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

alastairq

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

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?

Quick answer.....whether or not anyone has, or has never, contravened the law, is of the utmost irrelevance.

I comply with the law when out on the public highway.

In the past, I have flouted the law.

In the past, I have paid the penalties for doing so.

I have learnt from my past experiences.

And have come to understand...more importantly, why those laws are in place.

Exceeding the posted, legal speed limit is a purely selfish act, no more.

There is, nor ever can be, any justification for flouting the law..certainly in this respect.

If people genuinely believe that, then we are on a very slippery slope to anarchy.......

What saddens me is the never-ending wriggling and excuse-finding people resort to , in order that their selfishness can be justified.

And yup, I used to smoke...once...as well.

Doesn't make me dislike it any the less.

And hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

alastairq

sarahg1969 wrote: »

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

Perhaps it should be noted that the system actually worked......the 'charges' were dropped.

If another personsimply 'played the game' and paid up, well the world is full f people who actually dont question things......but in cases where technology has failed, fines have been reviewed and returned.
It is amazing how many people have a misconception about how our justice system works.

Paradigm

alastairq wrote: »

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?

You are (wilfully) missing the point! It doesn't matter what you think.

The ruling (in a higher court than magistrates, with a CPS appeal refused) is that unless the police can prove other drivers were speeding & were influenced by his actions then there is no case to answer... end of!

alastairq

Having read the press report of the case, no mention is made of whether the Police provided proof of others speeding..or not...

there is a possibility they did detect such offences.....nothing seems to be obvious as to whereabouts on the road the offence reported, took place?

However, I understand your point....are you asking whether this was taken into account during the Court hearing? Was it in fact relevant to the charge?

WastingMyTime

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

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?

Quick answer - No.

Longer answer - I'm sure the holy-joes if get caught speeding will not be blaming others, calling it a money racket but would rather say "Fair Cop".

Hope this answers your question fully.

Paradigm

alastairq wrote: »

Having read the press report of the case, no mention is made of whether the Police provided proof of others speeding..or not...

there is a possibility they did detect such offences.....nothing seems to be obvious as to whereabouts on the road the offence reported, took place?

However, I understand your point....are you asking whether this was taken into account during the Court hearing? Was it in fact relevant to the charge?

I'm losing the will to live... how hard is it to understand !!!!!!?

A direct quote from the ruling dismissing the DPP (CPS) appeal....

In this case, the officers in question were plainly acting lawfully in the execution of their duty. Secondly, the court found that the signals were intended to warn of the presence ahead of a police speed trap. But the court was not satisfied that there was any obstruction of the police officers in that there was no evidence of any vehicles that could have been affected by his signals, either being driven in excess of the speed limit or likely to be so. The court therefore distinguished the case from the interpretation of the facts in Bastable advanced by Donaldson LJ in Green v Moore, namely that there were motorists who were likely to exceed the speed limit over the measured distance. There could be no obstruction of the officers in the exercise of their duty unless there were vehicles that were speeding or were likely to speed. In my judgment that analysis was correct.

This isn't a debate on speeding, it's a debate on whether the guy should have been charged in the 1st place &, clearly, he shouldn't... the law says so|!

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Paradigm wrote: »

Why are they there?

To punish people who are speeding and breaking the law i would suggest. Why do you think they are there? To recoup money or to punish people who break the law?



If the courts have now found him not guilty then that's fine. Thats what the courts are there to decide,not some forum full of people who appear to think that speeding is ok.

cyclonebri1

WastingMyTime wrote: »

1. There will be no hazard ahead if people remained within the speed limit.

Unfortunately you're wrong. Ther is a faction of motorists who simply panic when they see a police car or a speed camera, regardless of the fact that they are within the speed limit and are breaking no laws, they simply brake, that becomes the hazard;)

Paradigm

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

To punish people who are speeding and breaking the law i would suggest.

I thought they were a road safety aid. not a punitive & money making scheme? Could be wrong though.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

To recoup money or to punish people who break the law?

You got the 1st bit right See above!

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

not some forum full of people who appear to think that speeding is ok.

I haven't seen anyone advocating speeding!

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Paradigm wrote: »

I thought they were a road safety aid. not a punitive & money making scheme? Could be wrong though.



You got the 1st bit right See above!





I haven't seen anyone advocating speeding!

They are a road safety aid and to catch people who speed. Unfortunately there is only one recourse for the punishment which is to fine people and put points on their license. This is meant to act as a deterrent but obviously if your thick enough to speed and get caught then you deserve everything you get thrown at you do you not?

Or what punishment would YOU like to see given for speeding offences then?