Protesting speed cameras
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: AlanG on 14 Jun 2010 14:43 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:21:23 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:08:44 +0100, "Rob" ><rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>Nick Finnigan wrote: >>|| Graham Murray wrote: >>||| Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>||| >>|||| The police have begun issuing roadside "warning notices" for >>|||| "sudden and excessive acceleration". A work collegue got one a >>|||| few weeks ago on his way to work after accelllerating from traffic >>|||| lights too smartly for the liking of a police officer (who himself >>|||| then accellerated even more and wove past three cars to catch up). >>||| >>||| So what is the maximum permitted ms^-2? >>|| >>|| "likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the >>|| public" >>|| >>|| (RTA Section 59) >> >>s59 Police Reform Act 2002. > >Thanks for that. I know I had seen that section but had not been able >to recall it in order to quote it for Kev and anyone else who doubts >that the police have such power: > >59 >Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance .(1) >Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that >a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which . >(a) >contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) >(careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road >driving), and . >(b) >is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to >members of the public, . >he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). >(2) >A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in >subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a >motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within >subsection (1). . >(3) >Those powers are . >(a) >power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it >to stop the vehicle; . >(b) >power to seize and remove the motor vehicle; . >(c) >power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph >(a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds >for believing the motor vehicle to be; . >(d) >power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any >power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c). . >(4) >A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the >powers conferred on him by this section unless . >(a) >he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use >falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use >continues or is repeated; and . >(b) >it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after >the the warning. Another power for the police to abuse and bully people with http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/8216340.A12_mobility_scooter_man_given__roads_Asbo_/
From: Mortimer on 14 Jun 2010 14:57 "AlanG" <invalid(a)invalid.net> wrote in message news:51uc16hhk2sjmf1t776gldrnse9pag1fqs(a)4ax.com... > Another power for the police to abuse and bully people with > http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/8216340.A12_mobility_scooter_man_given__roads_Asbo_/ No I think it was the right decision to penalise this "driver": he was driving exceptionally slowly compared with the rest of the traffic (because his vehicle doesn't go any faster) and wasn't abiding by the advice in the HC that drivers of slow vehicles should pull over frequently to let the rest of the traffic past. Mobility scooters at 8 mph are a difficult case: far to slow to be roadworthy (IMHO) because they can't reach the speed limit and yet too fast to mingle with pedestrians on the pavement unless they restrict themselves to the 4 mph speed.
From: Nick Finnigan on 14 Jun 2010 15:13 Cynic wrote: > contravenes section 59. The vehicle & driver are then flagged on the > PNC so that if it is stopped a *second* time, then the driver is > prosecuted. No, the vehicle is seized; more hassle for the car owner, less for the police.
From: Ret. on 14 Jun 2010 15:54 Cynic wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:08:44 +0100, "Rob" > <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>> Graham Murray wrote: >>>>> Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> The police have begun issuing roadside "warning notices" for >>>>>> "sudden and excessive acceleration". A work collegue got one a >>>>>> few weeks ago on his way to work after accelllerating from >>>>>> traffic lights too smartly for the liking of a police officer >>>>>> (who himself then accellerated even more and wove past three >>>>>> cars to catch up). >>>>> >>>>> So what is the maximum permitted ms^-2? >>>> >>>> "likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the >>>> public" >>>> >>>> (RTA Section 59) >> >> s59 Police Reform Act 2002. > > Thanks for that. I know I had seen that section but had not been able > to recall it in order to quote it for Kev and anyone else who doubts > that the police have such power: > > 59 > Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance .(1) > Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that > a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which . > (a) > contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) > (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road > driving), and . > (b) > is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to > members of the public, . > he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). > (2) > A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in > subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a > motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within > subsection (1). . > (3) > Those powers are . > (a) > power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it > to stop the vehicle; . > (b) > power to seize and remove the motor vehicle; . > (c) > power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph > (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds > for believing the motor vehicle to be; . > (d) > power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any > power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c). . > (4) > A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the > powers conferred on him by this section unless . > (a) > he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use > falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use > continues or is repeated; and . > (b) > it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after > the the warning. But the 'base' legislation being used is Due Care or Inconsiderate Driving. The 'excessive acceleration' is merely a description of the act deemed to be careless or inconsiderate. No new legislation, therefore. -- Kev
From: AlanG on 15 Jun 2010 03:43
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:57:33 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >"AlanG" <invalid(a)invalid.net> wrote in message >news:51uc16hhk2sjmf1t776gldrnse9pag1fqs(a)4ax.com... >> Another power for the police to abuse and bully people with >> http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/8216340.A12_mobility_scooter_man_given__roads_Asbo_/ > >No I think it was the right decision to penalise this "driver": he was >driving exceptionally slowly compared with the rest of the traffic (because >his vehicle doesn't go any faster) and wasn't abiding by the advice in the >HC that drivers of slow vehicles should pull over frequently to let the rest >of the traffic past. How do you know he was able to pull over? The report says there is no hard shoulder or presumably a footpath. > >Mobility scooters at 8 mph are a difficult case: far to slow to be >roadworthy (IMHO) because they can't reach the speed limit and yet too fast >to mingle with pedestrians on the pavement unless they restrict themselves >to the 4 mph speed. So you think the police should use a law designed to stop yobs doing wheelies in carparks and tyre burns on the streets to steal a motorised wheelchair from a cripple? |