A DRIVER who flashed

[oxkiller]

A DRIVER who flashed his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap has been left with a £440 bill for "obstructing police".
Michael Thompson thought it was his "civic duty" to warn other drivers of the mobile speed cameras ahead.

Thompson, 64, of Grimsby, Lincs, denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year but was convicted after a trial.

The vigorously-pursued prosecution was branded "ridiculous" and "a complete waste of taxpayers' money" by lawyers.

One solicitor praised Thompson and said: "He should be given a medal."

The trial, which took half a day at Grimsby Magistrates, cost the Crown Prosecution Service at least £250 and three police officers were in court for much of that time.

Even they privately questioned the decision to pursue the case to prosecution and admitted that members of the public believed police time should be given to catching criminals.

The trial heard Thompson was driving out of Grimsby on to the A46 dual carriageway when he spotted a police speed trap.

He flashed his headlights about seven times to warn oncoming drivers heading towards Grimsby but was pulled in by the police.

He claimed that, after he challenged the officers, one of them told him: "I was going to let you off with a caution but I'm not now."

He told the court the officer told him he was "perverting the course of justice" but he told the officer: "I don't believe that's the case."

He branded the officer "a Rambo character" and claimed he was acting like "Judge Dredd" in using the law against him unnecessarily.

Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap "think they are doing people a favour".

He said: "It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation.

"But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it."

A CPS spokeswoman defended the case, saying: "Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.

"When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

"In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate."

 

[The Dentist]

Does that mean in the future if i prevent a crime from happening I will actually be obstructing the police because me preventing the crime meant the police do not have to solve anything therefore they have sod all to do?

 

[charlie senator]

Good point dentist

 

[oneman]

While I agree in principle with what he did, this has been the law for a long time. As was pointed out, they were going to let him off until he started getting lippy with them.

 

[stevie1ball]

I was under the impression that speed cameras were there as a deterrent to speeding drivers, surely if this is the case then police should put up a notice saying speed camera in operation and then if you get caught tough titty.
All drivers will do now is change the signal for speed camera warnings just like wagon drivers do.
I accept that it is in the highway code and there is a law to prevent you warning other drivers.

 

[miggy]

This chap was just trying to help his fellow drivers out by warning them why should he be fined. The police should be out sorting murderers, rapist burglaries and protecting the general public not ganging up on easy prey motorists.

 

[MikeS]

yeh but the police give little or no warning when using temporary speed traps

by law they dont have to

thats why they so sneaky

 

[audiobookman]

many years ago i complained to the local police station about a mobile speed trap, the coppers decided it was ok to park thier van on a public footpath and set it up, causing everyone to walk into the road, i took pictures of a young mother pushing her pram in the road, when i showed this to the cop shop they basically told me to go away.
2 weeks later local rag my pic was on the front page.
it makes me die that these people are nicking anyone breaking the law whilst they are breaking the law themselves.
i wouldnt do it again, i was victimised for about 6 months after, i couldnt move my car without getting pulled over.
best part was anyone that got nicked that day got thier tickets voided as they were issued illegally

 

[gooner71]

These days the police don't refer to "speed cameras" anymore they are now known as "safety cameras" so in an effort to promote road safety I would happily flash my lights at oncoming traffic to warn them to slow down. This is the arguement I would use and i would refuse to pay any fine they imposed and go to prison if necessary. They take the piss - this just proves all they are interested in is the cash they make - its got sod all to do with road safety!!

Just today I was driving along a single lane where its 30mph for about 300 yards before it becomes 50-60mph for the next few miles - just before you get to the increased speed part the road bends slightly to the left and a layby to the left is obscured by trees. There sitting all nicely tucked out of the way was a transit fully kitted out with cameras. Not only hidden from view but just before the point where anyone local knows you will speed up. The 30mph section even goes downhill so its pretty difficult to hold 30mph anyway !! Im not advocating people should be speeding but in my opinion this is why people resent the cameras so much - they dont seem to be sticking new fixed cameras up as they have to be clearly marked and painted bright yellow - this is why they use the vans - if the authorities want speed kept down then they should camera every road but come up with a deterrent that doesnt hit us in the pocket or threaten our licenses so we cant work!!

 

[cliffy]

The police constantly say that cameras are there to prevent accidents and not raise revenue, hence the camera warning signs.

The motorist was effectively acting as one of those warning signs in my opinion and slowing traffic down, thus making the roads safer. At least by charging him with "obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties" they are admitting that her duty is to raise money through fines rather than slow traffic down.


wankas the lot of em.

 

[jedi_ringo]

So if I see somebody dropping litter in the street and ask them to pick it up Am I 'perverting the course of justice'?