Warning Drivers about Speed Traps !
Discussion
streaky said:
1) IIRC, the driver was waving out of his window (presumably an up and down motion of the hand with the palm-down indicating "slow down" .
Correct! His appeal included that he was giving the Highway code "I am about to slow down or stop" hand signal because he wanted to slow down and stop in a layby ahead. He thought his vehicle maybe had a mechanical fault and wante to make quite clear what his intentions were.
Notwithstanding the above the appeal won because the police could not prove that he had in fact slowed anybody down who had been speeding and prevented them being zapped therefore no obstruction occurred.
The scamps want to go to the House of Lords to overturn the appeal on the basis that they want to prove that it isn't necessary for him to have actually slowed anyone down in order to obstruct them in course of duty.
What a blooming way to run a country. As others have said, it might or might not be about the cash at Governmental level, but it certainly is at scamp level, ie gutter level.
edited to add that anyone with a printed copy of the Times there is a photo of Mr Glendinning in the act of giving his slowing down gesture.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 30th December 15:45
Can't wait until the next time i see an accident on a bend, i used to stand there and flag down motorists incase the added to the incident.
I guess that is now illegal as they may be speeding and there may be a cop around,so i will just stand there and watch the mayhem ensue.
ho hum.
Can a MOP be prosecuted for watching someone hurt themselves and not warning them of the danger? If so this could prove interesting.
It would prove that speed is not a reason to be concerned for someones safety...
I guess that is now illegal as they may be speeding and there may be a cop around,so i will just stand there and watch the mayhem ensue.
ho hum.
Can a MOP be prosecuted for watching someone hurt themselves and not warning them of the danger? If so this could prove interesting.
It would prove that speed is not a reason to be concerned for someones safety...
hedders said:
Can't wait until the next time i see an accident on a bend, i used to stand there and flag down motorists incase the added to the incident.
I guess that is now illegal as they may be speeding and there may be a cop around,so i will just stand there and watch the mayhem ensue.
ho hum.
Can a MOP be prosecuted for watching someone hurt themselves and not warning them of the danger? If so this could prove interesting.
It would prove that speed is not a reason to be concerned for someones safety...
Hmm, I wonder where it will stop too... Ever flashed someone because they were driving around blinding people with their fog lights on in clear conditions? I wonder if that is included?
I can only think things have come to this incredible state because the law makers and enforcers must have nothing better to do?
I'm afraid we need a large natural disaster or war in this country to wipe out all this nonsense and give them something usefull to actually do.
I wonder if they're quite so concerned about punishing Mr smith because he flashed at Mrs Brown to warn of a speed camera trap, in say Iraq? If this is progress in a democracy I don't want it.
I'm afraid we need a large natural disaster or war in this country to wipe out all this nonsense and give them something usefull to actually do.
I wonder if they're quite so concerned about punishing Mr smith because he flashed at Mrs Brown to warn of a speed camera trap, in say Iraq? If this is progress in a democracy I don't want it.
I suspect that we are really dealing with shoddy reporting by the press since the point reportedly being put forward for clarification has been decided by the HoL sometime ago and is known by law students as 'attempting the impossible'.
If a pickpocket slides his hand into your pocket, then that is an attempted theft.
But what if the pocket was empty? Then there was nothing to thieve and how could there be an attempt at an offence if the completed act does not fulfill the criteria of an offence?
HoL held that the actus reus was the preparatory act (attempt) and if the mens rea fulfilled the requirements of the complete offence then a person was guilty regardless of his mistaken belief (that there was something worth stealing).
Therefore in the instance under consideration, if a person intends to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty(mens rea) and makes signals to slow a speeding driver (actus reus) (regardless whether the other car is speeding), the accused is guilty. The clue is in the word 'attempted', because if the police could have shown that the car that had been signalled to, had a) been speeding b) as a result of the signal slowed down, then the full offence would have been committed.
If a pickpocket slides his hand into your pocket, then that is an attempted theft.
But what if the pocket was empty? Then there was nothing to thieve and how could there be an attempt at an offence if the completed act does not fulfill the criteria of an offence?
HoL held that the actus reus was the preparatory act (attempt) and if the mens rea fulfilled the requirements of the complete offence then a person was guilty regardless of his mistaken belief (that there was something worth stealing).
Therefore in the instance under consideration, if a person intends to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty(mens rea) and makes signals to slow a speeding driver (actus reus) (regardless whether the other car is speeding), the accused is guilty. The clue is in the word 'attempted', because if the police could have shown that the car that had been signalled to, had a) been speeding b) as a result of the signal slowed down, then the full offence would have been committed.
If it is case law I suspect that CPS are attempting to block it's use in other cases for example the use laser jammers. Based on this case it could be argued that the CPS would have to show that an officer was attempting to take a speed reading in order to obtain an OOCD charge for the use of Laser Jammers eg if you were stopped and the device found you couldn't be prosecuted for its use.
kenp said:I'm sorry, but I do not agree. This is not comparable to the pickpocket example. The pickpocket had mens rea and committed the actus reus. A driver causing another driver to slow down has no mens rea for a criminal offence: he does not intend to obstruct the policeman, but to prevent the speeding driver from continuing to commit his offence.
I suspect that we are really dealing with shoddy reporting by the press since the point reportedly being put forward for clarification has been decided by the HoL sometime ago and is known by law students as 'attempting the impossible'.
If a pickpocket slides his hand into your pocket, then that is an attempted theft.
But what if the pocket was empty? Then there was nothing to thieve and how could there be an attempt at an offence if the completed act does not fulfill the criteria of an offence?
HoL held that the actus reus was the preparatory act (attempt) and if the mens rea fulfilled the requirements of the complete offence then a person was guilty regardless of his mistaken belief (that there was something worth stealing).
Therefore in the instance under consideration, if a person intends to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty(mens rea) and makes signals to slow a speeding driver (actus reus) (regardless whether the other car is speeding), the accused is guilty. The clue is in the word 'attempted', because if the police could have shown that the car that had been signalled to, had a) been speeding b) as a result of the signal slowed down, then the full offence would have been committed.
It is not an offence to persuade or prevent another from committing a criminal offence. The offence that these incompetent CPS lawyers are attempting to pin onto the warning driver is that of obstructing a police officer. If the motorist,instead of warning the speeding driver, deliberately got in the way of the policeman's attempt to record the excess speed of the other driver, then that would indeed be obstruction.
A more appropriate analogy would be the case of a dodgy type casing a house who has been spotted by a policeman 200 yards away. If a member of the public comes around the corner, spots the putative burglar and shouts "Oi you, stop get away from that house this instant", shocking the potential criminal into inaction, that member of the public has prevented a crime. By the logic of these CPS idiots, that member of the public should be prosecuted for obstructing the policeman who has been deprived of the chance to observe a crime being comitted and to arrest a criminal.
>> Edited by Zod on Friday 30th December 19:16
so in future peeps, remember if you see a BiB being set upon by a gang of youths, it's in your own interest to let them beat the crap out of him/her as otherwise you can be done for obstructing a Police officer in the execution of his/her duty, that's right isn't it?
oh I forgot to add, if any Police vehicle is stuck behind you with blues and twos on, DO NOT MOVE out of their way as this is also "Obstructing" etc
oh I forgot to add, if any Police vehicle is stuck behind you with blues and twos on, DO NOT MOVE out of their way as this is also "Obstructing" etc
Zod said:
I suspect that we are really dealing with shoddy reporting by the press since the point reportedly being put forward for clarification has been decided by the HoL sometime ago and is known by law students as 'attempting the impossible'.
If a pickpocket slides his hand into your pocket, then that is an attempted theft.
But what if the pocket was empty? Then there was nothing to thieve and how could there be an attempt at an offence if the completed act does not fulfill the criteria of an offence?
HoL held that the actus reus was the preparatory act (attempt) and if the mens rea fulfilled the requirements of the complete offence then a person was guilty regardless of his mistaken belief (that there was something worth stealing).
Therefore in the instance under consideration, if a person intends to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty(mens rea) and makes signals to slow a speeding driver (actus reus) (regardless whether the other car is speeding), the accused is guilty. The clue is in the word 'attempted', because if the police could have shown that the car that had been signalled to, had a) been speeding b) as a result of the signal slowed down, then the full offence would have been committed.
It is not an offence to persuade or prevent another from committing a criminal offence. The offence that these incompetent CPS lawyers are attempting to pin onto the warning driver is that of obstructing a police officer. If the motorist,instead of warning the speeding driver, deliberately got in the way of the policeman's attempt to record the excess speed of the other driver, then that would indeed be obstruction.
A more appropriate analogy would be the case of a dodgy type casing a house who has been spotted by a policeman 200 yards away. If a member of the public comes around the corner, spots the putative burglar and shouts "Oi you, stop get away from that house this instant", shocking the potential criminal into inaction, that member of the public has prevented a crime. By the logic of these CPS idiots, that member of the public should be prosecuted for obstructing the policeman who has been deprived of the chance to observe a crime being comitted and to arrest a criminal.
>> Edited by Zod on Friday 30th December 19:16
I am sorry, but you are bending the facts to suit your argument. The defendant admitted that he was signalling to other drivers as a result of seeing the speed trap. He was NOT simply driving along and encouraging other drivers to slow down because he thought their speed was excessive. He had seen the speed trap and signalled to drivers so that they would not be caught. Apart from his admission as to mens rea, his defence was that the oncoming drivers may not have been speeding. This proves his mens rea conclusively, because he didn't necessarily think that they were speeding, he was only concerned that they would not be caught in the event that they were speeding.
View the offence as it occured. He sees a speed trap and starts signalling at oncoming traffic. His defence was, yes I tried to slow them down, but in order to prove an attempted obstruction you must prove that they were actually speeding and justice was thereby obstructed. It is the same as, yes I tried to steal from him and put my hand in his pocket, but you must prove that his pocket contained something.
He clearly messed up his defence, because even signalling to another driver to slow down in the knowledge that he will otherwise be caught by a speed trap cannot possibly be obstructing a police officer.
Only doing something that prevents the police officer from taking a reading of a speeding car can constitute obstruction. Jamming the laser gun or Pushing the police officer over would do. Taking action that results in the speeding driver no longer speeding at the time the officer tries to take a reading would not.
Only doing something that prevents the police officer from taking a reading of a speeding car can constitute obstruction. Jamming the laser gun or Pushing the police officer over would do. Taking action that results in the speeding driver no longer speeding at the time the officer tries to take a reading would not.
kenp said:
I suspect that we are really dealing with shoddy reporting by the press since the point reportedly being put forward for clarification has been decided by the HoL sometime ago and is known by law students as 'attempting the impossible'.
If a pickpocket slides his hand into your pocket, then that is an attempted theft.
But what if the pocket was empty? Then there was nothing to thieve and how could there be an attempt at an offence if the completed act does not fulfill the criteria of an offence?
HoL held that the actus reus was the preparatory act (attempt) and if the mens rea fulfilled the requirements of the complete offence then a person was guilty regardless of his mistaken belief (that there was something worth stealing).
Therefore in the instance under consideration, if a person intends to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty(mens rea) and makes signals to slow a speeding driver (actus reus) (regardless whether the other car is speeding), the accused is guilty. The clue is in the word 'attempted', because if the police could have shown that the car that had been signalled to, had a) been speeding b) as a result of the signal slowed down, then the full offence would have been committed.
It is not an offence to persuade or prevent another from committing a criminal offence. The offence that these incompetent CPS lawyers are attempting to pin onto the warning driver is that of obstructing a police officer. If the motorist,instead of warning the speeding driver, deliberately got in the way of the policeman's attempt to record the excess speed of the other driver, then that would indeed be obstruction.
A more appropriate analogy would be the case of a dodgy type casing a house who has been spotted by a policeman 200 yards away. If a member of the public comes around the corner, spots the putative burglar and shouts "Oi you, stop get away from that house this instant", shocking the potential criminal into inaction, that member of the public has prevented a crime. By the logic of these CPS idiots, that member of the public should be prosecuted for obstructing the policeman who has been deprived of the chance to observe a crime being comitted and to arrest a criminal.
>> Edited by Zod on Friday 30th December 19:16
I am sorry, but you are bending the facts to suit your argument. The defendant admitted that he was signalling to other drivers as a result of seeing the speed trap. He was NOT simply driving along and encouraging other drivers to slow down because he thought their speed was excessive. He had seen the speed trap and signalled to drivers so that they would not be caught. Apart from his admission as to mens rea, his defence was that the oncoming drivers may not have been speeding. This proves his mens rea conclusively, because he didn't necessarily think that they were speeding, he was only concerned that they would not be caught in the event that they were speeding.
View the offence as it occured. He sees a speed trap and starts signalling at oncoming traffic. His defence was, yes I tried to slow them down, but in order to prove an attempted obstruction you must prove that they were actually speeding and justice was thereby obstructed. It is the same as, yes I tried to steal from him and put my hand in his pocket, but you must prove that his pocket contained something.
And all this lot only goes to prove what happens when members of the legal profession make their opposing submissions, and how the costs build up!!! It will all be argued at length at high expense to the taxpayer but, at the moment, my money would be on the burglar analogy as the situation is the closer of the two to the point being argued, as it should be seen as an attempt by a member of the public to prevent a crime.
[quote=rs1952
...... as it should be seen as an attempt by a member of the public to prevent a crime.[/quote]
You are missing the point, he signalled BECAUSE of the speed trap, NOT because he thought the driver was speeding. By his own admission he was trying to prevent a possible speeder from being caught.
This was not a man who set himself up as a one man police force, flashing any oncoming traffic that he thought was speeding
...... as it should be seen as an attempt by a member of the public to prevent a crime.[/quote]
You are missing the point, he signalled BECAUSE of the speed trap, NOT because he thought the driver was speeding. By his own admission he was trying to prevent a possible speeder from being caught.
This was not a man who set himself up as a one man police force, flashing any oncoming traffic that he thought was speeding
kenp said:
[quote=rs1952
...... as it should be seen as an attempt by a member of the public to prevent a crime.
kenp said:
[You are missing the point, he signalled BECAUSE of the speed trap, NOT because he thought the driver was speeding. By his own admission he was trying to prevent a possible speeder from being caught.
This was not a man who set himself up as a one man police force, flashing any oncoming traffic that he thought was speeding
So he was signalling because of the speed trap. So what!
He was trying prevent someone incriminating themselves by continuing to commit an offence. Is that any different to telling a shoplifter to put back that jacket theyve just nicked? Nope!
Whats wrong with that?
He was in effect HELPING the cops to do their job, that is, TO SLOW DRIVERS DOWN.
Remember their stated intentions? "we dont want your money, we only want to slow you down"?.......but they really do want your money as well it seems.
>> Edited by deltafox on Friday 30th December 21:34
hedders said:
oh no...
We could ALL drive with our fogs on all the time, so that when we flash each other thats the reason, nout to do with scams
I had assumed that the numbers of cars, of all types and with drivers of all ages, that I have seen in the last couple of weeks with fogs on meant that I had missed a change in the law which made it COMPULSORY to have the fogs on at all times.
Am I wrong?
deltafox said:Hmmm...
Remember their stated intentions? "we dont want your money, we only want to slow you down"?.......but they really do want your money as well it seems.
RAC Foundation boss Edmund King said:
Some cameras are money-making enterprises and some are not. I've seen a document from a road safety partnership warning it was in danger of not breaking even and suggesting two options. One was to place cameras where they would catch more motorists, and the other was to lower the speed threshold for prosecution.
When asked to comment or reply...
Arrive Alive said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Correct! His appeal included that he was giving the Highway code "I am about to slow down or stop" hand signal because he wanted to slow down and stop in a layby ahead. He thought his vehicle maybe had a mechanical fault and wante to make quite clear what his intentions were.
Ah, hand signals. Wonderful things. Should still be compulsory imho.
Especially for use when indicators are U/S, as so many seem to be these days.
Mind you I suspect in many vehicles it might be quite difficult to get ones arm far enough out of the window to be able to make a proper signal - modern safety engineering trends and all that.
I don't see why we should not be able to introduce a mutually agreed set of signals though. Some organisation work with colour codes, some with silly handshakes. Motorists resurrecting the ancient art of hand signals as part of an energy saving effort should be praised for their supportive attitude I would suggest.
Perhaps this could be a PH national project?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff