Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Richard]

scott wrote:

> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:39:01 +0100, Dave J wrote:
>>
>>>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>>>uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>No, by 'getting out of the way' I certainly do *not* mean driving
>>>>>faster on a road I don't know. What I do is pull over. This gets me
>>>>>out of the way (or him/her out of the way depending on point of
>>>>>view)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a lorry, and
>>>>I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>>>
>>>Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I should follow
>>>the highway code and show consideration. They also say I should not
>>>cause a hazard by sitting in front of someone that wishes I wasn't.
>>
>>Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
>>By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
>>overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
>>assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
>>that they want
>>to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
>>an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a burglar
>>by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were already
>>full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?
>
>
> No, by pulling over, you are not preventing them from speeding, not
> assisting them. There is a difference. It's the same as seeing a potential
> burgular walking along a street and deciding not to go and stop them.

No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a jeweller's
window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to get out of the
way so he can lob a brick through it and nick something.

 

[scott]

Richard wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> Trevor Barton wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:39:01 +0100, Dave J wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>>>> uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> No, by 'getting out of the way' I certainly do *not* mean driving
>>>>>> faster on a road I don't know. What I do is pull over. This gets
>>>>>> me out of the way (or him/her out of the way depending on point
>>>>>> of view)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a lorry,
>>>>> and I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I should follow
>>>> the highway code and show consideration. They also say I should not
>>>> cause a hazard by sitting in front of someone that wishes I wasn't.
>>>
>>> Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
>>> By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
>>> overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
>>> assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
>>> that they want
>>> to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
>>> an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a
>>> burglar by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were
>>> already full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?
>>
>>
>> No, by pulling over, you are not preventing them from speeding, not
>> assisting them. There is a difference. It's the same as seeing a
>> potential burgular walking along a street and deciding not to go and
>> stop them.
>
> No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a jeweller's
> window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to get out of
> the way so he can lob a brick through it and nick something.

Exactly, and it's not illegal to then move out of the way!

 

[Richard]

scott wrote:

>>No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a jeweller's
>>window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to get out of
>>the way so he can lob a brick through it and nick something.
>
>
> Exactly, and it's not illegal to then move out of the way!

On the contrary. If you are merely standing near the window and watch
and do nothing, /that/ is not illegal. But freely committing an act
which enables the commission of the crime, with full foreknowledge of
the intended crime, is aiding and abetting. A defense would be that
the burglar's actions were intimidating and you moved through fear of
injury, but that merely compounds the burglar's crimes.

 

[scott]

>>>> Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
>>>> By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
>>>> overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
>>>> assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
>>>> that they want
>>>> to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
>>>> an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a burglar
>>>> by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were already
>>>> full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?
>>> No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a
>>> jeweller's window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to
>>> get out of the way so he can lob a brick through it and nick
>>> something.
>>
>>
>> Exactly, and it's not illegal to then move out of the way!
>
> On the contrary. If you are merely standing near the window and watch
> and do nothing, /that/ is not illegal. But freely committing an act
> which enables the commission of the crime, with full foreknowledge of
> the intended crime, is aiding and abetting. A defense would be that
> the burglar's actions were intimidating and you moved through fear of
> injury, but that merely compounds the burglar's crimes.

(cross-posted to uk.legal for a more accurate answer hopefully!)

No, I think you have to actively do something to aid the crime for it to be
illegal. Walking away is not aiding the crime, the crime would have
happened whether you were there and walked away, or weren't there to start
with. I cannot see how walking away and knowingly letting a crime happen
can be aiding and abetting.

The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and pull over
to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make any difference,
the offence will still have been committed. I fail to see how pulling over
counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.

 

[Brimstone]

scott wrote:

> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and
> pull over to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make
> any difference, the offence will still have been committed. I fail
> to see how pulling over counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.

Indeed, people have been convicted for sitting in L3 on the motorway at
70mph and refusing to move into a nearside lane when clear to do so. The
Magistrates/Judges comment was to the effect that it is not the motorists
job to enforce the law.

 

[David J Rainey]

In article <1ge087t.1c3hix0kw9tcsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> > Of course if you are doing the speed limit, you cannot, by definition,
> > be holding other traffic up, since they may not legally go any faster.
> How do you know you are doing the speed limit?

Hear bloody hear!

I've been driving down to London via Runcorn bridge lately to avoid the
thelwell viaduct. On the approach road, a NSL dual carriageway, there is
a speed camera. I've lost count of the times some clown has stamped on
the brakes to get below 60 as he passes the camera. Or, worse, just
sitting in the right hand lane at 57mph, tut-tut-ing at people trying to
get past at 70.

Another odd feature of driving on Britain's motorways these days is the
random speed driver. They are reduced to red faced, fist shaking
apoplexy when you repeatedly overtake them and then force them to
overtake you. Except I'm on cruise control and they are going at 85 down
hills and 65 up them. For bonus points, they should hog the centre lane,
forcing me to go out to lane three and back to one at each stage, while
they just sit there, dumb and happy with the pedal to the metal. In 3rd.

On the plus side, idle day dreaming about Bond-style headlamp mounted
missiles helps pass a dull journey.

rgds

David

 

[Stratman]

"scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>> Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
> >>>> By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
> >>>> overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
> >>>> assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
> >>>> that they want
> >>>> to break the limit.

SNIP 8<

Are you absolutely sure that your speedometer is 100% accurate?

How can you be certain about the speed of another motorist behind you?

How can you know their motives and thoughts?

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:11:50 +0100, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a jeweller's
>window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to get out of the
>way so he can lob a brick through it and nick something.

Or rather, that he moves right up beside you and starts yelling in
your ear.



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Mark Foster]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

> scott wrote:
>
> > The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and
> > pull over to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make
> > any difference, the offence will still have been committed. I fail
> > to see how pulling over counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.
>
> Indeed, people have been convicted for sitting in L3 on the motorway at
> 70mph and refusing to move into a nearside lane when clear to do so. The
> Magistrates/Judges comment was to the effect that it is not the motorists
> job to enforce the law.

I have heard exactly the same thing from traffic officers. If someebody
wants to get past, then get out of the way. It is NOT your job to
prevent them from speeding.

--
Mark Foster, IT Services, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK. BN1 9QJ
E-mail: [email protected] - VOICE/FAX: +44 1273 678902/873135
PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1
--------------------------------------------------
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> They are not bullying, they are just trying to let you know that they
> would appreciate a clearer road and would gladly get out of your way
> if you got out of theirs.
>
ROFLMAO.

> >>In your case it's even worse because the *only* reason you think it
> >>safe to drive at your chosen speed is that it happens to be the speed
> >>'limit'
> >
> >The quotes are superfluous: it is in fact (and in law) the speed
> >limit.
>
> It is not a limit, the only reason not to go faster is the risk of
> being chased by cars with blue lights. There is no limit except your
> ability to recognise hazards.
>
REally? So I get flashed by a camera. I get 3 points. THis happens a
few times over the summer and I get a ban.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> > PeterE wrote:
> >
> >>> I propose revoking the license of anybody incapable of understanding
> >>> the simple and unambiguous text of rule 145. All in favour?
> >
> >> Nah, we'd have no truckers left, so nothing would get delivered.
> >
> > There would be nothing to deliver anyway as all the tractors would be
> > off the roads.
>
> IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding of the principle of
> Rule 145.
>
You don't live in East Yorks do you?


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Richard]

scott wrote:
>>>>>Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
>>>>>By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
>>>>>overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
>>>>>assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
>>>>>that they want
>>>>>to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
>>>>>an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a burglar
>>>>>by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were already
>>>>>full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?
>>>>
>>>>No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a
>>>>jeweller's window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you to
>>>>get out of the way so he can lob a brick through it and nick
>>>>something.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly, and it's not illegal to then move out of the way!
>>
>>On the contrary. If you are merely standing near the window and watch
>>and do nothing, /that/ is not illegal. But freely committing an act
>>which enables the commission of the crime, with full foreknowledge of
>>the intended crime, is aiding and abetting. A defense would be that
>>the burglar's actions were intimidating and you moved through fear of
>>injury, but that merely compounds the burglar's crimes.
>
>
> (cross-posted to uk.legal for a more accurate answer hopefully!)
>
> No, I think you have to actively do something to aid the crime for it to be
> illegal. Walking away is not aiding the crime, the crime would have
> happened whether you were there and walked away, or weren't there to start
> with. I cannot see how walking away and knowingly letting a crime happen
> can be aiding and abetting.
>
> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and pull over
> to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make any difference,
> the offence will still have been committed. I fail to see how pulling over
> counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.

You are being obtuse. Read what I wrote, very carefully. IF you obey
the request to assist, WITHOUT duress, AND what you do enables the
comission of the crime, AND you know (or have reasonable grounds for
suspicion) that the crime is about to take place, THEN you are guilty of
a&a.

 

[Vulpes Argenteus]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:28:11 +0100, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and pull over
>> to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make any difference,
>> the offence will still have been committed. I fail to see how pulling over
>> counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.
>
>You are being obtuse. Read what I wrote, very carefully. IF you obey
>the request to assist, WITHOUT duress, AND what you do enables the
>comission of the crime, AND you know (or have reasonable grounds for
>suspicion) that the crime is about to take place, THEN you are guilty of
>a&a.

Rubbish.


"A&A"?

Failure to obstruct <> Provision of assistance

The first is purely negative, the second implies a positive
encouragement.

Were this not the case, I could be charged with "A&A" if I left my
window open therefore encouraging a burglar to enter my premises. My
insurance company may have something to say for this, but I am not
committing a crime.


Enabling the comission (sic) of a crime?

Being one element in a chain that must be intact in order that a crime
be committed <> Enabling or being responsible for that crime


If you disagree provide a cite - or even a case where a prosecution was
successfully achieved.


Cheers

Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email

 

[scott]

Richard wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>>>>> Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break
>>>>>> it? By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone
>>>>>> to overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
>>>>>> assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it
>>>>>> knowing that they want
>>>>>> to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in
>>>>>> itself
>>>>>> an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a
>>>>>> burglar by kicking in the door of a house because their hands
>>>>>> were already full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a
>>>>> jeweller's window and a potential burglar moves up and tells you
>>>>> to get out of the way so he can lob a brick through it and nick
>>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, and it's not illegal to then move out of the way!
>>>
>>> On the contrary. If you are merely standing near the window and
>>> watch and do nothing, /that/ is not illegal. But freely committing
>>> an act which enables the commission of the crime, with full
>>> foreknowledge of the intended crime, is aiding and abetting. A
>>> defense would be that the burglar's actions were intimidating and
>>> you moved through fear of injury, but that merely compounds the
>>> burglar's crimes.
>>
>>
>> (cross-posted to uk.legal for a more accurate answer hopefully!)
>>
>> No, I think you have to actively do something to aid the crime for
>> it to be illegal. Walking away is not aiding the crime, the crime
>> would have happened whether you were there and walked away, or
>> weren't there to start with. I cannot see how walking away and
>> knowingly letting a crime happen can be aiding and abetting.
>>
>> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and
>> pull over to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make
>> any difference, the offence will still have been committed. I fail
>> to see how pulling over counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.
>
> You are being obtuse. Read what I wrote, very carefully. IF you
> obey the request to assist, WITHOUT duress, AND what you do enables
> the comission of the crime, AND you know (or have reasonable grounds
> for suspicion) that the crime is about to take place, THEN you are
> guilty of a&a.

No you're not, don't be silly! In what way are you helping the speeder
accelerate up to an illegal speed? If you were ramming them up the rear-end
or in their car pressing the accelerator then fair enough, but letting them
do it doesn't mean you are helping them to do it!

 

[Richard]

Vulpes Argenteus wrote:
> "A&A"?

Aiding and Abetting.

>
> Failure to obstruct <> Provision of assistance
>
> The first is purely negative, the second implies a positive
> encouragement.
>
> Were this not the case, I could be charged with "A&A" if I left my
> window open therefore encouraging a burglar to enter my premises. My
> insurance company may have something to say for this, but I am not
> committing a crime.

No. However, if someone taps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey, I want
to nick that nice flatscreen monitor in your office. Leave the window
open for me and the alarm turned off tonight, there's a good chap.",
then I contend (although I may be wrong) that you're guilty of aiding
and abetting his theft if you follow his suggestion.

 

[Vulpes Argenteus]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:35:46 +0100, "scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> You are being obtuse. Read what I wrote, very carefully. IF you
>> obey the request to assist, WITHOUT duress, AND what you do enables
>> the comission of the crime, AND you know (or have reasonable grounds
>> for suspicion) that the crime is about to take place, THEN you are
>> guilty of a&a.
>
>No you're not, don't be silly! In what way are you helping the speeder
>accelerate up to an illegal speed? If you were ramming them up the rear-end
>or in their car pressing the accelerator then fair enough, but letting them
>do it doesn't mean you are helping them to do it!

You don't even have a duty to prevent someone else from breaking the law
(this is the point raised by Brimstone and Mark Foster).

Only if you did could there be a case based on your failure (by passive
omission) to carry this out.

Cheers

Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email

 

[Vulpes Argenteus]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:44:03 +0100, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No. However, if someone taps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey, I want
>to nick that nice flatscreen monitor in your office. Leave the window
>open for me and the alarm turned off tonight, there's a good chap.",
>then I contend (although I may be wrong) that you're guilty of aiding
>and abetting his theft if you follow his suggestion.

You may indeed be wrong.

The insurance company would be less than impressed. The police would
find a subsequent charge of burglary against the bad guy much harder to
make stick - you have just provided him with a great defence. Difficult
to see how a crime is being committed unless there is a third party
involved - e.g. your employer owns the office - in which case you would
be guilty.

You might just be found guilty of being stupid.

However, this is an inadequate avenue to explore when looking for
illumination on the original problem. There:

i) You are not involved in any way in the offence, save for just
being there at the time

ii) There is no meaningful communication between you and the
offending driver in order to establish collusion

iii) You have no established 'mens rea' for the offense - the act of
pulling over is just too easy to interpret in terms of self-preservation
(that's why I would pull over)

All three of these are present in your burglary example

Cheers

Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email

 

[Richard]

Vulpes Argenteus wrote:

> You may indeed be wrong.

*resigned sigh* Typical.

> However, this is an inadequate avenue to explore when looking for
> illumination on the original problem. There:

<snipped three points I hadn't considered>

Thanks for the illuminatory correction.

cheers,
R.

 

[Roger Hughes]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:19:45 +0000 (UTC), Roger Hughes
> <[email protected]>
> wrote (more or less):
>
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct drivers who wish
>>>to pass. The only ones I can think of are horse box drivers who drive
>>>at walking pace round the twisty bits then floor it and move to the
>>>middle of the road as soon as it gets straight.
>>
>>Not going to hold you up as long as a loaded horse box lying flat right
>>across the road would, is it?
>
>
> And we all know how driving down the middle of the road (as opposed to
> staying in lane) is important to stop a horsebox from lying flat
> across a road.
> And flooring on the straights, thats important for keeping it uprigh
> too. (It's the stabilising gyroscopic effect of the trailer wheels,
> no doubt...)

I'm sure you've had some genuinely terrible experiences with horse
boxes, and I've never driven one, being as I haven't even got a car
licence yet, but I would imagine that if you're pulling a trailer with a
rather top-heavy load of substantial financial and/or sentimental value
which is furthermore likely to spontaneously redistribute its weight
(especially when it encounters unfamiliar and inexplicable changes in
the direction of gravity, and remember we're talking about a species
with a tendency to be scared of black bin liners and/or shiny crisp
packets here) then you're going to feel a need to be pretty bloody
careful round corners. And then one would normally accelerate on the
straight bits, obviously, since you are presumably trying to get
somewhere. As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine.

Cheers

Roger

 

[Alan G]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:46:03 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>scott wrote:
>
>> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the road, and
>> pull over to let a speeder past, or are not there at all won't make
>> any difference, the offence will still have been committed. I fail
>> to see how pulling over counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.
>
>Indeed, people have been convicted for sitting in L3 on the motorway at
>70mph and refusing to move into a nearside lane when clear to do so. The
>Magistrates/Judges comment was to the effect that it is not the motorists
>job to enforce the law.
>
And that is a sad state of affairs because at one time the
enforcement of the law was the duty of every citizen.