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

[MOCAŠ]

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.

I'd say it was this kind of tongue-in-cheek approach that landed Mr Thompson his fine.

For anyone who's actually taken in by it, let's just put it to the test. The key question would have to be: do you only indulge in this behaviour in the vicinity of a speed trap, or is it a normal part of your driving routine to habitually flash your lights at any oncoming traffic you think might be speeding, in the hope that they will understand that you are instructing them to check their speed and, if necessary, reduce it to a legal level?

If the former is true, then you are clearly undermining the purpose for which the police have set up the speed trap, so there can be no argument that you are perverting the course of justice: after all, speeding is a criminal offence, so to put it bluntly you are tipping off a criminal that he is at risk of being caught.

If the latter is true, and you flash virtually every driver you see on any journey you make, then this behaviour is clearly in breach of section 110 of the Highway Code which only sanctions a headlight flash to warn other road users of your presence, not anyone else's, and you stand just as much chance of distracting them as you do of getting your altruistic message across.

Let's hear no more of this "I'm only helping the police" nonsense. If you're flashing other drivers (and as I said earlier, I've done it myself occasionally) then your intention is to help them avoid being prosecuted, plain and simple. Why try to dress it up as something more worthy?

 

[Deker]

I don't understand how anyone can be prosectued for warning other motorists about an accident blackspot... after all isn't that why the police where there (they say that's the only reason they use these cameras!)?

 

[MOCAŠ]

I don't understand how anyone can be prosectued for warning other motorists about an accident blackspot... after all isn't that why the police where there (they say that's the only reason they use these cameras!)?

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

There should be sufficient road signage (see below) for any alert driver to be able to safely negotiate the road he's on, accident blackspot or not, without a little help from his friends...

etc...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I'd say it was this kind of tongue-in-cheek approach that landed Mr Thompson his fine.

For anyone who's actually taken in by it, let's just put it to the test. The key question would have to be: do you only indulge in this behaviour in the vicinity of a speed trap, or is it a normal part of your driving routine to habitually flash your lights at any oncoming traffic you think might be speeding, in the hope that they will understand that you are instructing them to check their speed and, if necessary, reduce it to a legal level?

If the former is true, then you are clearly undermining the purpose for which the police have set up the speed trap, so there can be no argument that you are perverting the course of justice: after all, speeding is a criminal offence, so to put it bluntly you are tipping off a criminal that he is at risk of being caught.

If the latter is true, and you flash virtually every driver you see on any journey you make, then this behaviour is clearly in breach of section 110 of the Highway Code which only sanctions a headlight flash to warn other road users of your presence, not anyone else's, and you stand just as much chance of distracting them as you do of getting your altruistic message across.

Let's hear no more of this "I'm only helping the police" nonsense. If you're flashing other drivers (and as I said earlier, I've done it myself occasionally) then your intention is to help them avoid being prosecuted, plain and simple. Why try to dress it up as something more worthy?

Look at it another way....
You are in a passenger in a car that is doing say, 55-60mph in a 50 zone.
Would you tell them to slow down a bit because you are in a speed camera zone or would you let them carry on at the risk of getting caught speeding?

 

[st13phil]

Methinks the main problem was that Thompson chose to defend himself.

I'm slightly puzzled as to how the prosecution could prove obstruction. How did they prove that any driver who was "flashed" by Thompson was a) committing an offence before Thompson flashed them, and b) changed their speed or course as a result of Thompson flashing them?

That aside, judging by the reaction that this prosecution has aroused it was a great "blowing one's own foot off" act by the CPS

 

[MOCAŠ]

Look at it another way....
You are in a passenger in a car that is doing say, 55-60mph in a 50 zone.
Would you tell them to slow down a bit because you are in a speed camera zone or would you let them carry on at the risk of getting caught speeding?

Provided I had the presence of mind, I'd advise them to slow down. But in doing so, I wouldn't claim that my aim was to help the police. I also wouldn't be giving the driver a potentially confusing signal (although I accept that most drivers would correctly interpret a flash in these circumstances).

There's also the vested interest to take into consideration. If I'm in the car with someone, chances are I know the person personally and have an interest in helping them. Would I tell a taxi driver to slow down if he was speeding? Probably not (unless I thought he was driving dangerously fast), as any tickets he gets are his problem, not mine. When you flash your lights at a stranger, you have no idea whether it might be better that they are stopped - you're just making a blanket assumption that because they're a 'fellow motorist', so to speak, it's your duty to protect them. That could prove to be a very flawed assumption...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Provided I had the presence of mind, I'd advise them to slow down. But in doing so, I wouldn't claim that my aim was to help the police. I also wouldn't be giving the driver a potentially confusing signal (although I accept that most drivers would correctly interpret a flash in these circumstances).

There's also the vested interest to take into consideration. If I'm in the car with someone, chances are I know the person personally and have an interest in helping them. Would I tell a taxi driver to slow down if he was speeding? Probably not (unless I thought he was driving dangerously fast), as any tickets he gets are his problem, not mine. When you flash your lights at a stranger, you have no idea whether it might be better that they are stopped - you're just making a blanket assumption that because they're a 'fellow motorist', so to speak, it's your duty to protect them. That could prove to be a very flawed assumption...

Would you not flash at a fellow Mercedes driver, then?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Would you not flash at a fellow Mercedes driver, then?

Depends what she looked like...

 

[st4]

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?

Why?

Surely if in the scenario the speeding driver slows down due to the lights being flashed (as the police and courts think this is a warning to a speeding driver), then someone slows down and no longer speeds.

Why is that not in the interest of the public and the police?

I can only think that the police wanted the "speeding" drivers to carry on speeding. Why might this be?

I can think of an answer, can you?

As for uninsured cars/other driving offences that people should not be driving for, they have ANPR. Breathalisers etc. A speedgun is not an defence against these. Therefore that argument posed does not really stand.

 

[lancebond]

i always do a thumbs down sign, and a flash of lights.

will continue to do so, sod the consequences.

but i can honestly say right here i'd go to prison before paying that fine!

 

[MOCAŠ]

Why?

Surely if in the scenario the speeding driver slows down due to the lights being flashed (as the police and courts think this is a warning to a speeding driver), then someone slows down and no longer speeds.

Why is that not in the interest of the public and the police?

I can only think that the police wanted the "speeding" drivers to carry on speeding. Why might this be?

I can think of an answer, can you?

As for uninsured cars/other driving offences that people should not be driving for, they have ANPR. Breathalisers etc. A speedgun is not an defence against these. Therefore that argument posed does not really stand.

See post #41 for my reasoning in deeming this disingenuous. Bottom line is that the aim of flashing is not to slow the driver down per se, but to help him avoid getting caught by that specific speed trap. Otherwise, you'd be doing a U-turn and following him everywhere he went, giving him further flashes every time his speed started to creep up again. If you could keep up with him...

The reason it's not in the public interest is that the longer a speeding driver gets away with it, the more likely he is to continue speeding. I know from personal experience, which I've shared in other threads, that the most effective measure in making a driver moderate his speed is an accumulation of points on his licence. As six points turns to nine, and a £600 insurance premium jumps to £1400 or more, the gravity of the situation slowly sinks in - and use of cruise control/speed limiter becomes the order of the day.

The residual benefits of stopping speeding drivers need not relate to the other traffic offences you've cited. Police have apprehended bail jumpers this way, along with people carrying offensive weapons/stolen goods or going equipped to burgle. Obviously this will only apply to a minority of those stopped, but it a safer bet to say that those guilty of such crimes are more likely to be speeding in the first place, so it's a pretty good determinant.

 

[welland99]

Mocas,
I'm totally with you on this. What better way is there to encourage motorists to stick within the speed limit?

 

[lancebond]

i personally cannot tell if someone is speeding as they are passing me on the other side of the road.

why do i flash them? as a courtesy to let them know that a police piggy bank has been set up down the road.

if the police didn't want you to see them, they wouldn't wear hi vis jackets, and in BIG VANS PLASTERED IN WARNING COLOURS!

the police do give you alot of warning before you pass the stationary unmanned speed traps, they give you a fair bit of warning with the manned ones. all i'm doing is letting people know as a further warning.

it's always been done to me and as a simple courtesy i'll do the same.

 

[markjay]

I think that the issues of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, and whether this is legal or illegal, are separate to the issue of equal enforcement.

If this is an offence usually 'punishable' by warning, then Mr. Thompson should not have been prosecuted just because he 'talked back' to the police officer.

There is no indication of any 'extreme circumstances' to suggest that Mr. Thompson should have been treated more harshly than other motorists. And no suggestion of rude or aggressive behaviour - it seems that he merely disagreed with the police officer.

It is unfair to enforce the law differentially. And the police officer that 'changed his (or her) mind' should have received a ticking off. Policing should not be about personalities, it should be as impartial as possible.

 

[st4]

See post #41 for my reasoning in deeming this disingenuous. Bottom line is that the aim of flashing is not to slow the driver down per se, but to help him avoid getting caught by that specific speed trap. Otherwise, you'd be doing a U-turn and following him everywhere he went, giving him further flashes every time his speed started to creep up again. If you could keep up with him...

You have not answered my question. How is it of benefit to the police whether someone is speeding when they pass the "check point". Surely the police don't want people speeding. Hence the campaigns to stop speeding. If you go down the argument that speeding is dangerous, is it best not the speeder slows down before the trap, so is going slower for longer?

Naturally the police dont police every section of the highway, but pick points to catch people (no pun intended).

The reason it's not in the public interest is that the longer a speeding driver gets away with it, the more likely he is to continue speeding.

Surely then its better he is slowed down for longer, a flash of the lights 500m below the trap, means he is speeding for a lesser distance and therefore posing less of a risk to the public and themselves. The sighting of the van afterwards, and that close shave feeling ought to have the "desired" effect of lighenting the right foot

I know from personal experience, which I've shared in other threads, that the most effective measure in making a driver moderate his speed is an accumulation of points on his licence. As six points turns to nine, and a £600 insurance premium jumps to £1400 or more, the gravity of the situation slowly sinks in - and use of cruise control/speed limiter becomes the order of the day.

Very true and allies with my personal experience, although thats not to say I do not from time to time, enjoy what my E320cdi sport can do.

The residual benefits of stopping speeding drivers need not relate to the other traffic offences you've cited. Police have apprehended bail jumpers this way, along with people carrying offensive weapons/stolen goods or going equipped to burgle. Obviously this will only apply to a minority of those stopped, but it a safer bet to say that those guilty of such crimes are more likely to be speeding in the first place, so it's a pretty good determinant.

On the contary, surely if you were up to no good, you would want to fly "below the parapet" and not draw attention to yourself. That would mean not exceeding the speed limit.

 

[MercFanUk]

The way I see it is the problem here is with mobile speed camera's themselves.

When an area is signposted as having a camera, yet hardly ever has one when you regularly drive through the area, you might be more comfortable being slightly more relaxed with your speed (35 in 30 zone for example). Yet one day, all of a sudden there is a real camera there and FLASH - points and fine.

If an area is signposted as having a camera, there should be a fixed camera there. If not, they should put up temp signs when they have a mobile van there with plenty of warning.

I know this leads to the "You shouldn't be speeding in the first place argument" - but if I see a sign for a speed camera area, then there should be a camera there. After all, it's already a higher chance of accident area.

Don't camera's make more than they cost anyway? If so, then the only reason I see for a mobile van is to catch people out on purpose (Unless they don't make more than they cost, in which case - erm, I have no argument, I just hate them lol)

 

[st4]

Here is a hypothetical scenario, there is a fight in a pub, and I shout police are coming to the perpetrator, then they run off and it saves the person getting kicked in from getting beaten to death, is that a criminal offence.

Or if I see a woman getting attacked and intervene before the perpetrators commit offence and run off, is that an offence as I have stopped an attack happening and dashed the polices hopes of a more severe conviction for the perpetrators.

Is that the sort of country we want to live in?

 

[MercFanUk]

I'd still like to know how he was obstructing the Police? Regardless of his intentions, he was stopping people from speeding. The Police weren't doing anything other than photographing speeding drivers - he was in no way stopping them from doing that duty. If a person was no longer speeding in that zone - then no illegal act was being committed, ergo, no crime?

 

[st4]

I'd still like to know how he was obstructing the Police? Regardless of his intentions, he was stopping people from speeding. The Police weren't doing anything other than photographing speeding drivers - he was in no way stopping them from doing that duty. If a person was no longer speeding in that zone - then no illegal act was being committed, ergo, no crime?

Exactly. His brief should have argued that one more effectively.

Still, the old fella made a stand.

Why don't we organise a collection of funds to give to him so he is not out of pocket for going to court.

I'd happily donate a tenner.

 

[MercFanUk]

I'll donate my arguing methods as I'm skint!