Insane or the start of something big?
Discussion
I'll get straight to the point.
A large organisation could employ minimum-wage staff to stand at the roadside ahead of speed cameras and mobile traps. They would watch for speeding traffic and make damn sure the driver knows there is a trap ahead. Why bother?
People who have RA, more-or-less have this service already. BUT, the cameras are still there because they make money. And that is because not everyone has RA.
So what would that cost to operate a scheme that makes sure virtually *no-one* gets caught? And therefore what would it cost its members in annual subscriptions?
You can see the benefit in contributing to road safety
because drivers *will* slow down before they get to the 'dangerous section of road' .
A side effect would, of course, be to starve the government of revenue from fines. But that won't be an issue will it, because we all know the traps are for safety.
NB: When the AA came into being, one of its main functions was to warn members of police speed traps. Sadly, this policy seems to have lapsed into obscurity.
A large organisation could employ minimum-wage staff to stand at the roadside ahead of speed cameras and mobile traps. They would watch for speeding traffic and make damn sure the driver knows there is a trap ahead. Why bother?
People who have RA, more-or-less have this service already. BUT, the cameras are still there because they make money. And that is because not everyone has RA.
So what would that cost to operate a scheme that makes sure virtually *no-one* gets caught? And therefore what would it cost its members in annual subscriptions?
You can see the benefit in contributing to road safety
because drivers *will* slow down before they get to the 'dangerous section of road' . A side effect would, of course, be to starve the government of revenue from fines. But that won't be an issue will it, because we all know the traps are for safety.
NB: When the AA came into being, one of its main functions was to warn members of police speed traps. Sadly, this policy seems to have lapsed into obscurity.
Code Monkey said:
but would not these people on the side of the roads be obscuring the police in their duty?
therefore subject to fines or even a prison sentence?
or would the law and government sooner that we helped the police?
But what is the practical difference between the people standing at the side of the road and a Road Angel?
esselte said:
but would not these people on the side of the roads be obscuring the police in their duty?
therefore subject to fines or even a prison sentence?
or would the law and government sooner that we helped the police?
But what is the practical difference between the people standing at the side of the road and a Road Angel?
You cant convict a Road Angel. Thats it!
There have been at least one high profile case like this. The CPS are clear in what they want to convict for...
Wasn't there a chap who was had up for obstruction last year for doing exactly this? His reasoning was that he was warning motorists of potential danger where there just happened to be a scamera (mobile or fixed, I can't remember) due to it being a 'blackspot'
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
dougc said:
Wasn't there a chap who was had up for obstruction last year for doing exactly this? His reasoning was that he was warning motorists of potential danger where there just happened to be a scamera (mobile or fixed, I can't remember) due to it being a 'blackspot'
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
Oh good grief! So now Joe Public can be breaking the law by warning other members of the public not to break the law?
Please tell me this isn't the case?
leadfootlydon said:
Wasn't there a chap who was had up for obstruction last year for doing exactly this? His reasoning was that he was warning motorists of potential danger where there just happened to be a scamera (mobile or fixed, I can't remember) due to it being a 'blackspot'
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
Oh good grief! So now Joe Public can be breaking the law by warning other members of the public not to break the law?
Please tell me this isn't the case?
Stuart Harding is a name I'll never forget:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/03/ncam03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/03/ixportal.html
Thanks for that, just been scouring the Beeb for 15 minutes but with no results. He got a driving ban too!!
Funny isn't it? If I turn down an alleyway whilst wandering through town and a bloke who's in the process of mugging an old lady legs it, I've helped prevent a crime and I'm a hero.
If I try to stop motorists steaming though a group of people crossing the road outside a car boot sale I'm a criminal.
Surely the officers in this case would have been better utilised controlling the crossing of pedestrians and warning oncoming traffic of a potential hazzard?
Funny isn't it? If I turn down an alleyway whilst wandering through town and a bloke who's in the process of mugging an old lady legs it, I've helped prevent a crime and I'm a hero.
If I try to stop motorists steaming though a group of people crossing the road outside a car boot sale I'm a criminal.
Surely the officers in this case would have been better utilised controlling the crossing of pedestrians and warning oncoming traffic of a potential hazzard?
More than one case
A couple of years back on here, there was the old giffer who warned of a mobile camera round the corner at the entrance to a Sunday market. He put a sign outside his house. IIRC, they managed to take his driving licence.
Someone else did it on the Welsh rally. Camera set up over the brow of a hill. Bloke made a cardboard sign to warn the rally cars. Nicked, when the PCs noticed that there were no speeders.
A VERY rum state of affairs.
A couple of years back on here, there was the old giffer who warned of a mobile camera round the corner at the entrance to a Sunday market. He put a sign outside his house. IIRC, they managed to take his driving licence.
Someone else did it on the Welsh rally. Camera set up over the brow of a hill. Bloke made a cardboard sign to warn the rally cars. Nicked, when the PCs noticed that there were no speeders.
A VERY rum state of affairs.
smeggy said:
Wasn't there a chap who was had up for obstruction last year for doing exactly this? His reasoning was that he was warning motorists of potential danger where there just happened to be a scamera (mobile or fixed, I can't remember) due to it being a 'blackspot'
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
Oh good grief! So now Joe Public can be breaking the law by warning other members of the public not to break the law?
Please tell me this isn't the case?
Stuart Harding is a name I'll never forget:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/03/ncam03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/03/ixportal.html
That is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!
A pensioner is convicted, fined and banned from driving because he used a placard to slow drivers down on a dangerous section of road. Had I known about it, I would have paid to make sure there was a decent lawyer present to defend this heroic bloke. It you don't stand up to a bully, they just get worse.
What's next ffs? Being set to prison for hold up placards? Sh*t, maybe I shouldn't say that.
This must be about as clear-cut a case as there ever was to show the true purpose of these traps.
leadfootlydon said:Actually there was an effort by PH members to pay for legal representation for the old guy, but he didn't have to stomach for the fight - I think he was somewhat disillusioned by the legal system.
Wasn't there a chap who was had up for obstruction last year for doing exactly this? His reasoning was that he was warning motorists of potential danger where there just happened to be a scamera (mobile or fixed, I can't remember) due to it being a 'blackspot'
Don't think the CPS saw it the same way.....
Oh good grief! So now Joe Public can be breaking the law by warning other members of the public not to break the law?
Please tell me this isn't the case?
Stuart Harding is a name I'll never forget:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/03/ncam03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/03/ixportal.html
That is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!
Had I known about it, I would have paid to make sure there was a decent lawyer present to defend this heroic bloke. It you don't stand up to a bully, they just get worse.
What's next ffs? Being set to prison for hold up placards? Sh*t, maybe I shouldn't say that.
This must be about as clear-cut a case as there ever was to show the true purpose of these traps.
victormeldrew said:
Actually there was an effort by PH members to pay for legal representation for the old guy, but he didn't have the stomach for the fight - I think he was somewhat disillusioned by the legal system.
And who wouldn't be? It seems the CPS picked their target carefully. i.e. someone they suspected would 'go quietly', letting them get away with it, creating a precedent and thereby gaining a huge win for themselves.
How on earth is it possible for it to be illegal to warn other people not to break the law?
And even if such a warning was illegal, banning someone from driving where their driving skills were not questioned is absolutely unfathomable. (still fuming
) tvrgit said:
Could Vonhosen explain this dubious behaviour by plod?
Why should he? He wasn't there (I presume)
?
VH seems to have a view, and the time to express it, on most road policy, but, I'll open the question to any plod as well because I don't see how it's a crime and I don't see why they can take your licence for it
Recently there was a case brought in the UK against a driver who flashed his headlights to warn drivers that they were approaching a mobile camera (or police speed trap).
He was found not guilty on the basis that the CPS could not prove that the people whom he was warning were at the time breaking the speed limit. If they were not breaking the speed limit, he would not have been assisting them to evade detection.
I don't know that this case would have set a precedent that could be applied to fixed private warnings such as signs, but the logic would seem relevant.
He was found not guilty on the basis that the CPS could not prove that the people whom he was warning were at the time breaking the speed limit. If they were not breaking the speed limit, he would not have been assisting them to evade detection.
I don't know that this case would have set a precedent that could be applied to fixed private warnings such as signs, but the logic would seem relevant.
There is a difference & there are several stated cases on obstructing Police.
One of the important things is the judgement of whether the action is intended to stop a crime taking place full stop, or merely suspend the commission of the crime temporarily while there is danger of detection.
In 1910 an AA patrolman was convicted of obstructing Police for warning of a speed trap.
Recent stated cases around this issue have hinged on whether an offence is being commited in the first place. As a result of these & as the law currently stands, if a Police officer has primary evidence of a speeding offence & the wilful actions of another interfere with the collection of the required corroborative evidence, then that person could be guilty of obstructing Police.
The case was that of DPP v Glendinning.
The CPS are appealing, but the simple uptake from it at present is as I have described. Provided one officer can give opinion that someone was speeding before the warning was given & that the offender changed speed as a result which meant the corroborative evidence couldn't be obtained, then the obstruction would be complete.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 12th April 00:06
One of the important things is the judgement of whether the action is intended to stop a crime taking place full stop, or merely suspend the commission of the crime temporarily while there is danger of detection.
In 1910 an AA patrolman was convicted of obstructing Police for warning of a speed trap.
Recent stated cases around this issue have hinged on whether an offence is being commited in the first place. As a result of these & as the law currently stands, if a Police officer has primary evidence of a speeding offence & the wilful actions of another interfere with the collection of the required corroborative evidence, then that person could be guilty of obstructing Police.
flemke said:
Recently there was a case brought in the UK against a driver who flashed his headlights to warn drivers that they were approaching a mobile camera (or police speed trap).
He was found not guilty on the basis that the CPS could not prove that the people whom he was warning were at the time breaking the speed limit. If they were not breaking the speed limit, he would not have been assisting them to evade detection.
I don't know that this case would have set a precedent that could be applied to fixed private warnings such as signs, but the logic would seem relevant.
The case was that of DPP v Glendinning.
The CPS are appealing, but the simple uptake from it at present is as I have described. Provided one officer can give opinion that someone was speeding before the warning was given & that the offender changed speed as a result which meant the corroborative evidence couldn't be obtained, then the obstruction would be complete.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 12th April 00:06
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff