Speed Cameras and flashing
Discussion
Just thinking about this situation, that if you flash a car warning a car of a speed camera you are committing an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1997 it is an offence to "wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty".
What if the speed camera person is a civilian is it still the offence above?
What if the speed camera person is a civilian is it still the offence above?
The Highway Code said:
Rule 110
Flashing headlights.
Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there.
Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users
Rule 111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed.
Use your own judgement(sic) and proceed carefully.
How is it determined that the flash of headlights can be interpreted as a warning of a speed trap rather than a warning of a driver's presence? Flashing headlights.
Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there.
Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users
Rule 111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed.
Use your own judgement(sic) and proceed carefully.
RyanOPlasty said:
How is it determined that the flash of headlights can be interpreted as a warning of a speed trap rather than a warning of a driver's presence?
Up to the court to make a judgement based on the facts before them.Terminator X said:
How would they know why you are flashing your lights unless you fess up?
Because they make a judgement based on the facts before them. They don't have to believe an account because it is given, or acquit in the absence of a confession. They look at the full circumstances presented by all parties & make a decision.vonhosen said:
RyanOPlasty said:
How is it determined that the flash of headlights can be interpreted as a warning of a speed trap rather than a warning of a driver's presence?
Up to the court to make a judgement based on the facts before them.Terminator X said:
How would they know why you are flashing your lights unless you fess up?
Because they make a judgement based on the facts before them, they don't have to believe the reasons given, or aquit in the absence of a confession.Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 26th January 23:17
I was flashing my Nan, Mum, Sister, next door neighbour, old school friend etc
TX.
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
RyanOPlasty said:
How is it determined that the flash of headlights can be interpreted as a warning of a speed trap rather than a warning of a driver's presence?
Up to the court to make a judgement based on the facts before them.Terminator X said:
How would they know why you are flashing your lights unless you fess up?
Because they make a judgement based on the facts before them, they don't have to believe the reasons given, or aquit in the absence of a confession.Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 26th January 23:17
I was flashing my Nan, Mum, Sister, next door neighbour, old school friend etc
TX.
Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
vonhosen said:
Of course you are at liberty to say that, but the court doesn't have to believe you just because you say it.
Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
I appreciate that but they do need some evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt? If I flash my lights and get pulled for it they have not one clue why I did it e.g. flashed by mistake meant to indicate ...Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
TX.
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Of course you are at liberty to say that, but the court doesn't have to believe you just because you say it.
Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
I appreciate that but they do need some evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt? If I flash my lights and get pulled for it they have not one clue why I did it e.g. flashed by mistake meant to indicate ...Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
TX.
There are plenty of cases where somebody says "I was doing A, not B" & the court decides having viewed the circumstances that they don't find that account credible in the circumstances & convict of B. Each case will be dependent on it's own facts.
In the case of Glendinning (who incidentally was acquitted of obstruction but for a different reason), he said he wasn't warning others with signals that he gave, he said he was signalling for another purpose. The court didn't find that credible & that they believed he was signalling as a warning to others. He was acquitted though because the prosecution hadn't shown any evidence that those he signalled were speeding or likely to.
QuattroDave said:
Isn't one of the key aims of speed cameras to act as a deterrent to speeding at a given site?
Doesn't flashing vehicles have the same effect of deterring speeding at a given site?
The purpose of flashing vehicles as they approach an enforcement site is for them to temporarily suspend their offending merely in order to avoid detection.Doesn't flashing vehicles have the same effect of deterring speeding at a given site?
Darling J said:
'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection.'
Lord Alverstone said:
"In my opinion a man who, finding that a car is breaking the law, warns the driver, so that the speed of the car is slackened, and the police are thereby prevented from ascertaining the speed and so are prevented from obtaining the only evidence upon which, according to our experience, Courts will act with confidence, is obstructing the police in the execution of their duty."
vonhosen said:
The Spruce Goose said:
the crux is, ''wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty".
If it is a civilian operator than clearly not a constable?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/17681615.hartlepool-man-fined-obstructing-speed-camera-operator/If it is a civilian operator than clearly not a constable?
Article said:
Mason is the first driver to be convicted and fined for 'obstructing a designated person' by CDSOU and was also charged with possession of a class B drug.
Real big brain individual involved in this one.QuattroDave said:
Isn't one of the key aims of speed cameras to act as a deterrent to speeding at a given site?
Doesn't flashing vehicles have the same effect of deterring speeding at a given site?
Was it not Mr Blair who insisted that they were Safety Cameras, and were only installed at accident blackspots. So you would only be warning other drivers of s potential hazard.Doesn't flashing vehicles have the same effect of deterring speeding at a given site?
I mean, Mr Blair would never have told us porkies, would he?
The Spruce Goose said:
brisel said:
Regina vs Glendinning 2005
That still calls the canmara operator a constable. If they are a civilian operator than obstruction surely can't be applied, that is the point.https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/17681615.ha...
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 28th January 00:21
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Of course you are at liberty to say that, but the court doesn't have to believe you just because you say it.
Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
I appreciate that but they do need some evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt? If I flash my lights and get pulled for it they have not one clue why I did it e.g. flashed by mistake meant to indicate ...Otherwise everybody who denies an offence & pleads not guilty would be acquitted on the simple basis that they never admitted it.
TX.
There are plenty of cases where somebody says "I was doing A, not B" & the court decides having viewed the circumstances that they don't find that account credible in the circumstances & convict of B. Each case will be dependent on it's own facts.
In the case of Glendinning (who incidentally was acquitted of obstruction but for a different reason), he said he wasn't warning others with signals that he gave, he said he was signalling for another purpose. The court didn't find that credible & that they believed he was signalling as a warning to others. He was acquitted though because the prosecution hadn't shown any evidence that those he signalled were speeding or likely to.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff