Discussion in 'Serious' started by hellblazer.doom, 9 Jan 2011.
Try swerving in to some ***** riding a motorbike....much more fun
Dismissing an argument is not the same thing as challenging it. Hence, I asked you to reread my post.
Then they would spend time on the road as to keep the pace down, hiding in the bushes with mobile speed cameras do not accomplish that.
And the idea does not work Nexxo because people are still driving at the pace they feel comfortable with.
Off topic comment: Don't be a dick on the serious forums chap. I've currently got a friend in ICU because some car driver clearly decided to play chicken with him and knocked him off his bike at 95mph... Not all car drivers are the same, same applies to bike riders.
On topic: I still see nothing wrong with what the guy did!
Don't advertise yourself as a troll and expect not to be trolled.
There's nothing trollish about saying things like that, it's just being a *****. Anyway back on topic.
if you say so mr. humourless-sensitivepants
on topic, had this gone to a court with a jury, i doubt he would have a criminal record now. as it stands it was dealt with by magistrates, who are more likely to hand out a sentance.
Seen people die in accidents on motorbikes bud, never something to laugh about when a firefighter picks them up and their body acts like jelly...
Could he not appeal this though?
Police Act 1996 Section 89(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:-
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so. The obstruction must be 'wilful', meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: (Lunt v DPP  Crim.L.R.534). The motive for the act is irrelevant. Webster J said in Lewis v Cox  QB 509, 517 in the context of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty:
" … a court is not obliged … to assume that a defendant has only one intention and to find what that intention was, or even to assume that, if he has two intentions, it must find the predominant intention. If, for instance, a person runs into the road and holds up the traffic in order to prevent an accident, he clearly has two intentions: one is to hold up the traffic, and the other (which is the motive of that intention) is to prevent an accident. But motive is irrelevant to intention in the criminal law …"
Many instances of obstruction relate to a physical and violent obstruction of an officer in, for example, a public order or arrest situation. This standard only deals with conduct which can amount to an obstruction in the context of an interference with public justice. Examples of the type of conduct which may constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer include:-
Warning a landlord that the police are to investigate after hours drinking;
warning that a police search of premises is to occur;
giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead;
a motorist or 'shoplifter' who persists in giving a false name and address;
a witness giving a false name and address;
a partner who falsely claiming that he/she was driving at the time of the accident but relenting before the breathalyser procedure is frustrated;
an occupier inhibiting the proper execution of a search warrant (if the warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, see also section 23 of that Act);
refusing to admit constables into a house when there is a right of entry under section4(7) of the road Traffic Act 1988 (arrest for driving etc while unfit through drink or drugs).
This topic prompted me to have a quick Google on the matter as I am not overly impressed that a Police Officer can have a member of the public charged and fined for such a menial gesture as warning other road users of speed traps. Seems like they have already worked this oracle in a previous conviction ..
Ouch, no leg to stand on then.
We appear to be thinking logically... oh wait, the law doesn't think logically, it thinks financially >.<
Being a biker ..I may or may not (rolls eyes) have been guilty of this offence on many occasions <gulp>
Thats basically what i've been saying since i started this topic, but only nexxo wants to reply to me.
wiki has this about the first speed trap related obstruction case
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Scotsman walk in to a bar and wait to be racially stereotyped. Yo momma might actually be dead. Priests actually do rape kids. Knock knock? That's the sound of Johnathan Ross having sex with Andrew Sach's grandaughter...now stop making this personal, try to be a little objective and not as reactionary as a Daily Mail reader...or apply for a job in the compliance department in the BBC, you'd shine
I generally try and avoid large topics I know little on... I may have rode a motorbike etc, but ... I don't know legal stuff if I'm honest.
The law cannot be logical all the time though thats the thing, it cannot be flexible otherwise we'll have rapists and murderer's walking the... street...
I thought they all drove now, in a BMW in Bradford ?
Whilst warning other motorists of speed traps ....
oh and BRAWL yes he can appeal, and thats what he is going to do, with the backing of some mp's it seems
No. The visible presence of a police car on the road is the same as the visible presence of a speed camera. People behave themselves around the police car, and continue speeding in other areas.
A mobile speed camera is hidden for a reason. It is to make people worry that there could be one around anywhere. And that makes them mind their speed anywhere.
Sorry, evidence supports the contrary. The presence of speed cameras on a given stretch of road significantly reduces accidents on that stretch of road.
The law has to try and apply general rules to very specific and complicated situations. In doing so it has to be appropriate, (morally) just and equitable (fair). That is a very big ask if you think about it for a moment. I refer you to the young, depressed, deprived drunk mother who shook her baby to death. What ya gonna do? It's not easy. But the law has to be seen to come up with an answer that considers and treats everyone equally, is appropriate to the crime and perceived by people as just.
And of course every system gets played by the professionals. It's the price we pay for an adversarial legal system.
Yep its there in writing but i still think it would be difficult to prove that the driver was signalling as a warning.
You don't know if he's speeding, and if he chooses that's his choice. As said there are all ready plenty of warnings, signs sat navs and laser and radar scanners (are they still legal??)
But again it just goes to show how our liberties are being eroded, what happen to innocent until proven guilty
Whats the highway code say."Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users."
"Sorry officer i was just letting him know i was there, i though it was my mate and i was saying hi.".....
Oh well no more saying hi then......
Separate names with a comma.