Safe Speed Forums

Comment: Interesting - the argument wasn't whether the wave was warning people of the trap, but whether an obstruction actually occured. Am I correct in thinking that if a driver was flashing motorists there would still need to be proof that drivers were influenced? I am thinking this would be extremely difficult to prove.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4338972.stm

Lorry driver cleared of 'waving'

A lorry driver who waved to motorists to warn them of a speed trap did not obstruct the police, a court has ruled.

Charles Glendinning, 55, from Taunton, was convicted of obstruction, but the ruling was later overturned.

The High Court heard Mr Glendinning, a milk tanker driver, was stopped by police who spotted him waving to tell cars to slow down ahead of the trap.

But judges decided there was no proof his gesture had been seen by any speeders, so it was not 'obstructive'.

Supporting the decision to overturn the conviction, Lord Justice Scott Baker asked prosecution lawyers what the difference was between Mr Glendinning's arm signal and a sign warning motorists of speed cameras.

'Different strategies'

Mr Justice Owen suggested that some people might think the police would appreciate "the efforts of others to prevent speeding".

Crown counsel Ben Tabiner said "two completely different strategies" were involved - warning signs were preventative, while a speed trap was specifically designed to catch people.

He said police had set up the trap because earlier that day an average of one driver per minute had been breaking the speed limit on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister, Somerset.

The judges held that, because there was no evidence that any other drivers were influenced by his signal and slowed down as a result, Mr Glendinning did not obstruct the police.

Did he now? I wonder how many of the 75% or whatever of people who apparently support camera know about this? Especially since the partnership PR spin doctors have shouted themselves hoarse denying that there is ever any intention to trap people.

Overall, sadly, this strikes me as the right verdict for the wrong reasons. The judge seems to have reinforced that asking people to slow down is illegal if somebody sees the warning.

But as Zamzara rightly says: they keep spouting that there is no intention to fine, entrap or prize your licence off you and all they want to do is warn you to slow down.

So - surely if someone warns someone to slow down and thus prevent the accident they probably will not have

Illogical!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

That's what Justice Owen was implying that "some people" thought. Hopefully the full judgement will pop up somewhere, it should clarify exactly how the case might affect things, it could be a major blow if it means that drivers can flash their lights with impunity.

Gareth

this was in a crown court... does that make it case law?
you can wave as long as no one acts on it...



So to prosicute you for perverting the course of justice they first have to prove the people that saw you flash or wave were in fact speeding.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Nice one Anton

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

But is it not our civic duty to, as a civilised society encourage others to abide by the law rather than break it. So if infact this driver was 'signalling' to approaching drivers to ammend their potentially 'unsafe' speeds in approach to a SAFETY camera (as they would have us believe they are intended for), is he not acting as a responsible citizen encouraging lawful conduct?

Or does the loss of revenue justify motivate it all? I can see no other reason.

I wonder if he had indicated that other motorists should speed up in approach to the police 'for a laugh' if they (police) would have been quite so ticked as the revenue would've increased? And if a motorist complained of the encouragement I'm sure they would've been told that it was their fault for getting caught speeding so shut up...

Of course we all know that cameras are only ever placed in accident black spots with a history of accidents that were caused by speeding drivers(and nothing else ) so this mans actions should be praised. He was doing his duty to warn fellow motorists of the danger they were in and to slow down to avoid an accident.

As the judge reffered to, I can't see any difference in the driver and the signs that say Think! Slow down. If there was one just before the camera van, could they charge the guy that erected the sign?

I ,
for one,
for good or evil,
will continue to practice the great art of gunn phew martial arts tactics to reduce the scamratri thier slice of flesh,

dear merchant of van - ice

(ps_ how can I change my icon, as I do not think it really reflects my thinking!, I only want to change the stinky bit!!)

_________________
Brian of Plymouth
When will the government realise , that to err is only human, to be perfect is to be GOD.

It shouldn't matter whether they are speeding or not. How could the "untrained eye" of the average motorist ever make that determination anyway?

Surely if cameras are located at accident blackspots, then you are doing the safe and right thing by alerting oncoming traffic to the imminent danger?

Say I see someone shoplifting. Then I see that he's being tailed by shop Security or plain-clothed Police officers. Am I a criminal if I go up to him and tell him to put the stuff back on the shelf because he's being watched? I don't see how this is any different.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

OK, a Crown counsel said that. Can this now be regurgitated back at the SCPs whenever they state in press releases etc. that cameras are about accident reduction through prevention?

They can't have their cake and eat it. Cameras are either a preventative measure or they're there to catch people covertly. The two "strategies" are mutually exclusive.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Provided it isn't near a camera, or you will be prosecuted.

I will send a question to my local scammers.

'If I see another driver who I believe to be speeding is it ok to flash my lights to slow them down?'

will let you know.

Even more complex - is the local council guilty of obstruction by placing a vehicle activated sign ahead of a speed camera?

The camera is there to catch speeders and the sign is there to warn speeders to slow down.

there is one on the a24 by boxhill that warns drivers doing more than 50mph that there is a camera ahead!!!

Regardless, it is nothing short of scandalous how something like this can make it to Court while there are unlicenced, uninsured, drunk & dangerous drivers getting away scott free.

The behaviour of the Police in this case is like that a school bully extorting dinner money from other pupils in the toilets.

Please everyone, don't be put off by these bullying tactics - feel free to flash your lights at oncoming traffic to warn of highway robbers up ahead and feel good about doing it.

If you get stopped for it, you can always say that you accidentally knocked the headlamp flasher stalk while operating the radio. How the hell are they going to prove you wrong?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

But if the Police have proof that the person is speeding then they can already prosecute them if they wish do do so and the actions of the guy that waved are irrelevant.

If the Police do not have proof that the person is speeding, then how can they prove that there was a "course of justice" to pervert?

The same is true of PTCOJ charges for use of laser jammers. The only winning solution for the scammers is if the accused is an idiot and pleads guilty. However, normal law-abiding people are not used to Police interrogation and do "crack" very easily. This is the one of the great advantages the Police have found in targeting law-abiding citizens rather than criminals. Willingness to plead guilty to something they have not done, just to avoid the "hassle" of going through the legal process is another.

They took this one to court knowing that, unless the accused folded, they would lose. They did it in the hope that the threat of a day in court (with all the disruption that brings) will put people off waving and flashing their lights to warn other drivers of scammers up ahead. After all, why should you risk inconveniencing yourself just to help someone else? The Nazis used to use tactics like this.

Don't let the fascist bullies win.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken