Unbolting a speed bump
Discussion
Centurion07 said:
If letting the air out of someone's tyres is criminal damage then I would imagine the answer is yes.
Not sure if it is, but looking up that question got me to another PH thread with this
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Citizen09 said:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio... - s.22A RTA 1988 might cover it - "Causing danger to road-users."
Seems to cover bothRTA 1988 said:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause—
(a)causes anything to be on or over a road, or
(b)interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle, or
(c)interferes (directly or indirectly) with traffic equipment,
in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous.
I had to look it up though TBH; traffic offences aren't my forte.(a)causes anything to be on or over a road, or
(b)interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle, or
(c)interferes (directly or indirectly) with traffic equipment,
in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous.
Edited by Citizen09 on Sunday 21st November 11:49
e-honda said:
Centurion07 said:
If letting the air out of someone's tyres is criminal damage then I would imagine the answer is yes.
Not sure if it is, You would be hard pushed to argue that the usefulness of the speed bump wasn't impaired by its removal so it would amount to criminal damage.
Cat
e-honda said:
Actually not sure it does cover the speed bump, didn't read the bit about it needing to be dangerous, only a card carrying member of BRAKE would consider it dangerous to remove a speed bump.
That bit stood out to me too."obvious to a reasonable person that doing so would be dangerous"
Surely moving them off the carriageway so no way a vehicle could collide with them or have to take evasive action couldn't be dangerous? If removing them prevented damage to a vehicle or means that a vehicle wouldn't need to take evasive action (Eg heavy braking) I would argue it would be safer to remove them.
Of course that assumes I'm reasonable...
e-honda said:
If someone were to unbolt a set of temporary speed bumps on an unadopted road and leave the segments and the bolts nearly in a pile next to the road, perhaps in the middle of the night, would any offences have been committed?
Title was meant to say unbolting
Middle of the day whilst wearing high-vis might be a better approach Title was meant to say unbolting
CoreyDog said:
That bit stood out to me too.
"obvious to a reasonable person that doing so would be dangerous"
Surely moving them off the carriageway so no way a vehicle could collide with them or have to take evasive action couldn't be dangerous? If removing them prevented damage to a vehicle or means that a vehicle wouldn't need to take evasive action (Eg heavy braking) I would argue it would be safer to remove them.
Of course that assumes I'm reasonable...
If there is that much heavy braking going on then perhaps their presence is justified? "obvious to a reasonable person that doing so would be dangerous"
Surely moving them off the carriageway so no way a vehicle could collide with them or have to take evasive action couldn't be dangerous? If removing them prevented damage to a vehicle or means that a vehicle wouldn't need to take evasive action (Eg heavy braking) I would argue it would be safer to remove them.
Of course that assumes I'm reasonable...
Which of your neighbours does this vendetta involve?
Cat said:
e-honda said:
Centurion07 said:
If letting the air out of someone's tyres is criminal damage then I would imagine the answer is yes.
Not sure if it is, You would be hard pushed to argue that the usefulness of the speed bump wasn't impaired by its removal so it would amount to criminal damage.
Cat
Edited by Bigends on Sunday 24th October 12:20
Cat said:
If the value or usefulness of property is impaired, even if only temporarily, then it constitutes criminal damage.
You would be hard pushed to argue that the usefulness of the speed bump wasn't impaired by its removal so it would amount to criminal damage.
Cat
That seems a slightly absurd definition, on that basis it sounds like you could be done for criminal damage leaning against an advertisement board on a bus stop You would be hard pushed to argue that the usefulness of the speed bump wasn't impaired by its removal so it would amount to criminal damage.
Cat
If it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
e-honda said:
That seems a slightly absurd definition, on that basis it sounds like you could be done for criminal damage leaning against an advertisement board on a bus stop
If it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
The courts and the CPS don't find it absurdIf it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
CPS guidance re criminal damage said:
Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.
Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
CatAny alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
Cat said:
e-honda said:
That seems a slightly absurd definition, on that basis it sounds like you could be done for criminal damage leaning against an advertisement board on a bus stop
If it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
The courts and the CPS don't find it absurdIf it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
CPS guidance re criminal damage said:
Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.
Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
CatAny alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
Another example of the judiciary make absurd decisions to let them pick and choose how the law is enforced, instead of acknowledging a gap in the law that needs to go through democratic process to fix.
e-honda said:
Cat said:
e-honda said:
That seems a slightly absurd definition, on that basis it sounds like you could be done for criminal damage leaning against an advertisement board on a bus stop
If it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
The courts and the CPS don't find it absurdIf it has ever been accepted by the courts then i don't know how wheel clamping was ever legal.
CPS guidance re criminal damage said:
Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.
Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
CatAny alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25.
Another example of the judiciary make absurd decisions to let them pick and choose how the law is enforced, instead of acknowledging a gap in the law that needs to go through democratic process to fix.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff