Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[skahigh]

If I saw a speed camera van in my local area (as I did recently) and decided to stand a little way up the road with a warning sign would that be an offence?

If so, what if I made the sign ambiguous. i.e. "Speed camera may be ahead"?

[Bigends]

vonhosen said:

whoami said:

vonhosen said:

As I said, the courts are happy they can tell what's going on with warnings from all the circumstances. It's your licence you risk if you wilfully obstruct an officer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motor...

A particularly pathetic example.

I'll give you another then

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Dr...

In this case - Police officers were operating the speed check - different to a civvy camera operator - unless sworn as specials I suppose

[vonhosen]

Who me said:

vonhosen said:

It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty.

My bold. In the vast majority of camera van operations, the operatives are not Constables, but employees of the SCP. So now, convince me it's not about road safety and all about income generation to stop the SCP empire going bust. What's the difference between me flashing a motorist because I might consider their driving a bit OTT for the road , and my waving down a car full of teenagers on a housing estate to warn them that there's a group of young kids ( toddlers etc) playing further up , in and around a stack of parked cars?

What matters is why you are warning & the court will make their mind up as to why that was from all the facts.
They don't have to believe it was for the purpose you claim.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 22:49

[Clivey]

vonhosen said:

Oddly you don't see a lot of drivers being warned by other drivers away from speed enforcement areas.
Try your best to convince me it's not about evading getting caught.

The last time I flashed my headlights at another driver, it wasn't to warn them to slow down because of a speed trap, it was to warn them to slow down because there was a sheep in the road (around the next corner they would've come to).

Still...can't let anything get in the way of Government money laundering.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

vonhosen said:

This topic has been done to death many times.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why so many times? I mean what other circumstances to the public act against the police? telling robbers the patrol is coming? telling a rapist to zip up, someone's coming?

While you lot carry on telling people black is white and charging them for driving normally and going about their usual daily business, setting up vans in perfectly safe locations whilst crowing about reducing accidents, guess what? We'll warn people in the hope we save them being fleeced. Motorists hate being patronised and fined for no good reason and despise those responsible for doing it.

And for the record the 'TV star' coppers tooling about at three figures to make someone stop on the insanely dangeous hard shoulder just to patronise them and write them up for driving normally, do nothing to bring credibility to the police, quite the reverse actually.

Just sayin'

In the case law for the offence of obstructing a constable in his duty it is for a wide range of offences, not just speed enforcement.

[deeen]

vonhosen said:

As said many times.
It's not an offence to warn somebody about their behaviour, it is to wilfully obstruct a constable...

So if I believe that scamera vans are not manned by genuine "constables", I am not committing an offence by warning other road users about them?

Oh, and lol at "speeders", I thought we had grown out of that?

Edited by deeen on Sunday 9th November 22:52

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

[quote=Who me ?]

vonhosen said:

It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty.

My bold. In the vast majority of camera van operations, the operatives are not Constables, but employees of the SCP. So now, convince me it's not about road safety and all about income generation to stop the SCP empire going bust. What's the difference between me flashing a motorist because I might consider their driving a bit OTT for the road , and my waving down a car full of teenagers on a housing estate to warn them that there's a group of young kids ( toddlers etc) playing further up , in and around a stack of parked cars?

What matters is why you are warning & the court will make their mind up as to why that was from all the facts.
They don't have to believe it was for the purpose you claim.

But we have to accept their decision ?? Ah right, I could be telling the truth, but if they don't believe me...tough.
Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

[Clivey]

delboy735 said:

Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

£££

[vonhosen]

delboy735 said:

vonhosen said:

Who me said:

vonhosen said:

It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty.

My bold. In the vast majority of camera van operations, the operatives are not Constables, but employees of the SCP. So now, convince me it's not about road safety and all about income generation to stop the SCP empire going bust. What's the difference between me flashing a motorist because I might consider their driving a bit OTT for the road , and my waving down a car full of teenagers on a housing estate to warn them that there's a group of young kids ( toddlers etc) playing further up , in and around a stack of parked cars?

What matters is why you are warning & the court will make their mind up as to why that was from all the facts.
They don't have to believe it was for the purpose you claim.

But we have to accept their decision ?? Ah right, I could be telling the truth, but if they don't believe me...tough.
Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

You are innocent until proven guilty.
The court look at all the evidence & determine whether there is sufficient to convict.
Of course just because somebody denies something it doesn't mean that the court have to acquit, otherwise everybody would just deny offending.
They'll look at the case in it's entirety.

I've answered the question, provided the relevant case law etc & rather than going around in the same old circles leave you to it.

[delboy735]

Clivey said:

delboy735 said:

Guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Used to be the other way round, what happened to that ??

£££

Not just me then.As motorists, we are by far the easiest "criminals" to trace as well......what a coincidence

[Digby]

deeen said:

So if I believe that scamera vans are not manned by genuine "constables", I am not committing an offence by warning other road users about them?

Interesting point.Can anyone confirm / deny?

[Who me ?]

vonhosen said:

Who me said:

vonhosen said:

It's an offence where a constable is obstructed in his duty.

My bold. In the vast majority of camera van operations, the operatives are not Constables, but employees of the SCP. So now, convince me it's not about road safety and all about income generation to stop the SCP empire going bust. What's the difference between me flashing a motorist because I might consider their driving a bit OTT for the road , and my waving down a car full of teenagers on a housing estate to warn them that there's a group of young kids ( toddlers etc) playing further up , in and around a stack of parked cars?

What matters is why you are warning & the court will make their mind up as to why that was from all the facts.
They don't have to believe it was for the purpose you claim.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 22:49

Hang on ,VON - what happened to the Constable. From what you first said, warning about a speed trap is OBSTRUCTING A CONSTABLE . Please EXPLAIN where the obstruction comes in with civilian members of a FOR PROFIT SCP.
Then ,can you ( unless you are doing a PITSMANSBOOTS procedure) explain the legal definition of "warning". And the offence. You now digress from "Obstructing a Constable etc" to a charge of "Warning".

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

In the case law for the offence of obstructing a constable in his duty it is for a wide range of offences, not just speed enforcement.

I'm sure but if you surveyed 1000 folks you'd definitely find more of them wanting to obstruct a police officer in his duty of fleecing the motorist for driving normally than anything else.

[Clivey]

delboy735 said:

Not just me then.As motorists, we are by far the easiest "criminals" to trace as well......what a coincidence

As motorists, we're the easiest way for the authorities to rake in revenue, be it increasing RFL, camera fines (scrutinise people and sooner or later you'll find something to pick fault with) or yet another tax.

Isn't it funny that the answer to climate change, road safety or whatever today's "threat" is seems to be "give money to the Government"?

[Nigel Worc's]

I've noticed a distinct lack of warning from other drivers recently, except other "professional drivers".

I think people are on the whole supporting scamera vans these days.

Not me of course, I hate the fooking things as I don't believe they are or ever have been about road safety.

[LordFlathead]

Mk3Spitfire said:

I think what they go for is Obstructing an officer in the course of their duty bonus.

There; fixed that for you

[lbc]

Nigel Worc's said:

I've noticed a distinct lack of warning from other drivers recently,

Maybe they just hate you.

In the last year I have been notified twice by headlight flashers of mobile van's in the Midlands.

[mybrainhurts]

skahigh said:

If so, what if I made the sign ambiguous. i.e. "Speed camera may be ahead"?

That's a bit risky.

Play it safe...wker in parked van ahead...should do the trick...

[Durzel]

I haven't the heart not to flash people coming the other way to warn them of a mobile speed trap, after I've been warned numerous occasions myself in the past. I'm community spirited like that though.

[defblade]

As I am regularly overtaken in 30 limits because I am daring to stick to 30, I've given up flashing for speed traps in 30s. Let the idiots take their lumps.