Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Ret. on 9 Jun 2010 07:39
Adrian wrote:
> Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> Near where I live a mobile police speed camera van frequently parks
>> on a grass verge, on public property. Would it be legal to protest
>> in the form of holding a sign or banner, perhaps with the words
>> "Speed kills", deliberately behind the van to block the view of the
>> camera?
>
> Perverting the course of justice?

Or even obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty?

--
Kev
From: Chris Hills on 9 Jun 2010 07:40
On 09/06/2010 12:37, Adrian wrote:
> AIUI, the difference is whether the act is deliberate or not.
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/
> public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/
> #Perverting_the_Course

The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely. I would disagree
that helping that aim by warning people to watch their speed is
obstructing justice.
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 07:42
Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely.

Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. You're not
confusing the two, are you?

> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch their
> speed is obstructing justice.

Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the camera
certainly would be.
From: Chris Hills on 9 Jun 2010 07:50
On 09/06/2010 12:42, Adrian wrote:
> Chris Hills<chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely.
>
> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. You're not
> confusing the two, are you?

The government calls them safety cameras. Staying within the legal speed
limit is one aspect of safe driving.

>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch their
>> speed is obstructing justice.
>
> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the camera
> certainly would be.

They would have to admit that the cameras are there for revenue raising,
then, since the van carries no warning about speed or any aspect of
driving safely.
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 07:52
Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely.

>> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. You're
>> not confusing the two, are you?

> The government calls them safety cameras.

Is that a "Yes"?

> Staying within the legal speed limit is one aspect of safe driving.

Not necessarily - in either direction.

>>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch
>>> their speed is obstructing justice.

>> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the camera
>> certainly would be.

> They would have to admit that the cameras are there for revenue raising,
> then, since the van carries no warning about speed or any aspect of
> driving safely.

Why?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission