Warning Drivers about Speed Traps !
Discussion
kenp said:
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
It is perfectly possible (but not necessarily likely) for 80% of motorists to be better than average.
bluepolarbear said:
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
It is perfectly possible (but not necessarily likely) for 80% of motorists to be better than average.
Average in this context means majority. So how can the majority think that they are better than the majority?
A couple of thoughts for KenP, I am enjoying this thread immensely.
Firstly, near my house we have a VAS that flashes up your speed, whatever your speed may be. However, if you are in excess of the speed limit it also flashes the warning 'slow down'. If you are at or below the speed lmit it shows the time and temperature instead. Surely this sign would be guilty of obstruction because it is telling you to slow down only if you are in excess of the limit, thus it is forming an opinion and acting differently according to the outcome of the opinion?
Secondly, would the car drivers who slowed down also be guilty of obstruction because they have caused their own vehicle to slow down to a speed lower than the limit, exactly as the driver flashing or waving has intended?
Thirdly, if you stood round a corner before the policemen were visible and slowed people down, would you still be guilty of an offence, at this point the police cannot form an impression of excess speed because they cannot see the cars before they have slowed down?
I would also argue the toss on the obstruction bit because you are not preventing the police from measuring the speed of the vehicles, merely hinting to other drivers that they may like to slow down if they are travelling too fast. You personally are not removing any evidence of a crime, you are not driving the vehicles being measured.
Firstly, near my house we have a VAS that flashes up your speed, whatever your speed may be. However, if you are in excess of the speed limit it also flashes the warning 'slow down'. If you are at or below the speed lmit it shows the time and temperature instead. Surely this sign would be guilty of obstruction because it is telling you to slow down only if you are in excess of the limit, thus it is forming an opinion and acting differently according to the outcome of the opinion?
Secondly, would the car drivers who slowed down also be guilty of obstruction because they have caused their own vehicle to slow down to a speed lower than the limit, exactly as the driver flashing or waving has intended?
Thirdly, if you stood round a corner before the policemen were visible and slowed people down, would you still be guilty of an offence, at this point the police cannot form an impression of excess speed because they cannot see the cars before they have slowed down?
I would also argue the toss on the obstruction bit because you are not preventing the police from measuring the speed of the vehicles, merely hinting to other drivers that they may like to slow down if they are travelling too fast. You personally are not removing any evidence of a crime, you are not driving the vehicles being measured.
kenp said:That's your definition kenp, but 'average' could be mean, median or mode - in which case depending on the distribution of skill levels it's possible for 80% to be above one of these. Even so the likelihood is that the AA's respondents, representing a much lower number than the total of (?) 35 million licence holders, and as a 'keen' motoring subgroup could easily contain 80% at above 'national average'. Just depends on the sample.
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
It is perfectly possible (but not necessarily likely) for 80% of motorists to be better than average.
Average in this context means majority. So how can the majority think that they are better than the majority?
It's still worth remembering that in spite of the road fatality rate slow-down in recent years as successive BLiar transport muppets f
k up road safety by using political correctness in place of objective research evidence, this nation still has the safest roads and the safest drivers in the world, developed or otherwise.turbobloke said:
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
It is perfectly possible (but not necessarily likely) for 80% of motorists to be better than average.
Average in this context means majority. So how can the majority think that they are better than the majority?
It's still worth remembering that in spite of the road fatality rate slow-down in recent years as successive BLiar transport muppets f
Oh dear. Why make life so difficult? Why look for complexity where there isn't any?
A survey asked people (members? who said members survey?) Do you think you are a) below average b)average c) above average driver? It is an unscientific survey as to where people judged themselves to be on a roughly defined ladder. The vast majority of people assumed themselves to be better drivers than the majority.
kenp said:That's exactly the approach we're seeing now, speeders are encouraged to avoid pleading not guilty, there's no automatic Court case, just pay up and f
totalitarian regimes couldn't give a fig whether their laws are just, their motto is might is right.
k off. BLiar's government is already a totalitarian regime. kenp said:keep going you're onto a winner there
natural justice, fairness ... these are just wooly concepts.
kenp said:I believe you're about to answer your own question...
What is natural justice?
kenp said:Precisely, all of which GATSOs, and NIPs, and parking Stasi deny to the motorist.
The concept of natural justice ... right to a hearing, absence of male fide, reasonableness etc.
kenp said:It would be a good thing - and something of a deterrent to those like BLiar who are believers in endless meddling and legislating - to have a sunset clause in every piece of legislation. This would require the law to be revisited and revised or repealed every 5 years at the least. Such an approach would lead to parliamentary constipation for any regime like BLiar's that wants new law after new law, and give the electorate a real hope for sanity in terms of laws that have fallen into disrepute, a lot of which happen to reside in the motorist's lot.
Governments are elected and must respond to the public mood. You can make a difference, maybe not alone but if enough people shake their fists then there will be change. Why do you thing the opposition is talking about introducing a 80mph motorway limit. Fairness? Justice? Natural justice? No. They want to be elected.
Which brings us back to the fact that the police officer should have been grateful that another motorist was helping to make the roads safer, rather than be annoyed that somebody escaped persecution and unwaranted financial penalty under an unjust law that is in widespread disrepute (enforcement, as in this case) and in some places is held up to just ridicule and contempt (70mph m-way limit).
kenp said:Don't be such a sore loser
Oh dear. Why make life so difficult? Why look for complexity where there isn't any?
A survey asked people (members? who said members survey?) Do you think you are a) below average b)average c) above average driver? It is an unscientific survey as to where people judged themselves to be on a roughly defined ladder. The vast majority of people assumed themselves to be better drivers than the majority.
You know for sure how the results of the survey can still be as described due to us having no knowledge of the sample size or make-up. Sorted.
kenp said:
Sorry don't understand your point. I don't recall falling back on the 'Eichmann defence' nor can I detect any parallel.
You seem sincere about not understanding the point which is nice but doesn't surprise me, neither does your apparent ability to detect any parallel, handy but not helpful.
As yo stated earlier to raise the point that joe public, or non-lawyer you select the term,
can't tell the difference between right/wrong/legal is, I think, the basis of some of the confusion on this thread, perhaps even mine
. Yes I agree you haven't fallen back on the E defence in your posts, why should you it isn't applicable yet. It does to a lesser extent fall to those that currently have enforce all laws whether they be right or wrong
. Note that in the near future it may be all the police have, when trying apply ill concieved laws, or as I like to view them, wrong laws . You already have front line BiB apologising for them, even some CC's have stated that like processes are eroding public confidence in the police, shirely this topic is another example of that 
. I'll try again.....
To apply/defend a law that goes against 'natural justice', is following the law to the letter and is still therefore legal, does it make it right or wrong, yes
or no 
. In which case; Say, as a servant of the state you contuinue to administer those laws that you know to be wrong, blindy against your own better judgement or sense of natural justice and that of your peers too. Do you do it because it is the law
come the day of reconing were you right or wrong to follow the law or where you just following orders, time will be the only judge of that one..................... If laws are continually applied against the whishes of the majority the majority can and will chose to ignore them. Where will we be then
in anarchy/revolution, possibily. PS
Governments and their agencies are there to Govern with the consent of the people, not rule as they see fit. Nor are they there to apply the whim of some unelected minority interest think-tank as it dictates :fume:.
Governments are elected on their manifesto promises, I think
at what point can the people stop a government that has stepped outside of its manifesto. A 5 year cycle is too long in some cases. Having read it again................... apologies for the rambling rant
, nothing personal, I just really don't like the current crop of law makers kenp said:
Oh dear. Why make life so difficult? Why look for complexity where there isn't any?
kenp said:
I believe I understand what you are saying, but it is based on a series of misconceptions...blah..."There is no basis for the totalitarian view that all laws are just"- totalitarian regimes couldn't give a fig whether their laws are just, their motto is might is right. It is libertarian regimes that claim that their laws are for the greater good..."There is no basis for law-abiding men and women who uphold the principles of natural justice to support or obey an unjust law"- natural justice, fairness, just these are just wooly concepts. What is natural justice? ...drone...Nature is cruel and unfair, might always wins against right in nature. The concept of natural justice only evolved in the 1930's and has evolved into a limited number of areas and deals largely with procedure (right to a hearing, absence of male fide, ...blah... reasonableness etc). One of the things that sets the average Briton aside from others is his firm belief in fairness. Fairness is a mindset or set of rules we have called our own which resides separate of the law and is linked to morality and equality...etc etc ...Our criminal laws evolved in order to maintain a status quo, so that man would not kill his neighbour and that society had a measure of security and peace. It is a civil contract which basically says, you will agree not to kill your neighbour and in return will will ensure that your neighbour doesn't kill you. We will enforce this contract by sanctions called punishment, in case you or you neighbour reneges on the contract...waffle... History has shown that new contracts(laws) which were unpopular were ignored and eventually repealed. Probably one of the better examples, was that until the 1860's a theft of property valued at £5 or more carried the death penalty.
Jurries had to decide a) whether the defendant had comitted the offence and b) the value of the property stolen. The public at large felt that this law was oppressive, and after several juries found that a stolen £5 note was worth £4 and nineteen shillings, the government relented and changed the law...will to live ebbing away
kevinday said:
A couple of thoughts for KenP, I am enjoying this thread immensely.
Firstly, near my house we have a VAS that flashes up your speed, whatever your speed may be. However, if you are in excess of the speed limit it also flashes the warning 'slow down'. If you are at or below the speed lmit it shows the time and temperature instead. Surely this sign would be guilty of obstruction because it is telling you to slow down only if you are in excess of the limit, thus it is forming an opinion and acting differently according to the outcome of the opinion?
Secondly, would the car drivers who slowed down also be guilty of obstruction because they have caused their own vehicle to slow down to a speed lower than the limit, exactly as the driver flashing or waving has intended?
Thirdly, if you stood round a corner before the policemen were visible and slowed people down, would you still be guilty of an offence, at this point the police cannot form an impression of excess speed because they cannot see the cars before they have slowed down?
I would also argue the toss on the obstruction bit because you are not preventing the police from measuring the speed of the vehicles, merely hinting to other drivers that they may like to slow down if they are travelling too fast. You personally are not removing any evidence of a crime, you are not driving the vehicles being measured.
Sorry, but a VAS cannot form an opinion. It is an inanimate object that measures speed and depending on the level of speed it does one of two things. It is like a light switch, if it is flicked down it lights a light, flick it up and the light goes off. It is devoid of any will. It is also devoid of malice. It has not got the ability of independant thought. We only expect people and their civil and commercial manifestations to obey the law. That is why in days gone by, you were fined for not having a dog licence and the dog got off scot free.
An inanimate object (a placard) could be evidence of an intention to obstruct by a person. A legal sign like VAS, by definition is legal. To obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty, you must (wilfully) form the intention of making his job (the particular job he is doing at the moment) more difficult or impossible.
Your second point as to slowing down, this is not an obstruction but compliance.
Your third point has already been answered several times.
To put the whole concept into more general terms. A policeman chases a suspected thief on foot. You step out in front of the policeman with the INTENTION of slowing him down in order that the suspected thief can make good his escape. The policeman scoots round you and returns a little while later and books you with an attempted obstruction.
His case is that your wilful act was intended to prevent him from making a lawful arrest of the suspected thief.
You can't argue that you are not guilty because you did not manage to slow him down (hence charge of attempt).
In the present case under discussion, the defendant says that the police ought to show that the suspect who got away was actually a thief, in order to prove an obstruction.
turbobloke said:
totalitarian regimes couldn't give a fig whether their laws are just, their motto is might is right. kenp said:keep going you're onto a winner there
natural justice, fairness ... these are just wooly concepts. kenp said:I believe you're about to answer your own question...
What is natural justice? kenp said:Precisely, all of which GATSOs, and NIPs, and parking Stasi deny to the motorist.
The concept of natural justice ... right to a hearing, absence of male fide, reasonableness etc. kenp said:It would be a good thing - and something of a deterrent to those like BLiar who are believers in endless meddling and legislating - to have a sunset clause in every piece of legislation. This would require the law to be revisited and revised or repealed every 5 years at the least. Such an approach would lead to parliamentary constipation for any regime like BLiar's that wants new law after new law, and give the electorate a real hope for sanity in terms of laws that have fallen into disrepute, a lot of which happen to reside in the motorist's lot.
Governments are elected and must respond to the public mood. You can make a difference, maybe not alone but if enough people shake their fists then there will be change. Why do you thing the opposition is talking about introducing a 80mph motorway limit. Fairness? Justice? Natural justice? No. They want to be elected.
Which brings us back to the fact that the police officer should have been grateful that another motorist was helping to make the roads safer, rather than be annoyed that somebody escaped persecution and unwaranted financial penalty under an unjust law that is in widespread disrepute (enforcement, as in this case) and in some places is held up to just ridicule and contempt (70mph m-way limit).
GATSO's are not in breach of any legal natural justice concept. GATSO's do not deny you a hearing and a quick look at the 1935 Wednesbury case will give you the legal definition of reasonableness. If GATSO's were in breach then you have the remedy of judicial review.
A simple understanding of constitutional law will show you that all domestic legislation (and we are talking domestic legislation here) contains its own sunset clause, since no Parliament can bind its successor and it also fits in with your 5 year timetable.
I am going to call it a day on this subject, since I am now bored with it primarily because I am trying to explained what the law is and half are challenging it with what they think the law should be. I was trying to express fact not opinion.
kenp said:That's what we do
I am now bored...primarily because I am trying to explain what the law is and half are challenging it with what they think the law should be.
kenp said:A mixture of both shirley?
I was trying to express fact not opinion.
kenp said:In which case, Happy New Year to you
I am going to call it a day on this subject
kenp said:At last you get close to the nub of this point: a proper defence would have pointed out that the policeman was not obstructed. Nothing occurred that was equivalent to stepping out in front of the policeman.
Your second point as to slowing down, this is not an obstruction but compliance.
Your third point has already been answered several times.
To put the whole concept into more general terms. A policeman chases a suspected thief on foot. You step out in front of the policeman with the INTENTION of slowing him down in order that the suspected thief can make good his escape. The policeman scoots round you and returns a little while later and books you with an attempted obstruction.
His case is that your wilful act was intended to prevent him from making a lawful arrest of the suspected thief.
You can't argue that you are not guilty because you did not manage to slow him down (hence charge of attempt).
In the present case under discussion, the defendant says that the police ought to show that the suspect who got away was actually a thief, in order to prove an obstruction.
>> Edited by Zod on Saturday 31st December 19:05
kenp said:The case at the root of this thread is not a matter of fact, but of opinion: the opinion of the CPS that warning another driver of the presence of a policeman with a speed trap constitutes the offence of obstructing that policeman.
I am going to call it a day on this subject, since I am now bored with it primarily because I am trying to explained what the law is and half are challenging it with what they think the law should be. I was trying to express fact not opinion.
Good thread anyway, many thanks for your input of facts verses the mob us lot :bye:.
One mans opinion is another mans law, question is what is wrong with challenging it surely law is not a static thing. This should be done at all turns, certainly where it is unreasonable, it is wrong and should be challenged .
:bye:. One mans opinion is another mans law, question is what is wrong with challenging it surely law is not a static thing. This should be done at all turns, certainly where it is unreasonable, it is wrong and should be challenged .HarryW said:Law is a living, dynamic thing in this country and changes happen all teh time as a result of court decisions and new legislation inter alia.
Good thread anyway, many thanks for your input of facts verses the mob us lot
PS, you don't work in Shrewsbury by any chance, do you, kenp?
>> Edited by Zod on Saturday 31st December 19:06
kenp said:
By waving you are not affecting the policemans ability to carry out his lawful duty, you are affecting the speed of another vehicle and causing it to obey the law. The policeman is still measuring the speed whether you were to wave or not, ergo his ability to measure is completely unaffected.
A policeman forms the opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.
His opinion is just that, opinion. It might be that I form the same opinion 200m closer to the vehicle in question.
kenp said:
He takes his laser in order to corroborate his opinion. You wave causing the vehicle to slow down. You have just obstructed a police officer in the course of corroborating his opinion (or executing his duty).
If by waving I cause the vehicle to come into compliance with the law, or remain in compliance, I cannot see anything but good in my action, indeed I have aided the police.
That there is no crime for the police to prosecute can only be good.
kenp said:
Your example is also flawed in that in the present case the defendant's intention (admittedly) was for the car not to get caught speeding NOT to obey the law (there is a difference). You cannot retrospectively put words or thoughts into the defendants mouth/mind in order to create a scenario that suits your interpretation of the law.
Whether I bring a potential miscreant into compliance by causing them to worry about the fate of fluffy bunnies or a high level of risk to their licence should be irrelevant, all that should matter is that a crime has been prevented.
If the law finds otherwise it is an ass.
kenp said:
Average in this context means majority. So how can the majority think that they are better than the majority?
No it doesn't. Not under any definition does average mean the majority. It is the same sloppy use of mathematics that others are accused in the legal aspects of the post.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Sunday 1st January 13:10
bluepolarbear said:
Average in this context means majority. So how can the majority think that they are better than the majority?
No it doesn't. Not under any definition does average mean the majority. It is the same sloppy use of mathematics that others are accused in the legal aspects of the post.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Sunday 1st January 13:10
taken from http://math.about.com/library/bla.htm "Average - The middle or most common in a set of data."
and I would submit that is how most interviewees would understand the question if asked 'do you consider yourself to be a) below average b)average c) above average'.
I don't know if anyone retorted with 'by average are we using mode, mean or median?'. It is nothing to do with sloppy use of mathematics, it was a question for the average Joe to grade himself against three widely understood, colloquial standards. People use and understand words like 'decimate', but don't necessarily mean 'to kill one in ten' nor is it sloppy mathematics. Mathematicians do not have a monopoly on words like 'divide, plus, minus, average etc'. They are widely understood in colloquial terms by people in their everyday conversation. Problems arise when people carry the colloquial term across into the speciality and insist on giving it the same colloquial meaning and since this is the 'Speed,Plod & the LAW' forum it might be important to give legal terms their legal meaning and not their colloquial meaning, otherwise we are all wasting our time here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff