Notifying other drivers of speed cameras is an offence?

[Guivre46]

This seems to be being debated everywhere. The most persuasive thing I've heard [not verified] is that previously the Court of Appeal dismissed an identical case, because the police would need to prove that motorists coming in the opposite direction, ie those being warned, were breaking the speed limit. There is no offence in flashing drivers driving at the legal speed limit. He should appeal.
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom

[Skippy]

[M8TJT]

[CDK]

Interesting topic. Maybe it also includes the PCs feeling that his/her own personal authority (or ego) is being challenged.

For example, moving the topic sideways slightly; as I understand it, using a non-hands-free phone whilst driving is forbidden in any circumstances.

When was the last time you saw/read/heard about a driver being charged or pulled over for using a non-hands-free mobile phone. We've all seen numbers of drivers blatantly driving with a phone up to their ear and certainly I've seen petrol cars happily pass such drivers without taking any action. If I saw them the PCs certainly did.

But for some reason this may not be seen as a challenge to the PC's own personal authority or interfering with what he/she was doing at the time. Unless there is an accident and the driver was (later) found to be caused by using a phone, nothing is done.

In fact, whilst speeding, the driver may still be in control of his vehicle (not excusing them) but whilst using a phone the driver is certainly not fully involved in the driving – even less when they are dialling or texting. There have been fatalities when the driver was not speeding - but was concentrating on the phone.

It is clear that the current points system is not enough of a deterrent.
In my opinion the penalty for using a non-hands free phone in any way whilst driving should include loss of licence and the phone user's vehicle being sent for scrap - after say, three charges - let’s see how they explain that to the vehicle's owner, their employer/husband/wife/etc.......

But it still depends on the police forces taking the matter as seriously as speeding and taking action at the time of the offence.

[acefreecell]

Section 110 of the "Highway Code"

110
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.

I think the difference in this case is that the motorist was in contravention of the highway code and also guilty of warning people that there is an active officer carrying out the checks.

I am not sure I agree with the principle of warning other motorists, but it was the AA who used to warn motorists before SatNav came along................

Speed-traps are sent to keep motorists on their toes to make driving more interesting.[/i]
_________________
Acefreecell

Motorola Defy with CamerAlert, NDrive 11, Co-Pilot Live and Google Maps

formally Garmin i3, Nuvi 200 and Origin BlueI
(Origin for sale)

[Duddy]

[Andy_P]

As you say, most of the Highway Code is advice, not obligation (when I last looked the difference was always signalled by "you SHOULD not" or "you MUST not". I don't know if that has changed recently.

But neither of those two terms appear anywhere in section 110 and therefore it can only be classed as advice, no offence is committed by ignoring it.

I return to my original point ... Whatever else they want to fit him up with, I don't see how this could in any way be described as OBSTRUCTION of the officer in the execution of their duty.

As others have said, the guy was simply made a scapegoat on very dodgy legal grounds and I really hope he is going to appeal.

[BigPerk]

[Guivre46]

Yes the Cops always assume everyone is breaking the law, you can see why, all the clearing up they have to do when it happens, and a certain cynicism comes with experience.

Again the thread refers to having to show that the motorists being warned are speeding before the person doing the warning can be prosecuted.
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom

[Darren]

Did the motorist in this case defend himself? I thought I'd read that he had representation? If he defended himself then it's hardly surprising that he lost and if so, he's a muppet!

Had he had even a basic understanding of the law he may have been able to offer a reasonable defence. Hopefully he will correct that error on appeal and the conviction will be overturned.

The biggest issue in this whole case, as I see, is not what he did on this occasion, but the incredible waste of money and time in pursuing this case.

The whole subject of warning motorists etc is a rather bigger subject. We may all feel sympathy for this chap but perhaps we would we feel differently if he were warning motorists a VOSA, ANPR or DVLA operation?
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Skippy]

[BigPerk]

Found another link, to an article in the (erm ...) Sun about the CPS's quality decision making process
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2195978/CPS-ignore-CCTV-footage-showing-shoplifting.html
- I guess cost was an issue in that case




(Mod. edit (AP) -Made link clickable)
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[aj2052]

If there was a camera warning sign before the officer operating the speed trap could this then be construed as "Obstructing the Officer etc", personaly I cant see the difference,
The police themselves keep saying and trying to convince us that cameras are for safety and not revenue so surely this gent was aiding that purpose, It all seems like double standards to me.
_________________
Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!