Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Camera warning signs are to discourage offence in the first place, the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
so when you come across a camera sign, you aren't speeding?
is the camera warning sign invisible to speeding drivers?
and if the driver flashed at drivers who were going under the limit, to warn them not to accelerate? that IS discouraging an offence from being commited
obviously the driver is only a civilian and therefore unable to make these accurate judgements of the speed of oncoming vehicles, like wot a trained police officer can do, so he just waves/flashes at everyone, to tell them to go slow, NOT simply to slow down
>> Edited by hugoagogo on Tuesday 9th May 11:10
What's the situation with speed camera detectors? My car is fitted with one and while making progress it will warn me of an camera and continue warning me until I drop to a legal speed. Is the company providing this information preventing an offence from happening or preventing it being detected. Using Vonhosens logic the CPS should be putting together cases against road angel etc...
P.s. I'll continue to warn other drivers of speed traps. The CPS and the camera partnerships can get
ed as far as I'm concerned!
P.s. I'll continue to warn other drivers of speed traps. The CPS and the camera partnerships can get
ed as far as I'm concerned!vonhosen said:
But that is the difference.
The court says they can make a distinction easily from the evidence, between where the intention is to prevent crime happening OR merely to suspend the crime taking place to avoid detection of it.
There's a village near me that often has a Speedtrap in it, it is a 30mph limit on an otherwise NSL road, a few days ago the speedtrap was present.
As I was approaching the village almost every car exiting was flashing at me, at that point I was in an NSL (and may or may not have been exceeding the NSL) however I would ALWAYS slow to 30 in this village regardless of the presence of a speedtrap as it is a 'justified' 30.
So in this case I was 'warned' of the trap, I slowed down after the warning - how does anyone know whether I slowed down because of a warning or that I was going to slow down anyway?
What would you do in this situation?
Personally, I think it stinks, yes the 'Law is the Law' but where did common sense go?
The 'claimed' goal of the Scammers is to slow traffic down, if motorists are warning others of the presence of a Scam-van and consequently the others slow down then the Scammers have achieved their stated goal one way or the other - anything else suggests that their actual Goal is to catch as many people speeding as possible for revenue-raising and/or retribution purposes, it cannot be any other way.
mybrainhurts said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
Memory tells me there was a Policewoman who was beaten up and complained that no-one stopped that crime from occurring ...
autismuk said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
Memory tells me there was a Policewoman who was beaten up and complained that no-one stopped that crime from occurring ...
It would seem that some sections of the control freakery want it both ways
...their revenue scheme unhindered, but help from the public for other "offences".autismuk said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
Memory tells me there was a Policewoman who was beaten up and complained that no-one stopped that crime from occurring ...
I agree that the whole idea of prosecuting 'flashers' is madness, but the above argument is based on a false premise. The argument for the prosecution of flashers is that you are aiding them not stopping a crime. If you hit the gunman with your umbrella you are not aiding them!
Graham
gridgway said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
Memory tells me there was a Policewoman who was beaten up and complained that no-one stopped that crime from occurring ...
I agree that the whole idea of prosecuting 'flashers' is madness, but the above argument is based on a false premise. The argument for the prosecution of flashers is that you are aiding them not stopping a crime. If you hit the gunman with your umbrella you are not aiding them!
Graham
Debateable IMHO. Stopping a gunman killing someone may be a big favour to him.
s2art said:
I agree that the whole idea of prosecuting 'flashers' is madness, but the above argument is based on a false premise. The argument for the prosecution of flashers is that you are aiding them not stopping a crime. If you hit the gunman with your umbrella you are not aiding them!
Graham
Debateable IMHO. Stopping a gunman killing someone may be a big favour to him.
But what about the victim of the shooting?
MilnerR said:
What's the situation with speed camera detectors? My car is fitted with one and while making progress it will warn me of an camera and continue warning me until I drop to a legal speed. Is the company providing this information preventing an offence from happening or preventing it being detected. Using Vonhosens logic the CPS should be putting together cases against road angel etc...
P.s. I'll continue to warn other drivers of speed traps. The CPS and the camera partnerships can get
The situation with speed camera detectors (GPS based) is that they will remain legal, but laser detector/jammers will soon be outlawed.
In the Glendining case it wasn't a camera van that was invloved. It was a marked traffic car doing speed enforcement.
vonhosen said:Perhaps I was too prescriptive. Unless the Police can provide evidence that a particular driver was speeding, they will not be able to prosecute anyone warning drivers of their presence. If the Policeman turns up in court and says "well, there were cars and I thought they were speeding, but I ddn't specifically identify any of them", he will look an utter chump and the obstruction case will fail. In 1910, there will not have been many cars on the road to choose from and the offences, both speeding and obstruction, presumably revolved around a single car.
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th May 21:04
That's not true.
They don't have to prosecute the other driver for speeding, they merely have to give opinion that a vehicle was speeding before the warning was given & that the warning then prevented them getting the secondary evidence required to prosecute the other driver. That's the obstruction.
One of the stated cases referred to in the "Glendining" case highlighted this. The case "Betts v Stevens" dates back to 1910 & is where an AA patrolman was convicted of obstruction. In that case, Police provided just primary evidence of speeding (officers opinion) but were obstructed from getting the secondary check because of the warning given by the AA patrolman. he was convicted & the case still stands.
In the Glendining case that primary speeding evidence wasn't given & that's why it failed, not because no speeder was prosecuted or the headlamp flash wasn't considered a warning in order NOT to stop an offence happening (because it already would be), but merely to stop detection of that offence. That is the important distinction made by the courts about the purpose of the warning.
Camera warning signs are to discourage offence in the first place, the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 06:49
If the policeman already has formed an opinion about a car speeding then why is more evidence required? I thought VH said a trained policemans opinion was sufficient. In which case either the speed trap is redundant, or the car had not been identified as speeding. In the former case a warning is too late to prevent prosecution and therefore cannot have been obstruction, in the latter case no speeding has been identified so, again, no obstruction has occurred.
s2art said:
If the policeman already has formed an opinion about a car speeding then why is more evidence required? I thought VH said a trained policemans opinion was sufficient. In which case either the speed trap is redundant, or the car had not been identified as speeding. In the former case a warning is too late to prevent prosecution and therefore cannot have been obstruction, in the latter case no speeding has been identified so, again, no obstruction has occurred.
No in all speeding cases there is primary & secondary evidence.
Coomon case is officer's opinion for primary & then a measured secondary check to support the primary evidence.
vonhosen said:
If the policeman already has formed an opinion about a car speeding then why is more evidence required? I thought VH said a trained policemans opinion was sufficient. In which case either the speed trap is redundant, or the car had not been identified as speeding. In the former case a warning is too late to prevent prosecution and therefore cannot have been obstruction, in the latter case no speeding has been identified so, again, no obstruction has occurred.
No in all speeding cases there is primary & secondary evidence.
Coomon case is officer's opinion for primary & then a measured secondary check to support the primary evidence.
Can you clarify your earlier statement about the opinion of a Policeman. Are you saying his opinion alone is insufficient to bring a prosecution?
s2art said:
If the policeman already has formed an opinion about a car speeding then why is more evidence required? I thought VH said a trained policemans opinion was sufficient. In which case either the speed trap is redundant, or the car had not been identified as speeding. In the former case a warning is too late to prevent prosecution and therefore cannot have been obstruction, in the latter case no speeding has been identified so, again, no obstruction has occurred.
No in all speeding cases there is primary & secondary evidence.
Coomon case is officer's opinion for primary & then a measured secondary check to support the primary evidence.
Can you clarify your earlier statement about the opinion of a Policeman. Are you saying his opinion alone is insufficient to bring a prosecution?
Yes it is insufficient.
You can't be convicted of speeding on the opinion of only one officer.
(Two officers you can, or one officer & a measurement you can)
As far as the obstruction is concerned the primary (opinion) is required but the secondary evidence can't be obtianed because of the obstructing persons intervention. In this case the original speeder can't be prosecuted but the person obstructing can.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:02
vonhosen said:
If the policeman already has formed an opinion about a car speeding then why is more evidence required? I thought VH said a trained policemans opinion was sufficient. In which case either the speed trap is redundant, or the car had not been identified as speeding. In the former case a warning is too late to prevent prosecution and therefore cannot have been obstruction, in the latter case no speeding has been identified so, again, no obstruction has occurred.
No in all speeding cases there is primary & secondary evidence.
Coomon case is officer's opinion for primary & then a measured secondary check to support the primary evidence.
Can you clarify your earlier statement about the opinion of a Policeman. Are you saying his opinion alone is insufficient to bring a prosecution?
Yes it is insufficient.
You can't be convicted of speeding on the opinion of only one officer.
(Two officers you can, or one officer & a measurement you can)
As far as the obstruction is concerned the primary (opinion) is required but the secondary evidence can't be obtianed because of the obstructing persons intervention. In this case the original speeder can't be prosecuted but the person obstructing can.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:02
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
So if I phone a friend and warn him of a speed trap just after he has been spotted I have commited obstruction. If the local radio broadcasts a warning which someone hears just after he has been spotted its obstruction.
Hmmmm.....
s2art said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
vonhosen said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
In other words any warning to a person that there is a speed trap is illegal, its just that you cant do anything about it?
And you think that makes good law?
s2art said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
In other words any warning to a person that there is a speed trap is illegal, its just that you cant do anything about it?
And you think that makes good law?
A warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common with all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
Wilful obstruction isn't only used in these circumstances.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:38
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff