Fine, Costs and Criminal Conviction for Speed Trap Warning Man – Improving Road Safety or an abuse of state power?

Facebook and tabloid newspapers may not seem to be usefully critical focal points for fresh debate over abuses of state powers to ‘enforce’ traffic management, but sometimes they are. A new and in my view nasty twist has just been added to the ongoing debate about whether the use of ‘safety’ camera or ‘speed trap’ kit is really about improving road safety – or an ultimately damaging abuse of Traffic Management Act powers to rake in more cash from private motor vehicle drivers and riders.

Following a link from a Facebook (and real) biking friend – thanks Mark McArthur-Christie, I find that the much disparaged SUN newspaper just published a story about a man who has been convicted of a criminal offence and payed out over £440, because he flashed his headlights to warn road users they were about to enter a police speed trap…

Now I will point out that there are some crucial facts missing from the story in The SUN. e.g. Was the speed trap set on a section of road where many deaths and serious injuries had been caused by drivers or riders exceeding the speed limit? The story was also covered by the Daily Mail, and albeit in a notably different way by the Guardian, and Telegraph who both led with a defence of the CPS. Nevertheless, none of them added any more than The SUN.

But given the fact that it was a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decision to spend taxpayers money to take this case to court, perhaps the most critical question that none of the papers or CPS staff raised is this: Has this type of case has been tried before and if so what happened? And as a quick internet trawl reveals, such a case has been heard, it went to Appeal and a ruling was made by LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER, that when the citizen in question warned fellow road users of a speed trap – he was not guilty of obstructing the police – which is quite rightly a serious criminal offence.

My brief internet trawl also found a site that purports to be a Forum for Police Officers – of whom a number seem critical of the prosecution and it’s inherent expenditure of Police and Court time.

So, yet again,critical questions are raised. WTF are we doing in Britain by allowing this sort of case to proceed to court? WTF are we doing using clever bits of kit as speed traps? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, but am not satisfied by most of the official answers. And, ultimately, is this sort of use of police and court time really enhancing the safety of our roads? As ever, I will allow you to decided and comment as you see fit…

Spy in Sky CCTV cameras over the White Cliffs of Dover tomorrow? Just you wait and see…

Update 26 Jan. Eminent and highly respected commentator Simon Jenkins has just added a new angle on the focus for this blog which illustrates how key the issue of money may be – and can be found in full here

Just to cheer us all up on a rainy start to the week in London, I bring news that our real Big Brother in Britain plans to use unmanned spy drone cameras to look after us even better than before. Ah, how lovely you may think. But maybe not…

Frankly, the idea of UK police using such high-tech spy- in-the-sky kit, currently deployed in war zones like Afghanistan, but now for ‘routine’ monitoring of riders, motorists and protesters, in our occasionally Green and Pleasant Land – does not fill me with great joy at all. There are also some bloggers out there like BB Watch who take a very dim view of this latest news. To be fair though, these new additions to the armoury of surveillance kit our governors and private enforcement companies have to hand are not called spy drones at all. Oh no.

It seems, according to responses to a Freedom of Information FOI request submitted by the Guardian that the folk who make this kit are the arms manufacturer BAE Systems, and they produce a range of ‘unmanned aerial vehicles’ aka UAVs. Worryingly though for some of us perhaps, good old BAE is converting a fleet of UAVs from use in warfare to use by a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

The FOI request forced release of report documents from the soothingly titled South Coast Partnership. But it turns out that this is a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE.

Their report reveals the following news:

“Five other police forces have signed up to the scheme, which is considered a pilot preceding the countrywide adoption of the technology for “surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering”. The partnership’s stated mission is to introduce drones “into the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies” across the UK.”

So there you go then. And all I can say to anyone who is starting to harbour suspicions that this plan may not be entirely driven by an earnest desire to look after us all better than ever, is that you could be in danger. And the danger you’d be in is of joining that widely reviled group called sceptics. And for those who go further with thoughts that a primary driver for getting this kit into action is to dish out loads more revenue generating penalty charge notices PCNs, for such heinous crimes as exceeding speed limits by a few mile and hour etc., could be in graver danger still. You could be heading down the slippery slopes to the doom of becoming an extreme cynic. By the Cringe!