Safe Speed Forums

A pensioner who warned motorists of a police speed trap was convicted of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, banned from driving and ordered to pay £364 costs yesterday.

Stuart Harding, 71, was attempting to slow motorists down as they approached a Sunday morning car boot sale where many people were crossing the road.

Noticing that police were parked nearby with an officer using a hand-held laser speed camera, he decided that a warning stating "Speed Trap - 300 yards ahead" would be the most effective way of getting drivers to reduce their speed. But as soon as the officers noticed his placard he was cautioned for committing an offence.

Harding, a retired instrument maker, who appeared before magistrates in Aldershot, Hants, yesterday, had pleaded not guilty to the charge. He said: "I have been convicted of breaking the law because I was trying to stop others from doing so. It is totally unjust."

Harding said he had stood at the same spot, on the A325 at Farnborough, on previous Sundays warning drivers of the car boot sale, and had received a thumbs-up sign from a passing police car. But the attitude of officers changed when he warned drivers of the speed camera.

Robert Manley, prosecuting, said: "In displaying this sign the defendant was giving motorists advanced warning of a road safety camera being operated by the police 300 yards further along the road."

He said the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would avoid doing so having been given notice of what the police were doing.

Sgt Sarah Cashman told the court that when she cautioned Harding and confiscated the sign he told her: "I stop people speeding down here. I am only doing what I think is right".

Asked if he knew there was a speed camera ahead he said: "Yes, that is why I am doing it".

Alex Wyman, the presiding magistrate, told Harding: "The use of the sign was a deliberate and intentional act and by use of the words 'speed trap' you were assisting speeding motorists from being prosecuted."

After his conviction Harding told the magistrates he planned to appeal, adding that he needed his car to drive to church and that he was due to take his wife and friends on holiday in a camper van.

The clerk of the court pointed out to magistrates that unless the ban was suspended it would have run its course before the appeal was heard. But they ordered it should take immediate effect.

The court also confiscated Harding's sign and ordered it to be destroyed.

After the case he said that he had been told that fines collected from speeding motorists on that stretch of the road had netted £12,000 in one morning alone.

"It seems to be more about raising revenue than road safety. I'm just so angry and upset about the driving ban. It was totally uncalled for because this wasn't a motoring offence," he said.

Article is from the telegraph.

Both "Mail" and "Express" carried this story. Both papers published a photo which shows the old geezer's 30mph sign has been left in place above the cam sign!

Note the cop was called CASHMAN! How apt - given she was working with the talivan twit.!

The "Mail" &"Express" commented that the chap had telephoned the council on several occasions requesting a central barrier to prevent j-walking on this road.

But this story certainly does the scammers no favours: it shows quite clearly that the aim of the game has nothing to do with promoting road safety - but is rather a sinister way of reducing the number of motorists by causing angst by criminalisation and making money at the same time.

It also shows the law to be the ass we know it is! How can it be an offence to try to prevent others from committing an offence? And to try to ensure the drivers tootled along towards the car boot sale at the safe speed which they say we should be driving at!

Just ridiculous!

If its against the law to inform drivers where the cash machines are, how come the SCP's make a big play of alerting road users as to the whereabouts them?

I know why they do it, its a cynical attempt to put a friendly face on an otherwise crime or robbing the public. 'Look we dont really want to fleece you, thats why we go to great lenghts to tell you where we are'!

Firstly, shouldnt they be done for obstructng the law, and secondly, perhaps someone caught can claim that they didnt hear the local radio station warnings regarding the locations of the 'safety' scameras, and was such at a dissadvantage!

The SCP's have managed to infiltrate their lies to every area of society
My blood boils when I hear the silly tart on the radio urging us all to 'SLOW DOOOOWN for safetys sake' Theyve all been brainwashed.
TPTB are laughing all the way to the bank

Definitely OTT reaction.

Had the gent stood in front of the copper carrying out his duty - then you could argue perverting the course of justice. As I read the article in the paper - it seems he stuck a speed limit reminder up and just warned drivers to obey the law!

Of course - difficult to comment without fullest facts and the actual evidence - but does seem an over-reaction here!

We use mobiles in our patch. Doubtful that we would take such action against a gent behaving in this way. Interesting that one of Cashman's colleagues has posted on-line elsewhere that he is not surprised to hear she behaved in such a manner. That post - though relatively non-committal tells me plenty about that individual's character and professional attitude. Glad I do not have to work with her!

One hopes that this will get due compensation on appeal.

I know that stretch of road well and have seen the talivan a couple of times. Interesting that the police prosecuted this old boy for making a warning sign, but the spineless bastards didn't have the balls to go after councillor David Clifford for doing exactly the same thing. 'Scuse language, but this has really got my blood boiling. Everyone involved with this prosecution should be ashamed of themselves.

Read this - http://www.farnborough.co.uk/story.asp?intid=498&txtpaper= - now tell me what was the difference between what Stuart Harding did and what David Clifford did. Square root of eff-all as far as I can tell. It seems that if you have the position and power to make a few waves, get some articles in the local papers and generally create publicity problems the police will let it go. On the other hand, helpless Joe Public gets a hammering. Hampshire plod should be issued with a new uniform featuring a large yellow stripe running up the back.

By the way, that stretch of the A325 is a short dual carriageway running more or less north-south between two roundabouts, the southern one being very large with a car park in the middle of it (which is where the boot sale is held). It has a 30 limit and signs informing drivers that there have been x number of pedestrian accidents in the last whatever time period. [sarcasm ]This probably has nothing to do with the total lack of any barriers on the central reservation preventing numpty pedestrians from crossing at any point they please.[/sarcasm ] An additional hazard is that there are often parked cars in the southbound lane 1 by a short parade of shops, as well as some houses down the rest of the southbound stretch. If they banned parking and prevented pedestrians from crossing except at the pelican crossing partway down the road they could probably raise the limit to 40 and make the road safer at the same time. But of course, that talivan needs something to do.

And while we're talking about Hampshame police, anyone who uses the A30 had better watch it in Blackwater. Apparently talivans like to lurk on a nice stretch there that everyone drives at 40 in spite of the 30 limit. Damn. I've just warned people about a speed trap. I'd better go into hiding before the thought police kick my door in. Bloody hell, they're already here. Jimmy Cagney time! You'll never take me alive copper...

Edit: InGear, sorry to slag off your colleagues so much, but I'm sure you'll agree that someone with some common sense should have intervened before this got to court. Presumably a senior rank would have had the authority to block the prosecution, which suggests that Hampshire don't even encourage rational thought in inspectors and above. This prosecution has achieved almost nothing apart from further destroying the respect that ordinary people are supposed have for you lot. We take the risk when you want us to be witnesses so you can prosecute a violent nutter for selling smack. Half the time the bastard gets bailed to return and comes back to court after he's finished smashing the windows and pouring petrol through the letter box, and the rest of the time he just gets his mates to do that. What's in it for us? What do we get in return? Heavy handed prosecutions of harmless old gents who are trying to help everybody. Before long you BiBs are going to find that everyone you ask for help says the same thing - "Sorry officer, I was looking the other way at the time and didn't see a thing". I beginning to think that sensible coppers are slowly being outnumbered by planks who can't see how much long term damage they're doing to the reputation of their profession.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I totally agree with the courts on this, i mean c'mon it's SAFETY SCAMERA not for speeding tsk, haven't you people been listening to the goverment

LOL... wonder if he'd got away with it if he had a sign saying...

Accident Blackspot
Safety sCamera Ahead

This is an interesting development, as we in Holland have had the same discussion, without any prosecutions though. People here do make people aware of speed traps with signs and so on.

About the obstruction of prosecution, I think this is a wrong approach. A lawyer in Holland was approached for this case and this were his thoughts:

If you see someone who is driving very dangerously, at a traffic light you step out of the car, smell a vicious scent of alcohol usage and you can drag the driver out of the car, call the police for prosucution. This is in Holland quite a legal thing to do. Justice is about preventing people offending the law. In the drink driver case, you will not be prosecuted for obstruction, because this prevention is more important than prosecution.

If you know that someone has plans to commit a murder, you cannot prove conspiracy, but somehow you do know that he will commit this crime. Is it not morally right to do everything to discourage the potential offender of commiting his crime? Two cases where prevention has higher value than prosecution!

In the case of putting up a sign "50" or "speed trap" (as there are signs in the UK saying this), you are discouraging drivers from commiting an offence. So is this bad?

There is no obstruction. The obstruction applies when there is an offence, while you make the work of police impossible to measure or register this offence. Encouraging people from commiting their offence does not apply for obstruction of measurement nor registration. The measurement and registration only apply when there is a case of an offence.

This approach never had a legal case in Holland, but only a theoratical case. People do warn, they don't like it but no-one has ever been arrested for these actions.

I feel that the defendant can have a good case in analogy of our findings.

_________________
www.beterveilig.nl

http://www.shstar.co.uk/story.asp?intid=2044

MP's call for re-think on A325 martyr Stuart - by John Walton
ALDERSHOT'S MP Gerald Howarth wrote to the chairman of Aldershot magistrates this week about the treatment of road safety campaigner Stuart Harding.
Mr Howarth said he was reminding Mrs Maureen Kyall of the strength of feeling about the speed cameras on the A 325 at Farnborough.
"I have pointed out the need to express careful judgment both about the controversy over the police attitude to speed enforcement measures and to the use of new powers granted to magistrates to impose driving bans for non-motoring offences," he said. Meanwhile he has received an acknowledgement of his letter to the Lord Chancellor about the Harding case and has been promised a reply within 21 days.
He told the Lord Chancellor: "There is widespread concern locally that Hampshire police are adopting a draconian policy of enforcing an unrealistic 30 mph speed limit through the town, a policy which is seriously alienating ordinary, decent people from the constabulary."

Nice to know the local MP is making waves over this ridiculous pros/persecution. Shame the guy's ban will probably be up before it's sorted. I also noticed the paper has had a lot of letters of support for Stuart Harding here and here, including a retired police sergeant and a local magistrate. That second one is particulalrly interesting as it claims that advice from the clerk of the court about previous cases and the option to suspend the ban were ignored by the magistrates in Stuart Harding's case. Must have been an anti-car magistrate.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

This prosecution amounts to an official admission that the cameras are only there to tax drivers.

The only 'obstruction' the man committed was slowing people down to a legal speed. Is this 'offence' therefore committed by councils who write SLOW on the road? What about the THINK TV campaign etc? Obstruction?

I've just found this out too:

http://www.safetycamera.org.uk/road.shtml

The Partnership members are Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, Isle of Wight Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, the Highways Agency and the Magistrates Courts Committee, supported by the Health Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service.

So the court that convicted him is a member of the partnership, and has a vested interest in keeping people speeding along!

"SPEED TRAP BEWARE"

Since there is no speed trap they cant do me for it.

Hopefully it will slow the cars down as well. Its like a drag strip down my road.

Only problem is I will have to take it down when they put the real camera in.

But it cant do any harm.

Yes it can. It might cause a crash. Didn't you mother teach you not to play with traffic?

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

I wish he would-in the fast lane of the M1