Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for 'obstructing police'
By Chris Brooke - Last updated at 1:01 AM on 5th January 2011
Criminal record: Michael Thompson, seen here outside Grimsby Magistrates' Court, believed he was doing his 'civic duty' by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway
A driver has been convicted of a criminal offence for flashing his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap ahead.
Michael Thompson, 64, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway.
When stopped by a police officer Thompson disagreed with the suggestion that he was ‘perverting the course of justice’ and was then allegedly told: ’I was going to let you off with a caution - but I’m not now.’
Thompson denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
He ended up £440 out of pocket after being fined £175, ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.
Thompson of Grimsby, north-east Lincolnshire, told the court he was warning motorists for safety reasons.
He said he had been involved in an accident a year ago when two drivers in front of him braked sharply after seeing a speed trap and although he braked in time another motorist crashed into the back of his vehicle.
‘It is not an offence to warn people of a possible speed trap because of the danger involved with vehicles braking quite hard,’ he claimed.
‘It’s a civic duty to warn people. I flashed my lights. I had a very good reason to warn oncoming motorists, in my opinion. My first thought was:”This may cause an accident.”
'I tried to warn vehicles that there was a speed trap. Because I challenged the officer he would not let me off with a warning.’
Thompson was pulled up as he headed out of Grimsby on the A46 at 10am. He claimed the officer involved was a ‘Rambo character’ who was acting like ‘Judge Dredd’ in using the law unnecessarily.
The officer pictured here is using a speed gun on the A130 in Essex
Flash happy: Driver Michael Thompson, 64, thought it was his 'civic duty' to warn approaching drivers on the A46 in Grimsby that police traffic officers were ahead
The stretch of road outside of Grimsby where Thompson was pulled over. He denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial and ended up £440 out of pocket
The trial took a morning of court time and three officers were involved in giving evidence for the case.
One solicitor at court criticised the decision to prosecute as a ‘ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money’ and said the defendant, who represented himself, should be praised for his actions.
Defending the decision to prosecute, a spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: 'Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.
Daily Mail - Chris Brooke - The AA wrote:
FROM NOT GETTING A SALUTE TO GPS WARNING SYSTEMS - A HISTORY OF AVOIDING SPEED TRAPS
The history of speed trap evasion dates back more than a century.
Helping motorists to avoid speeding fines was one of the main reasons for the Automobile Association being formed in 1905 - a year after speeding fines and endorsements were introduced into UK law.
Automobile Association aka AA
The AA's first patrolmen used bicycles to patrol the streets and warn motorists of police speed traps.
In 1910 a test case established that a patrolman signalling a driver to reduce speed in order to avoid a police speed trap was obstructing an officer.
The AA then developed a coded warning system that lasted until the 1960s. A patrolman (pictured) would salute the driver of a car displaying an AA badge, except in the presence of an approaching speed trap.
This warned the driver to reduce their speed in a way that could never be prosecuted by a court.
When radar detectors came into use in recent times they were thought to be banned under the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy. But a High Court ruling in 1998 established that devices for detecting radar speed traps were lawful as they did not intercept a 'message'.
The Road Safety Act which became law in 2006 was intended to clarify the law. It made clear that GPS-based speed trap warning systems were legal as they warned drivers of published camera sites and posted speed limits.
According to the AA, regulations under the act that would enable the Government to ban other radar detecting devices have not so far been enforced, although few such devices are currently on the market.
'When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
'In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate.'
Prosecutor John Owston told Thompson he was not trying to avoid an accident occurring. He said: ’You were doing it to warn them of a speed trap because as a motorist you don’t want other motorists to be caught speeding. You wanted to make sure that people who were speeding slowed down.’
Mr Owston added: ’The natural reaction of most drivers in those circumstances would be to brake. Your first reaction would be that there is some sort of hazard ahead and I will approach it at a lower speed.
‘You are causing people to brake to avoid going through a speed trap at an excessive speed and all it does then is allow people, when they are past it , to pick up speed again and speed on.
‘It’s not the speed trap that causes the accident it’s the idiot behind the wheel who brakes heavily that causes the accident.’
Magistrates rejected Thompson’s defence.
Presiding magistrate Jean Ellerton told him: ’We found that your flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’
Thompson, a married man who is now semi-retired, said he was ‘disgusted’ with the verdict and intended to appeal.
He said: ’It’s a sad day for justice because the law is being abused. I flashed a vehicle for a good reason in the interests of safety.’
The offence of obstructing a police officer carries a maximum sentence of one month’s imprisonment and/or a £1,000 fine.
Andrew Howard, the Automobile Association’s head of road safety, said: ’It’s an unusual case, but I have heard of this happening before. There are lots of people who are not aware of this law.’
Mr Howard said ‘a lot of people would be upset’ to be prosecuted for such an offence.
Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap ‘think they are doing people a favour’.
‘It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation,’ he said.
‘But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it.’
By enforcing this 'Obstruction' they discourage people from actiing 'together' and so encourage individualism and less social interaction, which sees a far wider-reaching selfish behaviour and shut us off from potentially assisting our 'neighbour'.
To deliberately discourage a warning it tries to break the 'them and us' mentality. How very desperate!
Mostly when people face a potential crime any discouragement would be seen as a good thing.
Perhaps it is time they removed the criminal aspect to it and also the points earned from 'speeding' (over posted limit).
Most people seem to warn these days by a down pointed thumb.
Isn't it what they want to slow people ? To imply that other drivers will therefore speed off shows how little they believe that cameras work (to slow people). He cannot
what people may or may not do - that is a very wrong assumption and especially for a member of the Court ! It is here-say !
If they are so aware that motorists en mass, drive faster than the posted speed limit, and that cameras fail to alter that behaviour - doesn't this show this speed trap is therfor their only 'chance' to catch that behaviour at that moment in time?
The 'technical infringement' aspect of 'speeding does nothing to imporve a motorists ability to become a better, or more importantly, safer driver.
It also shows that disrespect of this virus system on the roads, is totally disbelieved by this motorists.
There needs to be a clear independence of the Courts to the bodies that encompass the speed camera supporters it needs to be separate.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Maybe there’s a podcast or something...
