Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[Davidonly]

I am more than happy with any individual exercising the discretion that scam ops never seem to:

Namely: hidden scam van monitoring a hazard free stretch of road (NSL - or recent dumb 50mph zone) with good sight lines, sensible overtaking opportunity = warn on coming traffic that parasites are at work ahead.

Compared to: well marked and sensibly parked van positioned near places populated by potentially vulnerable road users (schools etc). carry on as normal. Anyone speeding who misses said enforcement kinda deserves to be pinged. (this presumes its not stupid o-clock and a 20mph zone etc).

Thus we can save the parasites from themselves by 'helping' them become actually useful.

It is however relatively rare to be offered the situation where one might agree in justifiable covert scam operations being conducted

[toon10]

A big thank you to the guy in the Citroen van yesterday who flashed me and the cars behind and gave us the thumbs down sign. I wasn't speeding but there was a van parked up at the bottom of a dip so maybe people behind me would have gained a bit of downhill momentum.

[jbsportstech]

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

I am glad someone did it to me the other day as I was approaching a small village were the limit starts very early and avon and somerset have police camera/enforcement bikes they hide. I saw it but I was ready for a van.

Asked colleagues at work and no one else had notice it hid behind a bush.

[AA999]

Would a website fall in to the category of 'obstructing a constable' ?
Say for example a facebook page (or similar 'tweet' style website) had people messaging on it reporting the location of where they notice the scam vans were parked up as they drove to/from work?

[akirk]

AA999 said:

Would a website fall in to the category of 'obstructing a constable' ?
Say for example a facebook page (or similar 'tweet' style website) had people messaging on it reporting the location of where they notice the scam vans were parked up as they drove to/from work?

There shouldn't be an issue with that - as I understand from the cases referenced above - the issue is that the person warning knows that someone is breaking the law and stops the constable from gathering evidence... if you warn the world, then that can't be the case as you have no knowledge of someone breaking the law...

[vonhosen]

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

[0000]

Tells you a lot about what people think of it.

[vonhosen]

0000 said:

Tells you a lot about what people think of it.

You mean because more won't be obstructing than obstructing (at the location)?

[rich888]

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

[With these feet]

vonhosen said:

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Dont Councils already do this? They're called speed limit signs.

[vonhosen]

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

The Police have a duty to uphold the law through enforcement. The local authorities etc have provided the waring signs that the motorists have already ignored. The enforcement is the next stage.

So if you think people are too fast for the circumstances, warn them if you like.
However if you do this where the Police have moved to a stage of enforcing said limit due to warnings already being ignored, then they may ask a court to judge whether the purpose of your actions was to obstruct them getting the evidence. The courts are confident they can tell from your actions relative to the circumstances.

[vonhosen]

With these feet said:

vonhosen said:

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Dont Councils already do this? They're called speed limit signs.

Yes they put up speed limit signs & they also put up enforcement warnings, but that isn't an obstruction.
A warning isn't an obstruction on it's own, the circumstances & purpose of the warning can result in one though. A lawfully placed speed limit sign wouldn't result in one.

[rich888]

vonhosen said:

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

The Police have a duty to uphold the law through enforcement. The local authorities etc have provided the waring signs that the motorists have already ignored. The enforcement is the next stage.

So if you think people are too fast for the circumstances, warn them if you like.
However if you do this where the Police have moved to a stage of enforcing said limit due to warnings already being ignored, then they may ask a court to judge whether the purpose of your actions was to obstruct them getting the evidence. The courts are confident they can tell from your actions relative to the circumstances.

Sorry but 'Kangaroo' and 'Court' are two words that come to mind.

And there was me thinking it was all about safety of the motorist rather than obstructing evidence. So rather than save a life by alerting the driver that the road ahead may be dangerous, the court would rather have someone die just so they can generate tax revenue.

Just shows how low the standards and ethics of this country have dropped over the past few years.

[caelite]

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 !!!

Two of my local cops does this and I have the utmost respect for them. There is a long stretch of residential 30 zone between a fast 40 zone and an NSL, most people use this road to bypass the town centre so its the norm that traffic just maintains around 40 but ofcourse you get the folks still rolling down it at 50 until they hit the buisier 40 zone. Anywho they stand and chat in full high vis uniform on the grass verge for a few hours at a time with the speed gun in there hand at there side and they do a helluva good job slowing traffic down as you can see them for about 2 miles in each direction if your actually paying attention. Ive never personally even seen them raise there speed gun but I have seen them pull over one of the bikes that usually goes alone there at warp 10.

[vonhosen]

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

The Police have a duty to uphold the law through enforcement. The local authorities etc have provided the waring signs that the motorists have already ignored. The enforcement is the next stage.

So if you think people are too fast for the circumstances, warn them if you like.
However if you do this where the Police have moved to a stage of enforcing said limit due to warnings already being ignored, then they may ask a court to judge whether the purpose of your actions was to obstruct them getting the evidence. The courts are confident they can tell from your actions relative to the circumstances.

Sorry but 'Kangaroo' and 'Court' are two words that come to mind.

And there was me thinking it was all about safety of the motorist rather than obstructing evidence. So rather than save a life by alerting the driver that the road ahead may be dangerous, the court would rather have someone die just so they can generate tax revenue.

Just shows how low the standards and ethics of this country have dropped over the past few years.

Enforcement saves lives. It's effects are felt beyond the immediate area because it affects the speeds people ultimately choose across the wider network & moderates behaviour. My speed choice on a lot of the network is influenced by the fact that enforcement could be going on anywhere anytime.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Enforcement saves lives.

So they say.
However, actual hard evidence to back this up seems to be very thin on the ground.
Which, given the diligence with which masses of data are gathered nowadays, seems to be a bit of a travesty.

vonhosen said:

My speed choice on a lot of the network is influenced by the fact that enforcement could be going on anywhere anytime.

Are you suggesting that it's fear of being caught that stops you from driving at unsafe speeds?

[walm]

Pete317 said:

Are you suggesting that it's fear of being caught that stops you from driving at unsafe speeds?

I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.

[turbobloke]

walm said:

Pete317 said:

Are you suggesting that it's fear of being caught that stops you from driving at unsafe speeds?

I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.

ISWYM but in terms of limits they're arbitrary and were introduced long before the post hoc rationalisation of such limits. It's 70 for a reason, it's 30 for a reason...but that reasoning arrived long after the limit did; it was 30 for not a particularly good reason and the pure expediency of multiples of ten speaks for itself. Times have changed since the limits were introduced, cars and roads are significantly and inherently safer, but limits go downwards. This is not rational, it's emotional and as such not always conducive to improved safety. Setting speed limits at the 85%ile of speed for a road is rational, this is being and has been abandoned for irrational reasons.

[walm]

turbobloke said:

walm said:

Pete317 said:

Are you suggesting that it's fear of being caught that stops you from driving at unsafe speeds?

I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.

ISWYM but in terms of limits they're arbitrary and were introduced long before the post hoc rationalisation of such limits. It's 70 for a reason, it's 30 for a reason...but that reasoning arrived long after the limit did; it was 30 for not a particularly good reason and the pure expediency of multiples of ten speaks for itself. Times have changed since the limits were introduced, cars and roads are significantly and inherently safer, but limits go downwards. This is not rational, it's emotional and as such not always conducive to improved safety. Setting speed limits at the 85%ile of speed for a road is rational, this is being and has been abandoned for irrational reasons.

I agree with all that 100%.
I am just saying that Von admitting he can safely drive above the limit isn't really news.

[turbobloke]

walm said:

turbobloke said:

walm said:

Pete317 said:

Are you suggesting that it's fear of being caught that stops you from driving at unsafe speeds?

I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.

ISWYM but in terms of limits they're arbitrary and were introduced long before the post hoc rationalisation of such limits. It's 70 for a reason, it's 30 for a reason...but that reasoning arrived long after the limit did; it was 30 for not a particularly good reason and the pure expediency of multiples of ten speaks for itself. Times have changed since the limits were introduced, cars and roads are significantly and inherently safer, but limits go downwards. This is not rational, it's emotional and as such not always conducive to improved safety. Setting speed limits at the 85%ile of speed for a road is rational, this is being and has been abandoned for irrational reasons.

I agree with all that 100%.
I am just saying that Von admitting he can safely drive above the limit isn't really news.

In turn, I agree!

An additional point is that with limits being set or revised below the 85%ile of speed, so can many drivers nowhere near Von's skill level. But they are still penalised and criminalised.