Safe Speed Forums

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... dcam30.xml

Case of driver who warned of speed trap may go to Lords

By Duncan Gardham
(Filed: 30/12/2005)

The case of a driver accused of waving his arm out of his lorry window to warn other drivers that they were approaching a speed camera could be referred to the House of Lords.

Charles Glendinning was arrested last year for attempting to obstruct a police officer in the execution of his duty.

But he was cleared in the Court of Appeal in October when the judge ruled that the police could not prove that any speeding motorists had slowed down as a result of his actions.

Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the Court of Appeal for leave to take the case to the House of Lords for clarification on a point of law.

The Crown Prosecution Service has said that it fears that the case will set an "unwelcome legal precedent."

Although Mr Glendinning will not be involved in the case himself, he criticised it yesterday as a waste of public money. "I can only imagine how much this has cost the taxpayers already," he said. "It must run into tens of thousands of pounds. I had to spend £3,000 of my own money for the magistrates' and Crown court hearings."

Paul Smith, of the campaign group Safe Speed, said: "I would have thought the courts and police had better things to do."

Mr Glendinning, 56, a milk tanker driver from Yeovil, Somerset, appeared at Yeovil magistrates' court in December last year and was found guilty of obstructing a police officer. He appealed against the decision and, in March, Taunton Crown Court upheld the appeal on the grounds that the prosecution could not prove that any speeding motorists had slowed down as a result of his actions.

The Crown Prosecution Service took the case to the Court of Appeal, claiming that it should not have to prove that any speeding drivers had slowed down for there to be a prosecution, but the case was dismissed. Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has referred the case to the Court of Appeal's Administrative Court, requesting leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Last year Stuart Harding, 71, was banned from driving and fined £364 costs for holding up a sign which read "Speed Trap - 300 yards ahead".

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10.07 this morning:

PR273: "We don't want your money" lie exposed

news: for immediate release

The Daily Telegraph today reports that the case of a motorist who was
acquitted on appeal for warning others of a speed trap will be appealed to the
House of Lords.

The Telegraph says: "Charles Glendinning was arrested last year for attempting
to obstruct a police officer in the execution of his duty.

But he was cleared in the Court of Appeal in October when the judge ruled that
the police could not prove that any speeding motorists had slowed down as a
result of his actions.

Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the Court of Appeal for
leave to take the case to the House of Lords for clarification on a point of
law.

The Crown Prosecution Service has said that it fears that the case will set an
'unwelcome legal precedent'."

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The camera partnerships tell us continually
that: 'they don't want our money, they just want us to slow down'. They can't
have it both ways. Motorists warning others of speed traps is extremely
effective in slowing traffic. If they don't want our money, then why appeal
this case?"

"The DPP's claim that they 'just want to clarify a point of law' has a nasty
hollow ring to it as well, because the appeal court has recently provided the
required clarification. We're left assuming instead that they don't like the
appeal court decision."

"Authority's obsession with speed cameras is extremely bad for road safety.
Everyone is focussed on the wrong safety target and lives are being lost as a
result. British road safety cannot be restored while a single speed camera
remains on our roads. They are a dangerous distraction from much more
important safety factors."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Daily Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... dcam30.xml

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Excellent.

They dig deeper and deeper holes it seems...

Yeah. They are boxed in by their own lies and false assumptions. Everything they do highlights (at least) one of the flaws.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I suppose it could be argued that the speed camera is there to 'capture' real driver behaviour, not behaviour modified by someone telling them to go slower just because of the presence of the camera alone.

However, you are right, the authorities have completely boxed themselves in over the rationale behind the use of speed cameras and its their own fault when cases like this arise.