Fined for warning drivers of a speed trap ahead

BlueAngelCV

Torby wrote: »

personally....if I pass a speed trap and I see a numpty flying towards it from the other direction...I wouldn't flash my lights, but in fact, smile to myself that another eeejit gets taken off the roads and makes it more safe for me and mine....

Me too :rotfl:

Personally I think that he was obstructing the police as the police are trying to catch people speeding (speed cameras are there to try & stop people from speeding by catching those that do) and he was trying to stop them from doing so.

He wasn't trying to stop them speeding for safety reasons, he was trying to stop them speeding so that they didn't get caught.

However, thanks to mr_fishbulb I can see that this only applies if the other drivers:

were either actually driving in excess of the speed limit or were likely so to drive at that place and time

Given that the prosection doesn't relate to the driver I'm unclear whether you would have to show that they were/were likely to speed beyond reasonable doubt or only on the balance of probabilities.

I can never understand why people get so mad about speed cameras. Don't speed! If they make money to pay for other things then all to the good.

sarahg1969

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

Me too :rotfl:

Personally I think that he was obstructing the police as the police are trying to catch people speeding (speed cameras are there to try & stop people from speeding by catching those that do) and he was trying to stop them from doing so.

He wasn't trying to stop them speeding for safety reasons, he was trying to stop them speeding so that they didn't get caught.

However, thanks to mr_fishbulb I can see that this only applies if the other drivers:



Given that the prosection doesn't relate to the driver I'm unclear whether you would have to show that they were/were likely to speed beyond reasonable doubt or only on the balance of probabilities.

I can never understand why people get so mad about speed cameras. Don't speed! If they make money to pay for other things then all to the good.

Fortunately, your personal opinion does not translate into legal precedent.

People get so mad about speed cameras because they are not infallible. Sadly, most people assume that the camera never lies. You seriously believe that only people speeding get caught by cameras? Or that, if you weren't, it's a simple matter to get them to withdraw their allegations?

Gavin83

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

Me too :rotfl:

Personally I think that he was obstructing the police as the police are trying to catch people speeding (speed cameras are there to try & stop people from speeding by catching those that do) and he was trying to stop them from doing so.

So stopping someone committing a crime is obstructing the police? For example, if I stop a man punching another in the street and therefore prevent them from committing a crime, so I also be arrested for police obstruction?

tbourner

Gavin83 wrote: »

So stopping someone committing a crime is obstructing the police? For example, if I stop a man punching another in the street and therefore prevent them from committing a crime, so I also be arrested for police obstruction?

Only if there was a Police operation going on at the time that was waiting for this well known fellon to commit a punching attack, so they could catch him in the act and arrest him. You preventing him commiting the crime also prevented the Police from catching him in the act, therefore you would have obstructed the Police.
It's very different in the case of the speed camera though, technically it sounds similar but the fact that speed cameras are supposed to be a deterrent and the government are always saying they're not there to make money means they shouldn't be intending to catch anyone.

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

Personally I think that he was obstructing the police as the police are trying to catch people speeding (speed cameras are there to try & stop people from speeding by catching those that do) and he was trying to stop them from doing so.

I do see where you're coming from, this is the only bit that's confusing me. The camera is a deterrent but it only works as a deterrent by catching people and fining them, so the Police are acting as the force behind said deterrent and are therefore being obstructed from deterring speeding, but it just doesn't quite work the same way in my mind.

atomicsheep

Gavin83 wrote: »

If I was him I'd appeal and make a complaint about the officer in question. Your punishment shouldn't increase for challenging the police, they should be prepared to discuss the charge should it be debatable. Some people seem to think a simple 'yes sir' in response is the only way when dealing with the police.

Yes i was thinking this too. I dont think its right that the officer can say "i was going to let you off with a warning, but not now"

In contrary to most, I dont think him warning drivers is such a bad thing. His actions would cause most drivers to slow down, therefore helping the police if anything.

Cant really complain about him warning drivers about speed cameras in operation either. THere are road signs saying the same thing, so should we take those down too.