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

diable

Inactive wrote: »

Not sure what the point of that question is to be honest.

Why do some people think that it is OK to ignore the law on some things like speeding, the speed limits are there for all of our benefit.

Perhaps if a close family member was maimed for life by a speeding driver, they may well change their tunes.

It wasn't a question and an old biddy traveling at 50 on a motorway can cause more havoc then a speeder.

The fact is that trivial laws may be broken but the authorities will be heavy handed on a motorist but if a chav runs over and kills someone whilst stealing their car will get nine months in prison.

RandyRos

diable wrote: »

But do speeding drivers kill more prostitutes then Steve Wright did?

:rotfl:thats funny

RandyRos

diable wrote: »

It wasn't a question and an old biddy traveling at 50 on a motorway can cause more havoc then a speeder.

The fact is that trivial laws may be broken but the authorities will be heavy handed on a motorist but if a chav runs over and kills someone whilst stealing their car will get nine months in prison.

exactly, its ridiculous

paddedjohn

diable wrote: »

it wasn't a question and an old biddy traveling at 50 on a motorway can cause more havoc then a speeder.

The fact is that trivial laws may be broken but the authorities will be heavy handed on a motorist but if a chav runs over and kills someone whilst stealing their car will get nine months in prison.

that may be true but its not the polices fault, its the courts that hand out the sentences.
Speeding is not trivial, it contributes to accidents which cause deaths.

Hintza

THIS FORUM SHOULD BE SHUT FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL 6am!

Why are you good people still posting in the wee hours?

Invalidation

paddedjohn wrote: »

that may be true but its not the polices fault, its the courts that hand out the sentences.
Speeding is not trivial, it contributes to accidents which cause deaths.

In that case they should ban cars then.

The case will probably be dismissed on appeal, which will then add up to a total waste of public money, all because some plod never got their leg over or didnt get enough sugar in their tea.

alexlyne

"found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties"

How did the gent obstruct the police officer? Did he obscure her line of vision? Blind her with his lights?

Her duty was to record speeding vehicles. If no cars were speeding past her then she was still doing her job? Or will random not-speeding cars be prosecuted if no speeding cars are observed because by not speeding, they are obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties?

Strider590

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!

anotherbaldrick

If by a flash of the lights someone prevented a road traffic offence being committed that is no crime in my book. It was said on the radio that if the person charged had instructed a lawyer he would never have been convicted as case law exists to prove the flash was not an offence. Expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.

cyclonebri1

I just had a nasty image of folks commiting hari kiri listening to the steve wright radio show:rotfl:.

And I thought the highway code stated the use of flashing headlights was to warn other road users of your presence?

Ther a couple of very dodgy juntions on a B road I use daily, I habitually hold the headlamps on full in daylight as I approach these, does cut down the numbers of pull outs.