Flashing

5 Jan 2011

This is some thing I have done myself, never thought much of it before now. Thought I would ask other here there thoughts
Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for 'obstructing police'
Read more:

5 Jan 2011

Since the only actual effect he would have had was to slow people down I can't see what the police are complaining about. That he prevented people breaking the law?

6 Jan 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
This is some thing I have done myself, never thought much of it before now. Thought I would ask other here there thoughts
Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for 'obstructing police'
Read more:

Sorry Blue I thought this thread was about some other form of flashing and you were confessing for a minute there. lol

I heard this item on the news and I thought it was an early april fools joke to be honest.

6 Jan 2011

I read somewhere that the first example of a successful prosecution for this behaviour was in 1910 and involved an AA patrol man. He was found guilty too which led to the AA chaps not saluting when a speed trap was around. Dunno how true it is but hey its a nice story.
Mebbe the fact that we have gizmos that tip us off now has changed our thinking on the issue and its time to change the law.
OR
Perhaps we should endeavour to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving and ban the use of devices that warn of the potential for being apprehended.

6 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
I read somewhere that the first example of a successful prosecution for this behaviour was in 1910 and involved an AA patrol man. He was found guilty too which led to the AA chaps not saluting when a speed trap was around. Dunno how true it is but hey its a nice story.
Mebbe the fact that we have gizmos that tip us off now has changed our thinking on the issue and its time to change the law.
OR
Perhaps we should endeavour to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving and ban the use of devices that warn of the potential for being apprehended.

Devices which detect the radar beam are already banned. What is acceptable are satellite based devices which position your car in the proximity of a known trap. This is just as much favourable as the use of commercially available alco-test meters; In the same way that a new trap may not have yet found its way on to your GPS database (so you get caught out if you speed), the self-test alco-test meters cannot be expected to accurately replicate the exact reading on the meter down the nick if you are stopped. In either case, it's perhaps best not to try to "outwit" the law.
Incidentally, you are right about the AA Patrolman and the decision not to salute a member if a speed trap was about.
Excerpt as follows: In 1910 in legal test case ('Betts -v- Stevens') involving an AA patrolman and a potentially speeding motorist the Chief Justice, Lord Alverston, ruled that were a patrolman signals to a speeding driver to slow down and thereby avoid a speed-trap then that person would have committed the offence of 'obstructing an officer in the course of his duty' under the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885. Subsequently the organisation developed a coded warning system which was used until the 1960s whereby a patrolman would always salute the driver of a passing car which showed a visible AA Badge unless there was a speed trap nearby on the understanding that their officers could not be prosecuted for failing to salute.
In the more recent case, it would seem the driver was the author of his own misfortune as the Officer was at first intent only on giving him a friendly warning but as the driver argued the toss, it was decided to let the judicial system decide his fate; silly man!
Best always to smile sweetly, touch forelock and be on your way wink

6 Jan 2011

At the risk of repeating myself - warning drivers about a speed trap, encourages them to slow down - thus ceasing to COMMIT A CRIME. Isn't that exactly what the authors of the Prevention Of Crime Act would want? It's not like people can pretend not to speed - you're either speeding or not. :baffled:
On that basis a person who sees a burlgar about to throw a brick at a house window, who says 'hey mate, you don't want to do that, you might get caught' is commiting a crime? Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.
Unless, of course, speed traps are for the sole purpose of making money and they couldn't care less about actually slowing people down. But that couldn't be true - - could it?

6 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
At the risk of repeating myself - warning drivers about a speed trap, encourages them to slow down - thus ceasing to COMMIT A CRIME. Isn't that exactly what the authors of the Prevention Of Crime Act would want? It's not like people can pretend not to speed - you're either speeding or not. :baffled:
On that basis a person who sees a burlgar about to throw a brick at a house window, who says 'hey mate, you don't want to do that, you might get caught' is commiting a crime? Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.
Unless, of course, speed traps are for the sole purpose of making money and they couldn't care less about actually slowing people down. But that couldn't be true - - could it?

You know, I wondered that myself - maybe we are just too cynical and he officer was just upholding the law. Speed traps = money makers? Never! lol

6 Jan 2011

Voluntary taxation is fine by me.
I havent heard any arguments that arent simply a rehash of the " speeding is fine as long as you dont get caught/kill somebody".
I dont think speeding is fine.

6 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
At the risk of repeating myself - warning drivers about a speed trap, encourages them to slow down - thus ceasing to COMMIT A CRIME. Isn't that exactly what the authors of the Prevention Of Crime Act would want? It's not like people can pretend not to speed - you're either speeding or not. :baffled:
On that basis a person who sees a burlgar about to throw a brick at a house window, who says 'hey mate, you don't want to do that, you might get caught' is commiting a crime? Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.
Unless, of course, speed traps are for the sole purpose of making money and they couldn't care less about actually slowing people down. But that couldn't be true - - could it?

I had never seen it that way before, you make a very, very valid point. When using this thinking, it make this conviction so wrong and the law an ass!

6 Jan 2011

Does the landlord of a public house who takes they keys off a drunken motorist act in order to prevent him being caught or to protect the public?
Do flashers act to prevent apprehension or protect the public?
I think the answers to the two questions are different so the law treats the behaviours differently.

7 Jan 2011

Surely warning a speeding motorist of a police speed trap is no different to keeping an eye out for the rozzers while someone breaks into a house. Both stop someone who is breaking the law from getting caught.

7 Jan 2011

Try
eem to remember a case when some one was charged with Perverting the course of Justice a few years ago for doing this

7 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
When I lived in France it was common practice to flash oncoming motorists to warn of police in the area. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that off duty policemen would flash their lights at oncoming traffic causing everybody to abide by the rules without the need for expensive equipment.
The point being that the aim is slow the traffic and that it can possibly be done in a much safer manner if people think they are being prewarned rather than suddenly slamming on their brakes when they see the camera.
I don`t think this is in any way condoning or encouraging speeding and I agree with you that it should be socially unacceptable.

This is still practised here flower. I doubt the Gendarmes care too much about it to be honest. To set off chasing motorists for such an infraction might interfere too much with the timing for lunch!
The static cameras here are so well advertised in advance you would have to be a fool (or blind - or getting a great blow job from your passenger) to miss them but I take your point about the traffic slowing significantly to the point of bunching after the sign. In the UK, the lack of reliable signs can only mean slamming your brakes on when you see the camera as most are arranged such to capture the speeding car after they have passed it. Here, the majority of cameras capture you approaching the camera so there is absolutely no point; the ticket is already being printed by the central database in Rennes as you pass it! There are fewer problems with drivers suggesting that they were not the driver either; the camera can capture the gold filling on your fifth molar as you gasp in exasperation at being caught and even fewer get contested as the wife might otherwise question you too closely about who the unknown blonde female passenger is sitting beside you!
Vive la France!

7 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
Does the landlord of a public house who takes they keys off a drunken motorist act in order to prevent him being caught or to protect the public?
Do flashers act to prevent apprehension or protect the public?
I think the answers to the two questions are different so the law treats the behaviours differently.

I wonder how many lives have been saved by motorest flashing other drivers and slowing them down 2 or 3 miles up the road from a speed trap?

7 Jan 2011

Not as many as would be saved by strict enforcement of speed restrictions.
Jewl made a good point back there.

7 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
Not as many as would be saved by strict enforcement of speed restrictions.
Jewl made a good point back there.

No I disagree, it is very different indeed, by flashing your lights at some one, you are changing there behaviour from bad driving to good driving. Therefore stopping them from breaking the law.
If you are keeping a look out for some one who is breaking the law you are helping them to break the law
I think the two are vastly different, as Foxy pointed out.

7 Jan 2011

Stopping somebody from being apprehended is what happens in both scenarios. Presumably the people flashed were already speeding and therefore already breaking the law. The warning simply serves to stop them being caught by warning them, just like the burglar.
The woolly thinking widely exhibited stems from an acceptance that speeding is OK. It isn't OK and it kills a lot of people, a lot of them innocent victims every day.
Road traffic accidents are responsible for lots of early death and injury. I would quite like that to stop. I think responsible enforcement of speed restrictions is one way to do that.

7 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
Stopping somebody from being apprehended is what happens in both scenarios. Presumably the people flashed were already speeding and therefore already breaking the law. The warning simply serves to stop them being caught by warning them, just like the burglar.
The woolly thinking widely exhibited stems from an acceptance that speeding is OK. It isn't OK and it kills a lot of people, a lot of them innocent victims every day.
Road traffic accidents are responsible for lots of early death and injury. I would quite like that to stop. I think responsible enforcement of speed restrictions is one way to do that.

Again, i do not agree ben, in the speeding example you are stopping a crime, just like stopping some one throwing a brick through a window. neither culprit will be apprehended, yet one example is against the law and one is not.
If I stop one man killing another in a pub, no one will be apprehended, but I have not broken the law by doing so. Yet stop some one from speeding and I have?

7 Jan 2011

This is the crux of the matter.
You are preventing the law breaker being caught.
That this leads them to temporarily modify the law breaking behaviour is irrelevant.
Its the difference between:
Stopping the assault.
and
Pointing out that if he does it in the bogs after closing he wont be caught on CCTV.
I think.

7 Jan 2011

Of course one way to prevent speeding is simply to put speed limiters in cars, combined with decent (currently available) GPS that knows what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road, you simply can't do more than the limit. Or else fit digital tachographs which transmits to a central computer if you break the speed limit. It won't deal with stupid driving - of which there is far too much, but then neither do speed cameras - but it will deal with speeding.
I agree that speeding is wrong, that being caught is a voluntary tax. What I object to is someone being criminalised for doing what they feel is right and something that hurts no-one.

7 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
This is the crux of the matter.
You are preventing the law breaker being caught.
That this leads them to temporarily modify the law breaking behaviour is irrelevant.
Its the difference between:
Stopping the assault.
and
Pointing out that if he does it in the bogs after closing he wont be caught on CCTV.
I think.

A valid point ben

7 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Of course one way to prevent speeding is simply to put speed limiters in cars, combined with decent (currently available) GPS that knows what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road, you simply can't do more than the limit. Or else fit digital tachographs which transmits to a central computer if you break the speed limit. It won't deal with stupid driving - of which there is far too much, but then neither do speed cameras - but it will deal with speeding.
I agree that speeding is wrong, that being caught is a voluntary tax. What I object to is someone being criminalised for doing what they feel is right and something that hurts no-one.

I feel there are dangers in this, particularly for motorcycle riders, and would, as I have already, fight any move to introduce such equipment

7 Jan 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Of course one way to prevent speeding is simply to put speed limiters in cars, combined with decent (currently available) GPS that knows what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road, you simply can't do more than the limit. Or else fit digital tachographs which transmits to a central computer if you break the speed limit. It won't deal with stupid driving - of which there is far too much, but then neither do speed cameras - but it will deal with speeding.
I agree that speeding is wrong, that being caught is a voluntary tax. What I object to is someone being criminalised for doing what they feel is right and something that hurts no-one.

I feel there are dangers in this, particularly for motorcycle riders, and would, as I have already, fight any move to introduce such equipment
Why?

7 Jan 2011

Perhaps because it removes the ability for a competent driver to accelerate away from danger (even if the speed limit is breached temporarily).

7 Jan 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Of course one way to prevent speeding is simply to put speed limiters in cars, combined with decent (currently available) GPS that knows what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road, you simply can't do more than the limit. Or else fit digital tachographs which transmits to a central computer if you break the speed limit. It won't deal with stupid driving - of which there is far too much, but then neither do speed cameras - but it will deal with speeding.
I agree that speeding is wrong, that being caught is a voluntary tax. What I object to is someone being criminalised for doing what they feel is right and something that hurts no-one.

I feel there are dangers in this, particularly for motorcycle riders, and would, as I have already, fight any move to introduce such equipment
Why?
In fairness, I may not be the best person to try to explain this, Gnv, has metioned one example often quoted by many, my biggest abjection is distaste for such an item.
Not everyone will agree that there are any safety issues.
However, I feel there are. For instance having your speed unexpectedly reduced in an area you are not familiar with is a big issue when on two wheels, particularly when cornering. One thing that can happen with current sat nav is confusion with roads that are close together, this could be very dangerous. If your speed was suddenly cut due to such a confusion, the throttle perhaps opened by the confused rider and power suddenly returned, this is no joke when on a machine that could achieve 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. Even in areas that your are familiar with, throttle control would be lost in low speed areas, if accidentally opened while in these areas and sudden power returned as you exit an area I feel it could be very dangerous. Any one who rides a motorbike and has by accident, slipped and over opened the throttle will know haw scary it can be.
A possible answer to this is gradual return of power to rider. There are other issue though that are too complex for my small mind to explain. :silly:
Some info below

7 Jan 2011

Yeah speed limiters are an obvious but complex solution.
The main problem with cars is the nut loose behind the steering wheel.
How about a 6 month ban for a speeding offence and use that as a starting point for other motoring conviction penalties.

7 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
Perhaps because it removes the ability for a competent driver to accelerate away from danger (even if the speed limit is breached temporarily).

To avoid a potential accident you either brake, accelerate or steer. This is what I was taught on my driver training. Removing one of these options could make it less safe and cause more deaths and injuries
Dave_Notts

8 Jan 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
This is the crux of the matter.
You are preventing the law breaker being caught.
That this leads them to temporarily modify the law breaking behaviour is irrelevant.
Its the difference between:
Stopping the assault.
and
Pointing out that if he does it in the bogs after closing he wont be caught on CCTV.
I think.

The problem still remains.....if you prevent any crime by warning the potential perpetrator you can only assume that you've temporarily modified their behaviour,much the same as police speed traps do with speeding the speed trap (as we're all aware)only temporarily slows down those who are prone to speeding, has this man not done exactly the same as the police would have? If this is the case why is he being prosecuted? There is I would suggest only one answer.....that the police decided to recoup the revenue lost from one prosecution by bringing another.
I would like to add that I'm in no way in favour of speeding,I have no objection to speed cameras or traps and that on the whole I think most people when behind the wheel of a car become arrogant tossers who if they witnessed their own behaviour in someone else would be hanging out of their window screaming.I do however feel that this prosecution gives lie to the idea that speed traps are not a means of raising revenue, I don't object to being fined for breaking the law I object to being lied to by anyone.
P.S. Every morning on our local radio station there is a list of the locations of that days speed traps read out....this supplied by the police,when are they going to prosecute themselves ??

8 Jan 2011

Welcome back.
The difference remains also in that a fine and penalty points creates a deterrent, a flashing of the headlamps doesn't.
I agree that this prosecution fuels the belief that speed enforcement is driven by revenue goals. Frankly it probably is as is parking enforcement.
I dont think it should be though cos it muddys up the whole speeding debate.

8 Jan 2011

And the speed trap is in and of itself supposed to be the deterrent or more precisely the threat of the possibility of there being a speed trap,it remains that the man in question did no more than the trap itself is supposed to do