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

[MOCAŠ]

You have not answered my question...

***, I think my previous post adequately addressed all the points you raised, but since you have asked for clarification: in the most generic terms, it is in the police's interest (and that of the public) to both prevent crimes where possible and to apprehend those who are intent on committing them repeatedly, so that they will be penalised and thus less like to re-offend. If criminals are helped to escape capture - as distinct from being discouraged from committing crimes in the first place - they then have further opportunities to commit further crimes.

In order to gather evidence of criminal activity, police often have to catch criminals in the act. With a gang of bank robbers, for instance, it may make more sense for the police to keep them under surveillence while they plan and begin to execute their crime before intervening, rather than intercepting them too early when all that could be proved is an intent to commit a crime.

The same applies to a speeding motorist - if they can be caught while speeding, they can be convicted and penalised; or in some cases, offered an awareness course instead; or perhaps let off with a stiff warning, as appropriate. However, if they slip by undetected, only to continue speeding later on, then no greater good has been served.

If, on the other hand, that warning flash acts as a genuine wake-up call and they continue to observe speed limits thereafter, then yes - it has served a valid purpose. However, I am not naive enough to believe that when flashing a motorist the intent is that they should never speed again; it is very much a localised measure.

There's a degree of truth in your final point about criminals trying to keep their heads below the parapet, but I don't believe it is a given. There are times when some will go out of their way to avoid detection, and in some cases they can even unintentionally give themselves away as a result, but by and large, people become complacent and lazy, and it often the case that the detection of some relatively minor misdemeanour can open the floodgates on a series of other discoveries.

 

[MercFanUk]

But surely it'd be easier, quicker and in the long term cheaper to stick a fixed camera there than a mobile one...

Especially when the effects of mobile cameras are well known (Hard braking, people flashing etc etc), much more so than a fixed camera I'd have thought?

 

[MOCAŠ]

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.

There's a gaping flaw in this argument. You appear to be saying that you know there is a higher risk of an accident because there are camera signs posted, but it would take an actual camera to encourage you to observe the speed limit. In other words, your only concern is getting caught.

Logic dictates that if the signs are only posted in higher-risk areas, then the sign alone should be enough to tell you to observe the limit.

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

Can't comment on the ins and outs of the costings, but I would assume that the aim of any speed trap is to catch speeders "on purpose". That's not say they're goading the drivers into speeding in the first place - that would be entrapment - but they are most certainly there for the purpose of catching those who are speeding.

 

[MOCAŠ]

But surely it'd be easier, quicker and in the long term cheaper to stick a fixed camera there than a mobile one...

Especially when the effects of mobile cameras are well known (Hard braking, people flashing etc etc), much more so than a fixed camera I'd have thought?

Trouble is, this is a circular argument. Why are the drivers braking hard? Because there's a camera there, or because they were speeding and want to avoid a penalty. Fixed cameras can be predicted by those who are familiar with the area, but they can still catch out the unwary and cause the same kind of reaction as a mobile camera would.

 

[MercFanUk]

I think I just have an overall hatred of mobile cameras lol

Thing is - I know how well I can drive, and how well the car I drive everyday can handle. I know that if I do 35mph in a particular 30 zone (That's just a slow bend for example) without ploughing into the hedge like the boy racers have done - then I'm still being safe. I'm not planning on racing round there at 50.

Now if a camera is hardly ever there, the majority of the UK public would lapse into a false sense of security about being flashed, and then on the off chance the camera is there, your buggered - unless someone of course warns you.

Now, I know going 35 in a 30 zone is strictly speaking breaking the law, but only just. I know if I hit something at that speed I'm more likely to do serious damage instead of just injuring a bit. Whatever I hit isn't going to notice me any later than it would at 30 really. If anything, there's the off chance it'd hear me coming slightly earlier than if I was doing 30 - and therefore have a greater chance of getting the hell off the road...

I just think it's human nature, and not something that can ever be fully enforced, unless it is enforced 100% of the time at that location. Otherwise it's almost as bad as entrapment. I know yes, it's all still law breaking, but really, at the spectrum were talking about, I'd much rather be slowed down by a fixed camera twice a day, then have less resources to find the people who stole my last car...

 

[st4]

***, I think my previous post adequately addressed all the points you raised, but since you have asked for clarification: in the most generic terms, it is in the police's interest (and that of the public) to both prevent crimes where possible and to apprehend those who are intent on committing them repeatedly, so that they will be penalised and thus less like to re-offend. If criminals are helped to escape capture - as distinct from being discouraged from committing crimes in the first place - they then have further opportunities to commit further crimes.

Debatable, how many people caught speeding, once or even twice, do not continue to re-offend.

A letter through the post and the fine/costs may not be that good a deterent. Specifically if insurance does not go up, for 1st offence it does not.

It is not hard to see that the real reasons police do this, is that its a revenue maker, and easier to do than many other forms of police work.

Someone of your intelligence can surely see that.

A flash of the lights, may be the difference between that person speeding and not, and therefore avoiding an accident. Assuming the police are setting a van in a hazardous stretch. You do partly address that point, however, given the vast amount of "speeders" you observe, and that a lot have points on their licence, its fair to assume the van method does not work that well either.

The real reason the police prosecute this scenario, and not the other two I site in a separate post, is that one raises money, they other does not.

In that spirit, I can only commend the actions of the old chap. Sorry.

In order to gather evidence of criminal activity, police often have to catch criminals in the act. With a gang of bank robbers, for instance, it may make more sense for the police to keep them under surveillence while they plan and begin to execute their crime before intervening, rather than intercepting them too early when all that could be proved is an intent to commit a crime.

The same applies to a speeding motorist - if they can be caught while speeding, they can be convicted and penalised; or in some cases, offered an awareness course instead; or perhaps let off with a stiff warning, as appropriate. However, if they slip by undetected, only to continue speeding later on, then no greater good has been served.

Maybe, but in the event of speeding motorist, why not slow them down, rather than punish them. If they'll speed again, they'll live to be caught again and a potential accident avoided by being alerted to slow down. I cannot see the benefit of catching someone speeding momentarily rather than them slowing down.

There's a degree of truth in your final point about criminals trying to keep their heads below the parapet, but I don't believe it is a given. There are times when some will go out of their way to avoid detection, and in some cases they can even unintentionally give themselves away as a result, but by and large, people become complacent and lazy, and it often the case that the detection of some relatively minor misdemeanour can open the floodgates on a series of other discoveries.

A big maybe, but a mobile trap does not stop the speeding car at the point of the offence from memory. A nice letter comes through the post. Your point remains valid for "active" policing like a traffic car stopping a criminal but a van does nothing.

 

[219]

Am I the only one who has no sympathy for this guy ?

I would have thought everyone knew it was illegal to warn other drivers of a speed check ? I have NEVER done this . In my view , those who choose to speed know the risk they are taking ; why should I risk prosecution just to facilitate their lawbreaking ?

 

[st4]

Am I the only one who has no sympathy for this guy ?

I would have thought everyone knew it was illegal to warn other drivers of a speed check ? I have NEVER done this . In my view , those who choose to speed know the risk they are taking ; why should I risk prosecution just to facilitate their lawbreaking ?

Not the only one, but I do not share your view point.

What is legal, and what is right, can be two different things.

 

[renault12ts]

We all do it...and hope nobody (the police) sees us. We know we shouldn't...but what the heck.

He got caught, bang to rights. His problem (as has been pointed out) was he argued the toss...stupid.

All the other arguments about him trying to slow other drivers down for safety reason are, of course, absolute nonsense.

I will continue to do it and hope I don't get caught, but if I do...I will lick whatever I'm asked to!!

 

[MercFanUk]

Got to love a forum where a debate really is a debate, and not something that turn's into a slagging match

 

[st4]

We all do it...and hope nobody (the police) sees us. We know we shouldn't...but what the heck.

He got caught, bang to rights. His problem (as has been pointed out) was he argued the toss...stupid.

All the other arguments about him trying to slow other drivers down for safety reason are, of course, absolute nonsense.

I will continue to do it and hope I don't get caught, but if I do...I will lick whatever I'm asked to!!

Thats probably the most pragmatic thing that has been said on this thread.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Am I the only one who has no sympathy for this guy ?

Have you read any of my posts on this thread...?

 

[MercFanUk]

Have you read any of my posts on this thread...?

He was blinded by my awesome level of logic and realism

 

[oldcro]

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!

That last sentence really takes the biscuit.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Maybe, but in the event of speeding motorist, why not slow them down, rather than punish them. If they'll speed again, they'll live to be caught again and a potential accident avoided by being alerted to slow down. I cannot see the benefit of catching someone speeding momentarily rather than them slowing down.

OK, returning to the burglary analogy - if someone was about to break into a shop was just scared off, the shopowner would have been spared the trouble/damage of a break-in, but the would-be perpetrator will just try his luck somewhere else next time, and chances are there won't be someone there to scare him off that time, or the time after.

However, if the police become aware of his plans and are lying in wait to arrest him as soon as he commits the crime, they have the opportunity to take him out of circulation for a period (depending on how the prosecution goes, of course).

Which is better - relying on someone continually following this guy around to scare him off at every potential break-in location, or getting enough evidence to get him locked up for a couple of years.

Back to speeding - what's better: helping drivers to avoid speed traps so that they can continue to speed when they feel it's OK to do so, or to letting the police catch them doing what they were doing anyway, so that they think twice about it next time.

I agree that the first set of 3 points doesn't really hit you that much, either financially or metaphorically, but the second and subsequent sets do - and once you've been up to nine and come back down to zero again (as I have), you have a very strong incentive to stay at zero.

 

[MercFanUk]

Thing is for me it just 'feels' wrong - in the burglar analogy, they are waiting for a particular criminal to show and commit a crime, but in the speed camera sense, they are just hoping to snap a few drivers - no one in particular, just anyone who happens to be speeding, even if by the smallest of margins.

 

[JOB-BLACK-RAT]

Seeing that I was on the other end of this today its strange it should come up here!

Conducting speed enforcement today with a ProLaser3 ACPO approved device I had occasion to issue a FPN to a driver who was a shade under 50% in excess of the posted.

He was very upset and felt that although it was raining, outside a school and kicking out time he should have got a verbal warning.

So he drove up and down the rode for the next 30mins flashing away to signal that I was there in all my soggy high vis glory.

Good.

All those folks will now always slow down by that school because that where the Traffic Officer with the speed gun stands and maybe tell thier freinds, and thats what I want.

FPN issued 1.........drivers who will stick to the limit by the school, countless. Job done.

 

[st4]

OK, returning to the burglary analogy - if someone was about to break into a shop was just scared off, the shopowner would have been spared the trouble/damage of a break-in, but the would-be perpetrator will just try his luck somewhere else next time, and chances are there won't be someone there to scare him off that time, or the time after.

Interesting, but not withstanding the "Tony Martin" method or any method that may do some lasting harm to the would be perpetrator by the victim of the crime. Lets not open the Tony Martin issue, whole different conversation, however, someone might not just scare off a criminal.

However, if the police become aware of his plans and are lying in wait to arrest him as soon as he commits the crime, they have the opportunity to take him out of circulation for a period (depending on how the prosecution goes, of course).

I see your point, but whats the percentage of re-offenders in prison....its not that low is it?

I'd wager that a hardened criminal will offend no matter what (especially given the sky TV in prison and lax sentencing), and whilst your analogy is a good one its not much use to the victims of the offence if the police do not intervene.

That being said, the police do a cracking job, particularly with intelegence relating to acts of terrorism, so there is definately a valid point in your post, however, its not fool proof.

Which is better - relying on someone continually following this guy around to scare him off at every potential break-in location, or getting enough evidence to get him locked up for a couple of years.

Back to speeding - what's better: helping drivers to avoid speed traps so that they can continue to speed when they feel it's OK to do so, or to letting the police catch them doing what they were doing anyway, so that they think twice about it next time.

You tell me, but consider the re-offence rates for certain types of crime, and the punishments handed down for them.

I agree that the first set of 3 points doesn't really hit you that much, either financially or metaphorically, but the second and subsequent sets do - and once you've been up to nine and come back down to zero again (as I have), you have a very strong incentive to stay at zero.

Blimey, you are ahead of me. But then again, your car goes faster than mine.

That may be a tongue and cheek remark, but for you to get to 9 points the 1st two slaps on the wrist did not have much an effect...

Consider that also with the effectiveness of the camera vans, and also the offence the old boy has been charged with. Has it really changed the course of justice if such a rate of re-offending goes on?

 

[MOCAŠ]

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?

This really is a different kettle of fish, so to speak. But ultimately, it still comes down to "the greater good". In this scenario the greater good is served by preventing serious injury to a victim, and I would hope we would all do whatever we could to intervene - even if it was just scaring off the perpetrator - rather just standing by.

However, it would also come down to the precise circumstances of the situation. For instance, if you were in a position to detain the attacker (ie: yiou were physically stronger, or you were with a group of friends, etc) but you chose to let him abscond, I think there's a chance you could be charged with aiding and abetting. Not 100% sure about this, but I believe the law expects you to do what is reasonable and proportionate, which is where the powers of citizen's arrest have their origin. Would be good to get some input on this from someone with a legal background.

So, if you genuinely felt that unless you flashed that driver he was at risk of crashing - or even just losing control - as he passed the speed trap location, then yes, I'd agree that the greater good had been served by encouraging him to slow down. In fact, if I saw someone driving in such as manner that I feared they would crash or cause harm to others, I would take action anyway, regardless of whether there was a speed trap.

But again, I don't believe for one minute that this ever crosses the mind of the "flashers". They're not trying to prevent an impending accident; their sole aim is to say "Watch out - speed trap."

 

[st4]

This really is a different kettle of fish, so to speak. But ultimately, it still comes down to "the greater good". In this scenario the greater good is served by preventing serious injury to a victim, and I would hope we would all do whatever we could to intervene - even if it was just scaring off the perpetrator - rather just standing by.

However, it would also come down to the precise circumstances of the situation. For instance, if you were in a position to detain the attacker (ie: yiou were physically stronger, or you were with a group of friends, etc) but you chose to let him abscond, I think there's a chance you could be charged with aiding and abetting. Not 100% sure about this, but I believe the law expects you to do what is reasonable and proportionate, which is where the powers of citizen's arrest have their origin. Would be good to get some input on this from someone with a legal background.

Thats a really interesting prespective.

However, it comes back to the "what is legal and what is right". The two are not always the same.

To me, if you saved the person but say allowed the absconder to get away, which I cannot see why would, but a charge of aiding and abetting is a strong one to pull and not in my view rewarding good citizenship.

So, if you genuinely felt that unless you flashed that driver he was at risk of crashing - or even just losing control - as he passed the speed trap location, then yes, I'd agree that the greater good had been served by encouraging him to slow down. In fact, if I saw someone driving in such as manner that I feared they would crash or cause harm to others, I would take action anyway, regardless of whether there was a speed trap.

But again, I don't believe for one minute that this ever crosses the mind of the "flashers". They're not trying to prevent an impending accident; their sole aim is to say "Watch out - speed trap."

Naturally

However, consider the severity of the crime, the reoffending rate of speeders, they'll be caught and is really catching 5mph breakers really a good use of your tax money?

Lot of pot holes needs filled, why is so much money on these methods of policing the roads.

Money talks....