Column: ‘Flashers’ were just trying to help

2:35pm Friday 22nd June 2012 in Opinion Photograph of the Author By Shuiab Khan

I AM all for following rules but sometimes you really have to take a step back and think about what is going on.

Recently, motorists were being handed out fines for “misuse of headlights” after they were spotted trying to alert other drivers to police carrying out speed checks.

I won’t admit to anything here but I have good friend who does this all the time. You could say it is the ‘motorists’ code’.

The police will argue that unless a speeding motorist is stopped and spoken to he or she will never know they were speeding.

And those responsible for flashing their lights ‘are obstructing them in their duty’.

The point is, drivers who get fined by mobile speed cameras tend to be those going barely one mph over a speed limit.

It happened to my friend and he was very aggrieved.

The reason people are flashing their lights has got to be this need we have as British people to assist others whenever possible.

It is like holding the door open or pointing out to everyone that there is a queue when some ignorant fellow pushes in.

In this case, my friend explains flashing his lights is the only time he can still stick two fingers up at the authorities.

He does it because he thinks he can get one back at the powers that be.

This is a small victory for a man who is now approaching 40 and losing his hair at the same time.

Maybe, a lifetime of paying fines for pointless little misdemeanours and silly rules does this to some people.

There comes a time when we have to say enough is enough.

Will we now have people finding different ways to alert people of the oncoming £30 fine?

I am not entirely sure how that will work.

What about waving your hand or pulling a funny face?

It might not be as effective but I am certain there will still be a fair few people trying it.

Comments (3)

1:49pm Sat 23 Jun 12

s_smith says...

Misusing headlights is actually a false charge and should I ever be caught doing it I will happily take it to the magistrates.
.
The use of headlights is only to warn other motorists of your presence. For a charge of obstructing the police at a speed trap, the driver doing the flashing has to know that the oncoming driver is in fact speeding.
.
Misusing headlights means to cause dazzle to an oncoming driver; hardly possible in daylight really.
.
Perhaps if Lancashire Police, rather than picking on speed and people trying to assist other drivers to check their speed actually carried out decent patrols and also enforced other things like, oh I dont know, red traffic lights, one way streets, middle lane hogging, untaxed/uninsured vehicles then maybe the motoring public wouldnt be so anti-police in the first place.
.
Speed as a primary cause of injuries only makes up less than a quarter of all accidents and even then most of those are *within* the posted limit. So why then are Lancashire Police so obsessed with speed? Because it is an easy target, measurable with a meter, and they get money in to the coffers.
Misusing headlights is actually a false charge and should I ever be caught doing it I will happily take it to the magistrates. . The use of headlights is only to warn other motorists of your presence. For a charge of obstructing the police at a speed trap, the driver doing the flashing has to know that the oncoming driver is in fact speeding. . Misusing headlights means to cause dazzle to an oncoming driver; hardly possible in daylight really. . Perhaps if Lancashire Police, rather than picking on speed and people trying to assist other drivers to check their speed actually carried out decent patrols and also enforced other things like, oh I dont know, red traffic lights, one way streets, middle lane hogging, untaxed/uninsured vehicles then maybe the motoring public wouldnt be so anti-police in the first place. . Speed as a primary cause of injuries only makes up less than a quarter of all accidents and even then most of those are *within* the posted limit. So why then are Lancashire Police so obsessed with speed? Because it is an easy target, measurable with a meter, and they get money in to the coffers. s_smith

11:25am Sun 24 Jun 12

woolywords says...

Don't you just love the good old days, when life ran at a slower pace, and cats could sleep on the kerbside, on warm tarmac, undisturbed?

AA patrols on bicycles warned motorists of police speed traps ahead. In 1910 in legal test case ('Betts -v- Stevens') involving an AA patrolman and a potentially speeding motorist, the Chief Justice, Lord Alverston, ruled that where a patrolman signals to a speeding driver to slow down and thereby avoid a speed-trap, then that person would have committed the offence of 'obstructing an officer in the course of his duty' under the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885. Subsequently the organisation developed a coded warning system, which was used until the 1960s, whereby a patrolman would always salute the driver of a passing car which showed a visible AA Badge unless there was a speed trap nearby, on the understanding that their officers could not be prosecuted for failing to salute. The AA Handbook included the following message many times, "It cannot be too strongly emphasized that when a patrol fails to salute, the member should stop and ask the reason why, as it is certain that the patrol has something of importance to communicate."

It's enough to make you take up knitting marmalade jumpers for ginger kids, like my Mother used to do.
Don't you just love the good old days, when life ran at a slower pace, and cats could sleep on the kerbside, on warm tarmac, undisturbed? AA patrols on bicycles warned motorists of police speed traps ahead. In 1910 in legal test case ('Betts -v- Stevens') involving an AA patrolman and a potentially speeding motorist, the Chief Justice, Lord Alverston, ruled that where a patrolman signals to a speeding driver to slow down and thereby avoid a speed-trap, then that person would have committed the offence of 'obstructing an officer in the course of his duty' under the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885. Subsequently the organisation developed a coded warning system, which was used until the 1960s, whereby a patrolman would always salute the driver of a passing car which showed a visible AA Badge unless there was a speed trap nearby, on the understanding that their officers could not be prosecuted for failing to salute. The AA Handbook included the following message many times, "It cannot be too strongly emphasized that when a patrol fails to salute, the member should stop and ask the reason why, as it is certain that the patrol has something of importance to communicate." It's enough to make you take up knitting marmalade jumpers for ginger kids, like my Mother used to do. woolywords

11:39am Sun 24 Jun 12

woolywords says...

Any of the older HGV drivers will tell you of their secret signal for making you aware of a potential Police speed traps.
Instead of a raised thumb, the signal was like that of the crowd in the Roman gladiatorial arena, the thumbs down.
A friend of mine owns one of those people carriers that has a digital speed indicator; if I were to drive at exactly 28mph past a Police speed trap, raised two fingers, indicating that I was 2mph under the limit, I often wonder, would that be legal?
Any of the older HGV drivers will tell you of their secret signal for making you aware of a potential Police speed traps. Instead of a raised thumb, the signal was like that of the crowd in the Roman gladiatorial arena, the thumbs down. A friend of mine owns one of those people carriers that has a digital speed indicator; if I were to drive at exactly 28mph past a Police speed trap, raised two fingers, indicating that I was 2mph under the limit, I often wonder, would that be legal? woolywords

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree