Flashing at speed camera vans today

kingstreet

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I still believe that the Magistrates and Crown Court Judge erred in the case of Thompson. How could they prove that Thompson obstructed an officer, unless they could prove that he flashed cars that were speeding and that he encouraged them to slow down? If no vehicles were speeding, then what was the obstruction? I don't know the present position, bit he was considering a further appeal.

The case of Glendinning was an interesting one, too:

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article-print.php?id=115

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html

I believe that the Crown Court Judge should have followed this case, in Mr Thompson's case.

In any event, in the OP's case, we don't know if it was a police or SCP van. There's no offence of obstruction in relation to the latter, as far as I know.

ETA: I can find nothing regarding any further appeal by Mr Thompson.

This may help;-

4:11PM BST 13 May 2011
Offensive gesture?
According to a report in your column a few years ago, the law lords ruled that it was not an offence for a motorist to warn others of a speed trap. I read that magistrates are still fining motorists for doing just that, however. What's the reality?
TB, Thornton Cleveleys
The Crown Prosecution Service cannot successfully prosecute you for flashing a warning without proving that the oncoming cars were actually breaking the limit. In the case of a man who was fined recently, they were able to prove that a van he flashed was speeding. None of the main reports mentioned this crucial fact, because it got in the way of a good story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/8512599/Warning-other-drivers-of-speed-traps.html

Flyboy152

There really is only one sure way to avoid being prosecuted for speeding; I wonder if anyone can guess what it is.............

Lum

Drive at 30mph everywhere there is streetlights (except 20 zones), just in case they decide one day to drop a 50 limit to a 30 simply by removing all the 50 signs and banking on the fact that most people will assume it was vandals.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Lum wrote: »

Drive at 30mph everywhere there is streetlights (except 20 zones), just in case they decide one day to drop a 50 limit to a 30 simply by removing all the 50 signs and banking on the fact that most people will assume it was vandals.

Everywhere?

Even on lit motorways.

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

There really is only one sure way to avoid being prosecuted for speeding; I wonder if anyone can guess what it is.............

Remove speed limits everywhere?

Lum

In case you didn't notice, my answer was intended as sarcasm, but if you want extra detail, then replace "everywhere there is streetlights" with "every built up area with at least 3 streetlights no more than 183 metres apart, and that is not subject to motorway regulations"

LandyAndy

Lum wrote: »

Serious question. When was the last time you saw a camera van enforcing a residential area?

The ones I see on a regular basis are enforcing the M4 motorway, or the A469 on a stretch which is a 70mph dual carriageway with signs prohibiting pedestrians. (near Risca and Rogerstone if you want to Google streetview it)

If they actually did operate in residential 30 and 20 mph areas, maybe one either side of the local primary school between 8am and 9:30, fewer people would get so wound up by the things.

Happens here regularly.

sarahg1969

kingstreet wrote: »

This may help;-


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/8512599/Warning-other-drivers-of-speed-traps.html

I know what should happen.

That article will relate to the Glendinning case, which was heard in the Court of Appeal. The Magistrates and Crown Court Judge in the Thompson case should have taken that into account. However, they clearly didn't. Mr Thompson wasn't represented in the first instance, unfortunately, and he clearly didn't have a very robust representative in the Crown Court. It wasn't clear in the reporting that there was proof that he slowed down a speeder. So I'd be surprised if Honest John knew that to be the case.

sarahg1969

Flyboy152 wrote: »

There really is only one sure way to avoid being prosecuted for speeding; I wonder if anyone can guess what it is.............

I guess your answer is "don't speed"? You think that that's a sure way of avoiding prosecution?

There's no sure way of avoiding prosecution, unfortunately.

Flyboy152

LandyAndy wrote: »

Happens here regularly.

And here.
.