From: R. Mark Clayton on

"Chris Hills" <chaz(a)> wrote in message
> 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?

If it is police you would be "obstructing a police officer in the course of
his duty".

Not sure if this would work for "civilian" operators though.

From: Steve Firth on
Bob <bob.doe715(a)> wrote:

> Doesn't the possibility of getting caught by a speed camera encourage
> drivers to keep to the legal limit?

From: Ret. on
Bob wrote:
> "bod" <bodron57(a)> wrote in message
> news:879f01Fhe6U1(a)
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> Chris Hills <chaz(a)> 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?
>> The copper was not exactly trying to encourage a safe road speed, but
>> waiting untill when they go 'over' the legal limit. Whereas, a sign
>> displaying "speed kills", is actively trying to reduce speeding.
>> Debatable about which achieves the best result.
>> Bod
> Doesn't the possibility of getting caught by a speed camera encourage
> drivers to keep to the legal limit?

And doesn't actually getting caught by a speed camera encourage those caught
drivers to keep to the legal limit in future?


From: AlanG on
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:58:56 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)>

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:03:52 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:12:03 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Note the 'elsewhere' and the 'obstruct'
>>> And the lack of MUST NOT outside London.
>> Still gives a right to ticket for obstruction
> No.

Yes it does. An obstruction is an obstruction and a FPN is one way of
deterring the offender
>>>> You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or
>>>> where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road.
>>> And that does not automatically include close to the junction.
>>> The Lighting Regulations clarify that you may park there.
>> You snipped the bit about 10 metres from the junction
> That was not in the MUST NOT.
>confirms that you can park within 10 metres of a junction, other than
>within a marked bay, provided that you have lights on at night.

ii) no part of the vehicle is less than 10 m from the junction of any
part of the carriageway of any road with the carriageway of the road
on which it is parked whether that junction is on the same side of the
road as that on which the vehicle is parked or not.
From: Adrian on
"Mortimer" <me(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were

>> And how many accidents were *caused* by excessive speed for the
>> conditions (whether above or below the limit), as opposed to being
>> *caused* by another driver or road user but simply made worse because a
>> driver who did not cause the accident was not able to avoid someone
>> else's accident?

> Consider two accidents, both caused by a driver pulling out from a side
> road into the path of a moving car. In the first case, the moving car is
> doing 30 mph (the speed limit) and the side-road car pulls out when the
> moving one is close by. In the other case, the moving car is doing 40
> mph and the side-road car pulls out when the moving one is somewhat
> further away.
> Suppose the closing speed at impact is the same in both cases: in the
> latter case the car was going faster but had a greater distance in which
> to brake. Will one crash record excessive speed as a contributing
> factor, even though the closing speed is the same in both cases?

Same two collisions - but the driver doing 40 is paying attention, whilst
the driver doing 30 isn't. The first car slows to 20 by the time of
impact, the second car doesn't slow at all.

There's far too many factors involved to second-guess _every_ _small_
_detail_. In both those cases, it's purely and simply that the cause was
a fuckwit pulling out without looking.