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

[Frankie]

I still think fines do nothing to deter anyone,the risk of losing you license due to too many points would soon stop people speeding. You get 12 to allow for a few mistakes,there should be no circumstance where someone can continue to drive after that. After the first offence they should have learnt their lesson,if not they soon will do when they lose their license. With the current situation I don't know why anyone sticks to the limit,you get a fine which you pay,a few points and if you go over 12 you can say how you license is essential for job etc. Then they let you carry on driving,how is that right. I say no more fines,keep the cameras and give people points.

 

[st4]

I still think fines do nothing to deter anyone,the risk of losing you license due to too many points would soon stop people speeding. You get 12 to allow for a few mistakes,there should be no circumstance where someone can continue to drive after that. After the first offence they should have learnt their lesson,if not they soon will do when they lose their license. With the current situation I don't know why anyone sticks to the limit,you get a fine which you pay,a few points and if you go over 12 you can say how you license is essential for job etc. Then they let you carry on driving,how is that right. I say no more fines,keep the cameras and give people points.

I think that would restore a lot of public faith in that method of policing.

However, I doubt thats the route they will go down...

 

[MOCAŠ]

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.

As I said, I'm really not too sure of my ground on the likelihood of an aiding and abetting charge, but I think it would literally have to result from your "allowing" the attacker to abscond, rather than merely being incapable of stopping him. For instance, let's say the assault was in progress when you stepped in, he saw you were bigger and didn't fancy his chances, but you then said something like "Get out of here", that could be seen as giving him the opportunity to evade capture when he'd already committed a crime.

But the trouble is in highly charged situations things are never black and white. You might judge that the safest thing for the wellbeing of the victim is for the attacker to be as far away as possible; and any number of other factors might come into play in the process of deciding what's for the best. Which is why I don't really think this bears comparison with the speed trap scenario.

Anyway, I think its time to draw this particular ping-pong match to a close. I'm happy that we seem to have found some common ground, and we can just agree to differ on the rest.

 

[Bellow]

The prosecution is incongruous with the stated police intention of stopping crime and with their constant assertion that speed detection is clearly visible to all road users. On the latter point it isn't always.
On the A96 they insist on siting their cameras at the end of long straights thus denying motorists the opportunity to overtake on the safest part of the road. After being held behind a truck for miles at 40mph, checking for junctions, oncoming traffic, traffic approaching from behind, and all and any other hazard, it is easily possible to miss the mobile speed camera. In such a situation giving another driver a warning, a piece of information regarding the situation ahead, may be legally wrong but the fact we do it says that it is morally acceptable.
But once more the police forget that they police with our consent and are in actual fact there to serve us - not themselves.
Would I warn a driver of a trap in a 30 or 40mph zone? No way! But out on the open road, absolutely, if the situation warrants it in my opinion, I will.

Far from creating or condoning speeding another view can prevail. If a driver becomes so dependent on the warnings from other motorists they will either figure it out for themselves that one day there may be no warning, or encounter that day. In which case they will get caught. What's the fuss? Let those who spend a lot of time on the roads and need their licence for their job look out for each other and stop prosecuting people merely for speaking their mind.

PS. In all the above I have 'moderate' speeding in mind. The guy doing 150mph is going to get flashed at by everyone - speedtrap ahead or not!

 

[Ted]

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.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

I don't want to appear a sycophant (cos I'm not), but THAT'S policing.

IMHO of course.

 

[camerafodder]

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.

Nice one JBR, a great example of positive policing. (not meant to sound patronising btw)

...and think of the ink you saved too!

EDIT
oops just noticed I more or less replicated Ted's reply...ho hum.

 

[biffothebear]

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.

If there is a fixed camera you can see it, there are signs, so you are aware of it's existence and make sure that you are travelling below the specified limit. The main issue I have with these mobile units, whether they be in vans or manned by a civil servant standing in the road, is that the natural instinct is to brake when you see one regardless of whether you are speeding, and this sudden braking can be dangerous. I'm sorry but far from being there to serve the public good by stopping people from speeding there only intent is to fleece motorists. Following on from your comparison of speeding motorists with criminals such as burglars, perhaps we should just lock all motorists up and then there would be no chance of anyone speeding, and we could all live happily ever after having removed millions of potential repeat offenders from the streets. I'm new to this board and don't want to rub anybody up the wrong way, so I hope you don't take offence, and perhaps you are trying to play devil's advocate, but it really annoys me when people get all sanctimonious about speeding as if they never do it. Can anybody on this board hand-on-heart say that they have never once exceeded a speed limit, and that includes the civil servants who are paid to enforce these laws? In fact I have been overtaken by marked police cars on many occasions who were significantly exceeding the marked speed limit without any lights/sirens! A case of 'do as I say, not as I do' me thinks!

I have also just spotted a quote from a civil servant on this message board (JOE-BLACK-RAT), and let me say that if you concentrated your efforts in areas around schools the vast majority of motorists would have no problem, it's when you position yourselves for example on dual carriageways at the point where speed limits change that loses you public support. It has now got to the point where (I think I mentioned this in my earlier post but I'll mention it again) I spend a worrying amount of time looking at my speedo because I have no faith in the police having the intelligence or willingness to use discretion if or when I happen to creep one or two mph over the speed limit on the few occasions when I'm looking at the road and not my speedo.

Back to the point, regardless of your opinions on the efficacy or otherwise of speed traps, was this a legitimate way to spend our money? A whole day in court for 3 police officers (so that's where they were when I waited 3 hours for them to respond to a burglary at my house), and a court taken up for a whole day to prosecute somebody for flashing his lights. I don't know how much police officers are paid, but I for one am very unhappy at money I have contributed towards the public purse being spent in this way.

Light the blue touch paper and retire

 

[Mr E]

I thought that mobile sites had to be publicised - certainly in Sussex we can check on-line and find out which sites will be operational that week. Most of these sites are available in sat-navs and similar tools, so I don't see any issue here.

As to this particular case - there seems very little sense in taking the guy to court. But he does seem to be his own worst enemy - not only wih the officer at the time but then choosing to defend himself and with his comments afterwards too.

It's a bit sad to see the old "revenue-raising" chestnut being raised again. AFAIK the Police do not benefit from one penny of fines. Perhaps JBR could confirm whether officers are giving the target of raising £X from mobile sites?

 

[biffothebear]

I thought that mobile sites had to be publicised - certainly in Sussex we can check on-line and find out which sites will be operational that week. Most of these sites are available in sat-navs and similar tools, so I don't see any issue here.

As to this particular case - there seems very little sense in taking the guy to court. But he does seem to be his own worst enemy - not only wih the officer at the time but then choosing to defend himself and with his comments afterwards too.

It's a bit sad to see the old "revenue-raising" chestnut being raised again. AFAIK the Police do not benefit from one penny of fines. Perhaps JBR could confirm whether officers are giving the target of raising £X from mobile sites?

I do hope I haven't ruined your day by raising the "revenue-raising" issue again, I wouldn't like to think I'd upset you! Actually I never suggested that the police benefit from it directly, it's not them that set the speed limits, it's local authorities with whom they are effectively in cahoots anyway as part of the speed camera partnerships or road safety partnerships or whatever pompous title they give themselves. As I stated, most reasonable people - and I include myself in this cohort - have no problem with speed traps in areas such as around schools or built up areas as I'm sure this is what they were originally intended for, as anybody exceeding the speed limit in these areas need to be punished severely. Where they lose goodwill is when they are placed in areas such as that referred to earlier by Bellow, or as I mentioned earlier on dual carriageways where the speed limit changes from say 40 to 50 in a non built up area with no pedestrian access/schools. What possible safety benefit can there be of positioning a speed camera at such a point other than to catch somebody who has started to accelerate up to the new limit slightly too early? What benefit to the public at large is there in ticketing somebody for doing say 48 on a stretch of road which is officially 40 but changes to 50 within a few metres? As there is no discernible benefit as far as I can see the the only logical conclusion to draw is that it is positioned there for other reasons.

Regarding publication of sites for mobile cameras, I actually wasn't aware that mobile sites had to be publicised so you have me at a disdvantage, but in any case I travel to many different parts of the country so keeping track of them all would be a nightmare anyway, and I doubt very much if I'd be able to recognise the roads they were on anyway.

I don't know and don't really care who gets the money raised by these devices I just wish they would use them appropriately and not in places where there road safety benefit is debatable, and we then wouldn't need to have this debate.

Anyway, I've had enough of this now, the prosecution was a waste of tax payers money and not in the public interest. Now can everyone please just agree with me and we can draw a line under it.

 

[biffothebear]

I think I need to return to school as I keep using 'there' when I mean 'their'! For all those grammar pedants among you, I apologise! I thought I'd get in there first.

 

[camerafodder]

I think I need to return to school

Just make sure you stick to the speed limit on the way though!

 

[mobbsy]

just to let you know as an aside,the stretch of road in question is a long straight flat dual carriageway with no houses on either side...

the speed limit there has been reduced to 50mph because of a campaign by residents after two young girls were killed by a drunk driver i believe in a stolen car, losing control and careering over the central reservation off the road and ontothe pavement.

A lot of people, and I am one of them disagree with this limit and the use of cameras to enforce it as i believe everybody is being penalised for the actions of one idiot, who wouldn't have cared about 3 pointson his licence, a speed camera/reduced limit does nothing to prevent this kind of accident happening, it just annoys the majority of motorists who find it frustrating to have to drive at 50mph, on a perfectly good piece of dual carriageway.

by the way, further along the road the limit is 60mph, on a single carriageway which winds along a hilly stretch.

When speeds limits are set reasonably people will be more likely to obey them,

This case is a waste of my hard earned money and i will continue to flash my lights to warn others of speed traps

 

[Mercy1]

Can't help thinking there are lot of holes in some of these arguments...

As I now understand it, it's OK for a policeman to watch a motorist flashing other drivers for 30 minutes warning them to stick to the speed limit.

But another driver who is also flashing other drivers to warn them to stick to the speed limit gets prosecuted...

Put another way:

FPN avoided 1.........drivers who will stick to the limit on that stretch, countless. Job done.

 

[219]

I would have thought - observe him 'flashing' for 5 mins or a couple of runs - then , on his third pass , pull him and give him another ticket for his trouble . THEN , catch a few more speeders and they will also tell their friends not to speed in that location .

Job done even better .

 

[219]

I do wish people would stop using the phrase 'speed TRAPS' .

They are SPEED CHECKS

The police are not out to 'trap' anyone : if you are obeying the law you have nothing to fear .

 

[219]

On the opposite tack , it can be quite amusing to flash blatant speeders , and watch them slow down - even though there is NO speed check further down the road

Since you are not obstructing any Police operation , no offence is being committed .

 

[renault12ts]

On the opposite tack , it can be quite amusing to flash blatant speeders , and watch them slow down - even though there is NO speed check further down the road

Since you are not obstructing any Police operation , no offence is being committed .

Oh...that is a good one.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I do wish people would stop using the phrase 'speed TRAPS' .

They are SPEED CHECKS

The police are not out to 'trap' anyone : if you are obeying the law you have nothing to fear .

Hmm, "speed checks" is too passive a term as it suggests that they're just checking your speed, as opposed to taking any action.

I think "speed trap" is valid, in the sense that the purpose is to catch transgressors by issuing them with an FPN. The only problem is that it also carries invalid overtones of luring and entrapment, so perhaps another term is required. How about "Speed Net", with lawful drivers (let's call them tiddlers) getting through OK but those who are speeding, etc (let's call them whoppers) being 'caught'.

 

[prprandall51]

just to let you know as an aside,the stretch of road in question is a long straight flat dual carriageway with no houses on either side...

Well, not according to the picture on the first page of this thread - the road has houses on either side and is only a dual carriageway in the most basic definition (2 carriageways separated by a central area) there are no crash barriers, proper kerbing and the road is narrow. 50mph seems a very reasonable limit for this road as far as I can see.

 

[MOCAŠ]

^^ Further to prprandall51's post, there seems to be a common misconception that the national speed limit applies to all dual carriageways, but according to Wikipedia:

A dual carriageway in a built-up area will have a statutory speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise sign-posted. It is common for such urban dual carriageways to have an increased speed limit of 40 mph (64 km/h). A built up road is indicated by the presence of street lights, on lit dual carriageways that are not considered to be in a built-up area, the speed limit will be clarified with intermittent signs.

This is backed-up by the Highway Code, which says: "The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting unless signs show otherwise."