Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[akirk]

Red Devil said:

You may be thinking of DPP v Glendinning - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/233...
The outcome was nothing to do with what Glendinning believed, but because none of the vehicles overtaking him on the d/c were breaking the limit.

interesting quote:

Darling J said:

'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'

makes sense - to differentiate between helping prevent a crime - and helping cover up a crime...
However, surely for a warning to be the latter:
- the person providing the warning must know that a crime is taking place / that cars are speeding
- the police must need to demonstrate that a crime was occurring (speeding) before being warned - would that not require 2 speed traps, one to be the speed trap and one to confirm that they were speeding before being warned and slowing down for the second one!

[vonhosen]

akirk said:

Red Devil said:

You may be thinking of DPP v Glendinning - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/233...
The outcome was nothing to do with what Glendinning believed, but because none of the vehicles overtaking him on the d/c were breaking the limit.

interesting quote:

Darling J said:

'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'

makes sense - to differentiate between helping prevent a crime - and helping cover up a crime...
However, surely for a warning to be the latter:
- the person providing the warning must know that a crime is taking place / that cars are speeding
- the police must need to demonstrate that a crime was occurring (speeding) before being warned - would that not require 2 speed traps, one to be the speed trap and one to confirm that they were speeding before being warned and slowing down for the second one!

Read all of Glendiinning.

The Police only require some evidence that the vehicle was speeding & opinion that it was is enough for that. The obstruction is in them then not being able to gain the required secondary evidence (measurement to confirm opinion) because of the wilful obstruction. The reason they failed in Glendinning was because they didn't provide opinion that the vehicle was speeding prior to the actions that would have amounted to an obstruction had they provided that opinion.

The court were happy that Glendining's actions were intended to frustrate the Police gaining evidence, but the Police hadn't provided the required evidence that there was any offence obstruct (for which evidence was in the process of being amassed) prior to his action that would have amounted to a wilful obstruction.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd August 23:40

[vonhosen]

Psycho Warren said:

I still cant believe they banned that pensioner from driving when he wasnt in or near a car and the offence had NOTHING to do with his driving.

What he did he didnt even need a licence to do, so how would they have fairly punnished a non-driver for such a non-driving offence??

What next, you steal an oil filter from halfrauds so get 3 poins as its loosely motoring related?

You can be disqualified for virtually any offence.

If your offence involves vehicles (even if you weren't driving) it's a tenable option. i.e. You left the scene of a burglary in a car (even if you weren't driving). You can also ban a non driver, it's not only a ban from driving but also a ban from obtaining a licence too.

[flemke]

La Liga said:

There are many more people who don't progress to 6 points from 3 than do progress from 3 points to 6, and beyond.

You may be right, but is not the right measure how many people who, after getting their first 3 points, get no further points ever again?

[caelite]

I always flash just to Alert other road users of my presence when the local plod set up there trap about 300metres from my house (just coming from a 50 to a 30 limit). Ive yet to be pulled but I will lose no sleep claiming that I spotted a fault in an oncoming vehicle and was trying to alert them to it. Unless someone legalish can point out why this wouldnt work as a defense? Surely the plod would need evidence of intent to pervert course of justice? Which could only really be obtained by a confession in this instance. Or is this another one of those situations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise?

Edited by caelite on Tuesday 4th August 04:24

[vonhosen]

caelite said:

I always flash just to Alert other road users of my presence when the local plod set up there trap about 300metres from my house (just coming from a 50 to a 30 limit). Ive yet to be pulled but I will lose no sleep claiming that I spotted a fault in an oncoming vehicle and was trying to alert them to it. Unless someone legalish can point out why this wouldnt work as a defense? Surely the plod would need evidence of intent to pervert course of justice? Which could only really be obtained by a confession in this instance. Or is this another one of those situations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise?]

The court look at all the evidence & they can decide they just don't believe your testimony.

Glendinning claimed he was doing something other than warning motorists of the Police enforcement, the court didn't believe him & believed he was warning motorists despite his claim.

You are of course at liberty to do as you wish (as the pensioner with a placard was), you are just not in control of how other's view it & any outcome for you should a case be brought against you.

[robinessex]

HantsRat said:

"Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both."

Bit on bold might cover that.

So does a PC have to present with him ?

[Guybrush]

caelite said:

I always flash just to Alert other road users of my presence when the local plod set up there trap about 300metres from my house (just coming from a 50 to a 30 limit). Ive yet to be pulled but I will lose no sleep claiming that I spotted a fault in an oncoming vehicle and was trying to alert them to it. Unless someone legalish can point out why this wouldnt work as a defense? Surely the plod would need evidence of intent to pervert course of justice? Which could only really be obtained by a confession in this instance. Or is this another one of those situations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise?

Edited by caelite on Tuesday 4th August 04:24

Sounds reasonable. Plus, given that some scamera businesses publish their latest locations on their website, you're merely reminding people of what's been published.

[robinessex]

Old Merc said:

Where can I buy one of these missile systems then ?

[robinessex]

So, a liar (aka a policeman) can swear that he believed that an oncoming vehicle was speeding, and that a motorist who flashed the oncoming car obstructed him. And in all probability, the oncoming car wasn't speeding. How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible. I guess most here will like this amusing anecdote. For many years, about 15 of them, I regularly marshaled on post 2 at Brands Hatch. That's the post on the outside of the circuit as you approach Paddock Bend. As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it. One meeting, a new blue flag marshal turned up. He was useless. He was a Police traffic officer !!!

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible.

robinessex said:

As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it.

[walm]

La Liga said:

robinessex said:

How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible.

robinessex said:

As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it.

That isn't the smoking gun of contradiction you think it is.

I am pretty much 100% convinced that telling 30 from 40 in an approaching vehicle is impossible without a radar and some electronics unless you are using those white dots on the road and a stopwatch.

[akirk]

vonhosen said:

Read all of Glendiinning.

The Police only require some evidence that the vehicle was speeding & opinion that it was is enough for that. The obstruction is in them then not being able to gain the required secondary evidence (measurement to confirm opinion) because of the wilful obstruction. The reason they failed in Glendinning was because they didn't provide opinion that the vehicle was speeding prior to the actions that would have amounted to an obstruction had they provided that opinion.

The court were happy that Glendining's actions were intended to frustrate the Police gaining evidence, but the Police hadn't provided the required evidence that there was any offence obstruct (for which evidence was in the process of being amassed) prior to his action that would have amounted to a wilful obstruction.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd August 23:40

Fair points - however I assume that only works on a straight section of road - if I have gone around a bend and flash someone, then the police can't have made that prior judgement (and presumably wouldn't see me do it anyway!

I think there is still a huge hole in this which was not argued properly - the statement is that his actions were intended to frustrate the police from gaining evidence - that has to presuppose that he knew that the other cars were breaking the speed limit v. warning in case they intended to (pausing an active crime v. preventing one - which is not illegal), surely a defence of 'I could tell that they were not speeding, and was reminding them not to' type thing would mean that you couldn't prove he knew they were speeding - ergo couldn't prove the actions were 'intended to frustrate'

vonhosen said:

caelite said:

I always flash just to Alert other road users of my presence when the local plod set up there trap about 300metres from my house (just coming from a 50 to a 30 limit). Ive yet to be pulled but I will lose no sleep claiming that I spotted a fault in an oncoming vehicle and was trying to alert them to it. Unless someone legalish can point out why this wouldnt work as a defense? Surely the plod would need evidence of intent to pervert course of justice? Which could only really be obtained by a confession in this instance. Or is this another one of those situations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise?]

The court look at all the evidence & they can decide they just don't believe your testimony.

Glendinning claimed he was doing something other than warning motorists of the Police enforcement, the court didn't believe him & believed he was warning motorists despite his claim.

You are of course at liberty to do as you wish (as the pensioner with a placard was), you are just not in control of how other's view it & any outcome for you should a case be brought against you.

his claim was poor - he claimed he was going to turn into a layby and was slowing other traffic down to allow this -but showed no slowing of his vehicle, nor was the other traffic in need of slowing down for that purpose - 1/10 for imagination!


ultimately the issue here is that we have a 'them and us' attitude in speed control - if we wind back to remembering that the police uphold the law on behalf of the public - not against the public, we would have a better attitude all around - if the aim of camera vans is to stop people speeding then we would accept any help in that policing... there is an argument surely that the police job at that point (apparently being obstructed) is to slow down traffic - therefore a warning is assisting the police in their duty, not obstructing it - if (as it seems to have become) the object of the police is to book motorists & make money - then yes it is an obstructiong - but that should never be the object, it is a consequence, not an object, that is not the purpose of the police!

sadly our laws can be twisted - where they are written for one purpose they are used for another - but if we were able to move our country back to the point where politicians and police, public servants generally - remembered that they are doing a job for and on behalf of the people - not in charge of / ruling / ordering around, then we would move back to a much happier time - and have a lot less issues - fundamentally that is what is behind the frustration of the public and the apparent desire to help people not break the law / be caught...

[p1esk]

akirk said:

vonhosen said:

Read all of Glendiinning.

The Police only require some evidence that the vehicle was speeding & opinion that it was is enough for that. The obstruction is in them then not being able to gain the required secondary evidence (measurement to confirm opinion) because of the wilful obstruction. The reason they failed in Glendinning was because they didn't provide opinion that the vehicle was speeding prior to the actions that would have amounted to an obstruction had they provided that opinion.

The court were happy that Glendining's actions were intended to frustrate the Police gaining evidence, but the Police hadn't provided the required evidence that there was any offence obstruct (for which evidence was in the process of being amassed) prior to his action that would have amounted to a wilful obstruction.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 3rd August 23:40

Fair points - however I assume that only works on a straight section of road - if I have gone around a bend and flash someone, then the police can't have made that prior judgement (and presumably wouldn't see me do it anyway!

I think there is still a huge hole in this which was not argued properly - the statement is that his actions were intended to frustrate the police from gaining evidence - that has to presuppose that he knew that the other cars were breaking the speed limit v. warning in case they intended to (pausing an active crime v. preventing one - which is not illegal), surely a defence of 'I could tell that they were not speeding, and was reminding them not to' type thing would mean that you couldn't prove he knew they were speeding - ergo couldn't prove the actions were 'intended to frustrate'

vonhosen said:

caelite said:

I always flash just to Alert other road users of my presence when the local plod set up there trap about 300metres from my house (just coming from a 50 to a 30 limit). Ive yet to be pulled but I will lose no sleep claiming that I spotted a fault in an oncoming vehicle and was trying to alert them to it. Unless someone legalish can point out why this wouldnt work as a defense? Surely the plod would need evidence of intent to pervert course of justice? Which could only really be obtained by a confession in this instance. Or is this another one of those situations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise?]

The court look at all the evidence & they can decide they just don't believe your testimony.

Glendinning claimed he was doing something other than warning motorists of the Police enforcement, the court didn't believe him & believed he was warning motorists despite his claim.

You are of course at liberty to do as you wish (as the pensioner with a placard was), you are just not in control of how other's view it & any outcome for you should a case be brought against you.

his claim was poor - he claimed he was going to turn into a layby and was slowing other traffic down to allow this -but showed no slowing of his vehicle, nor was the other traffic in need of slowing down for that purpose - 1/10 for imagination!


ultimately the issue here is that we have a 'them and us' attitude in speed control - if we wind back to remembering that the police uphold the law on behalf of the public - not against the public, we would have a better attitude all around - if the aim of camera vans is to stop people speeding then we would accept any help in that policing... there is an argument surely that the police job at that point (apparently being obstructed) is to slow down traffic - therefore a warning is assisting the police in their duty, not obstructing it - if (as it seems to have become) the object of the police is to book motorists & make money - then yes it is an obstructiong - but that should never be the object, it is a consequence, not an object, that is not the purpose of the police!

sadly our laws can be twisted - where they are written for one purpose they are used for another - but if we were able to move our country back to the point where politicians and police, public servants generally - remembered that they are doing a job for and on behalf of the people - not in charge of / ruling / ordering around, then we would move back to a much happier time - and have a lot less issues - fundamentally that is what is behind the frustration of the public and the apparent desire to help people not break the law / be caught...

Hmm, Von explains (very patiently as usual) how it actually works; and you explain (equally nicely) how you'd like it to work. In this instance I agree with you.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[turbobloke]

akirk said:

vonhosen said:

Read all of Glendiinning.

The Police only require some evidence that the vehicle was speeding & opinion that it was is enough for that. The obstruction is in them then not being able to gain the required secondary evidence (measurement to confirm opinion) because of the wilful obstruction. The reason they failed in Glendinning was because they didn't provide opinion that the vehicle was speeding prior to the actions that would have amounted to an obstruction had they provided that opinion.

The court were happy that Glendining's actions were intended to frustrate the Police gaining evidence, but the Police hadn't provided the required evidence that there was any offence obstruct (for which evidence was in the process of being amassed) prior to his action that would have amounted to a wilful obstruction.

Fair points - however I assume that only works on a straight section of road - if I have gone around a bend and flash someone, then the police can't have made that prior judgement (and presumably wouldn't see me do it anyway!).

I think there is still a huge hole in this which was not argued properly - the statement is that his actions were intended to frustrate the police from gaining evidence - that has to presuppose that he knew that the other cars were breaking the speed limit v. warning in case they intended to (pausing an active crime v. preventing one - which is not illegal), surely a defence of 'I could tell that they were not speeding, and was reminding them not to' type thing would mean that you couldn't prove he knew they were speeding - ergo couldn't prove the actions were 'intended to frustrate'

Very good point. I've only ever been flashed as a warning - obvious after another few hundred metres or a tad more - when driving within the posted limit.

In urban traffic oncoming drivers have almost zero chance of getting their estimate of the speed of the vehicle they flash anywhere close.

On open roads the extreme cases may be more obvious but still uncertain. I suspect that flashers may often act on the basis of the car...i.e. they would flash a Maserati but not a Micra. Just 2p from 35+ years' driving all sorts of cars.

[Pete317]

La Liga said:

robinessex said:

How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible.

robinessex said:

As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it.

Bold added for clarification

[robinessex]

walm said:

La Liga said:

robinessex said:

How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible.

robinessex said:

As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it.

That isn't the smoking gun of contradiction you think it is.

I am pretty much 100% convinced that telling 30 from 40 in an approaching vehicle is impossible without a radar and some electronics unless you are using those white dots on the road and a stopwatch.

Quite a different scenario. Cars on a road are formimg an orderly que, are in a continous line, rarely having any intention(s) of overtaking. Racing cars coming towards you, unless slip streaming, aren't. You eventually get to sense the 'body language' of the following car(s), and usually manage to get it right about 95% of the time. A 6th sense maybe ?

[With these feet]

Im with ROG on this one. Im get thoroughly pissed off with tailgaters and others that are unable to stick to 30 limits. I have no points (at the moment) and as I need my licence as clean as possible I try and stick to the limits. Several times Ive been overtaken at 40/50/60 in a 30 by those that feel the limits do not apply to them. fk em, let them get points, as they are probably the same knobbers that will be cursing me for not speeding and "holding them up".

There is a road near me that has a large construction being carried out, the limit was reduced from 60 to 30 because of this. I dont necessarily agree to it as the road is usually empty, but still adhere to the limit. However there are many that blast through at 60 and if caught will no doubt bleat how unfair it all is.

[anonymous-user]

Pete317 said:

La Liga said:

robinessex said:

How many people here have stood at the side of the road, and attempted to estimate the speed of an oncoming car? Virtually impossible.

robinessex said:

As an experienced blue flag marshall, it took some considerable skill to judge the relative speed of the approaching cars, and decide which was following closely, and which were about to make a passing move. We all got quite good at it.

Bold added for clarification

Are you suggesting judging / estimating speed on a road isn't done with relativity i.e. how fast the vehicle is moving relative to other vehicles, the static surroundings etc?

robinessex said:

A 6th sense maybe?

It's simple intuition (your subconscious coming to a conclusion without any effort from you) because of your experience and the regularity of that environment. You become an expert. It's the same for cars on the road. We've all been experienced to millions of vehicles moving within a regulated environment and it's not hard for us to pick up the cues.

[robinessex]

I do not believe an police officer can occasionaly stand at the side of the road, and accurately estimate the speed of oncoming vehicles. Don't forget, he's looking for cars maybe doing +5mph faster than the allowed. Unless one is doing warp factor 10 !!!