In a triumph for common sense the Law Lords have come down in favour of motorist Charles Glendinning, who, it was alleged, had signalled a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap on the A303.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=14514 (Link Removed)
The DPP and the other proponents of stealth cameras on Britain’s roads had been hoping this case would set a legal precedent, effectively banning anyone from warning other motorists of a speed trap’s location. Instead the law has come down on the side of the motorist.
To bring this kind of case again, in order to prove that they have been obstructed in performing their duties, the police would need to demonstrate that either a car which would have been speeding past the location of the trap had slowed down as a result of the warning (which is impossible to demonstrate) or that the motorists had been speeding at the location of the warning – farcical, because the warning could easily move if the speed trap did.
Paul Smith of the SafeSpeed campaign asks the following pertinent question:
“The camera partnerships tell us continually that: ‘they don’t want our money, they just want us to slow down’. They can’t have it both ways. Motorists warning others of speed traps is extremely effective in slowing traffic. If they don’t want our money, then why bring this case?”
While we would never endorse speeding, perhaps the traffic police have got their priorities wrong. Especially when you consider that uninsured drivers currently cost every motorist in the UK over £30 each year.