Notifying other drivers of speed cameras is an offence?

[wetsleet]

It seems that notifying other drivers about mobile speed cameras is an offence. Where does this leave speed camera databases - what in principle is the difference between flashing your headlamps to warn other drivers about the presence of a mobile speed camera, and achieving the same end via the more circuitous route of placing the same information on a database?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179

[BigPerk]

The point is that a mobile camera has a police(wo)man attached - if you warn other drivers then I believe the offence is because you are impeding him/her in the execution of their duty. The fact that they are using a camera is really beside the point - if they are doing anything "official" which someone flashed their lights to others as a warning, I think the same would apply.

A fixed camera (usually!) lives on its own.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[MaFt]

also see comments here: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=85670

MaFt

[Darren]

[MaFt]

[Darren]

The legal technicalities behind the offences of obstruction or perverting the course of justice are complex but in simple terms, to commit the offence of obstruction you need to commit an act of intentional interference.

In the case of speed traps and the like, (and my Police Law is very rusty these days) that used to mean you had to give some direct alert to someone who was committing an offence at that time thus preventing them from being apprehended.

A GPS warning device or live alerts are not an 'intentional interference' and they could not be directed directly at someone who was speeding into a speed trap. They merely act in the same way as a speed sign or speed camera sign and serve to remind drivers to check their speed.

As far as the Road Safety Bill is concerned, it specifically allows for and permits GPS based alerts in law but, the issue of live alerts had not been considered when the Bill was first drafted. However, as I've attempted to explain, I doubt very much whether an offence of obstruction would be committed but it would require a test prosecution or a clarification in law to be 100% certain.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Andy_P]

The point I tried to make in the other topic was that the so-called offence was "of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties"; when surely he did nothing of the sort?

The officer with the speed gun could continue doing what she was doing perfectly well, couldn't she? The man's actions were not affecting her at all, it's just that less offences would occur.
I could understand it if they prosecuted for 'perverting the course of justice' but not obstruction.

So...taking this speed trap example
A police officer is HOPING to catch someone doing something wrong
Someone stops that person doing it, thus thwarting the officer.
That's an offence?

OK... lets take it to extremes
A police marksman with a REAL gun is told there is a dangerous armed villain in a pub and so he stakes out the exit.
Are we really saying that if a member of the public were to disarm the villain and therefore prevents the officer from shooting him soon after,
then that's "Obstructing an officer in the course of his duty" as well and the hero is guilty of an offence?

If that's too extreme, you could tone it down.
How about an officer with a breathalyser machine sitting outside a pub, and a drunk inside who's mate tells him not to drive home.
Same thing - the drunk avoids committing a crime but the copper is deprived of his chance to nick someone. Is the friend guilty of "Obstruction"??

I'm afraid I can't see the difference.

[Darren]

I think your taking this a little too far. Law is always open to interpretation and in the case under discussion, the courts thought the offence had been committed.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Andy_P]

Sorry, I added some more while you were posting Darren....

Oh, and you changed your post too....

I think my parallels show it to be a wrong conviction.

[Darren]

If someone told a drunk in a pub to go left out of the car park when driving home so as to avoid a police trap, then that would be an offence.

Whether you agree with the use of this legislation here is of course open to debate. We don't know the full story of course but unless he had parked up 100yds ahead and spent 20mins warning every approaching driver then I'm surprised he was dealt with.

We can all see why the legislation exists but I too fail to see why it was felt necessary to use it here.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Darren]

[Andy_P]

[Duddy]

The prosecuted driver just didn't give the correct reply when challenged by the police surely he would only be warning speeding drivers they were exceeding the speed limit just like the protesters who hold up signs to motorists they believe are driving too fast.

Some years ago I was waiting to give evidence, in court, when the previous case was heard with similar circumstances to the above, the defendant said he believed the other drivers were driving too fast and was admonishing them. The Magistrates dismissed the case, with costs, as "No case to answer".

On the other-hand I once was operating speed radar on the Manchester/ Stockport border and noticed some drivers flashing their headlights as they were passing through my radar at well over the 40 mph limit. I walked to the border (which is a slightly humped bridge over the Mersey) and saw the Stockport Traffic unit radar checking in the opposite direction, drivers were headlight flashing in both directions AND exceeding the speed limit, I seem to remember the number of prosecutions, that day, were the highest for a long time.
_________________
HUAWEI P30 Pro (new edition) with Speedtrap Alert & alcatel1 for SatNav
CoPilot 10 with CamerAlert
RoadHawk in-car video
Reading glasses getting thicker as is my waist
Retired but want to go back to work for a rest.

[BigPerk]

I think also it's the CPS that has the crucial role in making the decision to prosecute, rather than the police. And they seem to prefer to try to chase (relatively!!) minor and petty, but 'easy' cases, as here, justifying them as "in the public interest". Yet they decide NOT to pursue some complex, but major, VERY high profile cases - but there, citing "unlikely to get a conviction".

All very plausible perhaps, but smelling of a rather unbalanced view of justice and the real 'public interest'.

And they also said here "cost is not a consideration". Well, in these difficult economic times, with government cuts coming everywhere, it should be. I personally would like to see the CPS departmental budget cut by 20-30%, for all the public good they seem to do.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[Darren]

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!