Should a driver be punished for warning of a speed trap ahead? David Williams investigates some cases in which the police appear to have overreacted.
Michael Thompson provoked sympathy and disbelief in equal measure when he was fined ?175, ordered to pay ?250 costs and a ?15 ?victim surcharge? after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.
The crime meriting such severe punishment? Concealment of a murderer? Hiding the smoking gun?
The semi-retired man simply did what many motorists often do (and indeed what the AA was founded for, in 1905) and warned oncoming drivers that there was a police speed trap around the corner, by flashing his headlamps.
Thompson insisted he was performing his ?civic duty? by warning fellow motorists and one solicitor at court criticised the prosecution as a waste of taxpayers? money.
In words that resonated with many of Britain?s 34 million motorists, the solicitor said the driver should be praised for his actions.
Not everyone was as sympathetic, however. On national radio phone-ins many criticised his actions; had he not prevented speeding drivers from getting their just desserts?
The presiding magistrate told Thompson: ?We found that the flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.?
So, bizarrely, Mr Thompson was punished for encouraging others to stay within the law. But is the case as clear-cut as it appeared?
Experts say the whole grisly affair could have been averted even after Mr Thompson, of Grimsby in north-east Lincolnshire, was given a dressing down by police.
?Often, in weird and wonderful cases such as this, prosecution can easily be averted if the driver just bites his tongue and accepts a police warning - without giving any lip,? says Edmund King, the AA president.
?In many of these cases the law is a grey area but police might still feel they need to make a point by talking to the driver.
"Unfortunately some police officers respond adversely to drivers challenging them, as appears to have happened in this case. That?s when they dig in their heels and decide to take action.?
If Mr Thompson did talk himself into a fine, he surely felt he was standing up for what he - and many others - felt was right.
?If the true aim of speed traps is to get drivers to adhere to the limit, then why object to drivers warning others?? says Nigel Humphries of the Association of British Drivers. ?Surely this achieves that objective in exactly the same way as signposting a speed camera, long accepted as a positive means of slowing traffic??
It turns out that Thompson is in good company; numerous driver prosecutions and penalties have been at least as contentious.
In December 2003 Sarah McCaffery (above) was stopped by police who thought she was using her mobile phone while making a left turn in her Ford Ka.
In fact, she was doing nothing more sinister than eating an apple. Police nevertheless issued her with a ?30 ticket, saying she was not in proper control of her car. The 23-year-old from Hebburn, in the North-East, decided to fight back and appealed, but was nevertheless convicted by magistrates.
Her solicitor said the case was ?nonsensical? as she had carried out the manoeuvre ?perfectly? but the chairman of the bench said: ?We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control.?
Stranger still was the case of a man fined for blowing his nose. When Michael Mancini found himself stuck in a queue of traffic with a runny nose, he instinctively reached for his handkerchief.
The simple act of pulling out a tissue and blowing his nose earned him a ?60 fine because he was ?not in proper control of his vehicle?.
Policeman Stuart Gray (known as PC Shiny Buttons because of his zealous approach) also handed out three penalty points, even though Mancini had the handbrake on at the time.
The case echoes that of salesman Keith Pemberton, from Cheshire, who was fined ?60 for eating a sandwich at the wheel in March 2007. In 2008, Ediri Tsekiri was fined ?60 in Liverpool for not being in control of her vehicle.
She, too, was eating a sandwich. Company director Gary Saunders was stopped in the same city for laughing while driving in 2009, but escaped with a ticking-off.
Motoring, clearly, is not a laughing matter - but justice can prevail. Mr Mancini took his protest to court and the procurator fiscal in Ayr decided not to prosecute. ?I knew it would cost me hiring a lawyer but it was worth it out of principle,? said Mr Mancini.
Kevin Story was spotted by police munching a KitKat on the M3 and (are the words beginning to sound familiar?) issued with a fine for ?not being in control of his vehicle?. Police later gave him a break and said the fine would be quashed as it was ?inappropriate?.
Hampshire?s Assistant Chief Constable Colin Smith said: ?We accept that the issue of a fixed penalty ticket, while intended to promote road safety, was inappropriate action by a well-meaning policeman.
"Officers usually deal sensitively and with common sense. If we are found to be over-zealous, we are more than happy to admit that officers are human and sometimes make mistakes.?
Is this true? It seems so.
The AA advises drivers stopped by police to be courteous and not to challenge them. It says that nine times out of 10 no action will be taken.
?In the light-flashing case, the driver said the police officer did not let him off with a warning because he 'challenged? him,? says Edmund King.
?We urge drivers to keep their cool and police not to overreact to minor misdemeanours. It would save everybody an awful lot of time and money.?
Michael Thompson provoked sympathy and disbelief in equal measure when he was fined ?175, ordered to pay ?250 costs and a ?15 ?victim surcharge? after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.
The crime meriting such severe punishment? Concealment of a murderer? Hiding the smoking gun?
The semi-retired man simply did what many motorists often do (and indeed what the AA was founded for, in 1905) and warned oncoming drivers that there was a police speed trap around the corner, by flashing his headlamps.
Thompson insisted he was performing his ?civic duty? by warning fellow motorists and one solicitor at court criticised the prosecution as a waste of taxpayers? money.
In words that resonated with many of Britain?s 34 million motorists, the solicitor said the driver should be praised for his actions.
Not everyone was as sympathetic, however. On national radio phone-ins many criticised his actions; had he not prevented speeding drivers from getting their just desserts?
The presiding magistrate told Thompson: ?We found that the flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.?
So, bizarrely, Mr Thompson was punished for encouraging others to stay within the law. But is the case as clear-cut as it appeared?
Experts say the whole grisly affair could have been averted even after Mr Thompson, of Grimsby in north-east Lincolnshire, was given a dressing down by police.
?Often, in weird and wonderful cases such as this, prosecution can easily be averted if the driver just bites his tongue and accepts a police warning - without giving any lip,? says Edmund King, the AA president.
?In many of these cases the law is a grey area but police might still feel they need to make a point by talking to the driver.
"Unfortunately some police officers respond adversely to drivers challenging them, as appears to have happened in this case. That?s when they dig in their heels and decide to take action.?
If Mr Thompson did talk himself into a fine, he surely felt he was standing up for what he - and many others - felt was right.
?If the true aim of speed traps is to get drivers to adhere to the limit, then why object to drivers warning others?? says Nigel Humphries of the Association of British Drivers. ?Surely this achieves that objective in exactly the same way as signposting a speed camera, long accepted as a positive means of slowing traffic??
It turns out that Thompson is in good company; numerous driver prosecutions and penalties have been at least as contentious.
In December 2003 Sarah McCaffery (above) was stopped by police who thought she was using her mobile phone while making a left turn in her Ford Ka.
In fact, she was doing nothing more sinister than eating an apple. Police nevertheless issued her with a ?30 ticket, saying she was not in proper control of her car. The 23-year-old from Hebburn, in the North-East, decided to fight back and appealed, but was nevertheless convicted by magistrates.
Her solicitor said the case was ?nonsensical? as she had carried out the manoeuvre ?perfectly? but the chairman of the bench said: ?We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control.?
Stranger still was the case of a man fined for blowing his nose. When Michael Mancini found himself stuck in a queue of traffic with a runny nose, he instinctively reached for his handkerchief.
The simple act of pulling out a tissue and blowing his nose earned him a ?60 fine because he was ?not in proper control of his vehicle?.
Policeman Stuart Gray (known as PC Shiny Buttons because of his zealous approach) also handed out three penalty points, even though Mancini had the handbrake on at the time.
The case echoes that of salesman Keith Pemberton, from Cheshire, who was fined ?60 for eating a sandwich at the wheel in March 2007. In 2008, Ediri Tsekiri was fined ?60 in Liverpool for not being in control of her vehicle.
She, too, was eating a sandwich. Company director Gary Saunders was stopped in the same city for laughing while driving in 2009, but escaped with a ticking-off.
Motoring, clearly, is not a laughing matter - but justice can prevail. Mr Mancini took his protest to court and the procurator fiscal in Ayr decided not to prosecute. ?I knew it would cost me hiring a lawyer but it was worth it out of principle,? said Mr Mancini.
Kevin Story was spotted by police munching a KitKat on the M3 and (are the words beginning to sound familiar?) issued with a fine for ?not being in control of his vehicle?. Police later gave him a break and said the fine would be quashed as it was ?inappropriate?.
Hampshire?s Assistant Chief Constable Colin Smith said: ?We accept that the issue of a fixed penalty ticket, while intended to promote road safety, was inappropriate action by a well-meaning policeman.
"Officers usually deal sensitively and with common sense. If we are found to be over-zealous, we are more than happy to admit that officers are human and sometimes make mistakes.?
Is this true? It seems so.
The AA advises drivers stopped by police to be courteous and not to challenge them. It says that nine times out of 10 no action will be taken.
?In the light-flashing case, the driver said the police officer did not let him off with a warning because he 'challenged? him,? says Edmund King.
?We urge drivers to keep their cool and police not to overreact to minor misdemeanours. It would save everybody an awful lot of time and money.?
Comment