Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap
Discussion
BliarOut said:
Anyway you do make an interesting point, specifically "where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal." The intention of drivers flashing is to slow the other driver down so they don't get caught, not to obstruct the police. It's not oibstruction, it's assisting the police.
Where the Police are specifically targeting speeding drivers that is the obstruction.
I the Glendinning case it wasn't a camera van, it was a trafpol car doing speed enforcement, so the there wouldn't have been a general warning about the car doing that enforcement. They were there to catch & deal with offenders, not prevention.
BliarOut said:
So what's your opinion on these pace car schemes? They are MOP's deliberately stopping other motorists speeding. The method is different, the intention is the same. However the pace car drivers are uninsured. Surely it's them the police should be going after?
I said about that one already on the earlier thread.
They make a potential problem for themselves by declaring themselves PACE cars, but there is of course nothing to stop them "making the committment" to stick to limits.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:28
Where you have a trafpol car specifically doing speed enforcement (in relation to an identified problem) that's what they are doing, enforcement. They won't be advertising that they are there like a SCP camera site. As such they are not a preventative deterrent at that time, they are doing enforcement. Just as at times Police officers may do crime prevention for street robberies & others no prevention, just active enforcement to catch & deal with offenders. They also have mobile marked vehicles as a visible preventative measure & at others unmarked cars simply for detection & enforcement.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:39
vonhosen said:
You don't hurt the Police by not assisting, you hurt your fellow citizens.
It may be a fellow PHer who is a victim, but when you decide you won't assist, it is the fellow citizens cause who is damaged.
True in many cases, but sadly this is what will happen & the Law will fall into further disrepute, resulting in 'law makers' creating even more petty offences which the Police will be required to enforce to the letter of the law, does that not worry you? it does me and it is a sad state of affairs when the normal citizens are pursued more than the Crims, just because it's easier and more lucrative.
vonhosen said:
Anyway you do make an interesting point, specifically "where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal." The intention of drivers flashing is to slow the other driver down so they don't get caught, not to obstruct the police. It's not oibstruction, it's assisting the police.
Where the Police are specifically targeting speeding drivers that is the obstruction.
I the Glendinning case it wasn't a camera van, it was a trafpol car doing speed enforcement, so the there wouldn't have been a general warning about the car doing that enforcement. They were there to catch & deal with offenders, not prevention.
BliarOut said:
So what's your opinion on these pace car schemes? They are MOP's deliberately stopping other motorists speeding. The method is different, the intention is the same. However the pace car drivers are uninsured. Surely it's them the police should be going after?
I said about that one already on the earlier thread.
They make a potential problem for themselves by declaring themselves PACE cars, but there is of course nothing to stop them "making the committment" to stick to limits.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:28
Where you have a trafpol car specifically doing speed enforcement (in relation to an identified problem) that's what they are doing, enforcement. They won't be advertising that they are there like a SCP camera site. As such they are not a preventative deterrent at that time, they are doing enforcement. Just as at times Police officers may do crime prevention for street robberies & others no prevention, just active enforcement to catch & deal with offenders. They also have mobile marked vehicles as a visible preventative measure & at others unmarked cars simply for detection & enforcement.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:39
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
flemke said:
"...the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed."
VH said that?
How come vonhosen - the only offence your remark appears to apply to is speeding. Do motorists driving along have the means to determine whether approaching vehicles are breaking the speed limit?
The primary evidence of if speeding is taking place would be provided by the Police.
The intent of the accused would be ruled on by the court.
a single trained officer's opinion of whether someone is speeding is insufficient - it has to be corroborated by equipment or by another officer, but,
a single civilian's opinion of whether someone is speeding may be conclusive?
I like this line of defence my lud.
I cannot take this, or any police work associated with this kind of control seriously and I am supposed to be a fine upstanding member of the community, wtf is going on
. Can't we just rename the offence 'getting in the way of the stazi jack booting' and throw away the keys.
Whilst we're at it, lets cut out the middle man and let Ministers determine how the law can be modified to ensure the guilty bastard doesn't get away with it again, oh hang on a minute we just need to amend the current laws to suit this. Its happening now, what was that saying about the silence of good men and evil succeeding..................I cry for the damage being done to this country by teh current imcumbents and their lackies, this is just another symptom
. PS My money is on Goldsmith being recorded in the history books as the overall villan.
BliarOut said:
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
No, the Police don't want people speeding.
But where someone already is, with the Police already having some evidence of it (primary evidence) & your actions obstruct them from obtaining the required secondary evidence that they are seeking to prosecute, you will have obstructed them in that.
We don't see everyone signalling each other to slow down on the roads because they are breaking the limit normally, we see it where people are approaching Police doing enforcement.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 23:21
vonhosen said:No no and thrice no. You may have stopped the offence occuring. Obstruction is when you prevent the officer from gathering evidence, not when you stop the alleged offence from being committed if it ever was. Besides, the primary evidence is only a guess anyway.
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
No, the Police don't want people speeding.
But where someone already is, with the Police already having some evidence of it (primary evidence) & your actions obstruct them from obtaining the required secondary evidence that they are seeking to prosecute, you will have obstructed them in that.
HOL seem to be agreeing with my side of the debate ATM.
I would still like clarification on a question I asked earlier;
'For instance I might be out with a friend who has drunk a little too much and is making too much noise. If I spot a police car and warn him to calm down or get done fot Drunk and Disorderly behaviour, have I obstructed the Police?
Where do you draw the line between preventing an offense (ones duty I understand) and obstructing the Police?'
'For instance I might be out with a friend who has drunk a little too much and is making too much noise. If I spot a police car and warn him to calm down or get done fot Drunk and Disorderly behaviour, have I obstructed the Police?
Where do you draw the line between preventing an offense (ones duty I understand) and obstructing the Police?'
BliarOut said:
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
No, the Police don't want people speeding.
But where someone already is, with the Police already having some evidence of it (primary evidence) & your actions obstruct them from obtaining the required secondary evidence that they are seeking to prosecute, you will have obstructed them in that.
HOL seem to be agreeing with my side of the debate ATM.
Not true.
There are stated cases ("Green v Moore" also referred to in the Glendinning case) where people were convicted of obstruction before the offence was ever committed, but solely because it was likely to be committed.
In that case it was to do with breach of licensing laws. A landlord was warned that the pub was going to be raided, but the Police had evidence of that warning being given. Of course the landlord didn't commit the offence, but because Police could show that it was likley to be committed, the person warning the landlord was convicted of obstructing Police.
What the Police have to show is that the offence is being committed or was likely to be committed. They didn't do that in Glendinning & that was why he was aquitted.
The HOL have upheld the decision of the High Court in the matter & it was on that basis.
vonhosen said:And rightly so IMO. I drive a 911 and it's probably capable of well over 150MPH. On that basis alone it's quite likely that I may well exceed the limit at some point in time. Now I know it would be easier for the police to just sit outside the Porsche showroom and confiscate your licence as soon as you leave the premises but that isn't how our legal system works.
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
No, the Police don't want people speeding.
But where someone already is, with the Police already having some evidence of it (primary evidence) & your actions obstruct them from obtaining the required secondary evidence that they are seeking to prosecute, you will have obstructed them in that.
HOL seem to be agreeing with my side of the debate ATM.
Not true.
There are stated cases ("Green v Moore" also referred to in the Glendinning case) where people were convicted of obstruction before the offence was ever committed, but solely because it was likely to be committed.
In that case it was to do with breach of licensing laws. A landlord was warned that the pub was going to be raided, but the Police had evidence of that warning being given. Of course the landlord didn't commit the offence, but because Police could show that it was likley to be committed, the person warning the landlord was convicted of obstructing Police.
What the Police have to show is that the offence is being committed or was likely to be committed. They didn't do that in Glendinning & that was why he was aquitted.
The HOL have upheld the decision of the High Court in the matter & it was on that basis.
Just because I have the ability to speed doesn't mean I am speeding. The HOL are merely upholding the premise of innocent until proven guilty and long may it continue.
BliarOut said:
Ok, I think you're going to have to help me out here.
We have speed limits to encourage people to drive at a given speed and we have a legal system in place to punish those that don't comply. That much I do understand. And if you fail to adhere to the speed limit then the police prosecute and you are punished if it is proven. As I understand it the objective of this system is to get people to travel within that limit.
So, if a motorist flashes another motorist to get them to slow down, what's the problem? Surely the objective has been achieved without recourse to punishment.
The only reason I can think of is that the police must want people breaking the speed limit so the state can punish them. Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather petty and vindictive to me.
No, the Police don't want people speeding.
But where someone already is, with the Police already having some evidence of it (primary evidence) & your actions obstruct them from obtaining the required secondary evidence that they are seeking to prosecute, you will have obstructed them in that.
HOL seem to be agreeing with my side of the debate ATM.
Not true.
There are stated cases ("Green v Moore" also referred to in the Glendinning case) where people were convicted of obstruction before the offence was ever committed, but solely because it was likely to be committed.
In that case it was to do with breach of licensing laws. A landlord was warned that the pub was going to be raided, but the Police had evidence of that warning being given. Of course the landlord didn't commit the offence, but because Police could show that it was likley to be committed, the person warning the landlord was convicted of obstructing Police.
What the Police have to show is that the offence is being committed or was likely to be committed. They didn't do that in Glendinning & that was why he was aquitted.
The HOL have upheld the decision of the High Court in the matter & it was on that basis.
Just because I have the ability to speed doesn't mean I am speeding. The HOL are merely upholding the premise of innocent until proven guilty and long may it continue.
Yes, but what the rulings do show is that if the Police can show that the offence is being committed at all OR likely to be committed (& even though you say it owning a 911 wouldn't do that) then you can still be convicted of obstruction in those circumstances (which is all I've been saying).
What you have to ask yourself is, in light of that fact, are you willing to risk your licence (because remember one man was disqualified for warning others when convicted of obstructing Police) to warn someone you don't know from Adam of Police speed enforcement ahead ?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/03/ncam03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/03/ixportal.html
For Gods sake! can't you bloody well see you are applying the amount of effort and maximum effect of a law to catch someone who will be penalised more than a pikey stealing a car let alone speeding in it. Just stop the pontificating and look at where this is going.
If the damn police put as much effort into nailing real scumbags then I could just about tolerate this perverse application of 'the law' but they don't.
If the damn police put as much effort into nailing real scumbags then I could just about tolerate this perverse application of 'the law' but they don't.
apache said:
For Gods sake! can't you bloody well see you are applying the amount of effort and maximum effect of a law to catch someone who will be penalised more than a pikey stealing a car let alone speeding in it. Just stop the pontificating and look at where this is going.
If the damn police put as much effort into nailing real scumbags then I could just about tolerate this perverse application of 'the law' but they don't.
Here! Here!.....Time for a reality check from MP's Lawyers, Magistrates and the Police...
Hi Guys! We poor sods (remember us?) are in the real world, where are you?......GRrrr!
Haven't read through the entire thread yet, so apologies if this has been said already.
Since when did flashing your headlights mean "speed camera ahead"? I suppose if you used morse code then maybe it could however I suspect that the average motorist is not all that familiar with it?
I believe the highway code says the flashing of headlights basically means "Warning, I am here!" and not "Warning, safety (ahem) camera pondlife around the corner!".
apache said:
For Gods sake! can't you bloody well see you are applying the amount of effort and maximum effect of a law to catch someone who will be penalised more than a pikey stealing a car let alone speeding in it. Just stop the pontificating and look at where this is going.
If the damn police put as much effort into nailing real scumbags then I could just about tolerate this perverse application of 'the law' but they don't.
A lot of time & effort won't go into it.
Very very few Police are doing targeted speed enforcement for starters, most are dealing with other things.
But where the few traffic officers that are tasked with doing some, find that the enforcement they are trying to do is being obstructed by people, they may well choose to deal with the people obstructing them from their assigned task.
It's not a case that there is going to be a big drive by the Police to catch all these people, they'd just do it, if they choose to, in those circumstances I've outlined.
Much more effort goes into other things, it's only going to be the very small number of officers tasked with that speed enforcement that would ever be likely to find themselves in this situation & so be dealing with it. It takes no great specific effort on their part & their primary Policing task is roads policing (which will include speed enforcement), not burglaries etc. A greater number of other officers will be tasked & dealing with the problem of burglaries.
The numbers of people prosecuted for obstruction like this would only ever be very very small, but if there is the chance of disqualification etc, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to risk your licence by being one of them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff