Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
Fail to stop...
Keri:
Bloody hell this thread is getting long and complicated for something so simple :?
Boggert:
Ok.... Just to Answer all your questions FINALLY...
Section 59...
59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
As for the Road Closure signs... not a clue and I have never heard that before. There were The Blue Police stop signs out, that I had put up as well as The Highway Closure signs... Yellow and red ones.
The end issue is he learned a lesson, He and His dad was very happy with the Police's actions and he may slow down.
I don't have to justify my actions with anyone on here even thoe I have already done this... if you don't agree with my actions, thats fine. My sergent agreed with them and so did the lad and his family, and thats the end of it.
Gav,
I'll speak to my mate who is a traffice officer and see what he has to say. Interesting to see what he has to say.
drmike:
Not so very simple. A young and apparently foolish man who possibly had no idea how to handle a flooded road made a poor call and now has a Section 59 hanging over him against which he has no appeal.
The way the tale was told it sounded like Section 59 was used as they couldn't get a failing to stop to stick - I don't think that was what was meant or was in fact the case but it's the way it could be read.
So, no it's not simple and it's not justice although it is legal.
Mike
Boggert:
--- Quote from: "drmike" ---Not so very simple. A young and apparently foolish man who possibly had no idea how to handle a flooded road made a poor call and now has a Section 59 hanging over him against which he has no appeal.
The way the tale was told it sounded like Section 59 was used as they couldn't get a failing to stop to stick - I don't think that was what was meant or was in fact the case but it's the way it could be read.
So, no it's not simple and it's not justice although it is legal.
Mike
--- End quote ---
Well we will just have to agree to differ...
Lyndsey731:
Highlander
I can see where your coming from as Boggert did say that his driving bugged him which might not have been the best choice of phrase, but he also states that the vehicle was driving at speed, though admittedly doesn't say he was speeding, was on the wrong side of the road, on a bend, in poor weather conditions, with road closed signs and two uniformed coppers surley these idiots need a warning of some sort. OK point taken that this might not be fair as there is no right of appeal and I can't argue with that but as stated you can only use the tools that you have.
As for the signs if the highways were placing them would that not mean that a temporary TRO was in place, if so as long as the signs comply with the traffic signs regs would that not make them mandatory? thats a genuine question not a sarky comment honestly! it's amazing how we take things the wrong way on this forum.
Thanks
Gav
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version