Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap
Discussion
likesbikes said:
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!".
Yes it's what the highway code states is their use, but they are also misused for other reasons, such as inviting people out. The courts would determine from the circumstances of their use as to what meaning/intent there is in their use at that time.
vonhosen 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.
>> 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
Eh? People hit brakes at cam und then speed up again.
If whole point ist to get people to slow down per the Lancs pratsite und others - then by getting the person to check speedo und be a bit more sedate ist really urging better compliance
Besides - I could be flashing my lights to let them know I am there
To let someone into lane....with a quick nod und wave to clarify - ist whole number of reason why I might try to communicate with another road user. I could even be warning that cyclist ist ahead for all they know. 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 geted as far as I'm concerned!
Und also if you update weekly - also incorporated - locality of the mobiles per the published timetables
[quote=vonhosen
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.[/quote]
Well, as most of us (you included I guess) risk our licence by speeding now and again then warning other people is an optimal strategy based on co-operation. In fact it would be stupid to do otherwise. I would have thought this to be blindingly obvious.
I would still like an opinion on the 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?'
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.[/quote]
Well, as most of us (you included I guess) risk our licence by speeding now and again then warning other people is an optimal strategy based on co-operation. In fact it would be stupid to do otherwise. I would have thought this to be blindingly obvious.
I would still like an opinion on the 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?'
s2art said:With the application of common sense. English law is peppered with deliberatley loose language because it is not possible to define a precise boundary between things such as "preventing and offense" and "obstruction". As with many things, you may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. If you try to define it too precisely, you create loopholes.
I would still like an opinion on the 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?'
ATG said:
I would still like an opinion on the 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?'
Sure, but its damn dificult to see the difference between the above situation and warning someone about a speed trap. And thats the problem, its not clear that you know it when you see it.
Alternatively what happened to common sense in the Glendining case?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff