Protesting speed cameras
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Rob on 9 Jun 2010 07:55 Chris Hills wrote: || 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. Well unfortunately the Establishment doesn't agree with you. Did you not hear of the guy being prosecuted and fined for doing something similar (though well in advance of the camera) by urging all drivers (not just speeders) to slow down? -- Rob
From: GT on 9 Jun 2010 08:01 "Chris Hills" <chaz(a)chaz6.com> wrote in message news:huntva$sai$1(a)chaz6.eternal-september.org... > 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? In our area, the mobile van parks in two places - one on a double yellow line and the other on the verge next to a solid white line on a dual carriageway. Both illegally parked and if a 'normal' car was parked there it would be towed and the driver fined etc etc.
From: Specs on 9 Jun 2010 08:11 On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:00:10 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > This suggests that the police >would rather catch speeding drivers than have them drive at a law-abiding >speed. Well, its not as if the flashing was really about getting people to drive slower other than past the camera. -- Specs
From: bod on 9 Jun 2010 08:16 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. > > 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
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 08:19
bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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. Depends what you mean by "best results". If the aim is to reduce road casualties, then both are pissing in the wind, since only a very tiny minority are due to speed in excess of the limit. If the aim is merely to reduce the speed of vehicles on that one stretch of road, then I rather suspect that the van is more effective than a lone loony waving a sheet about. |