Driver who flashed others to warn of police speed trap is fined £175.

[tagnut]

Firstly, whilst I agree in principal with Finisterre's comments regarding free speech in practice I know it's better to keep shtum until you know what the intentions of the officer are. Had he done this it appears there may have been no further action.

I also think that part of the problem here is that this guy defended himself in court. With decent representation I'm sure he would have been acquitted.

All that said I don't agree with this action and can't for the life of me see what it is this guy has done wrong.

 

[orientdude]

I totally back the gentleman 110%. I have been doing it with car and bike for years in the UK and in Europe!

Utterly ridiculous that the policewoman totally overreacted and a total waste of taxpayers money. The CPS is just following procedures with total disregard for the actual 'crime' involved. Unfortunately, the UK authorities are becoming so PC and big brother.

The gentleman should be applauded for his actions and courage to defend one's convictions as it is the British way to perform one's civic duty.

 

[MUGGY]

The Police do themselves no favours with a prosecution such as this.

There are large elements of our society who do not support the Police and to alienate a section of the population in this way who are largely law abiding and supportive of the Police is not very smart.

 

[Shude]

I totally back the gentleman 110%.

I'm afraid I can only back him 100% due to the way percentages work!

See Pet Hates thread for more details

 

[wemorgan]

With inflation and VAT rises the '100%' has devalued over time

 

[HR17]

Where's the 'Public interest' in prosecuting this guy?

Next time my car is damaged by chavscum, and they cite that its not in the 'Public interest' to investigate, I'll be having words.

 

[cazyp]

More to the point.. who was cooking the Policewomans' Husbands tea while she was out acting in this unacceptable manner?

 

[prprandall51]

During my youth I had a number of occasions to chat with the Police by the roadside.

Almost without exception, the Policemen involved seemed to be unable to grasp the sheer genius of the driving manoeuvre I had been observed performing. Inevitably, they would find some piffling issue with it - usually the speed at which I had been travelling, my "flexible" interpretation of road markings and instructions and, occasionally, my lack of understanding over which lane was most appropriate for passing other vehicles on motorways and dual carriageways.

In all of these discussions - which were without exception extremely friendly - at no point did I consider it wise to criticize the officers' lack of ability to recognise the excellence of the driving skill they had witnessed.

My line was always to act as if I had never before considered the possibilities of obeying the law but would henceforth become a zealot in its support. I would - I told them - cast aside my wicked practices and immediately adopt the driving style of a milk float operator.

The Police would smile and welcome me to the exciting world of the law abiding. They would suggest perhaps a re-read of the highway code and we would then part firm friends - perhaps even with the mumbled suggestion of "keeping in touch" or "getting together some time soon".

I would then patiently await their deparature and carry on as before.

I believe in free speech. But I don't believe in Father Christmas. What was he thinking of???

 

[MUGGY]

During my youth I had a number of occasions to chat with the Police by the roadside.

Almost without exception, the Policemen involved seemed to be unable to grasp the sheer genius of the driving manoeuvre I had been observed performing. Inevitably, they would find some piffling issue with it - usually the speed at which I had been travelling, my "flexible" interpretation of road markings and instructions and, occasionally, my lack of understanding over which lane was most appropriate for passing other vehicles on motorways and dual carriageways.

In all of these discussions - which were without exception extremely friendly - at no point did I consider it wise to criticize the officers' lack of ability to recognise the excellence of the driving skill they had witnessed.

My line was always to act as if I had never before considered the possibilities of obeying the law but would henceforth become a zealot in its support. I would - I told them - cast aside my wicked practices and immediately adopt the driving style of a milk float operator.

The Police would smile and welcome me to the exciting world of the law abiding. They would suggest perhaps a re-read of the highway code and we would then part firm friends - perhaps even with the mumbled suggestion of "keeping in touch" or "getting together some time soon".

I would then patiently await their deparature and carry on as before.

I believe in free speech. But I don't believe in Father Christmas. What was he thinking of???

Sometimes you just gotta do the smart thing

YouTube - The Clash - I Fought The Law

 

[MOCAŠ]

I've benefitted from the odd headlight flash warning of a speed trap, and have also occasionally done the same for other motorists, but I have always been aware that it is at best a dubious practice that goes against the Highway Code and could ultimately deny the police the opportunity to stop someone who really should not be driving.

However, in this case I'm afraid the driver got what he deserved. If he had simply put his hand up and admitted he shouldn't have done it, I think he would have been let off, as per the test case mentioned in Grober's post (#16). But this guy seems to have set himself up as some kind of crusader, variously referring to the police involved as "Judge Dredd" and "Rambo". I get the sense he has a rather large chip on his shoulder...

And let's be clear about one thing: any notion that this man was performing a civic duty or actually helping the police by trying to slow drivers down is utterly disingenuous and should not be given any credence. Does he think the courts are stupid?

If anyone was wasting public money here it was the accused, who should have simply pleaded guilty and accepted his punishment. Instead, it seems he is intent on wasting more public money by launching an appeal.

 

[del320]

The bitter irony of modern times. The AA started by offering this public service.

 

[Ted]

IIRC it was slightly different.
They would salute an AA member if there was a local 'speed trap'.
When it becfame obvious that this practice was questionable in the eyes of the lay they changed their M.O.

They would then salute all AA members they passed, but not salute them if there was a speed trap nearby.

They could hardly be prosecuted for not doing anything.

 

[finisterre]

In all of these discussions - which were without exception extremely friendly - at no point did I consider it wise to criticize the officers' lack of ability to recognise the excellence of the driving skill they had witnessed.

My line was always to act as if I had never before considered the possibilities of obeying the law but would henceforth become a zealot in its support. I would - I told them - cast aside my wicked practices and immediately adopt the driving style of a milk float operator.

The Police would smile and welcome me to the exciting world of the law abiding. They would suggest perhaps a re-read of the highway code and we would then part firm friends - perhaps even with the mumbled suggestion of "keeping in touch" or "getting together some time soon".

I would then patiently await their deparature and carry on as before.

I believe in free speech. But I don't believe in Father Christmas. What was he thinking of???

it is my method too, we know it makes sense. Still I feel that a general discussion around the point in contention is allowable. When we kowtow to authority feeling the rule we are disobeying is questionable we humiliate ourselves.

For the police to expect and reward blanket abnegation may suit them personally but in the long run we end up resenting their power over us and are less likely to step in and offer support when they require our help.

I would always try to stop some lads kicking the crap out of a WPC but I can imagine that some people might think twice if they had been treated as the enemy when they actually thought they were a friend to all.

I think the police have been pretty stupid here.

 

[martin_a]

Its the CPS who decided to go with it rather than the Police. As someone else said, the proceedure the CPS use to evaluate a case is "can we win it?" and "is it in the public interest?"

I would have thought something like this fails the second part of that test as the negative publicity is showing.

Waste of time and money.

m.

 

[biffothebear]

I took a leaf out of finisterre's book and emailed my MP. I'm sick of these civil servants treating the people who pay their wages with contempt. This is a complete waste of money and time. If ever we needed convincing that these devices are for raising money rather than safety this case provides the evidence. What other reason would there be for prosecuting somebody who was effectively warning people to slow down (if indeed they were speeding). Isn't this ostensibly what the speed(safety) cameras are for? How exactly can this be in the public interest?
In any case I'm not convinced they make the roads safer anyway as I seem to spend a worrying amount of time looking at my speedometer rather than the road because I don't know what corner the next civil servant with a speed gun is going be around, and I don't dare be even 1 mph above the speed limit as I don't trust any police officer to have the sense or ability to apply discretion or common sense to the situation.
What is the world coming to?

 

[Bellow]

Whether it's right or wrong, consider this: You flash, the driver you have warned flashes back! Your flash wasn't visible to the police, but they sure know about it now.

I'd say what was once a good thing is pretty well stuffed now.

 

[Davo]

I couldn't agree more that if cameras are to help reduce speeds, and not just raise money, you are helping the police by flashing others to slow down.

Ive done it, benefited from it, but know better than to argue the toss with a copper, unlike Mr Thompson.

I was once barrelling down the Mancunian Way on a motorbike (chasing a mate) when I saw a Police traffic car (3.0 Capri) coming up the slip ramp alongside me. By now my bike's front forks are somewhat shorter than usual, and blue smoke is coming from my front tyre. However, by the time the copper pulled in behind me, I had got down to the 50mph limit.

The copper was no mug, and pulled me as I left the motorway. All was friendly, and although he asked me if I thought he'd 'just got off the last f*cking bannana boat' (this was the 'Life on Mars' un-pc early 1980's) when I claimed to have been doing 50 mph, I think we both knew that he couldn't prove a thing, and he started to give me a road safety lecture.

Then my 'mate' who had stopped up the road joined us, and proceeded to rant about how there shouldn't be a 50mph limit there at all. 'Oh, a law unto ourselves are we Sir?' says the PC, and I realised 'mate' was about to talk the copper into taking things further after all. 'Excuse me for a moment' says I to the cop, and put my arm around my mate's shoulder and walked him back towards his bike, while making sweet whispered death threats in his shell like. 'Sorry about that' I said when I got back, the copper continued his lecture, and we all went on our way....

 

[Mercy1]

Well if we think it is acceptable to sweet=talk our way out of offences, it's no good carping when police chiefs get let off by their mates/subordinates doing exactly the same thing...

 

[Beetnik]

I totally back the gentleman 110%.

I'm afraid I can only back him 100% due to the way percentages work!

See Pet Hates thread for more details

Totally backing him is not qualified in any way so the 100% is implicit and quoting any percentage is not required. If orientdude really wanted to imply more than 100% then he should have commenced with 'I more than totally back the gentleman...'

 

[prprandall51]

Totally backing him is not qualified in any way so the 100% is implicit and quoting any percentage is not required. If orientdude really wanted to imply more than 100% then he should have commenced with 'I more than totally back the gentleman...'

Due to a rounding error I can only agree with you 99.99%