Windscreen cleaners at lights

ANSI

Are guy at traffic lights cleaning car windows breaking any law? I saw them hold up traffic when the light changed cos he had not finished. He sprayed on my window despite my saying no so told him to FO as i had had my car washed and did not want him 'cleaning' it

He had a squeege and window cleaner and was cleaning off the squeeze in his trousers each time

Misticles

ANSI wrote: »

Are guy at traffic lights cleaning car windows breaking any law? I saw them hold up traffic when the light changed cos he had not finished. He sprayed on my window despite my saying no so told him to FO as i had had my car washed and did not want him 'cleaning' it

He had a squeege and window cleaner and was cleaning off the squeeze in his trousers each time

I hate these people! Sometimes I do be afraid to say No incase they scrape the car or something.

They do it irregardless of whether you say yes or no.

ANSI

Misticles wrote: »

I hate these people! Sometimes I do be afraid to say No incase they scrape the car or something.

They do it irregardless of whether you say yes or no.

he went when i told him FO and i used my wipers/washer to clean his mess

jake is right

Switch on your wipers before they approach the car. That should stop them!

MagicSean

Yes they are committing an offence. That's why they usually run when they see Gardaí. Much like the people who sell stuff at the lights are usually committing an offence.

MadsL

?^^^^

What law is being broken?

source

MadsL wrote: »

?^^^^

What law is being broken?

1, Casual Trading Act
2, Endangering Traffic
3, Obstructing Traffic
4, Usually, Threatening abusive insulting words or behaviour, when they don't get their way, to name a few.

Hooch

source wrote: »

1, Casual Trading Act
2, Endangering Traffic
3, Obstructing Traffic
4, Usually, Threatening abusive insulting words or behaviour, when they don't get their way, to name a few.

1. Casual Trading Act quite possible depending on the area and if it is enacted by the local authority
2. Endangering traffic - no don't think that covers it in anyway whatsoever
3. Only if you catch them actually obstructing traffic. Are they obstructing the traffic cleaning the window or is the motorist who is stopped obstructing the traffic?
4. Again they are usually gone by the time we arrive


(only playing devils advocate here by the way!)

Zambia

If the motorist drove off and hit the cleaner.

Would the motorist be charged with a traffic offence?

I would say yes , so ergo the motorist cant drive off so the cleaner is an obstruction to traffic.

If that is an offence.

MadsL

1. “casual trading” means selling goods (definition from the Act) not services.

2. "Endangering Traffic" " intentionally places or throws any dangerous obstruction upon a railway, road, street, waterway or public place or interferes with any machinery, signal, equipment or other device for the direction, control or regulation of traffic thereon, or interferes with or throws anything at or on any conveyance used or to be used thereon,"
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

3. I don't believe a person construes an obstruction under the Act - any case law?

However it would seem that 2011 begging legislation may cover this;

2.— A person who, while begging in any place—

(a) harasses, intimidates, assaults or threatens any other person or persons, or

(b) obstructs the passage of persons or vehicles,

is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a class E fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2011


However, I'm not sure if the definition of "obstructs" would hold up...a month in prison is a bit strong for car wiping.

Having done window washing myself many moons ago in the UK, when times were very tough under Thatcher's Reich, I had lively debates with cops who said I was begging. I hotly disputed this with them and asked them what law I was breaking. My point was that; a. I was performing a service, b. I was not holding up traffic - I had a rule about moving if the lights changed c. I only asked for what they thought the job was worth. d. I never abused anyone who didn't pay.

Let me ask you this, if you consider this 'obstruction' why are Herald sellers in traffic not prosecuted?

Yawns

Probably because Herald sellers don't put their newspaper on your windscreen regardless if you asked them to or not.

There's a guy in my town who kept doing it despite many times telling him no. He got a bang of a car door and sent flying to the ground after the 5th.

MadsL

He got a bang of a car door and sent flying to the ground after the 5th.

So common assault is your response. Nice.

castie

Would they not be selling a service rather than begging though?

MadsL

castie wrote: »

Would they not be selling a service rather than begging though?

They are both selling, Herald sellers are selling goods. Car Wipers a service in my view.

The issue seems to be that some car drivers see this as begging and have an issue with some 'enthusiastic' operators.

Cops seem to regard it as begging but are shaky on legislation so ignore it.

Yawns

MadsL wrote: »

So common assault is your response. Nice.

Well it was that or let him scratch my car with his brush which had a wire sticking thru it. I'm sure the guards would have considered it top priority and the gentleman would have been honest and paid for it. Hmmmm nope don't think so. I would certainly do it again.

Four times he was told no in the space of 20 minutes. I was driving a few loads from one end of the town to the other and wasn't in the mood for a beggar to damage my car. If he just took no for an answer the 1st time there wouldn't be a problem but I've yet to see a beggar at lights take this option. Herald sellers on the other hand move along straightaway.

MadsL

Yes, I'm sure that would stand up in court. "His brush had a wire sticking out of it" - well then, all charges dropped! :rolleyes:

After you drove past him the second time, did you not think putting your wipers on would help?

Seriously, the amount of people who feel they have a god-given right to assault...:mad:

Yawns

I had my wipers on each time. He just decided to wipe my headlights then.

Seriously, the amount of idiots who have to stick up for someone who begins this sort of **** is unreal. You'd be the type of person who stick up for a murderer* stating "ah sure he might have a medical problem". If anything were to happen to you tho the shoe would be on the other foot.

Why the **** should I even have to stick my wipers on? Why should I repeatedly tell him no? Why can't he **** off and not try to vandalize my car.


You can change the * with whatever scenario you like. I'm sure you'll find reasons to defend anyone doing something that aggravates other people when there's no need to.

MadsL

...and you seem to be the type of person who wants to end each dispute with either verbal abuse or physical violence.

If you had sent this 'vandal' flying into the path of a lorry or motorcyclist; would you expect the court to show leniency and let you off or convict you of manslaughter?

But, hey. I'm just a liberal bleeding heart....:rolleyes:

bucketybuck

MadsL wrote: »

Seriously, the amount of people who feel they have a god-given right to assault...:mad:

Your self righteous indignation is pretty pathetic. "Oh won't somebody think of the beggers...":rolleyes:

Yawns

MadsL wrote: »

...and you seem to be the type of person who wants to end each dispute with either verbal abuse or physical violence.

Yeah because I clearly hit him the first time

5 times... 5 times... 5

5


5


Jesus wept I'm unfollowing this thread now before the troll gets fatter from my feeding him. Goodbye.

MadsL

...and telling someone 5 times justifies you physically assaulting them knocking them on their ass in the middle of traffic. And you feel that is something you want to boast about on boards. Well done, your parents would so proud. I would love to see your statement to the guards.

As for trolling, truth hurts it seems. Goodbye, thug.

MadsL

bucketybuck wrote: »

Your self righteous indignation is pretty pathetic. "Oh won't somebody think of the beggers...":rolleyes:

Is it against the law to assault someone?

Kevin3

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

Wilful obstruction.

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €400.

If they are holding up traffic in any way this can be used along with the direction to desist and leave the area under section 8.

MadsL

That could equally apply to chuggers, hmmm....

However my defence would be that the driver was free to proceed at any time. If the car wiper was not standing in front of the vehicle, how is the driver prevented from free passage?

Kevin3

MadsL wrote: »

That could equally apply to chuggers, hmmm....

However my defence would be that the driver was free to proceed at any time. If the car wiper was not standing in front of the vehicle, how is the driver prevented from free passage?

I take your point but it's hard to drive off when you can't be sure their foot isn't under your wheel. I'm talking about the ones that are obviously holding up traffic when the lights change.

To give a direction under section 8 the guard only has to 'suspect, with reasonable cause' that they are committing the offence. If they don't desist or leave the area after the direction it's a straight forward arrestable offence.

MadsL

To give a direction under section 8 the guard only has to 'suspect, with reasonable cause' that they are committing the offence. If they don't desist or leave the area after the direction it's a straight forward arrestable offence.

...and in the UK, this was the rather pragmatic approach that most cops took (apart from the ones who took a free windscreen wash gladly) - I agreed to leave the area, they agreed not to arrest me Would have been interesting to test in court however...

I should point out that I never 'forced' a screen wash on anyone.