CPS - Cost is not a consideration

Malcolm.

The CPS (the taxpayer by proxy) have gone to the expense of prosecuting a 64 year old driver for flashing his headlights to warn motorists of a mobile police speed gun.

He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £250 costs after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.

CPS spokesperson "Cost is not a consideration in deciding to prosecute."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179

Will the next wasteful public sector organisation please stand up.

Really2

Not the first time a 64 year old has been done for flashing.

Cleaver

I actually agree that cost shouldn't always be a factor when considering whether to prosecute. Common sense should be though, and they clearly didn't have much of that when they decided to prosecute this chap. I would have argued that I thought I saw a fox crossing the road and was flashing people to warn them about it.

Don't stories like this make you mad? What a waste of everyone's time and money.

Harry_Flashman

And proof that speed traps are about making money and not road safety

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Cleaver wrote: »

I actually agree that cost shouldn't always be a factor when considering whether to prosecute. Common sense should be though, and they clearly didn't have much of that when they decided to prosecute this chap. I would have argued that I thought I saw a fox crossing the road and was flashing people to warn them about it.

Don't stories like this make you mad? What a waste of everyone's time and money.

Shame they couldn't prosecute an assault seen on national TV that ended in a death.


The subsequent investigation obviously obstructed many many police officers in the course of her duties

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

And proof that speed traps are about making money and not road safety

Hence I was willfully obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties by flashing several member of the public on two journeys today on the same stretch of road which happens to be by a councilors home who regularly operates HGVs from his house without a licence & has done for years.


(On a dangerous brow of a hill by the way & is an accident waiting to happen)

Cleaver

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

And proof that speed traps are about making money and not road safety

I think some speed traps are okay, it just depends where they are. We live on a 30 mile an hour road, but it's one of those quite wide, busy roads with semi-detached places set back. It's also a very straight and long road.

There isn't a single speed bump, chicane, camera or any other speed device anywhere on the road, and that's even considering we have a school nearby and it's a common route for kids to walk home. It's also near a lot of shops and public transport links so there's a lot of people crossing here and there. People fly down here at 50 or 60 on a regular basis and I'd welcome a camera or the occassional speed trap down here.

Instead we get police always setting up on out of town, 50 mile an hour relief road which has no pedestrians whatsoever and they look to get people going 58 miles an hour.

Don't get me started on speed cameras! Although I'm sure everyone's the same on this subject.

Harry_Flashman

Cleaver wrote: »

Instead we get police always setting up on out of town, 50 mile an hour relief road which has no pedestrians whatsoever and they look to get people going 58 miles an hour.

Don't get me started on speed cameras! Although I'm sure everyone's the same on this subject.

There you go - the more profitable place to do it

Not everyone is the same on this one - some weak minds think they're a good idea and believe the spin that they're for road safety and not profit.

celler

Yes but the cost may be outweighed by those that now think twice at doing what is common practice .

Media story really reads if you warn others of speed traps it could cost you 400 quid. :eek:

Cleaver

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

There you go - the more profitable place to do it

Not everyone is the same on this one - some weak minds think they're a good idea and believe the spin that they're for road safety and not profit.

Well, I think that in the right place a few are for road safety. There was one in a 20 zone near our old house that was outside a junior school, so I always drove down that road under 20. So it worked.

I do however think that the vast majority are there for profit but under the pretence of road safetly.

Really2

What I dont get is,

even mobile speed sites have to get permission (something like planing) just to operate.

That is why they are on sat navs etc, so what is the difference of a sat nav warning you.

It is well documented that speed cameras can cause accidents when people slam on their breaks when they see them.

So how is flashing stopping a policeman going about their business. speed cameras are meant to be there to slow drivers down.
No one knew (other drivers) why the man was flashing so was he not helping the police by slowing down traffic?

If no one heeded the warning they would have been done? I can't see the wrong in the situation he flashed to warn of a speed camera.
Unless the police are now saying speed cameras are their to catch speeders not to slow them down the guy did no wrong.