Safe Speed Forums

I was fined for honking at man who stepped in front of my car

Daily Mail, Thursday, 25 January 2007, Page 30

By Liz Hull

WHEN Steven Milne saw a pedestrian talking on a mobile phone step out in front of his car, his natural reaction was to slam on his brakes and beep his horn.

But the incident was witnessed by a special constable who issued Mr Milne with a £30 fine for `excessive' use of his horn.

The officer claimed Mr Milne's vehicle was stationary at the time - although he insists he was braking but still moving.

Mr Milne was driving to a football match in October when he saw the man crossing the road.

The 28-year-old, an IT worker who served as a soldier in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Northern Ireland, slammed on his brakes and came to a stop.. `As I braked I beeped my horn m quick succession,' he explained.

`The special came running over and started hammering on my window. I was shocked. He said I had used my horn excessively while stationary, but I was still braking when I sounded it.

`I had to stop otherwise I would have hit the pedestrian.'

The special constable issued Mr Milne with a £30 fixed penalty notice for `sounding his horn while stationary'- an offence contrary to the Highway Code, which says motorists should beep their horn only `while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence'. Mr Milne criticised the police for being heavy-handed and wasting taxpayers' money over the incident on the Wirral in Merseyside.

`I was amazed at the officer's actions,' Mr Milne said. `The pedestrian was walking across a four-lane carriageway, talking on his phone without a care in the world.

`I had to brake and stop so I didn't hit him. But if I'd run him over I would probably have got off more lightly. I beeped my horn three or four times but it wasn't aggressive.

I can't believe police would waste taxpayers' money fighting this.'

Mr Milne, from Wallasey, initially refused to pay the fine, opting to fight it in court.

But court officials claimed they never heard from him and this week he was told bailiffs would recover the debt, which had risen to £95 - £45 for the fine, which rose by £15 after 30 days' non-payment, plus £50 in bailiffs' costs.

Fearing he would lose his job if he took leave to contest the matter in court, Mr Milne said he had no choice but to pay up.

Peter Wakeham, of the Noise Abatement Society, described the police's actions as `extreme'.

A spokesman for Merseyside Police maintained, however, that Mr Milne had sounded his horn `in anger and frustration'.

`Using a horn aggressively is against the law,' she said. `It is dangerous, can distract other drivers and could lead to more accidents.

l.hull@dailymail.co.uk

If being "angry and frustrated" were really a crimnal offence, we would have to build even more prisons to accommodate all the people who are "angry and frustrated" by this cretinous Government and the 1984 mentality it has created.

Some poor innocent Joe Soap - who has, as a serviceman, actually put his life on the line for his country - gets fined by some shiny-arsed jobsworth for "using a horn aggressively" whilst drug-dealers, burglars and muggers go about their business practically unhindered. I despair.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "special" constable.

"I'm a speffal polifman"

I didn't actually realise these B-cops could issue real fines. I thought they were just there to help them feel important. part of care in the community and all that.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I've just checked the highway code and it does seem that between 2230 and 0700 you cannot sound your horn to show your presence to a pedestrian as they are not a vehicle.

Perhaps this is something that could be targetted as many people are likely to walk into roads "willy nilly" and if you can't sound the horn but they aren't showing a sign of stopping what can you do?

run them over?

then sue them for the Trauma and stress they caused you in running them over?

welcome to Dictator Bliars UKSSR Comrade!

Special Constable?

Special needs more like.

_________________
Simon

No my youngest child has special needs, and he's not that cretinous!

However, I'm a bit suspicious that Mr Milne might have sounded his horn repeatedly instead of a quick warning toot - and he would apear to have ignored the court procedings - which might also indicate he was rubbed up the wrong way when spoken to and mouthed off... leading to his downfall!

Anyone have a better factual account than the Daily Mail article?

I still think it wrong to pursue cases like this through the courts for the reasons which have lead to this thread, unless a very full explanation is given to the public as to what has been achieved in their name.

What about the jaywalking phone user - he should be accountable too!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

You may be confusing specials with PCSOs...

_________________
Andrew.

Which was quite responsible given that someones life is in danger.

One toot = warning. If not acknoledged, a continous toot to warn of danger, only stopped when all is safe...

I don't know about you folks, but I have quite frequently seen pedestrians honked to scare or rebuke after the danger has been eliminated. I don't think that's good behaviour or smart behaviour and 'having a word' would seem to be sensible.

Accordingly the authority's view of this incident seems reasonable at least.

I'm far from certain about the possibility of a beneficial effect from a traffic ticket, however.

If firm braking is going to solve a safety issue, I'm very inclined not to honk at all - mainly because I generally want both hands on the wheel during firm braking. Of course if firm braking isn't enough then a honk could be a lifesaver.

There's also the possibility that a honk will make a pedestrian freeze in a 'rabbits in headlights' sort of way - and that could make matters much worse.

And the one last nasty to consider is causing the pedestrian to change direction just after you have planned a path behind them. (Animals do this a lot too.) The best advice due to this effect (and others) is to brake first - steer last. Funny - that doesn't seem to be what Roadcraft says (PSG) - but in this instance we can be certain that Roadcraft is wrong.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What if the immediate danger has been eliminated, but the potential for subsequent danger has not - i.e. if you have braked first and come to a halt (thus removing the immediate danger of hitting them), but the ped is still ambling across/along the road without giving any indication of being the slightest bit aware of anything around them (and thus in danger of being hit by someone else who isn't quite as quick to react as you)?





The law, as a basic starting point from which common sense ought to be applied in order to fit it to the specific scenario, is reasonable yes. The problem here seems to the the nit-picky way in which it was applied in this particular instance, without any regard to the conditions. As a driver, I'd be rather annoyed if I ended up being penalised in such a situation. As a pedestrian, I'd also be rather annoyed if the driver were penalised - surely cause and effect has to be applied in these cases? Instead of penalising the driver for the technical offence, the question should have been asked "why did the driver do that?", and then deal with the cause - the idiot pedestrian who thinks walking into the road without paying attention is OK.

By all means use this (and others like it) law to penalise idiot drivers who use their horns/lights/increased revs/etc. as an obvious means of intimidation where there doesn't appear to have been anything which would provoke such a response, but in situations where it appears the non-driver is as much, if not moreso, in the wrong, isn't concentrating solely on the driver just another example of us all being treated as easy targets, good for a few more quid...




In this particular instance, I think the benefits are precisely nil. We now have a driver who's most recent (possibly also their first) brush with the law has been - from his point of view - entirely negative and biased against him/motorists in general, and a pedestrian who now thinks they can get away with behaving like a complete prat on the roads and get away with it. Two bad outcomes for the price of one.




Depending on where you hold the wheel, and where your horn buttons are, you could always do both... How long has it been since the horn moved from the centre of the wheel out to near the rim - did this predate the introduction of airbags, or was it a necessary response to them?

_________________
Chris

If you are driving a train, and approach a crossing which is unmanned - pedestrian or road crossing, a "Whisltle Board" is plced by the track, to remind you to sound a 120 decibel horn, which it's spec. says should be heard 400 metres down the track!
All this WHETHER or not there is anyone/thing actually on the crossing, or approaching it.
Despite the obvious annoyance to trackside residents, the RSSB claim this is a safety matter, and cannot be avoided.

Using the vehicle horn as a rebuke after the incident should not be illegal or even warrant a "word" if done sensibly - but the actions of this person in ignoring the court case, leaves me a little doubt as to how he applied the horn.
If the special constable only looked around at the first hoot, he may well have witnessed a coninuous application of the horn to the annoyance of other road users, hence the case.

My horn reaches the wheel rim, and can be operated by the thumbs of either hand while turning the wheel - however, when you press the horn, there is a LONG delay before it goes off, soI tend to be really quick pressing "just in case". I have big hands, and have hardly ever had difficulty in sounding the horn while maintaining control.

I think Mole knows the reason for the delay on the Peugeot! The rear wipers and dipping headlamps are similarly afflicted!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I'm no big fan of 'proxy honking'. Clearly it's possible on occasion to attract the attention of the person in danger towards you when the danger is coming from elsewhere.

<poetic licence mode on>

Roger did it and caused an accident.

<poetic licence mode off>



Spoke mounted buttons pre-dated airbags in some cars at least. My 1984 323i had spoke mounted buttons but no airbag - (although I can't eliminate the possibility that the wheel was designed to be 'airbag style' because of other markets). My 1994 Merc camper has a centre horn push and no airbag.

On balance I like centre horn pushes. At least it's always in the same place when the wheel is twirling. I've definitely missed (i.e. failed to hit; not regretted the absence of) spoke mounted horn pushes a few times.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The Peugeot airbag is also the horn push.........but with a hell of a time lag. You cannot really just give a 'pip-pip' as your brain tells you 'It don't work,' so the second press lasts a lot longer than you intend it to!

Especially as the other vehicles I drive react instantly to the button.

My 99 Subaru Legacy has a centre horn, and an airbag. I always worry that one day, someone who is generally agressive with the horn will be using it right at the moment that they plough into the side of someone, then the airbag will go off and break their arm.

Personally I'd rather the horn was somewhere other than the steering wheek. On my old (non PAS) Escort, I kept hitting the horn with my elbow while trying to reverse park. I eventually re-located it near to the heated rear windscreen control which was much better, and also encouraged you to think before laying on the horn unnecessarilly.

I'd be more worried about the horn switch embedding itself in one's forehead upon airbag deployment!

Part of the Noise Abatement Act.

Rule 92 actually says:



Common sense and professional judgement would dictate whether a not a little light tootle was approapriate for the oblivious cyclist or pedestrian.

In this case .. it could be that he made a number of rapid toots - which could have been judged by this officer as a bit aggressive - and he was probably stationary as in "allowing the person to continue crossing".

One thing one of the Swiss was telling me though (one of the foreign based ones - and you do notice things the natives do when aborad



From the bloke who is passionately against speed cams and fines according to income in his own country

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

LOVE IT!!