spinac Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Speeding drivers killed over a thousand people last year. You defend them? Speeding drivers are like drunk drivers or drivers on mobiles, they place their own convenience over other peoples' safety. In some extreme cases that may be true, but how many of us have been caught when we considered we were being careful? I'm far from being a boy racer and now drive a "sensible" car in what I consider to be a sensible fashion. It doesn't take much to drift over the limit and if you haven't got sat nav to tell you where a camera is, then what's wrong with a flash of the lights to alert someone else? If someone's doing 50 in a 30 they deserve all they get, but if someone is approaching a camera at what looks like normal speed, but may be just over, I'd flash my lights to say hey, just check your speed buddy ... and I'm grateful to others who do the same for me - and I'm ususally within the limit! "Obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties" now that's an extreme response to what I guess was a 64 year old being courteous to his fellow road users. If you flash your lights at a speeding driver when there's NOT a camera there - would that be treated as an offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Does this ruling mean that the police will have to take down all the signs for the fixed speed cameras as they are only there to warn people about the speed cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Does this ruling mean that the police will have to take down all the signs for the fixed speed cameras as they are only there to warn people about the speed cameras? hahaha...i find it all very hypocritical...they want it both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 hahaha...i find it all very hypocritical...they want it both ways... If I remember rightly, they cannot prosecute anyone caught on a camera if there are no signs up before hand warning the drivers, I may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 In some extreme cases that may be true, but how many of us have been caught when we considered we were being careful? The basis of the law is that the law decides if you're being careful. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Does this ruling mean that the police will have to take down all the signs for the fixed speed cameras as they are only there to warn people about the speed cameras? Quite. And instead of covering them in luminous colours throw camo nets over them or hide them in trees. Given the whole claim for speed cameras is they slow people down by being prominently visible it seems ludicrous that someone adding to the visibility of a speed trap cops for a criminal record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Does this ruling mean that the police will have to take down all the signs for the fixed speed cameras as they are only there to warn people about the speed cameras? Sadly it probably does not. The motoring lobby are still too strong to let that one through; and they will continue to argue that "drivers should be given a warning to slow down," happily ignoring the fact that there already is one and it's called a speed limit sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Does this ruling mean that the police will have to take down all the signs for the fixed speed cameras as they are only there to warn people about the speed cameras? Presumably the signs are put up,not by the police,but by councils and the highways agency. By the logic of this case,surely they could also be prosecuted for warning motorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 i was convicted of doing of 35mph in a 30mph zone, there was nothing on the roads and there were no people about, (except for a mobile speed camera hid away) i would call that slightly over the limit. i wasn't driving recklessly and was in full control of the vehicle... coincidentally, the same stretch of road was reclassified to a 40mph zone twelve months later:huh: What was the road? Unless you went back along the road and asked everyone, including people you hadn';t noticed, if your criminal behaviour impacted negatively on you you have no idea whether your crime was truly victimless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm certainly approving of the fact he's been prosecuted. Quite right and I've no sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.