|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Police policy on speeding double standards
Article by: Darren Griffin
Date: 15 Jun 2012
A number of motorists have been issued with £30 fines after they were seen alerting other drivers to the presence of a speed trap by flashing their headlights.
In a week long sting, Lancashire Police caught 20 drivers flashing their headlights towards motorists approaching a mobile speed trap. All were fined for 'misuse of headlights'.
Police defended the fines claiming that speeding drivers needed to be spoken to about their actions and flashing headlights to warn them did not force a change in behaviour.
It's an odd statement when speed cameras can issue fines without recourse to 'having words with the driver', and many camera sites are equipped with warning signs that surely have the same effect as a motorist flashing a warning?
| | |  |
| Comments
|
 Posted by 253 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:39 pm |
 |
Flashing of headlights to warn drivers of police speed checks, is I believe a strange thing really.
Why don't people flash headlights to warn of 'fixed' speed cameras.
Is it because drivers already suspect 50% or more are inactive, or that because a human is at the camera there is a 100% chance that it is working? Or both? Or neither?
I've often wondered.
Triumph Tbird 1700. And now a Bonnie T100. |
|
| Posted by geraint on Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:59 pm |
|
Show's it's about money and/or keeping the numbers up so the statistics look good. Nothing to do with safety.
Geraint
TomTom for iPhone v1.9
App version: 8.300 (777309)
Map: Western Europe v875.3668 |
|
| Posted by mrdecember on Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:58 pm |
|
The Police have always maintained that the various camera locations are not there to make money but their very presence slow the motorist down to a safe speed. O K then surely motorist's warning their opposite number in the oncoming lane are doing the same job, slowing the vehicles down to a safe speed, aren't they? As you say, double standards. 
|
|
| Posted by Guivre46 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:43 pm |
|
This keeps coming up. In order to penalise a motorist for warning other motorists, the police need to prove the other motorists were speeding. If they weren't there is no offence
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom |
|
| Posted by Allan_whoops on Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:45 pm |
|
Maybe I've overlooked something but who is to say that the motorists weren't flashing the other motorist for other reasons? Did anyone appeal this as I would have thought that the police still have to provide a burden of proof if it went to court.
|
|
| Posted by MaFt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:46 pm |
|
Highway Code rule 110:
| Quote: | | Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users. |
If there were other users on the road then how can they be done for 'misuse of headlights'? The drivers were simply letting the other drivers know they were there. How else would they know?
If you take that Highway Code rule to it's logical conclusion then the only way you could be prosecuted for misuse of headlights is if there was no other user on the road. There's nothing in the highway code to say WHY you would need to warn other road users you are there, just that that is the only reason you can use them.
If it were me I'd fight it!
MaFt
|
|
| Posted by Kremmen on Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:46 am |
|
My car has auto headlights your honour. It must have decided that it was dark enough to momentarily turn them on or the system 'blipped'.
As it happens I would never flash another vehicle to warn them. If they can't obey speed limits, that's their lookout.
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3 |
|
| Posted by jonrome on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:55 am |
|
Auto headlights - thats inspired! I hate them anyway. I want to decide when to use lights not let lhave a dumb computer do it & frighten the driver behind who thinks I'm braking.
|
|
| Posted by Kremmen on Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:28 am |
|
I was using that as an excuse. I also have them turned off. I've heard of incidents where they have turned on unexpectedly and a driver waiting to pull out of a junction has done so.
Driving under a cover/tunnel of trees for example could be enough
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3 |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:52 am |
|
| jonrome Wrote: | | I want to decide when to use lights not let lhave a dumb computer do it & frighten the driver behind who thinks I'm braking. |
It's nice to know that there are some drivers around that are considerate enough to not only think about the effect on other drivers that switching on their headlights might have, but also the effect their their tail lights will have on following drivers.  Yeah, right. | Kremmen Wrote: | | Driving under a cover/tunnel of trees for example could be enough |
Then if it's dark enough for the computer to switch them on, then it's time they were on in order that other road useds can see you in the reduced visibility. That's why the EU brought in the new law that | Quote: | | In 2008 a new law was passed by the European Commission that meant all new cars and small vans purchased after February 2011 had to have daytime running lights, and lorries will follow suit from August 2012. |
My guess would be that they introduced it to overcome the fact that som inconsiderate drivers do not switch on their lights in times of reduced visibility.
And while I'm at it. | Quote: | | There is also concern over {snip} the possibility of a rise in pollution due to increased fuel usage. |
What a load of cobblers. | Quote: | | LED´s use less watts (about 5-10) when running compared to headlamps which consume 110 watts. The difference in the amount of power used will have a big impact on the amount of fuel used. |
Another load of cobblers. It won't, it will only have a tiny effect on fuel consumption. 
| Kremmen Wrote: | | I've heard of incidents where they have turned on unexpectedly and a driver waiting to pull out of a junction has done so |
If you believe that, you'll believe anything And even if it has happened, it's the other driver's fault, as the only interpretation they should put on flashing headlights is one of warning. | Guivere46 Wrote: | | This keeps coming up. In order to penalise a motorist for warning other motorists, the police need to prove the other motorists were speeding. If they weren't there is no offence |
You presumably have a reference to the legal precedent for this statement?
|
|
| Posted by mikealder on Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:56 am |
|
| M8TJT Wrote: | | You presumably have a reference to the legal precedent for this statement? |
It has been in court before and was thrown aout as the Police couldn't prove if those warned by the flashing headlights were speeding or not:
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005)
DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005
CRIMINAL LAW - POLICE - ROAD TRAFFIC
OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE
Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates' court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered.
As for LED's saving fuel when fitted to a car I have seen such claims made by vehicle manufacturers, what I find incredible is that people can be led to believe such dross - Mike
|
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
