UK Man Convicted Of A Crime For Letting Drivers Know They Should Slow Down To Avoid Speed Camera

from the don't-the-police-want-people-to-slow-down? dept

Last year, we discussed the growing backlash against speed cameras in the UK. However, many are still in place, and one man has now been convicted of a crime and fined for simply flashing his brights to warn oncoming motorists of a speed camera (found via Glyn Moody). The details suggest police clearly abusing their authority.

After flashing his brights at oncoming cars, to warn them of a mobile speed camera he had spotted, Michael Thompson was pulled over. This, alone, seems pretty questionable. After all, shouldn't the purpose of speed cameras be to get people to slow down? Thompson's actions probably did succeed in getting more people to slow down. But, of course, in many cases the real reason for speed cameras is money, so interfering with that is seen as a problem. Now, it does appear that, after being pulled over, Thompson got a bit belligerent and questioned the fairness of being pulled over. The officer responded by saying he was going to let Thompson off with a warning, but had changed his mind -- and was going to charge him with "perverting the course of justice." It seems ridiculous to think that warning people they should obey the law is "perverting the course of justice."

In the end he was not actually charged with "perverting the course of justice," but instead with "willfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties," which is a criminal offense. Lawyer David Allen Green, who wrote the article I link to above, points out that warning other motorists to obey the speed limit is hardly obstructing a police officer:
Preventing police officers from seeking to impose as much criminal liability as they possibly can is not the same as "wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties". Police officers' ability to arrest and charge is not an end in itself, but just one means of serving the wider interests of justice and the public. The criminal justice system does not exist solely for the satisfaction of a police officer wanting to coerce another human being.
And yet, the court found Thompson guilty, and fined him £175, along with having to pay £250 in "costs" and an extra £15 "victim surcharge." He sure does seem like a victim, alright. UK government prosecutors have defended their pushing forward with the case, still claiming that the police officer's job was obstructed, but failing to explain how. They also told Green that the UK highway code forbids flashing of headlights for any purpose other than letting people know where you are. However, Green points out that this still doesn't support the lawsuit and the fine, since a violation of the highway code is not a criminal offense.

It seems like the police and the UK prosecutors simply decided that getting people to actually follow the speed limit gets in the way of police making money -- and thus, it's an obstruction.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 11:12am

    The purpose of speed cameras is to catch people who are speeding. They are traps. The purpose isn't to get people who are speeding to slow down while passing the camera.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    The stated intent of speed cameras is to get people to slow down. You get flashed speeding, you get the ticket, you don't speed.

    In reality, you're right. The idea is exclusively to catch people, not to get them to slow down. That way they get money out of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re:

    Agreed, interfering with the tax collectors, er, I mean, cops while they're increasing the state's revenue is greatly frowned upon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    mir4, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    Um, my local radio station in Germany encourages people to phone in where the the police are doing speed checks and then they announce it over the air....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    J.D., Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re:

    Meh, the stated generaly overall goal is more to get people to follow the speed limits in general, not to get people to slow down at a particular time or place. I would challenge the assumption that any time someone is encouraged to slow down is working towards that goal. The stated specific goal as far as I know around here is that they are traps to catch speeders. I have never heard anyone claim they just want people to drive slowly while they are in range of the camera.

    The "stated" theory as I understand it is that by trapping unsuspecting people who are speeding, you can intimidate people into following the speed limit all the time (or at least more often) for fear of being caught. Whether or not it is a good theory is debatable and changing the whole plan is certainly an option but since that is the theory they are currently going with, it is easy to see how publishing the location of all the traps would be counterproductive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Re:

    There's an added bonus since he's in the US. There is a court ruling that says what he's doing is protected by the first amendment. The guy in the UK doesn't have that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    thornintheside, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

    The UK is a shithole

    The UK in the last 20 years has gone from a nice place to visit to something out of a poorly written 1984. Cameras everywhere (which have been proven not to reduce crime), spying on citizens, net filters, phone tapping. Just stay out of the UK - it's a shithole and the once mighty country is an early preview of what will happen soon in the USA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    kemcha (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    HEY, GUYS!!! GUESS WHAT???

    Obey the Speed Limit and you don't have to worry about these Speed Cameras. While the police overstepped, they were right in arresting him because he was helping other motorists violate the law.

    Simple Fact? Obey the Speed Limits, people. They are there for a reason. When you obey the speed limits, you don't get tickets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re:

    "Freedom of Expression" is still "guaranteed" in the UK by the Human Rights Act. A good number of countries have the same sort of protections actually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    bishboria (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Re:

    Actually speed cameras can be used in places just to cause people to slow down. I'm aware of a few speed cameras in the UK that have been put in places that have lots of accidents (This is obviously rare!).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    bishboria (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re:

    To clarify "rare" as in purely for the purpose of preventing accidents and not just taxing people who'd rather get to their destination a bit quicker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    Erm, he was actually helping people to follow the law by warning them to slow down, so, in conclusion - wut?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    bishboria (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    30mph speed limit cameras in areas with children and suburban areas is a good idea for saftey.

    70mph speed limit has been around for ages and stopping distances of cars has improved vastly on new cars since the introduction of this speed limit. Why should it not be increased?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    In what world is slowing your speed "violating the law"? Perhaps he was aiding other motorists in not getting caught but should that be a crime? If a buddy warns me about some vague exemptions I make on my income taxes, should he be arrested? If I teach you the value of using secure http when you do less than legal/ethical things online should I be arrested?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re:

    I would wish that everyone would stop treating the constitution as if it's some holy document.

    I think things would make sense to realize that the constitution is actually written for the wealthy few (the capitalists) not the working/share holding majority which we're just designed to be their slaves all along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    "Obey the Speed Limits"

    Arrest him, he's obstructing justice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    kemcha (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    He flashed his lights to warn other motorists about the Speed Camera so they wouldn't get a ticket = i.e., helping other drivers break the law because the police were in the vicinity.

    Fact is, the driver got caught violating the law. If a driver doesn't want to get a speeding ticket, then obey the speed limit.

    If he's warning other drivers, he's helping them by telling them where the camera is so they can "speed" drive their cars around these "speed cameras."

    Obey the traffic laws and you won't get ticketed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What I don't get is that if enough people want to get to their destinations faster and don't believe following the speed limit is helpful in preventing accidents, why don't they complain about the law and get the limits changed or removed instead of always complaining about the fact that the they try to enforce it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What I don't get is that if enough people want to get to their destinations faster and don't believe following the speed limit is helpful in preventing accidents, why don't they complain about the law and get the limits changed or removed instead of always complaining about the fact that they try to enforce it? I see this with copyright law when we had our referendum for example, you point out how ridiculous the laws they are trying to pass are, and people brush it off because they think it will be ok because the police won't do their jobs and enforce the law. Then when they try to enforce the law, people get upset. wtf?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Grimby, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    How did he help others violate the law? Please explain this, because there is no proof that anyone that was flashed was speeding in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    What law did the driver violate? The one he was charged with certainly doesn't fit, so there must be some magical law you know about that no one else does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Grimby, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Didn't mean to take the AC route, forgot to type in my name...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

    Their use of the cameras are disingenous.

    If the intended purpose of speed cameras is to get people to obey the posted speeds, then wouldn't it stand to reason that putting up a sign that tells people they are being monitored while driving be more effective as a deterrent than catching them after the fact? After all, don't we want to prevent speeding and accidents? Let's be honest here, the true purpose of traffic laws is to keep people safe when traveling on public roads, not to shake them down for money when they violate them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

    He was arrested and convicted because he was a jerk. He was going to just get a warning but had to pop off.

    Should he have been pulled over? I don't think so.

    Just goes to show that you shouldn't be a jerk. Here in NJ depending on where he was pulled over, he would have been tuned up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Re:

    It's illegal to be a jerk in the UK?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    kemcha (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    Not only was he using his lights or "flashers" in a manner that is a violation of traffic laws in the U.K., but he was also belligerent with the officer. The reason he was charged with obstruction of a police officer's duty.

    If he had not been belligerent, maybe he wouldn't have been arrested or charged with this new offense and fined on top of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

    Re:

    Please don't ever go to the U.K. you would end up in jail bro.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    houstonspace (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

    Speed cameras are not proactive - they are retroactive

    Speed cameras are usually not obvious to people tooling along a road, minding their own business. If speed cameras were designed to get people to slow down, then they would erect signs in advance that say 'Warning - obey the speed limit - speed cameras in effect ahead'...Maybe add a flashing yellow light. They don't do this because they want you to get caught.... because they want the revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Doug D (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    He wasn't throwing a box of donuts at the cops to distract them while people sped by. He was warning them to Stop violating the law or risk getting caught. Cite him for improper use of high beams and get off your black and white high horse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Greg G, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wow. Just wow.

    You are a sad, sad person if you believe that. You need to actually read and understand the U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

    Failing that, you can go back to your miserable existence, continuing to believe it's everyone elses fault but your own that you're not happy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

    Whoa, whoa, whoa....

    "After flashing his brights at oncoming cars, to warn them of a mobile speed camera he had spotted, Michael Thompson was pulled over."

    Wait...the "little mikee" guy got pulled over?

    I request that Techdirt retract this article and immediately give the arresting office our "Hero Of The Year" award....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Big Al, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

    Re:

    Over here (in South Australia) the news reports, both TV and radio, broadcast the general location of speed cameras for the day (e.g. yesterday afternoon - "Speed camera on States Road, Morphett Vale" or the more general "Police will be deploying cameras in tomorrow").
    Can't get much more open than that...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Josh, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

    I can't believe this has just caught on in the U.K. This happens all the time in Australia. Our nanny governments are always trying to squeeze that last dollar out of motorists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    The Invisible Hand (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    The man assisted people in breaking the law! He flashed his lights to make people slow down and obey the speed limit! He should clearly be in jail!

    /sarcasm, of course

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa....

    That's what I thought, too. angry dude (I think it's the same person, their writing styles are similar) got nailed through Mike's connections in law enforcement in the UK. =]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As stated above. Speed cameras are huge revenue generators so there is no real incentive for councils to remove them.

    Now with huge cut backs across the country, you can bet your arse they'll be enforcing speeding fines even more rigidly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Speed cameras are not proactive - they are retroactive

    Just saw this exact thing in Maryland... highway department warning signs for "SPEED CAMERAS AHEAD". Of course, it was a ten-mile construction project, and only one camera stuck in a random location...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:33pm

    Cops have to give out tickets to meet quotas.
    The flasher was obstructing this travesty of justice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Paul-G, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:55pm

    Re: The UK is a shithole

    As a UK born person it saddens me to say that I have to agree wholeheartedly with your observations. This country is fast going to the dogs. I wish I was young enough to emigrate but at 50+ I guess I am stuck in this now festering dump.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't see your point. What more incentive does an elected representative need other than because their consituents want them removed. If the constituents don't actually want them removed because then they have to support the police in other ways, thats fine I guess but you can't have your cake and eat it too

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 2:57pm

    Re:

    Ahh, the charge of "Contempt of cop".

    "Justice" for a new era.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

    Re:

    So what you're saying is that he should have known his place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    OH, I like you. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Their use of the cameras are disingenous.

    Yes, I'm seeing that townships, et al would rather have blood and property damage on their hands than any drop in ticket revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

    Re:

    The flasher was obstructing (this travesty of) justice.

    ; )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > I would wish that everyone would stop treating the constitution
    > as if it's some holy document.

    Nothing holy about it. It is, however, the supreme law of the United States and embodies principles of freedom and limited government that are important to a lot of people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 5:55pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    > Obey the Speed Limit and you don't have to worry about
    > these Speed Cameras.

    You might have a point if municipalities didn't routinely set limits artificially low in order to maximize revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jan 6th, 2011 @ 6:02pm

    Re: Re:

    > So what you're saying is that he should have known his place.

    Well, the Brits are "subjects" of the Crown, rather than citizens, after all. A subject is the property of his/her government, therefore he should indeed have known his place.

    No?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa....

    Yeah - lol

    I was somewhat impressed that Michael Thompson would flash people in order to warn them of impending doom. All this time I considered him to be kind of a prude and therefore would never expose himself in public. I wonder, was it the full monty of just a moon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 6:42pm

    So if I correct my child before they do something wrong or in the course of doing something wrong, do I get charged with a criminal offense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    Re:

    Do you understand the size of the body of law that the U.S. has?

    Nobody in this country can say "I follow the law" because nobody know all the laws that exist and it is doubtful that anybody can follow all the laws.

    So with that said I can say with great confidence that you are a breaking law citizen and you should be arrested too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Griff (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 2:12am

    Clarifying attitudes

    There's a range of different attitudes to speed cameras.

    Some feel that any speed limits are bogus because "I know I can drive safely at 90 as long as it is away from pedestrians". Unfortunately people's self image as a driver is not always correlated with their actual ability.

    Some feel there are plenty of incidences of needlessly low speed limits. (There's a patch of 50mph freeway near Cardiff, UK, where I live. Why not 70 ? Are they just persecuting motorists ? Turns out they accidentally built central crash barriers with too low a crash speed rating and now have to upgrade the whole stretch. Stupid, but not sinister).

    If you've just left a freeway at 70, 30 feels like you could get out and walk. Without some external persuasion, motorist simply go too fast in these situations. And they are not the best judges of what too fast is.

    Often residents have a big say in what the speed limits are. They campaign for camera in and upstream of their distructs. I live on a bend everyone goes round too fast. People frequently lose control and mount the kerb, (luckily not while there was a pedestrian standing there, so far). Once a car misjudged it so badly they smashed through a 5 ft tall brick wall into our garden, throwing bricks onto the kids trampoline 20 yards away.
    If they put a speed camera 100 yards from my house I'd applaud it. But 99% of local drivers would rail against it and call it a revenue raising device.

    If you are one who rails against cameras, ask youself this. If you had a switch you could flick in your car that would automatically ensure your car never exceeded the current speed limit, would you flick it on ?
    What if you had a transparent process for questioning suspect speed limits (and all the "bogus" ones were revised). Would you flick the switch then ?
    What if your insurance would be half price if you had the switch locked in place ?

    (Personally I think such a switch would be dangerous - Some people would drive everywhere with their foot to the floor and blame the state when they rolled the car at a tight corner. But it's interesting to explore how people think.)

    I never cease to be amazed how people claim cameras trapped or tricked them. Speed limits are explicit and extremely easy to obey. Noone should need telling cameras are there.
    There is an argument for keeping their location secret (so people don't exhibit dangerous braking behaviour in their immediate vicinity) but publishing data about how many people were caught in this general area.

    I've been caught myself. No doubt I thought "bastards !" at the time but I was banged to rights and if I can't take responsibility for my own actions then cameras are are the least of my worries in life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 3:53am

    Re: Clarifying attitudes

    It isn't the drivers fault that they were granted licenses to operate something which they cannot really operate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    IrishBastard26, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 3:56am

    What if...

    "After flashing his brights at oncoming cars, to warn them of a mobile speed camera he had spotted, Michael Thompson was pulled over."

    Now what if he flashed his brights to warn on-coming drivers that an animal was spotted? Wouldn't you want to know that there may be a large animal ahead of you that could lead to a potentially hazardous situation? It jumps out in front of you, you slam brakes and swerve to avoid it, but plow into the person next to you sending them into on-coming traffic...

    I don't know about other places, but in Northern Maine, flashing on-coming traffic to warn/alert them to something up ahead of them is considered a courtesy. This is just another example of abuse of "laws" by someone with "power"...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    David, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 4:46am

    Money makers

    First of all, I will state that I am 61; been driving since I was seventeen and never had a speeding ticket in my life, although I certainly don't hang about on the road. My entire driving misdemeanour record is three parking tickets. Anyway, enough of the bragging!
    I'm in the UK and am absolutely convinced that these reviled camera beasties are nothing more than revenue generators. The official term for them is "safety cameras". All local people know where they are and those that are so inclined speed right up to them, brake hard through the measuring zone and then hurtle off again. What good is that, I ask you? The mobile units have their favourite spots that are also well-known locally. There is a fixed camera near me that was installed on a main road, along with a 50 mph limit and a huge, absolutely hideous footbridge - built for horses as well, you know, with enormous, incredibly long pedestrian ramps either side. A waste of money, completely out of character for the rural area and I've rarely seen anybody actually use it. Not sure how planning permission was granted for such a nasty structure. The crossing should have been made an underground route in my opinion. It was built as a knee-jerk reaction after an elderly lady and her little grand-daughter were killed in a road accident nearby. No blame attached to the driver at all. Understand they just walked out in front of the vehicle, which was shown to have been doing less than the national speed limit. However, mobile speed traps are also frequently used there, usually stationed a couple of hundred yards after the beginning of the limit sign in a convenient lay-by, which is on an up-hill stretch of this major dual-carriageway. Note this is effectively obstructing the lay-by, which is supposed to be used as short-term parking for ordinary motorists and truck drivers to take a break and stretch their legs, etc. I have also seen a mobile unit placed just over the brow of the hill (so it's not immediately obvious), literally yards before the sign that shows the end of the limit. There happens to be a show-ground located further on. Sheer coincidence, of course, that a mobile unit often appears when a small event (that doesn't clog up the road, traffic-wise) is being staged and stays there all day. Obviously out to catch all the strangers in the area. All to do with money and little to do with safety, I feel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 6:20am

    You forgot the real reason he got arrested. He got belligerent with the police officer. You shut your mouth with the cops, tell them nothing, SAY NOTHING to the pigs. Walk away to fight another day. When you get pissed off they win because they can say you are a threat.
    Plus Hate Speech is illegal in the EU and the UK. They passed those laws to stop the crazy preachers from spreading their vile. I possibly could be arrested for calling them pigs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    hxa, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:15am

    It seems absurd, but there is a subtlety that can justify it.

    It seems absurd, but there is a subtlety that can justify it. It is that the crime was already being committed.

    Imagine you saw someone smash a window and start stealing something, and you warned them that a police officer was approaching so that they could avoid being caught. It seems reasonable that you have obstructed the police officer in carrying out their justice-enforcing activities: the crime was already happening, and you ensured it would not be prevented.

    The article states that the person here "saw that many oncoming cars seemed to be speeding": just as the above example, the crime was already in progress.

    It used to be possible to get devices to warn of speed-traps, and these were at the time questioned as to their legality. But they would fall on the other side of this distinction: they are telling you to not speed *before* you have started to. It is the difference between inducing people to obey the law, and helping a crime go undetected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    hxa, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > it is easy to see how publishing the location of all the traps would be counterproductive

    Ah, but that is a different thing. That would support the overall goal.

    It is the difference between telling people to drive slowly *before* they ever start driving too fast, and telling them to slow down *after* they started. As you say, the second seems rather at odds with real aim -- since it depends on the law *already* having been broken.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re: Their use of the cameras are disingenous.

    Right, that's exactly what I'm advocating! By trying to prevent accidents and speeding rather than trying to earn revenue after the violation was committed is going to lead to blood and property damage!

    What you just said was completely unrealistic. You just made up a worst case scenario that would never happen, to counter my completely valid point. Stopping cops from being sneaking about catching speeders to raise revenue instead of upholding the public safety is not going to result in carnage. That's completely illogical. You did read the part about preventing speeding and accidents did you not? If you can get people to not speed and drive more carefully, then we wouldn't have a problem would we? I'd very much like to get people to stop being reckless on the road than to punish them after they already did something wrong, such as hitting a pedestrian. What good is that ticket now? Prevention is always the best safety measure.

    If you can't raise enough money to pay the officers you have, then you need to raise property taxes. "OMG! You can't raise taxes! That's socialism!" Yeah, whatever. If you want the police to keep the citizens safe, then you need to pay taxes to support them. Fines should not be a means to gain revenue, it's to serve as a punishment for violators of the law and pay for the costs of dealing with your violation. When you put fines up as your source of income, what do you think will happen? You'll start to look for ways to make it easier to charge fines. That means you'll start making unjust laws just to charge fines or set up traps to catch people violating the law when you could have use an ounce of prevention instead.

    Do you honestly think it's better to ticket people than to use social engineering to get them to not commit the crime to begin with? Let's face it, speeding is illegal almost anywhere civilized. There are so many people who speed. Obviously, ticketing the handful that do get caught is not sufficient to deter deviant behavior. Plainly marked speed cameras (fake or real) on all roads might make people think twice about speeding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Re: It seems absurd, but there is a subtlety that can justify it.

    "It used to be possible to get devices to warn of speed-traps, and these were at the time questioned as to their legality. But they would fall on the other side of this distinction: they are telling you to not speed *before* you have started to."

    Not sure what device you are referring to, but that is not how radar detectors in N.A. work. They work whether you are speeding or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:45pm

    Re: Obey the Speed Limit Signs

    Obey the Speed Limits, people. They are there for a reason.
    Yes they are but a speed limit is at best an average for the road... sometimes it might be safer to go faster ofttimes you should go slower. The UKs policy over the last 15 or so years focussing purely on speed limits is counter productive and having the wrong effect. It encourages people to think "above speed limit BAD, at speed limit GOOD", which is dangerous.
    If you want a well reasoned opinion why backed by research and statistics try here and here

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because: A/ The goverment spent a lot of money advertising to convince people "Speed Kills"(which it doesn't) back when speed cameras were invented and it looked like a good idea and many people in lieu of going looking for information will swallow what they are given.
    B/ Money: You can have the appearance of "Doing Something" for a very cheap amount as the things actually generate revenue as opposed to the alternative of police enforcement which costs money and lots of it.
    C/ When have you known any government back down from a policy if it'll make them look stupid doing so (oh.. it turns out we were wrong .. sorry! Yeah right) D/ Money 2: Like the US the UK has a great tradition of bri... er.. lobbying politicians and the opponents don't have that kind of money to spend.
    E/ It fits nicely with the government's overall cars BAD, car drivers SATAN incarnate policy meaning they can justify massive taxes on cars and fuel (you don't think it's the oil companies that get the 5+ a gallon for petrol do you?) and milk drivers as a cash cow - "green" was a godsend for that too.

    In actual fact there have been a number of campaigns to change speed limits but for the above reasons they rarely get anywhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:14pm

    Re:

    Not only was he using his lights or "flashers" in a manner that is a violation of traffic laws in the U.K., but he was also belligerent with the officer. The reason he was charged with obstruction of a police officer's duty.
    Fail. Wrong on both counts according to the report. Being belligerent may have got hiim done but that's not what he was charged for.
    It was the Crown Prosecution Service's case that Michael Thompson flashed the lights of his car to warn other drivers of a speed trap ahead. In doing so, he was obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty, which is a criminal offence contrary to the Police Act 1996, sect 89 (2)
    Specifically charged for flashing his lights not mouthing off.
    However, a breach of the Highway Code is not itself a criminal offence. It can act as evidence of a breach of a substantive motoring offence, such as dangerous driving, but to rely on it in this case seems rather desperate
    The highway code is not law. There is no UK law about flashing headlights. At best if you did so causing danger to other road users you would be charged with "dangerous driving" or "driving without due care and attention". Not what he was charged with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:27pm

    Re: Clarifying attitudes

    Speed limits are explicit and extremely easy to obey
    They are also dangerous if treated in that manner. You should drive to the conditions not to the limit. In bad conditions the speed limit is too high in good it is sometimes too low. In actual fact there's research to suggest driving slower is MORE dangerous. The limit itself cannot take account of conditions. You are correct about drivers not neccessarily being good judges, but surely that's a matter of poor training and I fail to see how a speed limit helps you be any better trained. Relying on a speed limit to tell you what's "safe" removes your personal responsibilty for your actions behind the wheel. That can't be good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Miiles, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:56pm

    Speeders are arseholes

    A speeder who foolishly thinks that he is not putting lives in danger would slow down at a speed camera if forewarned by this man, and then proceed to speed back up again, putting lives in danger.
    You hardly need a study to show that speeding costs lives, it's completely obvious. It may not be the cause but it'll multiply the damage to the car's occupants, fatally.
    Speed camera's are hidden for a reason. Foolish speeders have to know that nowhere is safe to speed, if they're so selfish to only think about the money and not the danger they are putting themselves and others in.
    I could not disagree more with Mr Masnick here, he should stick to electronic intellectual property discussion..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 4:11am

    Re: Speeders are arseholes

    You hardly need a study to show that speeding costs lives, it's completely obvious.
    If you want to make such a ludicrous assertion then first define "speeding". Are you, as you seem to be, defining it as "driving above the posted limit"? So by that reasoning if you change the posted limit you change how "safe" a particular speed is.

    Or, if you think the limits posted on US freeways and UK motorways are hard limits based on lots of research as to what is safe, then why is it that German autobahns, which have large stretches with NO limit are safer than US freeways?

    And if the limits are hard and completely safe for that road, does that suddenly mean that it's safe to drive at 70mph on a motorway in fog? Or 30mph down a town road with a street market? Or 60Mph down a country road with sheep standing on the verge/

    Safety depends on judgement you puritanical idiot. A good driver will slow down to ANTICIPATE the conditions ahead on the road and no matter what the speed limit is.
    You hardly need a study to show that speeding costs lives, it's completely obvious.
    Yes you wouldn't want to look at a study because you might find that speed is is the cause in less than 10% of fatal accidents and less than 1% of accidents overall. Speed is a fctor of any kind in somewhere between 11 and 15% of accidents. One study listed the top 7 contributory factors in accidents as:
    Inattention: 25.8%
    Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
    Looked but did not see: 19.7%
    Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
    Failed to look: 16.3%
    Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
    Excessive speed: 12.5%

    And bear in mind "excessive speed" is NOT "speeding". The definition of excessive speed is "driving too fast for the conditions" and includes the completely legal scenarios I described above. Statistics suggest less than 1/10th of THOSE were actually over the speed limit.

    Don't you think it's about time goverments stopped being so rabid about speed and people stopped swallowing it? It's important but there are many things far more important when it comes to road safety. A focus on speed alone and especialy speed limits is getting close to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic for effectiveness. I want REAL road safety not the government assuring me that "everything possible is being done" while raking in a fortune.
    Note, ALL of the factors above are susceptible to TRAINING, so why don't goverments focus more on improved driver training rather than enforcing ONE of the symptoms of poor training? The only answer I can think of is because that COSTS money as opposed to MAKING it. That would suggest it's not about "safety" at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Their use of the cameras are disingenous.

    Darlin', I'm sorry I didn't get the point across - that I was agreeing with you!

    I DO believe prevention is better than revenue generation. That was my (badly stated) point: prevention of blood and property damage doesn't seem the priority with these cameras when they're also revenue generators.

    Sorry it took so long to come back for response.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    McNix (profile), Jan 9th, 2011 @ 11:36pm

    Sounds similar to the problem of feeding coins to other people's parking meters to save them a citation.

    Some authorities claim the meters make sure parking spaces are vacated and the good samaritans are interfering.
    In many municipalities however, there is no penalty for feeding your own meter - just other's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    AutoTweet (profile), Jan 16th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Yes, it sounds pretty dumb. Is the object of traffic cameras to make money for the government or to save lives. (PS - it is to saves lives)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This