The police set a trap. Someone warns random members of the general public of said trap. Police trap has been exposed/ruined/obstructed.
The Highway code is just that, a "code" of behaviour, it's not a law. It's a way of finding common ground for conduct which is deemed reasonable. There are always exceptions to the code, some of those have been mentioned already. Mvagusta brought up one and I brought up another. Yes, but they create a mindset which is a mindset we can do without and I therefore oppose them.
What the traffic actually did does not matter. What matters is the intention of the motorist warning it. Why would he bother to warn other drivers at all, unless his intention was to prevent speeders from getting caught? That is the obstruction of the law for which he was fined. No. The issue is one of responsibility. If you tell a casual passer-by that a bobby is nearby you are exercising your freedom of expression. But if you tell someone who is in the act of commiting an offence that a bobby is nearby, you are complicit in that offence. If a TomTom tells you where speed cameras are, it is not responsible for anything-- it can't be. It's a dumb automaton. But you are responsible for how you use it. If you are using it to avoid getting caught speeding that is an offence, but a very hard to prove one so generally the police don't bother. But warning other motorists of a hidden speed trap can only have one intent and purpose: to allow potential speeders to evade capture. Filling parking meters is illegal only if the time on the meter has expired. If not, it does not matter who pays for the time. But since a parking attendant cannot see which of the meters you refilled had run out and which had not, there is a blanket ban. Again, what other intent could you have then to allow overparkers to evade a fine? That intent is what matters.
the trap is there to catch people speeding, if they are not speeding then the trap is ruined how? so yes if he warned people who were speeding that he is in the wrong, if he was generally warning people of the trap ahead speeding or not then its different. and before you say "o but he knew they were speeding", how? can anyone tell the difference between 60 and 70 just by driving past them?
Yes, but a law will not give you the flexibility the code gives you, and sometimes flexibility is needed. As in the example of being blinded by the full beam of an oncoming car. If the law were to decide, as based on the highway code, then anyone would be committing a crime when flashing their lights as a mean to bring to the other drivers attention that their cars full beam were blinding them. A law like that would be neither reasonable or wise, IMO.
Quite agree and for this reason I have never and will never flash anyone when a speed camera is coming up, not to mention the fact that it irritates the hell out of me to see someone flashing their lights as I usually miss whatever they are trying to warn while I'm trying to work out if I've left my full beam on, or crane my neck (in the wrong direction) looking for a speed camera or a hidden rozz-wagon.
"If you tell a casual passer-by that a bobby is nearby you are exercising your freedom of expression." so was it wrong if the other drivers were not speeding? was it proven that they were? or is it a thought crime? he thought they might be speeding and therefore is guilty? I see you answered this.... I disagree " If a TomTom tells you where speed cameras are, it is not responsible for anything-- it can't be. It's a dumb automaton." Its a dumb automation that was designed to tell a driver where a speed camera was. It could quite easily be a dumb automation that only tells you where speed cameras are if you are not speeding. anyway from tomtom's website "Save money with fixed camera warnings. More and more drivers are hit by costly speeding fines each year. That's why knowing where the speed cameras are doesn't just make driving safer - it's better for your wallet too." http://www.tomtom.com/services/service.php?id=3 "warning other motorists of a hidden speed trap can only have one intent and purpose: to allow potential speeders to evade capture. " he could be warning them so they dont all look down in a panic to check their speed having rounded an obscured junction....
the highway code makes reference to specific road traffic laws contained within the road traffic act and road vehicle regulations, where they exist, so some parts of the highway code are part of law.
So obstruction is defined as warning people not to break the law? Does that mean we can arrest the FBI for warning people not to pirate dvds? The only thing I can see this doing is engendering a state of not wanting to prevent crime or stop it while its in progress for fear of obstructing justice. And flashing your lights here simply means that there are deer present so if you value the front end of your car you'll look out.
It is not just a thought crime; he acted on it. His problem is that the action declares the intent pretty unequivocally. I can think of killing someone, but that is not a crime. I can intend to kill someone --but that, in itself, is still not a crime. However if I act on it in a way that unequivocally declares the intent, I am committing a crime. The essential point is whether the action declares the intent. If (in the US) I buy a gun, I cannot be charged with intent to commit murder unless the police can prove that I bought the gun with that intention. They have to prove that intention beyond reasonable doubt, and there are a lot of (legal) reasons why people in the US buy guns. However if I hire a hitman, then there can be only one intent behind that, and hence that will get me busted immediately. Note that the hitman does not actually have to carry out the hit. He does not even have to have the intention to carry out the hit. He does not even have to be a hitman (but, say, an undercover cop). I only have to act on my intent in a way that proves the intent, and I'm busted. The only intent behind warning other motorists of a speed trap is to prevent motorists from getting caught in the offence of speeding. There is no other reason to warn people of a speed trap. The intent is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the act. Guns can kill people. They are advertised as being very efficient at killing people. However this is cast in the context of "home defence" or "security"; no advert actually endorses that you go and kill people with this here excellent piece of weapons engineering. How you actually use the weapon is your responsibility. TomTom satnavs are good at telling you where the speed cameras are. They are advertised as such. However nowhere in the advert (you'll note) does it endorse speeding, or advise you to use it as an aid for speeding. It goes as far as doing the contrary (just for good measure, so that there is no misunderstanding if they get hauled into Court): it endorses "driving safely and relaxed, wherever you are". How you use it is again up to you. It's all in the detail. Again, it's about reasonable doubt. Obstruction is defined as warning people so that they don't get caught breaking the law. Subtle but important difference, no?
Unless the oncoming traffic is driving really fast you cannot tell whether they are speeding or not to begin with, which means that if someone flashes their lights they are merely bringing to the oncoming traffics attention that there is a mobile speed camera in the region. That's it. You could argue obstruction of "justice" if they could clearly determine that the oncoming traffic where speeding, and then flashed their lights as to warn them, maybe. As it stands now the police used reasonable doubt as an excuse to fine the driver.
No, we've been here. It does not matter what oncoming traffic did. What matters is the intention of the man who warned them. What other reason could he have, except to help potential speeders avoid getting caught?
and we've been here. For exactly the reason the man used? He was concerned about potential accident if someone panicked and braked hard because they wasn't sure on what speed they was doing and saw the speed trap? People panicking not remembering the speed limit etc etc. Theres alot more reasons then just he wanted people to avoid being caught.
Of course it matters what the oncoming traffic did, the driver is being penalized for flashing his lights and a case is being made suggesting he did so as to warn the oncoming traffic, which, according to the state, was speeding, the state is making a case based on that very assertion, damnit, and if they cant prove that the driver did flash his lights as to warn someone who was speeding (which first means they have to prove that the driver saw the oncoming traffic speeding to begin with) then the state have no case, Nexxo, and so what they are left with is their loop hole "reasonable doubt". Which here is being used to fine the driver. The driver could have flashed his lights for any number of reasons.
Hang on i thought we'd been through this. This man was guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties. THEY(the police) are saying said man, obstructed them. Ok fair enough. But you would have to prove he obstructed them. Ok, so the police say, he flashed his head lights, casuing other people to slow down, therefore they didnt get caught. Ok, prove they were speeding and slowed down.... Police: ERRRRRRRRR........ End of story, legally they don't have a leg to stand on. The worst they could do him for is destracting other road users by flashing his lights which isnt covered in the highway code. It says you can only flash your lights to let other road users know you are there which i'm not sure if that is an offence but it isn't what the police said it was. Opinion and all that doesn't enter the argument. They argue he obstructed them by flashing his lights, causing people to slow down so they wouldn't get caught, ok prove they were speeding and had to slow down... They can't prove that so they can't prove you obstructed them from doing anything. By that analogy you could say by sticking to the speed limit or under it you are obstructing the police by stopping others from speeding. Edit: Nexxo, saying "we all know why he was flashing" is the bitch about these situation, plausible deniablity works both ways you know... He could claim a number of things he was flashing for... This copper was just having a bad day and decided to make an example of this man, apparently he was only going to give a caution frst but because he argued his case he said he's now upping it a notch..
Sure, but there is a difference between "we all know" and "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". If I were him I would ask for a jury trial.
