Bit harsh

[localzuk]

Normally these cases go through because the person was an utter arse & of course he isn't going to explain that while he whines to the papers. Now it is up to you if that is wrong in itself but normally I have found if you are respectful and reasonable you get treated fairly, if not positively by the police.

 

I was always taught that respect is earned, not demanded. If a police man is being a prat, then why should they get respect?

[HarryMonkey]

I seem to recall a story that, many years ago, (back in the 60s) the AA were admonished by the police for warning their members about the presence of a waiting police car/speed trap. As a result of this, their patrolmen on their motorcycles would fail to salute a member (as they were required to do at the time). Said member, having failed to recieve a salute from a patrolman was within his rights to stop and ask why. It was at this point that he would be told about the waiting police car.

 

So you see, it is something that has gone on for many many years and has continued to land people in hot water as a result.

[sippo]

What annoys me is a few points:

 

- How did the police catch him?! Were they along the road aswell.

- Common sense would of prevailed. No need to go to court.

- The police obviously lost out on money, so decided to prosecute in another way.

[MK-2]

The alternative example would be what if the police were coming to raid a criminal enterprise and he was warning someone?

 

.

 

the problem with that example is the enterprise are already doing something illegal and the police are there to raid. if the police were just knocking on doors asking if there were criminals about and you warned the local criminal about this, then yes, you are a part of it.

as said before, if the people he flashed were driving at say 45 in a 30, then yes, he helped someone who was braking the law, but its very dodgy ground proving that.

 

as i said, i completely agree that its ridiculous, but i can see why it was taken further than just ignoring it

[tech_guy]

I could give you negative rep, for that statement, but as it's your own views and opinions, I'd much rather just discuss it!

 

That is an incredibly silly statement to make....There is NO law, as far as I can find, that says you must not flash other cars. Would you flash a car to warn them of anything else? Perhaps an accident, just round the corner, or a fallen tree on the road?

 

The Police have over-reacted to this....especially if the quote "I was going to let you off with a caution - but I’m not now" is true.

 

Sorry, but that gives the Police a bad name.

 

Okay, here's a scenario for you:

 

A motorist warns another motorist of a speed trap ahead by flashing his lights. The motorist wasn't really paying attention to the speed limit so slows down to pass through the speed trap at 30mph. When he's clear of the trap, he puts his foot down a little bit as he's just outwitted those thieving policemen - to just over 40mph - and he's still in a 30mph zone. At the next bend he hits a pedestrian who nearly dies from her injuries. If he'd been doing 30mph he'd had probably been able to brake enough to avoid hitting her.

 

A fanciful scenario? No - it happened to my neighbour last year and she's only just gone back to work after six months of recuperation.

[GrumbleDook]

A bit of an inside explanation here ...

 

A person (in a car or otherwise) is aware that there are police with a speed camera intent on catching those breaking the law. They then seek to alert other road users about this with the intention of forcing other road users to slow down so that they are below the speed limit. People going faster than the allocated speed limit are breaking the law. If people are not breaking the speed limit before approaching the speed check point (not a speed trap ... that is something different) then why would he have been flashing them to slow down?

 

The difference in the above to some of the arguments put forward is intent. He always intended to help speeders not get caught. The police took action the same way they would if someone who was aware another person was on the run from the police and subsequently helped the hide or even got them out of the country, then they would be aiding and abetting too.

 

There is a simple way to stop the police using speed cameras as a revenue stream. Don't speed.

[Gatt]

@tech_guy: But that is still the speeding drivers fault - NOT the fault of the driver who flashed him - the outcome would have been the same (speeding driver doesn't slow down) or worse - sped up to a faster speed!

 

If the driver who flashed him is at fault - then technically ANY OTHER road user could be held accountable for the actions of another road - whats next person A being done for alerting Person B that (s)he has a flat tyre and is therefore driving a vehicle that is not road legal (an offence)

[3s-gtech]

Some great points brought up. It is not the same as preventing murder - as that is preventing a crime from taking place. This is not preventing a crime, but preventing detection of a crime, assuming that any of the warned drivers were actually speeding. I would say they'd need to prove that this was the case, which is almost impossible! Otherwise, waht he has done is just alert motorists to the presence of the camera, which is not a crime.

[MatthewL]

What a waste of time perusing this, I have been nearly caught on this stretch of road before and it is a right little money maker for them. They sit down on the road for hours and make a mint.

 

I would of done exactly the same as him. Where they sit is a little police station only a few hundred meters up the road from there.

[aerospacemango]

Okay, here's a scenario for you:

 

A motorist warns another motorist of a speed trap ahead by flashing his lights. The motorist wasn't really paying attention to the speed limit so slows down to pass through the speed trap at 30mph. When he's clear of the trap, he puts his foot down a little bit as he's just outwitted those thieving policemen - to just over 40mph - and he's still in a 30mph zone. At the next bend he hits a pedestrian who nearly dies from her injuries. If he'd been doing 30mph he'd had probably been able to brake enough to avoid hitting her.

 

A fanciful scenario? No - it happened to my neighbour last year and she's only just gone back to work after six months of recuperation.

 

As I suggested earlier, we could ALL make a scenario that fits in with our argument.

 

In your case, the driver who was flashed, slowed, and then sped up again. Who's to say that had he continued at 40, got done in the speed trap, he wouldn't have accelerated away in anger? He may still have been doing 40+, further down the road.

 

Now, on my way to work, I regularly pass a speed check area. These are members of the community who have been given a speed gun, by the Police, to do their work for them. Many's the time that I have been flashed by drivers coming the other way. This is despite the fact that I KNOW that it is there, and am actually driving along at about 28mph (by my speedo!), therefore, the flash is totally inconsequential to me. But, the other driver could STILL be done for it????

 

Ridiculous!

[JJonas]

I dont intentionally speed but as a driver I appreciate being made aware by other drivers of the presence of a speed trap.

[BatchFile]

This is being discussed on Radio 2 right now

[TechMonkey]

then technically ANY OTHER road user could be held accountable for the actions of another road user

 

Has all ready happen down this way. Motorcyclist got busted for the fact a policeman had to do 120 to catch up with him (NOTE: not keep up, to catch up to him) after 2 guys further back had been stopped for speeding. It was determined the motorcycle at the front had set the pace and enticed the other riders to speed, possibly including the policeman.

[GrumbleDook]

As I mentioned before the key to this is the intent to prevent the police from catching people breaking the law, or attempting to break the law. If you don't flash or you don't attempt to notify people any other way that there is a speed check area ahead then you are not breaking the law. If you do flash, even if the oncoming traffic is not speeding, your intent is still the same and so you are breaking the law.

 

The crime is the preventing the police from catching criminals / suspected criminals / those in the act of committing a crime. If you are intentionally doing that then you deserve the book to be thrown at you.

 

If you think speeding is fine and that you are above the rules because are better equipped to make decisions than the police, road accident experts, the medical profession ... then go and lobby politicians to change the laws. Don't whine about it when people get dealt with properly.

[aerospacemango]

I rather think that it is a way of warning people that there is a speed check area.....What they chose to do with that info is up to them.

 

Besides, who's to say that I haven't just flashed that car because I thought it was a friend of mine, and I was just doing the "hello, mate" flash?

 

I repeat, we can all make the examples fit "OUR" ideas, and all make our arguments sound correct.

 

I think that I shall spend the next few minutes conducting a straw poll, on who agrees and who disagrees, by way of their posts....and come back with the difinitive Edugeek answer!!!

 

 

*EDIT* Well, having looked through the 3 pages, I can state that in my opinion, of the way that people have typed, we have a 7-3 in favour of the "criminal". I have only taken those who have come out directly, in one way or the other, and have left those whose posts are neither one or the other!

:D:D:bored:

Edited January 5, 2011 by aerospacemango

[LeMarchand]

No time for a longer post, but from the Highway Code:

 

110

 

Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

[steveg]

So next time we find a teachers laptop with an illegally installed piece of software that they have installed do we:

 

A. Remove said piece of software and advise them that this is not allowed.

 

or

 

B. Do nothing and wait for them to be caught with the software on their laptop and prosecuted for it?

 

Steve

[solitaire89]

So next time we find a teachers laptop with an illegally installed piece of software that they have installed do we:

 

A. Remove said piece of software and advise them that this is not allowed.

 

or

 

B. Do nothing and wait for them to be caught with the software on their laptop and prosecuted for it?

 

Steve

 

Or

 

C. Contact the relevant authorities and claim a reward for dobbing them in?!

[LeMarchand]

Too slow! Edited January 5, 2011 by LeMarchand
Beaten to the punch

[solitaire89]

C. Call FACT immediately and arrange for a reward ;o).

 

Great minds...

[Guest Guest]

If you think speeding is fine and that you are above the rules because are better equipped to make decisions than the police, road accident experts, the medical profession ... then go and lobby politicians to change the laws. Don't whine about it when people get dealt with properly.

 

Actually the police and the experts are quite divided on whether cameras reduce road casualities. I think the point here is you think he was dealt with "properly", others do not. Cameras are not to make money, they are to slow people down - this is the words of the police. Now this guy slowed people down, so was infact doing the same job that the camera is supposed to do. The CPS is there "to serve the public interest", so how was prosicuting this guy in the interest of the public given that he was doing the same thing as the camera?

 

To me that isn't being dealt with properly, as the police can't have it both ways. Either cameras are there to make money, or they are there for road safety.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Guest

[Hightower]

No time for a longer post, but from the Highway Code:

 

Also, from the highway code:

 

When taking the last exit or going full circle

 

• signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
  
• keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
  
• signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.

But that didn't stop someone using the left lane with no indicators to go right round before side swiping my brother, only to be told the person who caused the accident wasn't at fault, and it would be 50/50

[aerospacemango]

Actually the police and the experts are quite divided on whether cameras reduce road casualities. I think the point here is you think he was dealt with "properly", others do not. Cameras are not to make money, they are to slow people down - this is the words of the police. Now this guy slowed people down, so was infact doing the same job that the camera is supposed to do. The CPS is there "to serve the public interest", so how was prosicuting this guy in the interest of the public given that he was doing the same thing as the camera?

 

 

Can I put you in the "against" camp, then, j17 ?? LOL!!!

[Gibbo]

Its not the motorist's job to warn others. Yes, he'll slow them for but they'll speed up immediately afterwards.

 

But if they're caught and fined, they learn a lesson and hopefully modify their driving style to the standard required on the test and to get them their licence.

[3s-gtech]

your intent is still the same and so you are breaking the law.

 

That's the most difficult point. If your intent is to alert speeding motorists (those breaking the law) to a police operation to detect them, that is against the law. If your intent is to alert any motorists that a speed camera is ahead, that is not against the law. Proving intent is not going to be straightforward.