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

Jeff_Bridges_hair

sarahg1969 wrote: »

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

im sorry but WHAT?

WastingMyTime

Paradigm wrote: »

But there is no evidence that anyone was speeding?

Then there was no need to be flashing headlights and potentially distracting oncoming traffic which could lead to an accident.

Surely this was crime prevention?

The only person commiting the crime was the guy that was flashing his lights.

If a neighbourhood watch scheme prevents a burglary (unlikely I know) is that also obstructing the Police?

Neighbourhood watch is exactly that = WATCH and don't intervene. If you see a crime then call the police but do not interfere.

Are the signs that flash up your speed & tell you to slow down obstructing the police? Veering off point

If you stop your mate driving when bladdered are you obstucting the Police? Veering off point.

Speed limits & cameras are for road safety we are told so anything helping that cause should be applauded, not criminalised!

My belief that he not helping, he is a nusiance on the road because he is distracting the oncoming traffic with a confusing message. Also, there are road signs that show traffic what the speed limit is and are legal .

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!

Then why don't we all prevent them raking in the money and never break the speed limit. They can charge whatever they like then because they will not being getting our hard earned money. Why do we give it away so easily when we can so easily prevent them getting??

As pointed out in the thread there is already case law meaning you will be disappointed if the guy gets proper representation!

In fact, the only crime he commited was representing himself.

Hmmm-No has blamed the car companies yet for making cars that go faster then the legal speed limit!

pstuart

Without wading through all of the comments, did anyone read that the female officer was about to caution him and then let him go on his way, but he failed the attitude test and here we all are.

sarahg1969

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

im sorry but WHAT?

You were making the assumption that if you don't speed, you won't get "caught". It does happen. And you can't just ask them to drop it, or ask to see the evidence even if you KNOW you weren't speeding.

I got caught, allegedly doing 39 outside a school. I knew I wasn't speeding, and when I saw the photos, they showed a telegraph pole had been targetted. I had to wait until proceedings were issued before I was allowed to see the evidence, and only after that were proceedings dropped. How many people would have just paid up and given away a quarter of their licence?

My father received a NIP for 48 in a 30. He had just turned out of a side road in a massive box van. When the photos were provided as evidence after the issue of proceedings, they showed he was doing 24-26mph. Again, most people would have assumed that the camera never lies, or at least not had the nerve to go through to the summons stage.

Harry_Flashman

Quick question - do all the Holy-Joes on here pontificating about 'not paying a fine by not speeding' claim not have exceeded a speed limit?

Jeff_Bridges_hair

sarahg1969 wrote: »

You were making the assumption that if you don't speed, you won't get "caught". It does happen. And you can't just ask them to drop it, or ask to see the evidence even if you KNOW you weren't speeding.

I got caught, allegedly doing 39 outside a school. I knew I wasn't speeding, and when I saw the photos, they showed a telegraph pole had been targetted. I had to wait until proceedings were issued before I was allowed to see the evidence, and only after that were proceedings dropped. How many people would have just paid up and given away a quarter of their licence?

My father received a NIP for 48 in a 30. He had just turned out of a side road in a massive box van. When the photos were provided as evidence after the issue of proceedings, they showed he was doing 24-26mph. Again, most people would have assumed that the camera never lies, or at least not had the nerve to go through to the summons stage.

yep but this is the exception rather then the norm.

Yes ive gone to fast in the past and probably will do again in the future and should i get caught then ill have to pay the penalty but im never going to condone speeding just the same as i wont condone burglary and other crimes too.

you may disagree but it does all boil down to speeding = breaking the law.

that's it. There is nothing else.

sarahg1969

It may be the exception, but it's unacceptable. And, to be fair, we don't know how often it does happen.

Paradigm

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

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?

Why are they there?

alastairq

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

that....and 'in the public interest'...



and...from what the press reports say, it seems to me the person concerned also cannot tell the difference between 'urban myth' and the law of the land?

Lucky he wasn't charged with 'perverting the course of justice?'

alastairq

The police's job was to catch people who were breaking the law correct, it's called enforcement - last time i looked going over the speed limit is breaking the law correct - and this person stopped them from doing this. ...not quite......he was, by his own admission, warning other road users of the presence of a camera enforcing the law.....whether his warnings had any effect isn't known to us at present

there has been some question as to whether the defendant actually knew others were breaking the law [ie speeding]? Whether they were or they weren't, his actions were based upon a presumption that other road users were exceeding the speed limit. If he thought others were complying with the law, then why flash his headlights?