Speed limits (3)
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
VEHICLES being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes are exempt from speed limits but only if the observance of the limit would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion. Obviously, a fire engine can exceed the speed limit on the way to a fire but it would be improper for it to do so when returning to the station when the emergency has ended. A case which caused considerable controversy in police circles was Aitken v Yarwood. (1964) 2 ALL E.R. 537. In this case a policeman was driving his own car to give evidence in court when the car broke down. It was replaced by a police car but the constable found it necessary to exceed the speed limit to reach the Court in time. It was held that these circumstances came within the exemption.
It is a natural thing, with the corn radeship that exists among commercial drivers, that warnings should be given of "speed traps" farther down the road, but a word of warning will not be out of place in this connection. In Bastable v Little. (1907) IKB59 and Bett v Stevens. (1910) /KB 1 it was held that warning the driver of a motor vehicle, which is travelling at an illegal speed at the time the warning is given, that there is a speed trap amounts to obstructing the police in the execution of their duty for which there is a maximum penalty of £20 and/or one month's imprisonment. A person who gives such warning cannot be convicted if there is no evidence that the vehicles warned were actually speed ing or that he had acted in concert with any of the drivers.
Evidence of excessive speed is usually obtained by the police either by radar equipment, by following the offending vehicle in a police car and checking its speed with the speedometer on the police patrol car, or by timing the offending vehicle over a measured distance with a stop watch.
Where radar equipment was used, a case was dismissed where the defendant was alleged to have driven at 53 mph on a 40 mph road because an electronics consultant stated, "Energy from the radar beam, if reflected from the fence on to the car and then into the radar box would certainly increase the speed recording. The fence would have the effect of a fast car on the outside of the defendant's car.(Police v Whaley) (Daily Telegraph 25/6/66./
An employer who publishes or issues any timetable or schedule under which a journey cannot be completed without speed limits being broken is liable to have the timetable produced in court as prima facie evidence that he procured or incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles at an excessive speed. (A person aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence is liable to the same penalty as the principal offender.)
In Newman v Overington. Harris and Ash (1929) 93 JP 46, motor coach owners who had advertised times of departure and arrival which necessitated an average speed in excess of that permitted were convicted of counselling and procuring a breach of the order which at that time laid down the speed limits.