I was threatened with arrest for warning of a speed camera .
Discussion
Furry Exocet said:
sodslaw said:
Whats the difference?
In this case its mutually inclusive.
The difference is the OP wouldn't do it if there wasn't a camera or speed check round the corner In this case its mutually inclusive.
OBVIOUSLY the van will be covered in camera and POLICE stickers visible from 1/2 a mile back (they always say 'clearly marked- as we don't want to catch anyone) so these forwarned drivers would be able to slow for the lethal stretch up ahead even without a helpful early reminder..... Oh hang on, the cambs scam vans have one little logo on the SIDE of a blue transit. hmmmmmm
10 Pence Short said:
14-7 said:
The thing is you are not doing it to slow them down you are doing it to stop them being caught. A point quite obvious from your comment about reducing revenue.
How could he tell they really were speeding? They may not have been, in which case what obstruction would he be causing? I would have thought his intent is immaterial in that instance.After all the police only ticket people to keep the coffers full, to fund the Christmas ball, for the annual BBQ etc etc
10 Pence Short said:
How could he tell they really were speeding? They may not have been, in which case what obstruction would he be causing?
Nutshell..Absent any proof that the OP warned vehicles that were actually speeding, then the best the BiB could likely hope for would be proceeding an allegation of the 'waver' not being in proper control..
Had the OP gone so far as to flash the oncoming vehicles, a charge of 'misuse of headlights' (or whatever tosh they call it these days) might have been the preferred choice of HM's finest.
jjr1 said:
woody155 said:
take no notice of their stupid warning u did the right thing
The warning was quite clear that they would arrest me. Even if it didn't proceed any further, a trip down to the station and a few hours of 'no comment', would even bore me.Furry Exocet said:
sodslaw said:
Whats the difference?
In this case its mutually inclusive.
The difference is the OP wouldn't do it if there wasn't a camera or speed check round the corner In this case its mutually inclusive.
whoami said:
jjr1 said:
woody155 said:
take no notice of their stupid warning u did the right thing
The warning was quite clear that they would arrest me. Even if it didn't proceed any further, a trip down to the station and a few hours of 'no comment', would even bore me.It's a simple fact the default reaction to anyone upon spotting a danger while driving is to hit the brake pedal, especially if its a camera.
The argument that you've already been caught by the time you see it doesn't always stand however.
While the laser travels at the speed of light it still requires the old fart behind the bloody thing to react and pull the trigger.
A reality which fortunately may allow those with quick enough reactions to scrub half a seconds breaking before the speed is recorded.
Something I'm actually praying on at the moment as my laser detector did not warn me of a camera last weekend suggesting it was not fired after a harsh breaking manoeuvre n the distance.
Has anyone else noticed a steep rise in cameras this year? I've been ha 3 times in 10 months Vs 1 in the previous 7 years? Ironically, I'm also driving the slowest car I've had over that period!
The argument that you've already been caught by the time you see it doesn't always stand however.
While the laser travels at the speed of light it still requires the old fart behind the bloody thing to react and pull the trigger.
A reality which fortunately may allow those with quick enough reactions to scrub half a seconds breaking before the speed is recorded.
Something I'm actually praying on at the moment as my laser detector did not warn me of a camera last weekend suggesting it was not fired after a harsh breaking manoeuvre n the distance.
Has anyone else noticed a steep rise in cameras this year? I've been ha 3 times in 10 months Vs 1 in the previous 7 years? Ironically, I'm also driving the slowest car I've had over that period!
Although I generally support the Police in what they do, (as do most of us of course), I think they should grow up and drop this silly stuff.
Motorists/motorcyclists warn each other of any law enforcement going on, they always have done, and I assume they always will.
We all know they catch bad guys, as well as good guys speeding, but really, threatening somebody with arrest for warning other motorists of a speed trap ?
If that is true, they should face an internal charge of bringing their uniform into disrepute, it is pathetic, and will only widen the "us and them" feeling amongst motorists.
They are dropping to the same level as scamerati.
Motorists/motorcyclists warn each other of any law enforcement going on, they always have done, and I assume they always will.
We all know they catch bad guys, as well as good guys speeding, but really, threatening somebody with arrest for warning other motorists of a speed trap ?
If that is true, they should face an internal charge of bringing their uniform into disrepute, it is pathetic, and will only widen the "us and them" feeling amongst motorists.
They are dropping to the same level as scamerati.
This kind of thing makes me laugh. I am very sympathetic to the police, having read various stories and seen the often tongue in cheek shows all over the TV, it's obvious they have one w
k job often times. I wouldn't in a million years want to deal with the scum they have to.
What winds me up however is when they jump down the throat of normal people. I know its hard for them to be nice one second and hard the next, but please, most of us respect you, don't give us a reason to be like the "PIG HATIN'" wkers you see about.
You did the right thing OP. Depriving any "speed camera partnership" is the way forward.
k job often times. I wouldn't in a million years want to deal with the scum they have to.What winds me up however is when they jump down the throat of normal people. I know its hard for them to be nice one second and hard the next, but please, most of us respect you, don't give us a reason to be like the "PIG HATIN'" w
kers you see about.You did the right thing OP. Depriving any "speed camera partnership" is the way forward.
SS2. said:
10 Pence Short said:
How could he tell they really were speeding? They may not have been, in which case what obstruction would he be causing?
Nutshell..Absent any proof that the OP warned vehicles that were actually speeding, then the best the BiB could likely hope for would be proceeding an allegation of the 'waver' not being in proper control..
floydbax said:
s51, Police Act 1964 - Assaulting or Obstructing a Constable in the Execution of His Duty, namely: acting as a Revenue Agent for HMG.
Streaky
This is a typical example of bending a law for a purpose it was not intended for!
Perhaps you shouldn't have removed the smiley.Streaky
This is a typical example of bending a law for a purpose it was not intended for!
Streaky
s51, Police Act 1964 - Assaulting or Obstructing a Constable in the Execution of His Duty, namely: acting as a Revenue Agent for HMG.
Streaky
This is a typical example of bending a law for a purpose it was not intended for!
Perhaps you shouldn't have removed the smiley.
Streaky
-
Unintentional, I was just emphasising yr point.
Streaky
This is a typical example of bending a law for a purpose it was not intended for!
Perhaps you shouldn't have removed the smiley.
Streaky
-
Unintentional, I was just emphasising yr point.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff