"Police reported ahead" on Waze
Discussion
Pelicula said:
Griffith4ever said:
Pelicula said:
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Saw exactly that in my drive back from London a couple of weeks ago, "keep left unless overtaking" and, "Don't hog the middle lane" - mix of the two - can't remember if it was M4 AND M5, but defo M5 all the way down.That'll be the day.
Brilliantly, a LOT of cars moved left when the saw the notices.
Woop de doo.....!
More useful signage than last year's "Drink water".....
Pelicula said:
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Hghways did precisely this for 2/3 weeks on motorways and busy A-roads (seems to have ended now, odd timing given we seem to have more part-time drivers on the road during the day during the school holidays). You may be disappointed to learn it made minimal, if any, difference. Now the signs have vanished, back to the status quo.....(cue Status Quo pun, please)That'll be the day.
Edited by clayts450 on Saturday 5th August 22:45
clayts450 said:
Pelicula said:
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Hghways did precisely this for 2/3 weeks on motorways and busy A-roads (seems to have ended now, odd timing given we seem to have more part-time drivers on the road during the day during the school holidays). You may be disappointed to learn it made minimal, if any, difference. Now the signs have vanished, back to the status quo.....(cue Status Quo pun, please)That'll be the day.
Edited by clayts450 on Saturday 5th August 22:45
Whatever you want....
bad company said:
kowalski655 said:
If this chap
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/D...
(Apologies for the Wail link) can get fined for warning of speed traps, should Waze not face the same?
One case 12 years ago and he could have got out of it if he’d been smarter.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/D...
(Apologies for the Wail link) can get fined for warning of speed traps, should Waze not face the same?
I warn others of speed traps and will continue to do so.
It is clear the real crime they committed that day was challenging the police officer, as simply rolling over would have seen the guy on their way.
The chap said in the article he would appeal, but I don't recall any case law on this issue being changed. He probably took one look at the quote for legal costs, and decided principles do actually have a price after all.
I'm no lawyer, but I recall a defence can be made on a genuinely held belief (for instance, do you believe someone is carrying a gun or a table leg in a bag when deciding to lawfully kill them?). I think the guy's actual experience of a crash caused by a speed trap seemed genuine.
Also, reading some of the decade old comments in the Mail article, one of them was actually quite sensible (must have slipped through the net)
The commenter put forward the view that the chap was not "obstructing" the police in catching motorists, he was instead "frustrating" them in catching motorists.
Wilfully obstructing (police act 1996 section 89) is all about the police "carrying out their duty".
So was their duty checking the speed of cars and tackling ones going to fast? Or was their duty to make sure the cars were speeding as they got to the police? The second one sounds ridiculous.
I recall breadvan saying judges like the ordinary meaning of words. If parliament had intended that "obstruction of their duty" would include stopping a crime from being committed before a police officer saw the crime taking place, the they should have put that in the Police Act when it was being written.
It would be interesting to see that point challenged at a higher court, but seeking justice in UK courts is an expensive game to play.
Which brings is full circle to why it's just easier to "play the game" by lying and being let on your way
Pelicula said:
clayts450 said:
Pelicula said:
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Hghways did precisely this for 2/3 weeks on motorways and busy A-roads (seems to have ended now, odd timing given we seem to have more part-time drivers on the road during the day during the school holidays). You may be disappointed to learn it made minimal, if any, difference. Now the signs have vanished, back to the status quo.....(cue Status Quo pun, please)That'll be the day.
Edited by clayts450 on Saturday 5th August 22:45
Whatever you want....
There are a lot of things that go on today & most are happy with or tolerate, that 75 years ago would be considered by the vast majority as completely unacceptable.
The authorities can try & influence that through education, laws & enforcement.
vonhosen said:
Pelicula said:
clayts450 said:
Pelicula said:
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Hghways did precisely this for 2/3 weeks on motorways and busy A-roads (seems to have ended now, odd timing given we seem to have more part-time drivers on the road during the day during the school holidays). You may be disappointed to learn it made minimal, if any, difference. Now the signs have vanished, back to the status quo.....(cue Status Quo pun, please)That'll be the day.
Edited by clayts450 on Saturday 5th August 22:45
Whatever you want....
There are a lot of things that go on today & most are happy with or tolerate, that 75 years ago would be considered by the vast majority as completely unacceptable.
The authorities can try & influence that through education, laws & enforcement.
Pelicula said:
It only takes one or two overly cautious to sit at 60 then everyone else is forced to queue behind. The impatient/late/moronic drivers further back have no clue or interest in whats causing the hold up so undertaking and crazy manoeuvres abound.
Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Seen that on the gantries on the M4 between Swindon and Swansea a few times now, doesn't make any difference. Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Ian Geary said:
bad company said:
kowalski655 said:
If this chap
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/D...
(Apologies for the Wail link) can get fined for warning of speed traps, should Waze not face the same?
One case 12 years ago and he could have got out of it if he’d been smarter.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/D...
(Apologies for the Wail link) can get fined for warning of speed traps, should Waze not face the same?
I warn others of speed traps and will continue to do so.
It is clear the real crime they committed that day was challenging the police officer, as simply rolling over would have seen the guy on their way.
The chap said in the article he would appeal, but I don't recall any case law on this issue being changed. He probably took one look at the quote for legal costs, and decided principles do actually have a price after all.
I'm no lawyer, but I recall a defence can be made on a genuinely held belief (for instance, do you believe someone is carrying a gun or a table leg in a bag when deciding to lawfully kill them?). I think the guy's actual experience of a crash caused by a speed trap seemed genuine.
Also, reading some of the decade old comments in the Mail article, one of them was actually quite sensible (must have slipped through the net)
The commenter put forward the view that the chap was not "obstructing" the police in catching motorists, he was instead "frustrating" them in catching motorists.
Wilfully obstructing (police act 1996 section 89) is all about the police "carrying out their duty".
So was their duty checking the speed of cars and tackling ones going to fast? Or was their duty to make sure the cars were speeding as they got to the police? The second one sounds ridiculous.
I recall breadvan saying judges like the ordinary meaning of words. If parliament had intended that "obstruction of their duty" would include stopping a crime from being committed before a police officer saw the crime taking place, the they should have put that in the Police Act when it was being written.
It would be interesting to see that point challenged at a higher court, but seeking justice in UK courts is an expensive game to play.
Which brings is full circle to why it's just easier to "play the game" by lying and being let on your way
There's a difference between warning people about speeding & encouraging them to comply with limits , rather than frustrating the legal process of evidence gathering by obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty whilst performing speed enforcement.
There are three questions to be asked.
(1) Was there any obstruction of a constable?
(2) Was the Constable acting lawfully in the execution of his duty?
(3) Was the obstruction intended to obstruct the constable in the execution of his duty?
On question 3 the court are happy that when viewing the full circumstances they can make a judgement on that (In Glendinning he claimed he wasn't giving signals in order to warn others of speed enforcement & to temporarily reduce their speed to evade prosecution. The court didn't believe him & decided he was doing that).
On question 2 again the court are happy they can make a judgement on that (In Glendinning the court were happy that the speed enforcement was clearly a lawful execution of Police duty).
On question 1 again the court are happy they can make that judgement (In Glendinning this is where the prosecution failed because they didn't show an obstruction had taken place in that they provided no evidence that somebody was offending or likely to. If nobody was speeding or likely to then the officer couldn't have been obstructed from gathering evidence for prosecution of an offence. It would likely have been a different story though if the Police had gained primary evidence of speeding (given an opinion that a vehicle was speeding) prior to being obstructed in getting the necessary secondary evidence through measurement, due to Glendinning's intervention).
So warning people not to speed isn't an offence, supplying lists of enforcement sites isn't an offence, but if the Police have started to gather evidence against somebody & then you intervene by giving warnings to those drivers it may be an offence of obstruction.
aterribleusername said:
Pelicula said:
It only takes one or two overly cautious to sit at 60 then everyone else is forced to queue behind. The impatient/late/moronic drivers further back have no clue or interest in whats causing the hold up so undertaking and crazy manoeuvres abound.
Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Seen that on the gantries on the M4 between Swindon and Swansea a few times now, doesn't make any difference. Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Any cases of MLM's followed and prosecuted ?
Or are they just out for people like me ? 71 in a temporary 60 on a deserted stretch of the M1 ?
Pelicula said:
aterribleusername said:
Pelicula said:
It only takes one or two overly cautious to sit at 60 then everyone else is forced to queue behind. The impatient/late/moronic drivers further back have no clue or interest in whats causing the hold up so undertaking and crazy manoeuvres abound.
Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Seen that on the gantries on the M4 between Swindon and Swansea a few times now, doesn't make any difference. Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Any cases of MLM's followed and prosecuted ?
Or are they just out for people like me ? 71 in a temporary 60 on a deserted stretch of the M1 ?
Speeding however is a specific offence & a simple binary one at that.
MLMing may at times amount to an offence under s3 RTA, but it's a nuanced judgement call rather than a simple binary call.
vonhosen said:
Pelicula said:
aterribleusername said:
Pelicula said:
It only takes one or two overly cautious to sit at 60 then everyone else is forced to queue behind. The impatient/late/moronic drivers further back have no clue or interest in whats causing the hold up so undertaking and crazy manoeuvres abound.
Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Seen that on the gantries on the M4 between Swindon and Swansea a few times now, doesn't make any difference. Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Any cases of MLM's followed and prosecuted ?
Or are they just out for people like me ? 71 in a temporary 60 on a deserted stretch of the M1 ?
Speeding however is a specific offence & a simple binary one at that.
MLMing may at times amount to an offence under s3 RTA, but it's a nuanced judgement call rather than a simple binary call.
Lets not waste our time on motorists who are thick/inept/selfish/inconsiderate and DANGEROUS.
Instead, develop technology.....ping, ping, ping....££££££....and hide behind the caring, safety argument. Sick.
Pelicula said:
vonhosen said:
Pelicula said:
aterribleusername said:
Pelicula said:
It only takes one or two overly cautious to sit at 60 then everyone else is forced to queue behind. The impatient/late/moronic drivers further back have no clue or interest in whats causing the hold up so undertaking and crazy manoeuvres abound.
Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Seen that on the gantries on the M4 between Swindon and Swansea a few times now, doesn't make any difference. Yeah, really safe policies....
The day I see 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' on a Gantry Display will be the day I believe they really want to keep us safe, our licences unsullied and traffic moving efficiently.
That'll be the day.
Any cases of MLM's followed and prosecuted ?
Or are they just out for people like me ? 71 in a temporary 60 on a deserted stretch of the M1 ?
Speeding however is a specific offence & a simple binary one at that.
MLMing may at times amount to an offence under s3 RTA, but it's a nuanced judgement call rather than a simple binary call.
Lets not waste our time on motorists who are thick/inept/selfish/inconsiderate and DANGEROUS.
Instead, develop technology.....ping, ping, ping....££££££....and hide behind the caring, safety argument. Sick.
They have little adverse effect on me.
omniflow said:
And sure enough, there's a liveried SUV parked at the side of the motorway. However, it's not Police, it's Highways England.
Do you:
Select "Not There" in Waze - because they're not Police
Select "Still There" in Waze, either because you don't know the difference, or you think that people should slow down anyway.
Do nothing with Waze
I would say 90% of the time it's a HATO or VOSA vehicle parked up. Around here on the A14 they regularly park in the same lay by that the speed camera vans use which leads to no end of stupid braking. It almost looks deliberate.... much like when they park on motoway bridges.Do you:
Select "Not There" in Waze - because they're not Police
Select "Still There" in Waze, either because you don't know the difference, or you think that people should slow down anyway.
Do nothing with Waze
The other crappy thing about Waze is the repeated reports of 'Vehicle on shoulder ahead' when in fact they are perfectly safe in a lay by!
Pelicula said:
Countdown said:
Pelicula said:
Lets not waste our time on motorists who are thick/inept/selfish/inconsiderate and DANGEROUS.
Do you not think that label could also be applied to people who speed? Self awareness is a wonderful gift.
Countdown said:
Pelicula said:
Countdown said:
Pelicula said:
Lets not waste our time on motorists who are thick/inept/selfish/inconsiderate and DANGEROUS.
Do you not think that label could also be applied to people who speed? Self awareness is a wonderful gift.
If I was to speed I'd categorise myself 'capable' and 'respectful of the conditions'.
Pelicula said:
Congratulations.
If I was to speed I'd categorise myself 'capable' and 'respectful of the conditions'.
My guess is that MLMs also consider themselves capable and respectful of the conditions. They probably don't care that they're breaking the law, they think they're driving in a safe manner. As I said above, self awareness is a wonderful thing.If I was to speed I'd categorise myself 'capable' and 'respectful of the conditions'.
Pelicula said:
Countdown said:
Pelicula said:
Countdown said:
Pelicula said:
Lets not waste our time on motorists who are thick/inept/selfish/inconsiderate and DANGEROUS.
Do you not think that label could also be applied to people who speed? Self awareness is a wonderful gift.
If I was to speed I'd categorise myself 'capable' and 'respectful of the conditions'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff