Next time you flash you headlights.........

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

Do speeders not have internet access or are these people all just hypocrites?

They obviously do, seeing how many seem to think that it is OK to break the law when it suits them.

Gene_Hunt_2

mchale wrote: »

No, total opposite, but morons who make sweeping statements about speeding kills wind me up

anyone with a degree of intellgence knows speeding doesn't kill, bad driving kills

But speed kills.

It's a fact.

It says so them stickers.

Inactive

mchale wrote: »

No, total opposite, but morons who make sweeping statements about speeding kills wind me up

anyone with a degree of intellgence knows speeding doesn't kill, bad driving kills

Speeding drivers are bad drivers, oh and morons that cannot spell intelligence wind me up.;)

Harry_Flashman

Paradigm wrote: »

This case shows without any doubt that mobile traps are exactly that...traps designed to rake in as much money as possible & absolutely nothing to do with road safety!

Was it ever in doubt?

adamc260

Strider590 wrote: »

The way I see it, he was helping to slow down speeding drivers.... In what way is that obstruction? he's actually helping! The only thing he's not helping is the amount of money made by that camera on that day!

Exactly, thats the only reason they prosecuted him because they were losing money.. Nothing to do with safety

Gene_Hunt_2

adamc260 wrote: »

Exactly, thats the only reason they prosecuted him because they were losing money.. Nothing to do with safety

They prosecuted him as CPS thought they would win. That's the only threshold test they use these days.

sarahg1969

Wig wrote: »

The case law has been provided in this thread, see paradigm's post. In order to be guilty the prosecution HAVE TO show evidence that the cars being flashed were speeding or were likely to have sped.

"For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"
Answer according to the High court.... YES

For the offence of obstruction to have been committed, they should also have to prove that, not only were the vehicles speeding, but that Mr Thompson KNEW they were speeding (ie there was intent on the part of Mr Thompson).There is not a chance that they could prove either of those.

goldspanners

the police officers duty is to stop speeding by means of fining the offender, the guy that got convicted was only doing the same thing as the police except he wasn't charging them any money for the warning about thier speed.

its all about the money.

nobody was speeding,nobody was killed,no money was made.

if i see a police speed trap i always warm motorist coming in the opposite direction,not many folk do it these days but i still do and will continue to do so.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

goldspanners wrote: »

the police officers duty is to stop speeding by means of fining the offender, the guy that got convicted was only doing the same thing as the police except he wasn't charging them any money for the warning about thier speed.

its all about the money.

nobody was speeding,nobody was killed,no money was made.

if i see a police speed trap i always warm motorist coming in the opposite direction,not many folk do it these days but i still do and will continue to do so.

But by doing this you are justifying people who speed.

The police's job was to catch people who were breaking the law - last time i looked going over the speed limit is breaking the law - and this person stopped them from doing this.

Take away all the guff about it being a money raisers - if people didnt go fast then there would be no need for cameras and speed traps would there?

sarahg1969

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

But by doing this you are justifying people who speed.

The police's job was to catch people who were breaking the law - last time i looked going over the speed limit is breaking the law - and this person stopped them from doing this.

Take away all the guff about it being a money raisers - if people didnt go fast then there would be no need for cameras and speed traps would there?

Because people who aren't speeding never get caught, right?