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.

[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.

[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 ??

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

[quote=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?

What matters is why you are warning & the court will make their mind up as to why that was from all the facts.
They don't have to believe it was for the purpose you claim.

But we have to accept their decision ?? Ah right, I could be telling the truth, but if they don't believe me...tough.
Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

[delboy735]

Clivey said:

delboy735 said:

Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

£££

Not just me then.As motorists, we are by far the easiest "criminals" to trace as well......what a coincidence

[delboy735]

R0G said:

Not read all the posts ....

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit

Ah, IAM member, clearly you are Perfect and have never ever crept over the limit, or let your speed creep up and over the posted limit. Nobody said anything about helping the "illegal driver", just letting your fellow road users know that there may be a scamera van ahead, and now would be a good time to just check your speed...maybe.

[delboy735]

R0G said:

delboy735 said:

Ah, IAM member, clearly you are Perfect and have never ever crept over the limit, or let your speed creep up and over the posted limit. Nobody said anything about helping the "illegal driver", just letting your fellow road users know that there may be a scamera van ahead, and now would be a good time to just check your speed...maybe.

Just over the limit - plod don't care - well over they do

In the 80s I got the full 12 on tot up and pleaded in court so I have been there and got the T shirt but all done deliberately in a 7.5 tonner so no moaning from me about it

The one thing I do know - all those that pass the test are perfectly capable of sticking to the limits - they proved that by passing

Fair comment. Not sure about "just over the limit bit" though.
Plod might not be bothered, but Scamera van partnerships simply view it as revenue, so I don't believe there is much room for manouevre...so to speak.
Pretty sure also that everybody is capable of sticking to limits, but with some limits being ridiculously low nowadays, it can be easy to let it slip.

[delboy735]

Pablo68 said:

Clivey said:

R0G said:

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit.

Because I don't agree with the authorities' approach to speed and enforcement, because many limits are set low by do-gooders for dubious reasons and because we all ignore speed limits on purpose (those who claim they don't are liars, quite frankly) as we're all human.

I would love to follow these SCP parasites (and their advocates) around and supply the relevant authorities with proof of every single little transgression or error. Hypocritical gobstes, the lot of them.

Funnily enough I recent did a SAC and when the chap asked us to give reasons for speeding, all the usual stuff like "late for work" etc came out I said "because I choose too" he demanded I explain myself I said I choose to speed when I believe the conditions are appropriate and not because of a number on a stick, which I use as a guide to possible hazards., and since in 28 years of driving I have neither hit anything or been prosecuted for anything prior to this 79 in a 70 for which I am now here, a speed I would do and will do again because it was perfectly safe regardless of the camera van hidden, and it is highly unlikely I have just been extremely lucky, so I consider my speed choices have been appropriate. He was not amused.

[delboy735]

R0G said:

Clivey said:

Because I don't agree with the authorities'

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

You obviously haven't watched football recently have you ??