Warning other motorists about scamera vans

[jogger1976]

As I was driving along today I suddenly noticed that I was being flashed (fnarr fnarr) by oncoming drivers.

After a few moments of confusion I realised there was a camera van over the hill and that said drivers had been warning me of this

When I came back later on in the day I noticed that a marked traffic car had pulled someone over a little way up from the van and the officer was giving them a talking to.

Was this purely coincidence, or could it be that the attendant plod had noticed the motorist warning others and decided to charge him?

[Durzel]

Crystal ball time...

It could be, there is precedent for it (IIRC obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty). Given how many people do it though, I doubt it.

More likely I'd have thought that the incar ANPR flagged something that required immediate attention.

[JumboBeef]

Camera vans are parked at accident black spots (oh yes they are ) so you are not flashing to warn others about the van, you are warning about the accident risk

[vonhosen]

JumboBeef said:

Camera vans are parked at accident black spots (oh yes they are ) so you are not flashing to warn others about the van, you are warning about the accident risk

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

ISTR that the prosecution in such a case must also show that the flashed car was over the speed limit prior to being flashed (otherwise hard to see how the flash would cause it to "evade prosecution").

Might be quite difficult if the flash takes place over a hill out of sight of the officer.

[vonhosen]

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

ISTR that the prosecution in such a case must also show that the flashed car was over the speed limit prior to being flashed (otherwise hard to see how the flash would cause it to "evade prosecution").

Might be quite difficult if the flash takes place over a hill out of sight of the officer.

They have to show that the process of gathering evidence has started, i.e. that an opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the limit has been formed & that the intervention by the flasher has interrupted the process resulting in the required secondary evidence not being obtained.

[jogger1976]

vonhosen said:

JumboBeef said:

Camera vans are parked at accident black spots (oh yes they are ) so you are not flashing to warn others about the van, you are warning about the accident risk

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong Von, but are you saying that a motorist who warns a fellow motorist to slow down (therefore not incurring a fine) may face prosecution?
And if so, does this not send a message that cameras are nothing more than a cynical revenue generating exercise?

[vonhosen]

jogger1976 said:

vonhosen said:

JumboBeef said:

Camera vans are parked at accident black spots (oh yes they are ) so you are not flashing to warn others about the van, you are warning about the accident risk

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong Von, but are you saying that a motorist who warns a fellow motorist to slow down (therefore not incurring a fine) may face prosecution?
And if so, does this not send a message that cameras are nothing more than a cynical revenue generating exercise?

See my reply above.
Where the gathering of evidence towards a prosecution has started only then can there be an obstruction offence by the flasher.

[steveo3002]

hows it differant from preventing another crime ? see a drunk walking towards his and car and say no mate best get a taxi

[vonhosen]

It's no different.

If you warn an offender with intent to obstruct justice & evade capture you commit an offence.

If you stop somebody offending you don't commit an offence.

In the case of the flasher who commits an offence, if primary evidence of speeding has already been obtained (an offence being committed) you are obstructing, if it hasn't (no evidence yet of offence being committed) you aren't.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

ISTR that the prosecution in such a case must also show that the flashed car was over the speed limit prior to being flashed (otherwise hard to see how the flash would cause it to "evade prosecution").

Might be quite difficult if the flash takes place over a hill out of sight of the officer.

They have to show that the process of gathering evidence has started, i.e. that an opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the limit has been formed & that the intervention by the flasher has interrupted the process resulting in the required secondary evidence not being obtained.

I'm not sure that is precisely what the cases say, but never mind, because it illustrates the point nonetheless. It is, I'm sure you'd agree, jolly difficult to form such an opinion if the officer and the vehicle in question are on different sides of a hill.

[jm doc]

vonhosen said:

It's no different.

If you warn an offender with intent to obstruct justice & evade capture you commit an offence.

If you stop somebody offending you don't commit an offence.

In the case of the flasher who commits an offence, if primary evidence of speeding has already been obtained (an offence being committed) you are obstructing, if it hasn't (no evidence yet of offence being committed) you aren't.

so if there was a a police car parked down the road looking for drunk drivers and you stopped him from driving, that would be committing an offence then?

[kowalski655]

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

ISTR that the prosecution in such a case must also show that the flashed car was over the speed limit prior to being flashed (otherwise hard to see how the flash would cause it to "evade prosecution").

Might be quite difficult if the flash takes place over a hill out of sight of the officer.

They have to show that the process of gathering evidence has started, i.e. that an opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the limit has been formed & that the intervention by the flasher has interrupted the process resulting in the required secondary evidence not being obtained.

I'm not sure that is precisely what the cases say, but never mind, because it illustrates the point nonetheless. It is, I'm sure you'd agree, jolly difficult to form such an opinion if the officer and the vehicle in question are on different sides of a hill.

And also,quite coincidentally,the van is usually parked on a bend or in another way,so that it can only be seen at the last second.The officer assesses any speeding offence then,and takes a pic right away,so stopping someone speeding in that fraction of a second would be bloody hard

[agtlaw]

Wilkinsons said:

In Bastable v Little [1907] 1 K.B. 59 the defendant gave warnings of a speed trap. He was acquitted of obstruction on the ground that he was preventing offences because the drivers of other vehicles slowed down. The decision was strongly criticised in Green v Moore [1982] 2 W.L.R. 671, where the Divisional Court said that until overruled it should be strictly confined to its own facts.

Bastable v Little and Green v Moore above were both considered by the Divisional Court in DPP v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 As he approached a police speed trap the defendant was observed making a slowing down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. He was convicted of obstruction. Video evidence shown to the Crown Court on appeal revealed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to the defendant’s signals by slowing down. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable acting in the execution of his duty by warning other motorists of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. The Crown Court upheld the defendant’s appeal on the basis that such proof was necessary, and the Divisional Court concurred.

[Johnnytheboy]

Given the relative frequency of camera vans (rare) and real traffic policemen (vanishingly rare), I'll keep warning other motorists of the presence of cameras.

[The Mad Monk]

jogger1976 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong Von, but are you saying that a motorist who warns a fellow motorist to slow down (therefore not incurring a fine) may face prosecution?
And if so, does this not send a message that cameras are nothing more than a cynical revenue generating exercise?

Correct me if I'm wrong Jogger, but are you saying that someone who warns bank robbers that the police are waiting for them (therefore preventing a crime being committed) may face prosecution?

And if so, does this not send some obscure message or another?

[jogger1976]

The Mad Monk said:

jogger1976 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong Von, but are you saying that a motorist who warns a fellow motorist to slow down (therefore not incurring a fine) may face prosecution?
And if so, does this not send a message that cameras are nothing more than a cynical revenue generating exercise?

Correct me if I'm wrong Jogger, but are you saying that someone who warns bank robbers that the police are waiting for them (therefore preventing a crime being committed) may face prosecution?

And if so, does this not send some obscure message or another?

Not sure why you felt the need to be so patronising Mad Monk? I was merely trying to seek clarification from Von with regard to the subject.

[InitialDave]

The Mad Monk said:

Correct me if I'm wrong Jogger, but are you saying that someone who warns bank robbers that the police are waiting for them (therefore preventing a crime being committed) may face prosecution?

And if so, does this not send some obscure message or another?

Do they say "don't go rob a bank, there's coppers out there" or "Best dump the swag and get the tights off your head, a copper's about to come this way"?

Edited by InitialDave on Wednesday 2nd March 19:55

[defblade]

Johnnytheboy said:

Given the relative frequency of camera vans (rare) and real traffic policemen (vanishingly rare), I'll keep warning other motorists of the presence of cameras.

Given the frequency of tailgating and even overtaking if I stick to the limit in 30s, I'll continue letting other drivers make their own choices.

[vonhosen]

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

Greg66 said:

vonhosen said:

And if the officer believes otherwise the court are happy that they can tell the difference & work out from the reported facts whether you were warning motorists to evade prosecution or not.

ISTR that the prosecution in such a case must also show that the flashed car was over the speed limit prior to being flashed (otherwise hard to see how the flash would cause it to "evade prosecution").

Might be quite difficult if the flash takes place over a hill out of sight of the officer.

They have to show that the process of gathering evidence has started, i.e. that an opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the limit has been formed & that the intervention by the flasher has interrupted the process resulting in the required secondary evidence not being obtained.

I'm not sure that is precisely what the cases say, but never mind, because it illustrates the point nonetheless. It is, I'm sure you'd agree, jolly difficult to form such an opinion if the officer and the vehicle in question are on different sides of a hill.

Not precisely, look at Glendining case for that.
It is a general practical application of it though.