The Criminal Damage Act 1971 (a threat) or Harm or Injury Dec 2, 2019 12:21:57 GMT
Post by Administrator on Dec 2, 2019 12:21:57 GMT
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 (a threat) or Harm or (Legal Injury)
What has that got to do with Fixed Speed cameras?
A Fixed Speed camera has, by Regulations to "Be seen" by approaching drivers.
It is without question the "police presence" of a (THREAT) to drivers.. That IF they Exceed the Speed limit, they will suffer (Legal Injury) or at least they will suffer the consequences of (Legal action) against them. And be required to (Defend) themselves against that Legal Action.
It is a "Threat" so as to encourage compliance with the Law.
But, The Law Is applied AFTER a Person has committed an offence.
You Break the Law... And you are charged.. Prosecuted.
If Someone Politely Asks you not to break the Law... It is not a Threat...
"Don't take the Bread" Or "Don't hit me"
But if they were to say....
"Don't take the bread or I will Prosecute you"
Or Don't take the bread or else I will Smack you"
Or Don't Hit me Or I will Knock you out"
That is a threat.
Threats do not fall within the "Lawful excuse" of section 5 of the Criminal Damage act 1971.
I am Not certain if that is because they are covered elsewhere in the law. Or if Threats just don't have a "Lawful excuse"
I Mean you can have intent to cause distress.. Or Something..
The "POLICE PRESENCE" is taught in "Training" of police.. Police on Horseback.. The Very Presence of the Police is desired at events in order for the Very presence of the police to deter crowds from riots or any undesirable actions..
And in this we understand the "presence" of a Fixed Speed camera (At least a Visible one)
So.. How can you Question if a "speed camera" is a "Threat" or not?
And if it has a "lawful excuse" to "Inflict" (Legal Injury) upon a driver..
Regardless of if they break the law or not.
If they DO break the LAW.. then it is (NOT) legal injury. The Inflicted harm is (Lawfully administered) through Justice.
But if it is (NOT) lawfully administered.. Then it is not Lawful justice.
So... Before a Driver even Passes a Speed camera.. IF they are NOT speeding...
"IS" the Speed camera THREATENING a Driver? Is it a THREAT to "Inflict" Legal Injury IF the Driver exceeds the speed limit? being that... IF they DO exceed the speed limit.. They have Broken the law so the POLICE CAN Charge, Prosecute them.. as it is (NOT) Injury therefore.
(unless found not guilty)
Let us consider REGULAR road signage..
In order to get some bearings.
a 30mph sign.
Is this sign a THREAT?
It Itself is NOT a THREAT of a Consequence. or Injury.
It is Giving Notice of the Legal Speed limit. But it itself is not a THREAT of the Law.. It Itself is not a THREAT of Charge or Prosecution.
It gives notice there is a speed limit. That is (Required to be complied with) but it, itself is NOT a Threat of Immediate, direct Consequence, Charge or Prosecution.. or Injury.
The Road Sign Gives notice and (ASKS) you to comply with the Speed limit.
It gives notice "This is a 30mph road"
And "Asks the driver to drive at 30mph"
It is not THREATENING THE DRIVER by its presence.
Now.. As for the ROAD ITSELF... The Visual Presence of the road...
A STRAIGHT ROAD... is visually recognized as a straight road.
It informs the driver it is straight.
And Informs the Driver, gives notice to the driver (By its presence) to continue driving in a straight line and not to turn. (unless the driver is going to stop or turn into a driveway of their own memory and Knowledge.)
If on the other hand.. The Road is BENT..
There is a BEND in the road..
The Actual BEND itself.. INFORMS the Driver Visually that they have to turn...
It asks the driver "to turn" by the Notice it gives, itself of its existence as a bend...
The Question is...
If the BEND has a Cliff drop along its edge....
IS THE CLIFF DROP & THE BEND ITSELF... "Interpretable" as "A THREAT" ?
Does the ACTUAL ROAD & BEND.. by its presence IMPOSE a THREAT to the DRIVER?
IF YOU DO NOT TURN YOU WILL GO OFF THE EDGE OF THIS CLIFF? as you drive around the BEND.
There is a visual THREAT OF DANGER by the presence of the actual BEND.
But a Road Sign, with a WARNING of a BEND ahead.. is giving notice to the driver only "There is a bend ahead"
And it is only "Asking the driver" to be aware of it.
I don't think the Sign is threatening the driver.
But the Actual BEND & DROP itself is a direct threat. Of the laws of Physics.
If there was a barrier around the corner, to prevent people driving off the edge of the road...
The Barrier is protecting the driver. It IS a threat of Damage to the Vehicle only as much as the actual bend itself is...
But the Barrier doesn't Threaten to Injure, as its Creation, Intent & purpose is "protection" of the DRIVER.
Signs do not Threaten, they inform & ask compliance.
But a Speed camera Is a Sign & requests compliance but has an additional aspect of THREAT to the driver.
The Same as an Actual Hazzard does Itself by its presence.
The Road Might be straight past a speed camera. There might be No person, or other vehicle on the street.. It could be deserted..
So in that instance The Speed camera is a THREAT against approaching drivers... Even if they are driving under the speed limit...
It Threatens that IF they exceed the speed limit, there will be Legal Action.
The same as the Presence of a real hazard.. a BEND on a Cliff.. threats by intellectual interpretation.. IF you do not TURN as you approach.. you will go over the edge & be Injured. The BEND itself threatens the driver.
Exactly as a Fixed speed camera threatens a driver.
A bend is a hazard.
A speed camera can be interpreted as a similar hazard.
A Road Sign is not a Hazzard.
It can Inform, give notice & ask compliance... But the Sign itself is not a hazard (if safely placed)
So the Contemplation of this is around the point of.. "Is a Fixed Speed camera a THREAT" regardless of if there is any danger or risk?
Because regardless of Danger or Risk.. a "THREAT" of such.. is Not covered by the Criminal Damage act 1971 "Lawful Excuse"
So can the police have a "lawful excuse" to THREATEN drivers with "fixed speed cameras" ? I Don't think they can.
But as I said.. THREATS might be covered in a different act.
Some people without the Philosophical capacity or contemplative interest would cast this aside as a load of rubbish.
It could be "ridiculed" in court.
But for those with a deeper understanding of the Road itself. And Why signs are placed.. and the Natural Percentile effects of the road.. that carry drivers at different speeds.. Downhill.. for example.. on a straight wide road.... When there is no Visible Threat.. or presence of any pedestrian or other vehicle...
What Visible Threat Remains on the road??
Could a Lone Fixed Speed camera, in Such conditions, be the ONLY THREAT on the road remaining? when there is actually no other true threat of the road?
This is where HIGHWAYS ENGLAND DEGREE IN STUDY OF ROAD TRAFFIC is applied.
And where "Access passes" are required to enter Highways England Buildings & "The Department of Transport" to get physical access to these Staff to Question them..
Not over the phone... Not by Post... But in Person.. In Recorded Interview.
Is such Interview Considered a THREAT? by The Government?
Why are there so many access & entry passes required?
My Interviews with Staff at North Yorkshire Council Highways office (Small office) Led to this type of conversation.. and when conversation did lead into the subject of "intent" to mislead drivers.. Police Placing Signs, The Government Placing Signs to mislead people... And the Council Admitting it was not only possible, but "Correct" in the accusation...
Then we have criminal Intent of Placement & use of Speed cameras.
Which is more than a THREAT.. It is actual Intent.
But do the Police have a "lawful excuse" of an "Interest" and "Right" in causing actual "Injury" to speeding Drivers..?
What if speed limits are reduced when the road design was for a higher speed? and it physically carry's a driver at a higher speed.
Not with Simply a Sign giving notice to slow down, or warn a driver..
But the Added threat of a Fixed Speed camera?
Does the Steeper Inclination of a HILL Threaten to Increase the speed of a vehicle?
If a Driver cannot see that incline.. If it is "Not visible" then it cannot be a "Threat" identified.
Does the Hill, then Subtly, not threaten the speed of the driver (as it is unseen) it actually causes harm to the speed because it increases the speed by the laws of Physics.
I am Not saying I am Right or Wrong about this...
Its just interesting Study to contemplate.
Because the Majority of Drivers do not have this knowledge which could be important in Road Traffic Defence.