Unbelievable....

[Deleted account DD]

Rule 90 & 91 Highway code apparently explains :thumb2

 

[kbekl]

Mind you one point..............


The Grimsby Flasher was wasting his time anyway.

A large proportion of drivers cant see a large high viz battenburg marked car with alternating flashing headlamps, blue roof lights, grill and rear red and blue strobes.

So anyone stupid enough to miss the traffic slowing as it does by speed traps is highly unlikely to ave seen him.

i didnt think they could hide the fact that they were doing speed checks in the area ?

i dont see the point in convicting a person for obstructing police just because he flashed his head lights

i think the time would have been better spent on finding criminals than trying to show what an arse the police force is by convicting an old man and to have fined him over £400 intotal is a bit of a tosser thing to do from the court why not just give him points :nenau

i flash my hazzards when i come to a traffic jam on the motorway may be i should just let the people behind hit me at least i wont get a £400 fine :augie

at the end of the day it is a hazzard on the road a police officer stood with a little gun or even in a van as people brake sharply when they see them even if they are not actually speeding

i think the police are starting to show their is reason for the cut backs

 

[paulp]

wtf

I believe that a presedence has already been set in 2005, whereby a conviction was avoided on the grounds that the flasher did not know if the other motorist were speeding.

the world has gone mad

paulp

 

[Deleted account DD]

i didnt think they could hide the fact that they were doing speed checks in the area ?

Dont. Generally theres a plethora of high viz clothing and a big thing parked up called a police car.

i dont see the point in convicting a person for obstructing police just because he flashed his head lights

He committed an offence if the intent was demonstrated or proven, not "just because he flashed his lights" It isnt generally worth bothering numpties who think they're a flashing led unless theres an underlying reason or problem why theyre doing it

i think the time would have been better spent on finding criminals than trying to show what an arse the police force is by convicting an old man and to have fined him over £400 intotal is a bit of a tosser thing to do from the court why not just give him points :nenau

More is spent on crime, but more people die on the road where blameworthiness is attributed than are murdered or die from substance abuse each year. It would have cost him more to take the points.

i flash my hazzards when i come to a traffic jam on the motorway may be i should just let the people behind hit me at least i wont get a £400 fine :augie

Absolutely completely different scenario. The guidelines were actually changed to accomodate the situation you describe because it made sense

at the end of the day it is a hazzard on the road a police officer stood with a little gun or even in a van as people brake sharply when they see them even if they are not actually speeding

Or everyone creating a hazard by 1/looking around to see why theyre being flashed (see steves example) or 2/ slapping all on there and ten because they reckon its someone obstructing the police trying to stop them speeding

i think the police are starting to show their is reason for the cut backs

Sadly I think you may just see in the real life world we live in that you are completely wrong on that one

As far as starting to show need for cutbacks, locations and operation of speed cameras has to be for a reason. Its well regulated and enforced upon cops.

Where that cop with the speed gun was will be a target road. To be a target road there needs to be substantiated complaints from the public (speed surveys before enforcement) or have been subject to a number of reported collisions.

Its no surprise the press dont publish that info whilst trying to defend the Grimsby flasher but it is disappointing that those who argue against speed enforcement and make such bland statments seem to be devoid of research and understanding.

But at least theyre alive I suppose to be so critically nonchalant :nenau

 

[Kamsin]

The highway codes states that you only flash your lights to warn of danger or to warn other road users of your presents. However, the police are not allowed to use a camera unless it is in an area of danger where lives have been lost. They also have to have signs showing that cameras are used in that area.

I have no idea what point im trying to make as i have had a few beers and just wanted to join in as i felt left out......:augie

 

[makeitfit]

Sorry guys I'm so enraged by this thread I cant bring myself to type out all I'd like to shout out :doh 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:nenau

Off for another calming port.......................................................:surrender

 

[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:thumb2, 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...

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

Yes so anyone as pointed out elswhere who couldnt see them without the help of the Grimsby flasher really does need sticking on.

that was a naughty quote you missed out my point! tut tut :augie



Anyway i dont' want you to think my post was in anyway having a go at you mate, you are on here for a little relaxing leisure time the same as the rest of us and though we have had our moments, i count you amongst my mates :thumb2

 

[lacroupade]

that was a naughty quote you missed out my point! tut tut :augie



Anyway i dont' want you to think my post was in anyway having a go at you mate, you are on here for a little relaxing leisure time the same as the rest of us and though we have had our moments, i count you amongst my mates :thumb2

what do you mean - he's an argumentative old tosser :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:thumbs

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

what do you mean - he's an argumentative old tosser :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:thumbs

yes - but so am i!




and you are too come to think of it :augie

 

[Deleted account DD]

Anyway i dont' want you to think my post was in anyway having a go at you mate, you are on here for a little relaxing leisure time the same as the rest of us and though we have had our moments, i count you amongst my mates :thumb2

hey no offence taken from anyone anyhere and i hope people takemine the same way :thumb2

 

[lacroupade]

hey no offence taken from anyone anyhere and i hope people takemine the same way :thumb2

damn :doh

 

[makeitfit]

hey no offence taken from anyone anyhere and i hope people takemine the same way :thumb2

Agreed.....................................but I'm still very cross.:hmh

 

[extreme-4x4]

well where do you start to comment on this thread.

i suppose the funniest quote was from daved . with his mr not2bright from grimsby i bet the copper who done mr not2bright actually addressed him as that too

another one is that as we all know the job daved has and it seems he is always called upon to explain the legalities or justify what some consider an injustice by the police ( in fairness i think he quite enjoys it too lol)
but i dont beleive daved is the only one with that job here , so with that in mind id say the ones that are members are all pretty straight average people and not like most see as the norm for coppers

my personal view is mr not2bright was unlucky and and lets face it we have all flashed a couple of cars heading that way to let em know , as we have all benefited from someone flashing us in the past.
but if you add to the series of events he flashes a few cars and get pulled over by some lady copper who for whatever reason wanted to pursue this crime as anal a crime as most seem to think here.
maybe she was on, or had a shite couple of days before or split up with her boyfriend she pulled him ..... and you can bet your arse he got all gobby and gave her a bit more shite.

end of the day most coppers only give you a bit of advise and maybe a tiny telling off . unless you done something stoooooooooooopid or dangerous then they give it to you large.

so i suspect he mr not2bright from up north probably asked for it

im with the coppers on this one i doubt its the flashing that got him in court it was more than likely his gob . and the boys/girls in blue just dont like that...

 

[Deleted account DD]

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 :thumb2

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

 

[briggie]

mind you , i cant comment ..... i got caught doing 36 in a 30 zone , by a highly visible fixedgatso camera :augie

 

[Deleted account DD]

was more than likely his gob . and the boys/girls in blue just dont like that...

:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2


I did wonder on that one.

You just cannot reason with some people at the roadside or anywhere else :nenau

 

[Deleted account DD]

mind you , i cant comment ..... i got caught doing 36 in a 30 zone , by a highly visible fixedgatso camera :augie

ahhh.................dont worry i got done a lot more than that by a ****** jumping out of a bush (as I posted elsewhere)who'd left his hi viz and hat in the hidden car

 

[extreme-4x4]

ahhh.................dont worry i got done a lot more than that by a ****** jumping out of a bush (as I posted elsewhere)who'd left his hi viz and hat in the hidden car

yeah but bet you told him it couldnt stick cos he was out of uniform :augie

you did didnt ya lol

 

[Deleted account DD]

yeah but bet you told him it couldnt stick cos he was out of uniform :augie

you did didnt ya lol

oh he was just not hi viz, still identifiable as a uniformed cop.

I did check mainly cos I didnt like him, but no go.

I would have had to go to court and it would have cost me more, he would have just said his hat had fallen off or some other crap. He did put it on once I was stopped and by his car (dark hat as well not hi viz):nenau

It was before all the rules were rigidly pushed :thumb2