a small town, traffice police and a nice little earner

king100

torontoboy45 wrote: »

I walked up the high st. this morning and did a double-check on the signage (from the south end).
it's correct, but when I said that the signage was bang next to the zebra crossing I meant 'it is situate 2 metres before the crossing'.

when the private motorist I warned off mentioned the distraction of the crossing (causing him to miss the signage) could this defence posture be used in the event of an appeal?

just wondering.
.

Surely the motorist was asking you for directions as he was lost....if you get my drift.

torontoboy45

king100 wrote: »

Surely the motorist was asking you for directions as he was lost....if you get my drift.

this would have been my response if plod had approached.

I'm more concerned with the positioning of the signage - it comes as no surprise that so many miss it on a sat. afternoon; everyone defaults to 'safety first' mode and observes pedestrians/ the crossing.

king100

Do you have google street address.

Coblcris

How is preventing a traffic contravention that has not happened 'obstructing' in anyone's mind ?

king100

Coblcris wrote: »

How is preventing a traffic contravention that has not happened 'obstructing' in anyone's mind ?

If there was a crash or a traffic Q around the corner and you flashed your lights, you are obstructing the police, as when that person smashes into the back of the Q or collides with the accident the police have been obstructed from dealing with another car crash.

Personally I find it a joke, and will continue my normal driving style.

Whatdoiknow

muckybutt wrote: »

Nooooo, its a ode lad in N Lincs that has been done in maggy's court for obstructing plod for flashing motorists re a plod speed camera. The local mp is going to help him take it to appeal to get it quashed.

Yes it was on the outskirts of Grimsby, a Town I know well having lived there for over 26 years and sadly still have a lot of affection for and even more sadly still supporting the Mighty Mariners week in week out even as we now find ourselves floundering in the abyss of non league.

taffy056

Wasn't there a case back some time ago where someone was taken to court by the plod for something like this, but it was thrown out of court because the person giving the warning to the motorist was preventing an offence being committed, so doing a civic duty ?

Trebor16

robredz wrote: »

If plod saw you they would likely do you for obstruction , like the man done for flashing headlights at other road users to warn about a speed trap. depends really what mood they are in.

see this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html

I don't see it as obstruction. All you did was advised the driver he was going the wrong way. It's a different set of circumstances to the man warning of an active speed trap.

robredz

Trebor16 wrote: »

I don't see it as obstruction. All you did was advised the driver he was going the wrong way. It's a different set of circumstances to the man warning of an active speed trap.

Good point, but if plod decides it's obstruction, and it helps them meet their quota, then it's obstruction, even though the circumstances are different. Obstruction can take many forms, and plod will use it as a catch all if they can.