PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

WAZE App, Police Notifications
trubster
post Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 14:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,078



https://www.waze.com

Now then, AFAIK, if you flash other motorists to notify them of a speed trap and get caught, you can be prosecuted for it LINKY

This app (Which could be used by a passenger) allows you to report speed traps, of which many are reported on a daily basis.

So.... the question is, are you committing an offence in reporting the locations of speed traps?


--------------------
ParkingEye Ltd
Roxburghe (UK) Limited
Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions
Car Park Services Limited
Kernow Parking Solutions (KPS)
Smart Parking Limited also trading as Town & City Parking


Be careful what you say about your case, WE ARE BEING WATCHED!

TRUBSTER v Meadowhall Shopping Centre Limited and Parking Control Management UK Limited (PCM)
Read the above thread if you are having any problems relating to PPC's and Disabled drivers/passengers.

A BLUE BADGE is not valid on private land and a Parking Company insisting on one is an unfair term and discrimination
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 14:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Unzippy
post Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 10:47
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,004
Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,323



In the day time I see people flapping their arm slowly out the window to warn. Is there misuse of the arm?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 11:50
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,334
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



If everybody used their headlamps in accordance with the law and the Highway Code then they wouldn't be caught for flashing their lights.

If I see a peed trap and I have time to spare, I'll quite often drive along that section of road several times at just on the limit. I may have to park up and await a passenger at other times. If this obstructs a mystery van which may have a speed camera pointing out of the window then that is not my problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 17:14
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 12:50) *
If everybody used their headlamps in accordance with the law and the Highway Code then they wouldn't be caught for flashing their lights.

If I see a peed trap and I have time to spare, I'll quite often drive along that section of road several times at just on the limit. I may have to park up and await a passenger at other times. If this obstructs a mystery van which may have a speed camera pointing out of the window then that is not my problem.

You best hope your luck holds out as I successfully prosecuted 2 bikers who were doing exactly that, all caught on video. They claimed they were just riding around, the bench didn't believe them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Oscar21
post Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 22:04
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 506
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Member No.: 3,846



Are you seriously saying someone was prosecuted for doing the speed limit on a public highway. If you have paid your dues then I was under the impression you don't need any reason to use the roads. If I want to drive past a speed van at 29mph all day long, what's it to anyone else. You seem to think I cant do that. The next time I see a scamera van I think I'll try it and see what happens.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Oscar21
post Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 22:15
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 506
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Member No.: 3,846



Another thing, this belief thing I hear a fair bit about magistrates courts. I was under the impression that to get a guilty verdict then the burder of proof had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", however to be found not guilty all the defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the argument. Usually to get a conviction there would need to be damming eye witness accounts or DNA evidence or an admission of guilt etc. Is it ok for the magistrates to side step this requirement of law and say tough we don't believe you so you are guilty, is this more akin to the county court where the balance of probabilities are followed. The more people are had over the harder they will bite back you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 06:50
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (Oscar21 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 23:15) *
Another thing, this belief thing I hear a fair bit about magistrates courts. I was under the impression that to get a guilty verdict then the burder of proof had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", however to be found not guilty all the defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the argument. Usually to get a conviction there would need to be damming eye witness accounts or DNA evidence or an admission of guilt etc. Is it ok for the magistrates to side step this requirement of law and say tough we don't believe you so you are guilty, is this more akin to the county court where the balance of probabilities are followed. The more people are had over the harder they will bite back you know.

I think you are under the same illusion as many about what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution present the facts, in the case of my 2 bikers that was that they continually rode up and down the same stretch of road at the speed limit physically preventing vehicles which were speeding from overtaking them. One of them parked in a layby in front of the camera van 'for a smoke'. An unmarked car videod this activity. The court were told by the prosecution that this behaviour was deliberately done to stop offending drivers, and riders, from being caught. The fact that they repeated the behaviour time after time indicated what their real intent was. The defence said they were just out for a normal ride and enjoyed that stretch of road hence the reason they kept riding along it. The court convicted. In other words like thousands of other trials they didn't believe the defendant and the defendants had failed to cast doubt on the prosecutions claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minotaur
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 11:09
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 899
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
From: East Midlands
Member No.: 58,478



QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 07:50) *
QUOTE (Oscar21 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 23:15) *
Another thing, this belief thing I hear a fair bit about magistrates courts. I was under the impression that to get a guilty verdict then the burder of proof had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", however to be found not guilty all the defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the argument. Usually to get a conviction there would need to be damming eye witness accounts or DNA evidence or an admission of guilt etc. Is it ok for the magistrates to side step this requirement of law and say tough we don't believe you so you are guilty, is this more akin to the county court where the balance of probabilities are followed. The more people are had over the harder they will bite back you know.

I think you are under the same illusion as many about what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution present the facts, in the case of my 2 bikers that was that they continually rode up and down the same stretch of road at the speed limit physically preventing vehicles which were speeding from overtaking them. One of them parked in a layby in front of the camera van 'for a smoke'. An unmarked car videod this activity. The court were told by the prosecution that this behaviour was deliberately done to stop offending drivers, and riders, from being caught. The fact that they repeated the behaviour time after time indicated what their real intent was. The defence said they were just out for a normal ride and enjoyed that stretch of road hence the reason they kept riding along it. The court convicted. In other words like thousands of other trials they didn't believe the defendant and the defendants had failed to cast doubt on the prosecutions claims.


So, (sorry) they were causing unnecessary obstruction - nothing else; and how can a third party state "deliberately" anything?
Anyway, they weren't stopping speeders from being caught, they were stopping people from speeding - hence the obstruction.


--------------------
Remove Residents' Parking Scheme: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me (and others) 1
Parking Tickets: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me 3
Parking Tickets: Civil Enforcement Ltd. 0 - Me 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 11:27
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (minotaur @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 12:09) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 07:50) *
QUOTE (Oscar21 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 23:15) *
Another thing, this belief thing I hear a fair bit about magistrates courts. I was under the impression that to get a guilty verdict then the burder of proof had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", however to be found not guilty all the defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the argument. Usually to get a conviction there would need to be damming eye witness accounts or DNA evidence or an admission of guilt etc. Is it ok for the magistrates to side step this requirement of law and say tough we don't believe you so you are guilty, is this more akin to the county court where the balance of probabilities are followed. The more people are had over the harder they will bite back you know.

I think you are under the same illusion as many about what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution present the facts, in the case of my 2 bikers that was that they continually rode up and down the same stretch of road at the speed limit physically preventing vehicles which were speeding from overtaking them. One of them parked in a layby in front of the camera van 'for a smoke'. An unmarked car videod this activity. The court were told by the prosecution that this behaviour was deliberately done to stop offending drivers, and riders, from being caught. The fact that they repeated the behaviour time after time indicated what their real intent was. The defence said they were just out for a normal ride and enjoyed that stretch of road hence the reason they kept riding along it. The court convicted. In other words like thousands of other trials they didn't believe the defendant and the defendants had failed to cast doubt on the prosecutions claims.


So, (sorry) they were causing unnecessary obstruction - nothing else; and how can a third party state "deliberately" anything?
Anyway, they weren't stopping speeders from being caught, they were stopping people from speeding - hence the obstruction.

Is that comment in relation to my post?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minotaur
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 15:00
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 899
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
From: East Midlands
Member No.: 58,478



QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 12:27) *
QUOTE (minotaur @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 12:09) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 07:50) *
QUOTE (Oscar21 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2014 - 23:15) *
Another thing, this belief thing I hear a fair bit about magistrates courts. I was under the impression that to get a guilty verdict then the burder of proof had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", however to be found not guilty all the defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the argument. Usually to get a conviction there would need to be damming eye witness accounts or DNA evidence or an admission of guilt etc. Is it ok for the magistrates to side step this requirement of law and say tough we don't believe you so you are guilty, is this more akin to the county court where the balance of probabilities are followed. The more people are had over the harder they will bite back you know.

I think you are under the same illusion as many about what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution present the facts, in the case of my 2 bikers that was that they continually rode up and down the same stretch of road at the speed limit physically preventing vehicles which were speeding from overtaking them. One of them parked in a layby in front of the camera van 'for a smoke'. An unmarked car videod this activity. The court were told by the prosecution that this behaviour was deliberately done to stop offending drivers, and riders, from being caught. The fact that they repeated the behaviour time after time indicated what their real intent was. The defence said they were just out for a normal ride and enjoyed that stretch of road hence the reason they kept riding along it. The court convicted. In other words like thousands of other trials they didn't believe the defendant and the defendants had failed to cast doubt on the prosecutions claims.

Yes.
So, (sorry) they were causing unnecessary obstruction - nothing else; and how can a third party state "deliberately" anything?
Anyway, they weren't stopping speeders from being caught, they were stopping people from speeding - hence the obstruction.

Is that comment in relation to my post?


I answered "yes" but that didn't appear.

This post has been edited by minotaur: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 15:01


--------------------
Remove Residents' Parking Scheme: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me (and others) 1
Parking Tickets: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me 3
Parking Tickets: Civil Enforcement Ltd. 0 - Me 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 15:08
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



Have another read. There were several vehicles speeding and these 2 effectively created a rolling road block and stopped them overtaking. The offence was obstruct police not unnecessary obstruction, sorry if I confused you.

As for the 3rd party stating their intent; that is what prosecutors do in every case involving mens rea. It is put to the court that the only explanation which makes sense was they I tended preventing people who were already speeding from being caught. The court agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 15:26
Post #51


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



<censored response>
I know what m'Lord Lokki would have done laugh.gif


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 15:33
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



They went not guilty and used a well known motoring solicitors firm, both defendants got convicted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Wed, 13 Aug 2014 - 10:45
Post #53


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



where/when was that?


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Wed, 13 Aug 2014 - 12:30
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Wed, 13 Aug 2014 - 11:45) *
where/when was that?

Best guess would be early noughties at a court in Greater London.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trubster
post Mon, 25 Aug 2014 - 00:27
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 3 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,078



So something like this is completely legal?

But flashing isn't?



--------------------
ParkingEye Ltd
Roxburghe (UK) Limited
Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions
Car Park Services Limited
Kernow Parking Solutions (KPS)
Smart Parking Limited also trading as Town & City Parking


Be careful what you say about your case, WE ARE BEING WATCHED!

TRUBSTER v Meadowhall Shopping Centre Limited and Parking Control Management UK Limited (PCM)
Read the above thread if you are having any problems relating to PPC's and Disabled drivers/passengers.

A BLUE BADGE is not valid on private land and a Parking Company insisting on one is an unfair term and discrimination
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Unzippy
post Mon, 25 Aug 2014 - 05:09
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,004
Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,323



Depends if they held the phone when driving while entering the info...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 25 Aug 2014 - 08:47
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,354
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



It all depends on whether someone actually breaking the law is protected from prosecution.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 26 Aug 2014 - 12:25
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,815
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



The distinction between warning someone not to commit a crime because of the presence of police and warning someone in the process of committing a crime that he was about to be caught dates back to the early days of motoring:

Bastable -v- Little [1907] 1 KB 59
The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885. Held: Lord Alverstone CJ said: 'Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.' The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little's signals, although all slowed down. Darling J made this point and added:
'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'

Betts -v- Stevens [1910] 1 KB 1; 26 TLR 5
The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were warned they were thought to have been already speeding, and the police observed this. Held: Bastable was distinguished on the ground that the action of the patrolman obstructed the police obtaining their timings. The gist of the offence lay in the intention with which the acts complained of were done. If the intention was simply to prevent the commission of crime, no offence was committed. It was otherwise if the intention was to prevent the commission of crime only at a time when there was a danger of detection.
Lord Alverstone said: "In my opinion a man who, finding that a car is breaking the law, warns the driver, so that the speed of the car is slackened, and the police are thereby prevented from ascertaining the speed and so are prevented from obtaining the only evidence upon which, according to our experience, Courts will act with confidence, is obstructing the police in the execution of their duty."
Darling J said: "The appellant in effect advised the drivers of those cars which were proceeding at an unlawful speed not to go on committing an unlawful act. If that advice were given simply with a view to prevent the continuance of the unlawful act and procure observance of the law, I should say that there would not be an obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty of collecting evidence beyond the point at which the appellant intervened. The gist of the offence to my mind lies in the intention with which the thing is done. In my judgment in Bastable v Little I used these words: 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection.' I desire to repeat those words."

As a result of Betts v Stevens, AA patrolmen were given instructions not to warn members as such, but to fail to salute them as they normally did; AA members on the other hand were advised to stop and ask a patrol why he had not saluted them. It was thought that the absence of a salute could not be prosecuted, and seems to have worked as there are no recorded cases of the prosecution of an AA patrol after that.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cjard
post Tue, 26 Aug 2014 - 17:00
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 621
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,129



So, the guy who flashed other drivers and got them to slow down for the period of time where they passed a speed trap was only guilty because they were proven to have resumed speeding when the trap was passed?

I still don't follow, in essence because of an earlier made point - if the police knew that an oncoming motorist was speeding at the time that he was flashed, then how was their action obstructed? Oncoming motorist is already provably guilty? The police see a man burgling a house, his mate sees the police see him, and shouts "stop burgling that house, the police are watching you" - was that a crime?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 26 Aug 2014 - 17:49
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 26 Aug 2014 - 18:00) *
So, the guy who flashed other drivers and got them to slow down for the period of time where they passed a speed trap was only guilty because they were proven to have resumed speeding when the trap was passed?

I still don't follow, in essence because of an earlier made point - if the police knew that an oncoming motorist was speeding at the time that he was flashed, then how was their action obstructed? Oncoming motorist is already provably guilty? The police see a man burgling a house, his mate sees the police see him, and shouts "stop burgling that house, the police are watching you" - was that a crime?

Read the thread again. It is all explained in plain English, and you will see where you have gone wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 21st March 2019 - 02:47
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.