Bit harsh

[Guest Guest]

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

 

I guess so

 

We're forever being told that the police havn't got time to deal with real criminals but they seem to have unlimited time to point cash cameras at people.

They tell us that they arn't cash cameras but then put them up in areas of maximum revenue rather than places where lots of accidents happen.

If they are for road safety then why was this bloke prosicuted given he was doing the same job as the camera is supposed to do?

 

[GrumbleDook]

Cameras are placed in positions to reduce speed and to minimise the chance of accidents, in particular areas likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries. Mobile Speed Check areas are intended to catch those speeding and bring them to justice. This guy was warning others about the police trying to catch criminals, not primarily to slow traffic down.

 

In a number of counties / areas the police actively inform local radio stations of approximate areas where the mobile speed checks will be, in an attempt to slow down traffic safely, and then the team can concentrate on those in tent on breaking the law.

 

The talk of cameras is a complete red-herring in this case.

[localzuk]

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.

 

Depends on your use of 'intent'. If you mean intent as in 'mens rea' then the argument would be that he should've known that flashing his lights was against the law to slow speeders down and allow them to avoid detection. This, I would argue is wrong, as is shown here - most people wouldn't think it is illegal and therefore wouldn't have 'mens rea'.

[GrumbleDook]

I guess so

 

We're forever being told that the police havn't got time to deal with real criminals but they seem to have unlimited time to point cash cameras at people.

They tell us that they arn't cash cameras but then put them up in areas of maximum revenue rather than places where lots of accidents happen.

If they are for road safety then why was this bloke prosicuted given he was doing the same job as the camera is supposed to do?

 

 

Sorry mate ... people who speed are real criminals. When they get into a prang or hit someone then there is the greater chance of someone dying. A car is an offensive weapon and people forget that. If you can't follow the rules you should not be allowed to use a car in the same way that applies to guns.

[JPS]

Well time for my two pennys worth; if it is a case of the driver has broken the law (although 'we' might not like that fact) then fine, he should face the consequences, but I think the end result (fine etc) was way over the top. I think when the police behave (carry out the law to the letter) like this they dont do themselves any favours. I am too of the opinion that anyone has to earn my respect, not automatically be in receipt of it because of their job/position.

 

I think that driving whilst on the phone is far more of an issue and I saw a Police Camera Action type programme where the copper just warned the driver, with no further action!

[localzuk]

Sorry mate ... people who speed are real criminals. When they get into a prang or hit someone then there is the greater chance of someone dying. A car is an offensive weapon and people forget that. If you can't follow the rules you should not be allowed to use a car in the same way that applies to guns.

 

However, as a slight counter to this, you have to take into account the fact that there are plenty of speed limits in the country which are poorly set by the relevant authorities. ie. too low for the road, location etc... So, in some cases, speeders are still driving safely but its the rules that are wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry mate ... people who speed are real criminals. When they get into a prang or hit someone then there is the greater chance of someone dying. A car is an offensive weapon and people forget that. If you can't follow the rules you should not be allowed to use a car in the same way that applies to guns.

 

Well thats funny as alot of police forces admit speed is only a minor factor in road accidents. So are the experts correct or not?

 

Guns - oh dear

[sippo]

Here in Swindon, all fixed camera's have been removed and accidents have reduced over the last two years.

[GrumbleDook]

@j17sparky

Yep, debate gets heated about how much of an increase in the probability of a collision that speed causes (weather tends to rate more highly with many forces based on statistical evidence of their area), but the general consensus is that it is a factor and the higher the speed the more that probability increases. However, I have only seen a handful of reports which put out that that speed is not a significant factor in the amount of damage done to the human body when in a collision.

 

The whole driving culture in the UK is geared towards driving to the limit and beyond, with little or no consideration for the weather conditions, time of day, flow of traffic, and other road users. Speed limits are not just about curbing speed on any given day, but about the days when it is wet, when the road is greasy from fallen leaves and rain, when roads still have patches of ice even after gritting ...

 

The idea that the state is out to penalise motorist is also part of this ... it is a position used by the media to sell stories, or for those who have been caught to have a whinge.

 

As for the reduction of accidents in Swindon, there should be a further report out next year looking at the severity of collisions (and the resulting injuries) compared to the frequency. There is a worry at the moment that the number is going down, but the injury rate isn't and may even be increasing. There are still a number of hot spots which are causes for concern and these are being addressed by the increased use of mobile speed checks, in a drive to educate rather than penalise. IIRC, these have been running from October and are likely to continue until the end of Feb.

[Martin]

Following on from my earlier post, this makes interesting reading!!!

 

For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?

 

mb

[GrumbleDook]

I'm eagerly looking forward to the publication of the decision (can't find it yet) as I am hoping Bastable v Little has finally been over this can now sit in case law as a precedent (if it was used in defence, that is)

 

It is also a tad hard to give cast iron explanations on why this is such a problem too without seeing what evidence was put forward. The police may have been at that site many times previously or have had speed measurement equipment out over a prolonged period of time, and therefore having significant evidence that in the balance of probability a high proportion of drivers along that stretch of road would have been speeding. Although they have no direct evidence anyone was speeding who subsequently slowed down due to the warning, they may have evidence that people didn't slow down in spite of the warning, and so showing that speeding had occurred.

 

Yes, the evidence has to fit together very carefully, but the intent was the same no matter the outcome.

 

As for Mens Rea ... ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law but a mitigating factor.

[FN-GM]

I have not read all the posts as i dont have time so if someone has said this already sorry.

 

In court you could argue:

 

The British police only setup speed traps and speed camera in accident blackspot areas. So if there is a police trap setup its obviously a dangerous area. So the driver sees the trap and comes to the conclusion this is a black spot area so warns drivers that they are coming into a backspot area. He was doing it to slow drivers down in the blackspot area.

 

 

To be honest i dont see how this is different for speed camera detectors. They are 100% legal. They inform drivers of speedtraps....

[localzuk]

I'm eagerly looking forward to the publication of the decision (can't find it yet) as I am hoping Bastable v Little has finally been over this can now sit in case law as a precedent (if it was used in defence, that is)

 

It is also a tad hard to give cast iron explanations on why this is such a problem too without seeing what evidence was put forward. The police may have been at that site many times previously or have had speed measurement equipment out over a prolonged period of time, and therefore having significant evidence that in the balance of probability a high proportion of drivers along that stretch of road would have been speeding. Although they have no direct evidence anyone was speeding who subsequently slowed down due to the warning, they may have evidence that people didn't slow down in spite of the warning, and so showing that speeding had occurred.

 

Yes, the evidence has to fit together very carefully, but the intent was the same no matter the outcome.

 

As for Mens Rea ... ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law but a mitigating factor.

 

I'm thinking that Bastable v Little is a very important bit of precedent that should remain on the books myself. If there is no evidence of speeding, then there is no obstruction. Pretty plain.

 

Also, as this is a magistrates court decision, they neither have the power to ignore Bastable v Little, overrule it and in most cases set any precedent themselves. Only Crown Court and above can create precedent - so if he appeals, and loses at higher courts, then the precedent would be set.

[TechMonkey]

To be honest i dont see how this is different for speed camera detectors. They are 100% legal. They inform drivers of speedtraps....

As far as I am aware they aren't & infact are 100% illegal. You are allowed camera location devices, so the list of cameras you can install on SatNavs, but you are not allowed any passive or active detecting devices.

[mthomas08]

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.

 

Afraid I must agree because of that last statement, was going to let him off but because he argued thats it. Now if he is breaking the law technically he should be arrested but if he is being booked just because he argued then thats something else. Personally I see nothing wrong in telling some one to slow down to avoid a penalty, I had some one do it to me near Guildford now I was already going the right speed but the driver did it anyway.

Is it really breaking the law when you flash a car that was already going the correct speed? when technically there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Problem is lets face it, they pulled him in because he argued not because of what he actually did. Its like a night out, theres nothing wrong with getting drunk but when an officer tells you to keep it down and you argue saying your not being loud and they pull you in. I have to say but it sounds like a typical American Sheriff from a small town who treats it like his own house.

 

But then this country is getting too fussy.

[Hightower]

Is it really breaking the law when you flash a car that was already going the correct speed? when technically there is nothing wrong with that.

 

If they are going the correct speed then what is the point in doing it?

 

I'm not saying the police are right or wrong here, nor am I saying the driver was right or wrong in his actions, but if I know a copper is sitting with a gun I won't flash oncoming cars. Personally, I feel that if they are speeding, especially through an accident blackspot area, or an area with a playground nearby etc then they deserve the punishment that comes with it.

 

There was an accident in my village before christmas where the driver was doing 60mph (30 zone) and hit somebody on a zebra crossing which ultimately ended in a fatality. The driver is now on suicide watch in prison apparently, and although it is not a nice position to be in, this driver had it coming to him - it's just a shame that somebody lost their life due to it. Now imagine if you had flashed that driver to alert him about a speed camera a couple of weeks before hand - how would you feel?

[aerospacemango]

If they are going the correct speed then what is the point in doing it?

 

I'm not saying the police are right or wrong here, nor am I saying the driver was right or wrong in his actions, but if I know a copper is sitting with a gun I won't flash oncoming cars. Personally, I feel that if they are speeding, especially through an accident blackspot area, or an area with a playground nearby etc then they deserve the punishment that comes with it.

 

There was an accident in my village before christmas where the driver was doing 60mph (30 zone) and hit somebody on a zebra crossing which ultimately ended in a fatality. The driver is now on suicide watch in prison apparently, and although it is not a nice position to be in, this driver had it coming to him - it's just a shame that somebody lost their life due to it. Now imagine if you had flashed that driver to alert him about a speed camera a couple of weeks before hand - how would you feel?

 

Can you judge an oncoming vehicles speed? That would be pretty amazing, as you'd have to take your own speed into account + the closing speed then subtract one from the other to get your best estimate of the speed. Therefore, what's wrong with a quick flash?

 

As it is, I agree with one part of your statement.....If I saw a camera, and then saw a car which I believed was excessively speeding....then I'd let him/her go....They can take the pain of the fine/points....Serves them right.

 

However, if I can judge that someone is doing, maybe, 35 in a 30, then I would warn them.

 

Now, the second part....If I had flashed a driver, and 2 weeks later he was involved in a serious accident....well....I cannot see where the fault is? I would feel no different to all the other accidents that happen. Sad that it has happened, but thankful that I, nor any of my family, were involved. (I believe that this part is a spurious argument, by the way. It has nothing to do with the main point.)

[Hightower]

Can you judge an oncoming vehicles speed?

 

However, if I can judge that someone is doing, maybe, 35 in a 30, then I would warn them.

 

So first you say that it would be pretty amazing to judge someone's speed, but then go on to say you can judge someone doing 35mph - you must be pretty amazing then.

 

Therefore, what's wrong with a quick flash?

 

If they were doing less than 30mph, what's the point in flashing them? They aren't speeding so your efforts have been wasted. If they are doing more than 30mph then they deserve to be caught. Simples.

[maniac]

I've not read the entire thread, but personally don't see what all the fuss is about. I flash my headlights to warn motorists of hazards ahead sometimes, it's almost a natural thing to do. What difference does it make if the motorists are slowed by his actions of warning them or by seeing the actual speed trap, the end result is still the same so I can't see where the problem lies.

[aerospacemango]

So first you say that it would be pretty amazing to judge someone's speed, but then go on to say you can judge someone doing 35mph - you must be pretty amazing then.

 

 

 

If they were doing less than 30mph, what's the point in flashing them? They aren't speeding so your efforts have been wasted. If they are doing more than 30mph then they deserve to be caught. Simples.

 

Firstly, thank you, but i AM pretty amazing (IMHO!!)

 

Did you know that your speedo can be out by around 10%? Therefore, if you are driving at 34mph (by your speedo, you may only be doing 30/31mph. A quick flash will encourage a driver to check this out, and perhaps to slow down.

 

I still would not feel the slightest bit "involved" if this led to a driver, two weeks later, being involved in an accident.

[GrumbleDook]

A few points ...

 

@localzuk - I was under the impression that he was going to appeal (and represent himself again) and I am looking forward to the judgement being upheld.

 

@FN-GM - SatNavs and maps are allowed to have the locations of specified safety cameras. There was a challenge against this but it was deemed that knowledge that a safety camera was in a particular location would also alert the driver to an accident blackspot, so it would be beneficial to leave it on there. The rebuttal was that instead of it being called a 'safety camera warning' it should be noted as an 'accident blackspot' but common sense (and some trials) showed that people reacted better and for a longer stretch of road when it was noted as a safety camera. It has even been known for police forces to apply for cameras to be situated at accident blackspots but never install them ... because the combination of camera signs and the SatNav warning does the job instead. Reverse psychology perhaps? As for the fact that safety cameras are put in certain places ... well then you start facing a problem about the choice of locations. Since the Police are the people that can apply to stick the cameras in a location then there is a given amount of scepticism about whether it is to generate revenue or to improve the safety of the road. Since it means you have to trust the Police and the Govt that gives them the powers ... and when it comes to driving many don't. So you get the heated discussions about whether they work (sometimes yes, sometimes no), whether they earn money (if local funds are being cut and people are stupid enough to speed, then why not get money off them?) or whether the correct procedures are followed in the first place for choosing a site or advertising the road safety strategy in the area. I am not saying the police and safety partnerships *haven't* abused things or cocked up over time ... but my stance on speeding is the same.

 

Lets face it ... many people do not trust the police, or see speeding and road safety as a minor thing which the police are abusing. You will see lots of massaging of stats on either side about the effectiveness of safety cameras on reducing injuries and death. As far as I am concerned if they save one life then they have done their job and I mean that for every single camera in the whole country. We also need to remember that this was not a safety camera but it was a mobile speed check area. The use of the phrase 'speed trap' is wrong, even though it is in common usage in the courts. The job is not to trap offending motorists but to be a mobile and visible deterrent against unsafe driving including speeding. If they catch people speeding at the same time then the drivers are dealt with accordingly. The mobile speed check areas also provide valuable data about increases in circumstances which may contribute the the probability of collisions happening. This could be the increase traffic flow in an area, it could be to check the traffic type (haulage, cars, motorbikes, etc) and this could be a pre-cursor to a longer study in the area ... sometimes this results in cameras being removed, or if a camera has been removed and the risk is increasing then it could be put back.

 

@mthomas08 - Police have a certain amount of discretion which they can apply. Most generally do so with a healthy dose of common sense, some compassion and with a general wish that they would see a reduction in people breaking *any* law ... and they know that is often done best via educating rather than punishing. If someone is argumentative, is showing that they lack any form of contrition about what they have done, are rude or are showing that they will continue to break the law once the police officer is gone unless otherwise dealt with ... at the point the officer can deal with the person with the full force of the law. In this case the person was booked for an offence which can be initially dealt with at the scene or followed up with a note to produce documentation with further action taken. The story does not say whether he was arrested there and then but it is a possibility he was. Once the evidence is taken, because it is not an offence with a fixed penalty, then it is handed over to CPS. If they feel that the case has merit they will proceed ... which they did and successfully. The CPS are the moderating factor before it even goes to court.

 

@aerospacemango - you are talking about people driving to the speed limit as a target, not as something they occasionally reach (eg going at 65mph and suddenly hit a dip so you go up to 70mph). However, there is a catch22 here. If people were to drive with a +/- 10 allowance ... it might mean they drive at 27mph in a 30mph zone ... that could mean they are going at 30mph ... but could also mean they are going at 24mph ... and it gets worse the faster you get ... if you drive a 63mph in a 70 then you might be spot on ... or you could be going at 56mph ... and that could be dangerous itself. To get around this most forces will apply the 10% rule (some still do 10% +/-2mph) and so as long as you stick to your speedo you are pretty ok. You should also stick with the flow of traffic where possible for safety reasons, taking into account that if the flow is going at 85mph then you slow done ... common sense applies.

[aerospacemango]

I think that you're taking my posts too literally, as seems to be the problem throughout this thread.

 

Yes, I drive as close to the speed limit as conditions allow. 20 years+ without an accident means I must be doing something right. However, I have also taken note of my sat-nav (which is a FAR MORE accurate speedo than is on any car) so I know pretty much what speed I'm doing, at any point in my journey.

 

If the traffic flow IS 85mph, then I would be looking to be doing at least 75mph, as I would think that doing 20% UNDER the traffic flow speed would be dangerous. In your example, I should be doing, perhaps, 65 in a 70mph. That equates to almost 20% lower than 85mph.

 

Now, that above point illustrates how taking one point literally can make my argument look correct, and yours wrong.....However, transpose that to 35mph, and 28mph, and there is not much difference.

 

I still believe that if you have seen or been affected by a crash/accident, at speed,your views will be coloured by that. You will continue to fight your corner, but with emotions rather than common sense. (That is probably a sweeping generalisation, and is not meant to offend. Apologies if it does, as that is NOT my intention)

[localzuk]

A few points ...

 

@localzuk - I was under the impression that he was going to appeal (and represent himself again) and I am looking forward to the judgement being upheld.

 

It would be very rare for a lower level appeal to overturn any form of precedent in my experience. So, it is more likely that he would have an easier time in that court.

 

Lets face it ... many people do not trust the police, or see speeding and road safety as a minor thing which the police are abusing. You will see lots of massaging of stats on either side about the effectiveness of safety cameras on reducing injuries and death. As far as I am concerned if they save one life then they have done their job and I mean that for every single camera in the whole country.

 

That is a bit of a bizarre view to take. Outlawing cars would also prevent car deaths, should we do that too? Or making all forms of sharp implement illegal (so, from butter knives to scythes and ice scrapers), and they can kill, should they not also be totally banned?

 

Taking the blind view that if safety cameras are judged even in one case to have saved a life that they are a positive thing is a bit closed minded to all the negative aspects of those cameras - including the deaths they may be the cause of (people slamming on their brakes causing crashes etc...).

 

Regarding the fact that people do not trust the police? Why is that? Go back to WW2 era and the majority of the country looked at the police with admiration. It was a profession to be held in high regard and a sign of a truly Good Person. Since then, with the imposition of more and more 'on the spot' fines and powers, meaning more abuse of those powers, combined with a lack of real recourse against the police unless your case is deemed important enough to end up at the independent body (meaning that complaints about an officer in a force are investigated by that force), and multiple studies showing things like institutional racism (Manchester Police), corruption (too many to list, even up to chief officer level) and brutality, and can you blame the public for having changed their opinion?

[Gatt]

@GrumbleDook ... Did you receive a rather large manilla envelope with used, non-sequential bills from New Scotland Yard?

[sted]

Regarding the fact that people do not trust the police? Why is that? Go back to WW2 era and the majority of the country looked at the police with admiration. It was a profession to be held in high regard and a sign of a truly Good Person. Since then, with the imposition of more and more 'on the spot' fines and powers, meaning more abuse of those powers, combined with a lack of real recourse against the police unless your case is deemed important enough to end up at the independent body (meaning that complaints about an officer in a force are investigated by that force), and multiple studies showing things like institutional racism (Manchester Police), corruption (too many to list, even up to chief officer level) and brutality, and can you blame the public for having changed their opinion?

 

i also think 24h news has somethig to answer for here as things seem to go striaght to air so they can scoop other stations without as much fact ckecking as 20 years ago and retractions are never as obvious as leading stories repeated eery 5 mins