Following the prosecution of a Grimsby driver who flashed other motorists to warn them of a speed gun, Confused.com’s Owe Carter questions the motives of such a law.
Earlier this month, Michael Thompson was charged and convicted after flashing his headlights at approaching motorists to warn them of a speed gun ahead. He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £250 costs at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court.
Thompson defended his actions as his “civic duty”, explaining that he “flashed motorists to warn them of a hazard.” He was nonetheless found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.
It strikes me that there are two ways of looking at this. One is that, if motorists are breaking the law by speeding, then vehicles coming the other way shouldn’t prevent them from coming to justice by warning them that they’re about to get caught.
Thompson, however, claimed that he warned oncoming drivers as he thought that they would brake hard when they saw the speed gun, which can be potentially dangerous. If he had the safety of other motorists at heart, can we really take such a dim view of his actions?
This also highlights a wider issue. By warning other drivers, Thompson was effectively trying to get them to obey the law. In addition to punishing those who break the law, isn’t prevention of crime also on the police’s agenda?
And what happens if you remove the speed gun from the picture? If I flash motorists because they are unaware of an obstruction (such as congestion) up ahead, or because I simply think they’re driving too fast, am I breaking the law? Presumably not. Would it be too cynical to suggest that the reason for prosecuting Thompson might have been that he was preventing the generation of revenue?
What do you think? Do you feel that the law is missing the mark in this area? Or that Michael Thompson was deserving of his conviction? Feel free to let me know by commenting below.
Recent Comments