Police 'arrest' scarecrow
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
A scarecrow dressed to look like a traffic cop didn't go down too well with real police officers.
In fact they took the matter so seriously when they heard about it a patrol car on the way to the scene of a fatal crash was diverted to pay the scarecrow's owner, Christopher Strong, a visit.
And after ordering him to take it down, officers warned him that he could be accused of impersonating a policeman
A scarecrow dressed to look like a traffic cop didn't go down too well with real police officers.
In fact they took the matter so seriously when they heard about it a patrol car on the way to the scene of a fatal crash was diverted to pay the scarecrow's owner, Christopher Strong, a visit.
And after ordering him to take it down, officers warned him that he could be accused of impersonating a policeman
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
The reports said people were slamming on and could cause an accident, why would anyone slam on if they weren't speeding, as the scarecrow was on a junction by a police station and primary school (not that speeding motorists care)
Have to say it's about right though the bib,throwing their weight around in the wrong places and losing public confidence (remember the shop golliwog display's anyone :-?),
at least the only people who it doesn't bother are the scally's not the law abiding majority,
saying it that it could just be sensationalist journalism looking for any old story again, now there's a thought :-), (it was the mail on sunday)
The reports said people were slamming on and could cause an accident, why would anyone slam on if they weren't speeding, as the scarecrow was on a junction by a police station and primary school (not that speeding motorists care)
Have to say it's about right though the bib,throwing their weight around in the wrong places and losing public confidence (remember the shop golliwog display's anyone :-?),
at least the only people who it doesn't bother are the scally's not the law abiding majority,
saying it that it could just be sensationalist journalism looking for any old story again, now there's a thought :-), (it was the mail on sunday)
speedyguy said:
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
The reports said people were slamming on and could cause an accident, why would anyone slam on if they weren't speeding, as the scarecrow was on a junction by a police station and primary school (not that speeding motorists care)
Have to say it's about right though the bib,throwing their weight around in the wrong places and losing public confidence (remember the shop golliwog display's anyone :-?),
at least the only people who it doesn't bother are the scally's not the law abiding majority,
saying it that it could just be sensationalist journalism looking for any old story again, now there's a thought :-), (it was the mail on sunday)
RE braking if you see a scamera or plod, done it myself many a time. With the standards of speed limit marking and apparent random changes in the limits I cannot be absolutely certain that I know the limit at all times.The reports said people were slamming on and could cause an accident, why would anyone slam on if they weren't speeding, as the scarecrow was on a junction by a police station and primary school (not that speeding motorists care)
Have to say it's about right though the bib,throwing their weight around in the wrong places and losing public confidence (remember the shop golliwog display's anyone :-?),
at least the only people who it doesn't bother are the scally's not the law abiding majority,
saying it that it could just be sensationalist journalism looking for any old story again, now there's a thought :-), (it was the mail on sunday)
speedyguy said:
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
Was that reply to me? If so I'll clarify..a while ago a guy was prosecuted because he held a sign up telling people to slow down prior to a Scam site.I was just summising that this guy could have been achieving the same result so would he be prosecuted in the same way?FishFace said:
He seriously thought this was acceptable?
Yeah I'm sure they diverted a car from a fatal RTC if it wasn't reasonable to do so...
Perhaps they were slamming on their brakes at the sheer shock of seeing a levitating copper. I mean, is it actually realistic or do we all think we're in episodes of Dr Who / Torchwood now? Yeah I'm sure they diverted a car from a fatal RTC if it wasn't reasonable to do so...
Edited by FishFace on Monday 25th June 19:47
no esselte, to fishface's first comment about two mops cars being identified, 1 from the chester area (df), 1 from the bangor area (cw), surprised a moderator let it through,
and as six fiend said more people slam on at the shock of seeing a copper :-), never mind a levitating one
I have to agree with s2art, speed limit signs should be a lot more frequent the amount of times they swap speed limits about for apparently unnecessary reasons is ridiculous,
and as six fiend said more people slam on at the shock of seeing a copper :-), never mind a levitating one
I have to agree with s2art, speed limit signs should be a lot more frequent the amount of times they swap speed limits about for apparently unnecessary reasons is ridiculous,
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th June 22:19
why should you be prosecuted for slowing cars down for scammeras. Surely if they are put in accident blackspots as the government say then slowing cars down would be a good thing.
Hang on I think i understand now. Cameras ARE speed cameras and NOT safety cameras. They prefer it if you drive past a school at 36 cos they make money. Slow down and dont kill that child and they make nothing.
Roll on the abolistion (sp) of these yellow tax men and the introduction of more coppers.
But eriously, can BiB tell me why its a bad thing to slow traffic down for high risk areas rather than getting them flashed?
Hang on I think i understand now. Cameras ARE speed cameras and NOT safety cameras. They prefer it if you drive past a school at 36 cos they make money. Slow down and dont kill that child and they make nothing.
Roll on the abolistion (sp) of these yellow tax men and the introduction of more coppers.
But eriously, can BiB tell me why its a bad thing to slow traffic down for high risk areas rather than getting them flashed?
speedyguy said:
no esselte, to fishface's first comment about two mops cars being identified, 1 from the chester area (df), 1 from the bangor area (cw), surprised a moderator let it through,
Seeing that the pic in question was plucked from a mass circulaton newspaper site which is readily accessible to millions of people, I really don't see the issue with it being 'let through'- it's already in the public domain!If a motorist cannot read the road ahead sufficiently to realise that a real policeman would not be 'attached' to a hedge 10ft off the ground then they shouldn't be allowed out on the road unsupervised......
esselte said:
speedyguy said:
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
Was that reply to me? If so I'll clarify..a while ago a guy was prosecuted because he held a sign up telling people to slow down prior to a Scam site.I was just summising that this guy could have been achieving the same result so would he be prosecuted in the same way?IIRC the judge sided with the MOP in his arguement that he was a conscientious driver that was concerned with the safety of other motorists and suceeded in slowing them down.
Red Devil said:
If a motorist cannot read the road ahead sufficiently to realise that a real policeman would not be 'attached' to a hedge 10ft off the ground then they shouldn't be allowed out on the road unsupervised......
I dont think its that simple. The way the visual processing works in the brain you get an 'alert' of potential danger before the image is fully processed. So people react before they realise its a dummy.adam11 said:
esselte said:
speedyguy said:
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
Was that reply to me? If so I'll clarify..a while ago a guy was prosecuted because he held a sign up telling people to slow down prior to a Scam site.I was just summising that this guy could have been achieving the same result so would he be prosecuted in the same way?IIRC the judge sided with the MOP in his arguement that he was a conscientious driver that was concerned with the safety of other motorists and suceeded in slowing them down.
Zod said:
adam11 said:
esselte said:
speedyguy said:
What showing the vrms of two passing motorists :-?
Was that reply to me? If so I'll clarify..a while ago a guy was prosecuted because he held a sign up telling people to slow down prior to a Scam site.I was just summising that this guy could have been achieving the same result so would he be prosecuted in the same way?IIRC the judge sided with the MOP in his arguement that he was a conscientious driver that was concerned with the safety of other motorists and suceeded in slowing them down.
Six Fiend said:
FishFace said:
He seriously thought this was acceptable?
Yeah I'm sure they diverted a car from a fatal RTC if it wasn't reasonable to do so...
Perhaps they were slamming on their brakes at the sheer shock of seeing a levitating copper. I mean, is it actually realistic or do we all think we're in episodes of Dr Who / Torchwood now? Yeah I'm sure they diverted a car from a fatal RTC if it wasn't reasonable to do so...
Edited by FishFace on Monday 25th June 19:47
Shirley the bloke isn't impersonating a police officer though...the scarecrow on the other hand...although I don't think the scarecrow would be very co-operative in the interview room!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff