horn when going over a hump back bridge or any hill on narrow carriageway when my presence would not be obvious to oncoming car... -und I sometimes flash lights to let numpty know he or she forgot to switch light switch when leaving a car park....
Though knowing Steviebabes - he sees "rebel" in every Jag und Moggie driver in Cumbria these days probably
Und yet another accident at Shap today
und in any case - if one flashed driver to warn he ist too fast - then driver ist also helping police police the roads und think how many KSI he or she prevented by doing so
Proves ist about making cash und meeting to prescribed target und not safety!
Though knowing Steviebabes - he sees "rebel" in every Jag und Moggie driver in Cumbria these days probably
Und yet another accident at Shap today
und in any case - if one flashed driver to warn he ist too fast - then driver ist also helping police police the roads und think how many KSI he or she prevented by doing so
Proves ist about making cash und meeting to prescribed target und not safety!
Rediculous.
What happens if you on my New Years eve night out, I successfully warn a p*sshead that whilst he is drunk in the street, with a can in his hand, swearing and just about to wee in an alleyway that there is a police van around the corner?
Does in mean that I will have obstructed the police in prosecuting him for four different offences? Does in mean I will be prosecuted four times?
It would suggest I should... However as we all know of course its not. Just proof that the scameras are for revenue.
Second point... If speed kills (obviously each and every time you speed) then logic would say that by passing this law preventing people warning eachother to slow down, then this can only increase the number of speeding drivers. Of course if what they say is true then this must also be increasing the number of road deaths!
Unless of course its all a scam and someone doing 36 in a dual carriageway is actually safe and the reason that this is done for spin and cash? Hmm.... I wonder....
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 30th December 13:30
What happens if you on my New Years eve night out, I successfully warn a p*sshead that whilst he is drunk in the street, with a can in his hand, swearing and just about to wee in an alleyway that there is a police van around the corner?
Does in mean that I will have obstructed the police in prosecuting him for four different offences? Does in mean I will be prosecuted four times?
It would suggest I should... However as we all know of course its not. Just proof that the scameras are for revenue.
Second point... If speed kills (obviously each and every time you speed
) then logic would say that by passing this law preventing people warning eachother to slow down, then this can only increase the number of speeding drivers. Of course if what they say is true then this must also be increasing the number of road deaths! Unless of course its all a scam and someone doing 36 in a dual carriageway is actually safe and the reason that this is done for spin and cash? Hmm.... I wonder....
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 30th December 13:30
Well my new years resolution is to make up about 30-40 signs with the words " Speed trap scammers ahead, slow down NOW!" on them and keep em in the car ready for instant deployment both sides of their enforcement area.
Thatll get the desired result im sure.
Its all out war on these pricks from now on.
Thatll get the desired result im sure.
Its all out war on these pricks from now on.
1) IIRC, the driver was waving out of his window (presumably an up and down motion of the hand with the palm-down indicating "slow down".
2) TonyRec - how can the "CPS" close a loophole? That requires legislation of some description. The DPP is looking for "clarification" - presumably hoping it's in his favour.
If the Law Lords find - on a point of law - that warning motorists of a speed trap regardless of whether those motorists take action on the warning is indeed "obstructing a constable", then (IMHO) it will be unlikely that the test coould be confined to motorists. All sorts of anomalies could easily appear.
At the least it would create the ridiculous situation that attempting to warn someone that they were breaking the law could itself be an offence. For example, a police officer is patrolling a park. He has a general duty to uphold the law. From 1 January 2006 it will be an arrestable offence to drop litter. You are taking the air in the park with a companion who makes to flick away their cigarette stub within sight of the police officer. You make to stop them. The officer sees your action. Their duty would be to arrest your companion for littering. By attempting to prevent the commission of the offence you have "obstructed" the officer. You are arrested instead. A trite example, but "bad law" and all that!
Streaky
. 2) TonyRec - how can the "CPS" close a loophole? That requires legislation of some description. The DPP is looking for "clarification" - presumably hoping it's in his favour.
If the Law Lords find - on a point of law - that warning motorists of a speed trap regardless of whether those motorists take action on the warning is indeed "obstructing a constable", then (IMHO) it will be unlikely that the test coould be confined to motorists. All sorts of anomalies could easily appear.
At the least it would create the ridiculous situation that attempting to warn someone that they were breaking the law could itself be an offence. For example, a police officer is patrolling a park. He has a general duty to uphold the law. From 1 January 2006 it will be an arrestable offence to drop litter. You are taking the air in the park with a companion who makes to flick away their cigarette stub within sight of the police officer. You make to stop them. The officer sees your action. Their duty would be to arrest your companion for littering. By attempting to prevent the commission of the offence you have "obstructed" the officer. You are arrested instead. A trite example, but "bad law" and all that!
Streaky
Streaky,
I would suggest that instead of the CPS closing the loophole, they just fill it with fudge so that when the fudge is continuously used the magistrates know it as law.
My example is the interesting 'loophole' that many potential convictions for handheld laser speedmeters are based on evidence taken in a way which may induce false results, and with the operator failing to test the device properly for accuracy.
In stead of retraining and ensuring the devices are used properly, and thus when cases come to court which are inadequate they are dropped, the CPS have taken the 'fudge' route. That is as we know that if any of these factors which through common sense are mandatory and also appear in the ACPO Code of Practice, the ACPO document is called the 'ACPO Guidelines' and thus made out to the court in it being an optional 'hints and tips' book for operators.
Coming back to this situation I would think it more likely that the CPS will get a new way of reading and portraying existing laws to the court in order for the case to stick. Then it will become the formality of how the laser cases are with the magistrates thinking, 'Oh yes, *another one* of those people trying to get off (yawn)... I heard this last week... now what was the sentence last time...?'.
I would suggest that instead of the CPS closing the loophole, they just fill it with fudge so that when the fudge is continuously used the magistrates know it as law.
My example is the interesting 'loophole' that many potential convictions for handheld laser speedmeters are based on evidence taken in a way which may induce false results, and with the operator failing to test the device properly for accuracy.
In stead of retraining and ensuring the devices are used properly, and thus when cases come to court which are inadequate they are dropped, the CPS have taken the 'fudge' route. That is as we know that if any of these factors which through common sense are mandatory and also appear in the ACPO Code of Practice, the ACPO document is called the 'ACPO Guidelines' and thus made out to the court in it being an optional 'hints and tips' book for operators.
Coming back to this situation I would think it more likely that the CPS will get a new way of reading and portraying existing laws to the court in order for the case to stick. Then it will become the formality of how the laser cases are with the magistrates thinking, 'Oh yes, *another one* of those people trying to get off (yawn)... I heard this last week... now what was the sentence last time...?'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff