Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
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. 
On one occasion, when I was on an airport outfield, close to a dual carriageway, a police car was parked up in a layby in clear sight from behind the fence. I'm not convinced that operating such a device that close to air traffic radar fully meets guidance on use, but that's not the point I want to raise.
From my position I couldn't possibly see any numbers on the gun, but I could see the stance of the officer resting on his car door. From his aim/relax movements over time as each car approached, it was obvious he was pinging everything that came along. BiB may try to explain that this officer had formed a view that each and every car on that road was speeding, but at the time (and now) I cannot agree.
La Liga said:
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?
The speed of an object relative to static surroundings is just speed. It's not the same as predicting overtakes of vehicles moving at similar speeds - if he was doing that on a race track I guarantee they'd make the overtake every time regardless of whether I thought they were doing 3 or 300mph.turbobloke said:
I've got one instance only to offer in reply, others will judge for themselves how representative it may be
On one occasion, when I was on an airport outfield, close to a dual carriageway, a police car was parked up in a layby in clear sight from behind the fence. I'm not convinced that operating such a device that close to air traffic radar fully meets guidance on use, but that's not the point I want to raise.
From my position I couldn't possibly see any numbers on the gun, but I could see the stance of the officer resting on his car door. From his aim/relax movements over time as each car approached, it was obvious he was pinging everything that came along. BiB may try to explain that this officer had formed a view that each and every car on that road was speeding, but at the time (and now) I cannot agree.
Certainly with a handheld that'd be easier to get away with rather than a camera van which is filming continuously. On one occasion, when I was on an airport outfield, close to a dual carriageway, a police car was parked up in a layby in clear sight from behind the fence. I'm not convinced that operating such a device that close to air traffic radar fully meets guidance on use, but that's not the point I want to raise.
From my position I couldn't possibly see any numbers on the gun, but I could see the stance of the officer resting on his car door. From his aim/relax movements over time as each car approached, it was obvious he was pinging everything that came along. BiB may try to explain that this officer had formed a view that each and every car on that road was speeding, but at the time (and now) I cannot agree.
robinessex said:
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 !!!
Obviously the greater the margin the easier it is. I am trained on the guns and did some work with one once when the "community" kept complaining about speeding vehicles. It wasn't hard to figure out who was going too fast after seeing how most traffic was moving on the road and getting a 'feel' for the environment. It also wasn't hard to use discretion for everyone who was stopped
0000 said:
The speed of an object relative to static surroundings is just speed. It's not the same as predicting overtakes of vehicles moving at similar speeds - if he was doing that on a race track I guarantee they'd make the overtake every time regardless of whether I thought they were doing 3 or 300mph.
There still needs to be a differential between the two, whether static or moving, to make a judgement. I would speculate the same 'skill set' is present with both. Just to re-focus back on to a main point.....
Warning oncoming motorists of a police speed trap = illegal ? (due to obstructing an officer in the course of duty - from being able to gather evidence of crime in progress)
Warning oncoming motorists of a scameravan = legal ? (due to there not being an officer to obstruct)
scameravan = not operated by the police (ie. no police officer present within the van nor on the site where the van is parked nor parked further along the road working as a 'team')... also known as " 'safety' camera partnerships".
Warning oncoming motorists of a police speed trap = illegal ? (due to obstructing an officer in the course of duty - from being able to gather evidence of crime in progress)
Warning oncoming motorists of a scameravan = legal ? (due to there not being an officer to obstruct)
scameravan = not operated by the police (ie. no police officer present within the van nor on the site where the van is parked nor parked further along the road working as a 'team')... also known as " 'safety' camera partnerships".
La Liga said:
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?
It's relatively easy to judge the relative speed of two vehicles at a distance.But it's a different story altogether trying to judge the speed of a vehicle against static surroundings when, from your viewpoint, the angular velocity is tiny.
I recently changed my doggie walking route, and found my self sitting on a bridge passing over the M25. Whilst nibbling my sarnies, I casually gawped at the passing M25 traffic. It soon dawned on me that I had absolutely no idea of their (actual) speed, and certainly couldn't pick out any travelling faster then the norm. So how Mr. Plod manages this, I defer. I guess he doesn’t, and just targets everyone.
La Liga said:
robinessex said:
AS I said. Way over the speed limit is visable. +5mph isn't.
Maybe, who knows what our / a person's limitations are and what degree of finesse someone who does it day in day out can achieve. vonhosen said:
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.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?
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.
jshell said:
A few years ago on here we discussed a case where a dog owner received a driving ban for not controlling his noisy dogs in his house after repeated instructions/court orders to do so!
Seriously?!! That is crazy.If warning of speed cameras is an offence then what about the camera signs on lampposts, etc? Whichever organisation that put them up is guilty of obstruction?
robinessex said:
I recently changed my doggie walking route, and found my self sitting on a bridge passing over the M25. Whilst nibbling my sarnies, I casually gawped at the passing M25 traffic. It soon dawned on me that I had absolutely no idea of their (actual) speed, and certainly couldn't pick out any travelling faster then the norm. So how Mr. Plod manages this, I defer. I guess he doesn’t, and just targets everyone.
True. One of our late departed resident plods claimed he could stand by a road and guess the speed of every oncoming vehicle with great accuracy. Which was a cause for concern.Jagmanv12 said:
...
If warning of speed cameras is an offence then what about the camera signs on lampposts, etc? Whichever organisation that put them up is guilty of obstruction?
no - it is not the warning of cameras that is the offence as above...If warning of speed cameras is an offence then what about the camera signs on lampposts, etc? Whichever organisation that put them up is guilty of obstruction?
it is intentionally preventing the constable from collecting evidence that is the crime (which is a fair concept)
therefore:
1 - you have to know that the crime is being committed (not applicable to those putting up signs)
2 - there has to be evidence that the crime was being committed - and that evidence gathering was disrupted
3 - you have to do something to stop that evidence from being gathered...
the one which doesn't make sense and should surely mean that you can never prosecute for this is no 2:
- if there is evidence of a crime being committed (constable guessing the speed), then surely the gathering of evidence wasn't disturbed as the evidence exists
- if further evidence was needed (camera recording), then that has to mean that the initial evidence (constable guessing speed) was insufficient
- if the initial evidence is insufficient, what evidence is there that a crime was being committed - the gathering of evidence for which has been disturbed
it seems that prosecution is based on:
- the driver doing the warning knowing that a crime was taking place (speeding)
- further evidence being required (camera) therefore the professionals not having at that point sufficient evidence that a crime was taking place
quite how the prosecutors believe that the amateur driver had concrete knowledge of a crime in order to prevent the evidence being gathered, yet the professionals at that point don't have that knowledge is bizarre and surely contradictory?
so all defence counsel need do is ask for the prosecution to prove that a crime was taking place - the evidence gathering for which was disrupted...
- if they can't prove it - no case to answer as nothing was interferred with
- if they can prove it, then they have sufficient evidence so nothing was interferred with
jaf01uk said:
La Liga said:
robinessex said:
AS I said. Way over the speed limit is visable. +5mph isn't.
Maybe, who knows what our / a person's limitations are and what degree of finesse someone who does it day in day out can achieve. jaf01uk said:
and I notice that nobody is prepared to answer the question about whether scamera operators qualify as "obstructing an officer/constable in the execution of his duty?
I would assume it to be the case but I couldn't point to anything definitive. I would need to search for it, which those who want to know can do themselves. La Liga said:
How would that work for camera vans where it's all recorded? Couldn't that footage be requested by the defence who would use it to show prior opinion were not formed?
As in this case where "A court heard Cumbria Police had instructed a civilian worker to target all motorists regardless of whether they were breaking the speed limit."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10327666
AA999 said:
Hmmm indeed, the outcome will be known by now, 9 years hence...akirk said:
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!
As poor/unbelievable as many others that those giving them believe to be better.akirk said:
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!
The obstuction only occurs where all the warnings haven't had effect, because the Police have got to the stage of providing evidence of speeding & they were amassing further evidence for prosecution. No evidence of speeding, no obstruction. Nothing wrong with warning people not to speed before they do, the limit signs & camera warning signs do that.akirk said:
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...
Look at the cases stated in the Gledinning appeal. They go back over 100 years (almost as long as we've had cars & long before the masses had them). If the use of the offence obstructing a constable in the excution of his duty was an afront & twisting of the law where it is being used to prosecute people who warn drivers of speed enforcement, it would have been changed long ago.I think you have a rose tinted view of the past. In the centuries that have gone before the populace's ability/chance of successfully questioning the actions of politicians, Police etc was far worse than today.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 4th August 21:10
Jagmanv12 said:
jshell said:
A few years ago on here we discussed a case where a dog owner received a driving ban for not controlling his noisy dogs in his house after repeated instructions/court orders to do so!
Seriously?!! That is crazy.If warning of speed cameras is an offence then what about the camera signs on lampposts, etc? Whichever organisation that put them up is guilty of obstruction?
What you are suggesting is not analogous with what is being said.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff