Unbelievable....

[lacroupade]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179

Think this bloke needs a better solicitor.....

[Adz]

I do it all the time as do millions of other drivers

WTF is the world coming too

[rustic]

The point is the driver was not aware that the other drivers were actually speeding and breaking the law when he flashed them.
If he was aware they were speeding then fair cop.

Sometimes along country lanes I flash other drivers to warn of a hazzard, eg deer on Cannock Chase, horses around the corner, a flooded road..

Something that might cause the driver in front to suddenly apply the brakes which may cause the vehicle behind to run into the back of the other car. Accident prevention and hazardous awareness.

I think he should appeal, what a waste of tax payer's money.
Will TomTom be fined for telling people where the speed cameras are?

[felixthelogchopper]

Given that the powers that be always claim that speed cameras and the like are not there with the aim of catching the speeding motorist but with the aim of preventing speeding, surely he was actually aiding the police officer in the carrying out of his duty.

[lacroupade]

Sadly, a bit of digging reveals that the prosecution sticks - thanks to a test case in the High Court in 1910 (!!) where it was found that AA patrolmen on bicycles who warned oncoming motorists of police presence were guilty of obstructing them in their duties.

The law, sir, is an ass.

[kbekl]

words fail me

[felixthelogchopper]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

Sadly, a bit of digging reveals that the prosecution sticks - thanks to a test case in the High Court in 1910 (!!) where it was found that AA patrolmen on bicycles who warned oncoming motorists of police presence were guilty of obstructing them in their duties.

The law, sir, is an ass.

Shame Lord Denning is no more

[Deleted account DD]

LMFAO he doesnt need a better solicior he needs to give his head a very hard shake. If he isnt bright enough to realise the traffic slows anyway when the cameras there he is a pratt.

Chuck it at him but not for obstruction..................... being a cock

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by daved

LMFAO he doesnt need a better solicior he needs to give his head a very hard shake. If he isnt bright enough to realise the traffic slows anyway when the cameras there he is a pratt.

Chuck it at him but not for obstruction..................... being a cock

ouch! you don't want to be saying that LOL

[makeitfit]

Originally Posted by daved

Chuck it at him but not for obstruction..................... being a cock

So it is stealth tax then
What is wrong with say flashing your lights to warn of a horse having a wander?
Or perhaps, some jolly council types changing the leaves in the drains without proper signs up?
OOH, what about, look out chap there's been an accident back there, slow down?
Surely all the above would be kind and generous driver warnings of a hazard ahead, would they not?
BLOODY BIG IF speed cameras are to keep us safe by being placed in accident black spots, then logically those spots must be er dangerous and so worthy of warning.
I haven't read the blurb about the the ray gun involved, but if it was a big white van then yes any driver not seeing it or the slowing traffic, gets it (I know)
If it was plod in the hedge well that's a hazard

[tezzer]

a very interesting post, but what can be done about it, nothing as usual, we will take on the chin, they wouldn't put up with it would they??
viva le france,

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by makeitfit

So it is stealth tax then
What is wrong with say flashing your lights to warn of a horse having a wander?
Or perhaps, some jolly council types changing the leaves in the drains without proper signs up?
OOH, what about, look out chap there's been an accident back there, slow down?
Surely all the above would be kind and generous driver warnings of a hazard ahead, would they not?
BLOODY BIG IF speed cameras are to keep us safe by being placed in accident black spots, then logically those spots must be er dangerous and so worthy of warning.
I haven't read the blurb about the the ray gun involved, but if it was a big white van then yes any driver not seeing it or the slowing traffic, gets it (I know)
If it was plod in the hedge well that's a hazard

Get real , the sole intention of that pratt was almost certainly to warn people of the speed trap (you know Im not a fan of them) with THE INTENTION OF AVOIDING PROSECUTION thats an offence black and white. The CPS and the magistrates must have been pissing themselves laughing at such a weak defence. His solicitor must have gone and spent the easiest money he's earned with pleasure.

Now if he wants to throw himself into the arms of a willing prosecution service by being thick let him go for it, just dont whinge afterwards. Now the rest of the traffic, having been there I can state with some experience if you speeds you takes your chance. Its not as theyre new on the road side.

Look at it another way, all these pratts flashing lights all the time totally devalue the potential of using them to indicate a real hazard.

By that i mean you go through a mental list , i it my mate or someone who thinks it is flashing......errr no

is it a speed trap............well I'm not speeding anyway so no


so tell you what, I'll ignore it .....................oops ive just ran down the drain cleaner.

Or alternatively you could just slap all on and cause an incident every time you saw a flashing light

If you did slow down every time someone flashed their lights youd never get anywhere

Lmfao (genuinely) at everyone defending this pratt. I'll bet most of those who support him also think they have "automatic authority orange flashing parking lights" they use regularly that put a protective halo around them

Public service my arse, he's as immoral as the bloody cameras he's taken on

[makeitfit]

Sorry guys I'm so enraged by this thread I cant bring myself to type out all I'd like to shout out I'm incandescent with rage grrrr.

And another thing, Why isn't it illegal to have all the GPS positions of speed traps then? Also the peer to peer on line updates for the likes of hidden plod in the hedges with ray guns not in big vans with stickers

Off for another calming port.............................................. .........

[lacroupade]

I did tell you dave LOL.

But what I still haven't seen answered is the Glendinning point. If you warn a car thief that the police are on their way to nick him and he does a runner then you are guilty of obstruction, no question.

But in the case of a motorist flashing oncoming drivers to warn of a speed trap, where is the evidence that the oncomers are speeding and therefore there is something to obstruct?

Ooh, this sounds awfully like another one of my "guilty til proven innoent" threads!!

I would still argue that with a decent brief this guy would have walked.

And I take issue, not to say umbrage, at the accusation that flashers (of the motoring kind obviously) are not doing people a favour.....the objective, as stated many times, is surely to stop speeding, isn't it????

And to answer a point made elsewhere, the genuine data to spport the speed camera argument is sparse at best, The cars we drove in 1979 bear no relation to the NCAP'd safety cells of today and that is a major reason behind the reduction in road deaths. I doubt there was a car in existence then that would get even one star today...

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

But what I still haven't seen answered is the Glendinning point. If you warn a car thief that the police are on their way to nick him and he does a runner then you are guilty of obstruction, no question.

But in the case of a motorist flashing oncoming drivers to warn of a speed trap, where is the evidence that the oncomers are speeding and therefore there is something to obstruct?

No idea who or what Glendinning is apart from a small place near Patterdale.

As I tried to point out earlier, if he flashed his lights he should have reason to do so. If he hasnt he has committed an offence but normally so trivial even a passing enforcement officer from the extended police family (yes thats what we have now) would probably have just thought "pratt"

However when there is a suspicion of intent to commit something more serious that must be demonstrated and almost certainly was in this case. He intended to warn other drivers of the speed trap.

Highly commendable until you consider a few further points.

The reason the speed camera is there is because it is a target road. A problem has got to be identified before the camera can be operated there. Therfore it is probably a safe presumption that something needs to be done and flashing headlights at each other on a permanent basis probably isnt the answer.

Therfore enforcement. Now if he really does want to help save lives and slow traffic let those who can follow through and enforce do something. Let the vehicles brake hard when they see the cop by wich time they may be clocked and if the driving is that bad they will get pulled or followed up for dangerous.

His scheme has these individuals braking hard in random spots depending where he chooses to illuminate them on a random basis and no enforcement can be carried out.

So he hasnt thought his safety message through really has he?

However I would bet a fair bit of dosh his defence was absolute rubbish and on misguided principles he wanted to be a good Samaritan to his fellow road users and save them the points so they could speed off to try and have an accident somewhere else.

That is obstruction of a police officer carryng out their duties and thats what he got stuck on for. Whether you agree with him being done or not he's achieved all the points to prove for the offence with ease

Whichever way you come at it, he was stupid. he got caught. He should stop whinging.