spinac Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 All this weeks camera locations in south yorkshire are here in their full glory http://www.safetycamera.org/camera-locations/where-are-the-mobiles Week commencing 3rd January 2011? AAaaggghhhhh I use one of the roads listed daily. Saw nothing. But then I am a careful driver, there's no chance that ... is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Unless you went back along the road and asked everyone, including people you hadn';t noticed, if your criminal behaviour impacted negatively on you you [sic] have no idea whether your crime was truly victimless. Naughty banjodeano, running over invisible pedestrians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 But the driver is aiding the police by slowing the traffic. The speed limit sign has the job of slowing the traffic. The police have the job of fining people who ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 You get all you deserve when breaking the speed limits. Some people get so selfish when they get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Behave people, then maybe the council will stop changing the road systems so much eh? In the end it is your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 No, you can't, ACPO guidelines are 10% plus 2mph at all speed limits. When drivers break the law and speed past me at illegal speeds I find it bullying and intimidating. What part of your post do you not understand? Guidelines At the discretion of the Chief Constable. 34 MPH in Rotherham, a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The speed limit sign has the job of slowing the traffic. The police have the job of fining people who ignore it. Camera partnerships are not there to fine people, they are there to promote safety on the roads and encourage people to slow down. I see this a part of the problem. The law and the establishment say one thing, but the public interpret that as meaning something else and verdantly defend it without any realisation they are doing so in error. Is it the public's fault or maybe the establishments for deliberately making hazy legislation knowing full well the consensus of opinion will get it wrong. Anyway this is all irrelevant considering in 2005 someone else was charged and the case was thrown out of court. The man prosecuted recently was initially given a caution but refused to accept it, then went on to defend himself in court. He now intends to appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 What part of your post do you not understand? Guidelines At the discretion of the Chief Constable. 34 MPH in Rotherham, a few years back. You won't get a fine for 34mph, unless it's in a 20 zone. Would you expect to pass your test if you broke the law during your driving test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 From the article: Michael Thompson, 64, was pulled over by officers in Grimsby in July after warning several oncoming cars. The vast majority of drivers drive within the speed limit, so it is likely that those cars weren't speeding. In my opinion it could only be shown that he was "wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties" if it was shown that the oncoming cars were speeding. In the absence of such evidence, then the following statement equally applies: Thompson said: "I flashed motorists to warn them of a hazard." A police van parked obstructing the pavement, or in the side of the road, with somebody pointing a radar gun, could be quite distracting. I would welcome a friendly warning ahead of such a hazard even though I am always within the speed limit. But regardless of all that, here is the bit that makes me angry: "I explained I was doing my civic duty and the court found me guilty and I now have a criminal record." A criminal record! If that was me, I would now be out of work. There are many professions that will automatically strip somebody of their qualification if they are handed a criminal record. Paul Chambers was stripped of his, and therefore lost his job, because he was given a criminal record over his twitter joke. I despair sometimes that society seems to be losing a grip on perspective, and petty jobs-worthiness can actually end up creating more genuine individual harm than it is trying to prevent. Let's get a grip shall we, he flashed his headlights and some vindictive police officer didn't like it, but a criminal record ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Do you swerve wildly over the road every time you see a police car? A police car isn't a hazard, it's entirely likely you'll see one on the road and any competent driver would not find it distracting. Mr Thompson obstructed a police officer, a criminal act, in order to warn other criminals, speeding being a crimninal offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 In this case, the Appellent is the DPP. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005) DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005 CRIMINAL LAW - POLICE - ROAD TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates' court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered. Appeal dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.