Speed Cameras: what offence would this be?

Cornucopia

Firstly, this is just a hypothetical question, I'm not advocating that anyone should do this...

The Government has seemingly abandoned its previous commitment that speed cameras should be brightly coloured.

So if someone placed a sack, bag or box over the camera, securing it in such a way that nothing was physically stuck on to or into the camera or its support, what offence would that be, if any?

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you cannot "Obstruct a Camera in the Course of its Duty", and I would have thought that it wasn't Criminal Damage, either, if the camera is not damaged or defaced.

Perhaps it is some kind of littering offence?

Just curious. In fact, even more curious about cameras in France which are at ground level.

Spicy_McHaggis

Attempting to prevert the course of justice.

Cornucopia

Surely that would only apply if I would have been caught by that camera?

In fact, not even sure about that. Wikipedia describes it as:-

- Fabricating or disposing of evidence

- Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror

- Intimidating or threatening a judge

lighting_up_the_chalice

Cornucopia wrote: »

So if someone placed a sack, bag or box over the camera, securing it in such a way that nothing was physically stuck on to or into the camera or its support, what offence would that be, if any?

Defying the laws of gravity?

matttye

Perverting the course of justice (not an attempt).

Joe_Horner

matttye wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice (not an attempt).

Difficult to prove if they couldn't prove that someone had sped past the camera while it was covered - you can't pervert the course of justice if no offence was committed to pervert it in relation to.

Cornucopia

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Defying the laws of gravity?

Yes - you might need a ladder, or stilts.

Cornucopia

matttye wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice (not an attempt).

Are you thinking that it would count as disposing of evidence? I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Spicy_McHaggis

Cornucopia wrote: »

Surely that would only apply if I would have been caught by that camera?

In fact, not even sure about that. Wikipedia describes it as:-

- Fabricating or disposing of evidence

- Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror

- Intimidating or threatening a judge

With that well known site as your source who can argue against you.

londonTiger

I've been on a speed awareness course and it was surprisingly helpful. A class of 30 people were clueless on what the speed limits were on regular roads, carriageways & motorways.. to be fair everyone had wild guesses on carriageways - because most people just follow the speed sign which can be 40, 50 or no speed limit where people do 70 unless they have a dashcam which would alert them that the limit is 60 as it's a carriageway and not a motorway.

Anyhow, it did change my view on what speed cameras were for. I went in thinking it was entirely revenue generation.

What I learnt was when they have speed cameras that's usually because at least 5 people have died on that stretch. When you have all these signs on a section of road such as no overtake, SLOW markings, signs indicating junction/bends ahead. These are all in effect gravestones or accident warning markings because every time there was an accident the council went over there and put more hazard warning signs on to reduce the accidents. A speed camera is often the last straw to force motorists to reduce speeds.

People often complain that they speed camera was hidden because it was behind a bend or obscured from view. To be honest if you can't see a speed camera (at least the big old yellow boxes) then you're probably not paying attention and if there was a backlog of cars stuck at traffic lights you probably won't pay enough attention to spot the hazard and brake in time.

Richard53

londonTiger wrote: »

What I learnt was when they have speed cameras that's usually because at least 5 people have died on that stretch.

It must vary across the country. When I had my last speeding disagreement with the authorities, I asked what the criteria were for putting the camera van at that particular spot. I was told two serious accidents in five years was the trigger. When I asked them to define 'serious' they declined, and when I asked the dates of the accidents they wouldn't tell me, citing DPA. I suppose I could have got the information with an FOI request, but life is short enough. I seriously doubted the accidents happened as they said, as it's a small world round here and when a local child loses a baby tooth it's a headline in the local paper, so I am sure I would have heard about them if they were more than a fender-bender. Certainly fatal accidents make the local news in a big way, and there were definitely none of those.

londonTiger wrote: »

When you have all these signs on a section of road such as no overtake, SLOW markings, signs indicating junction/bends ahead. These are all in effect gravestones or accident warning markings because every time there was an accident the council went over there and put more hazard warning signs on to reduce the accidents.

These days, if the road has been refurbished, it's more likely to be a highways engineer doing a risk assessment of the road, and using the CYA principle (if an accident happens here and I didn't recommend a sign, I might get the blame). Hence the rash of slow signs and double whites and chevrons and speed lollipops, when it might be better if motorists just had a clear view of the road ahead. Saying each sign is a gravestone is a bit over-dramatic, in my view.