Can I be fined for the intention to commit a traffic violation, after the police prevented me from carrying through? After having stopped at a red traffic light, seeing the intersection empty, I was about to get on by bike and turn right when a police officer behind me informed me that doing so would mean a €100 fine¹, so I walked around the corner and then got on my bike there. I did not get fined. Which makes me wonder: Can the police officer issue a fine for clearly intending to commit a traffic violation, even if the police officer prevented me from doing so? ¹Although a general "right turn on red allowed for cyclists" has been discussed, such is currently not allowed in Germany.
General Question Having an intention is never enough for punishments (both Strafe and Bußgeld) of the German state. But having an intention and be right at the start of doing the offense (details are complicated) is sometimes punished as an attempt of the offense (Versuch). This is defined in § 13 Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (Act on Regulatory Offences). § 13 OWiG (= §§ 22-24 Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code)) (1) Whoever, in accordance with his understanding of the act, takes a direct step towards the realisation of the factual elements of the offence, shall be deemed to have attempted a regulatory offence. (2) The attempt may be sanctioned only if expressly provided by law. (3) If the perpetrator voluntarily renounces further execution of the act or prevents its completion, he shall not be sanctioned for attempt. If the act will not be completed without the contribution of the abandoning party, his voluntary and earnest efforts to prevent its completion shall be sufficient. (4) If more than one person participates in the act, the one who voluntarily prevents its completion shall not be sanctioned for an attempt. However, his voluntary and earnest efforts to prevent the completion of the act shall suffice if the act is not completed without his contribution or is committed independently of his earlier participation. If you started the offense but stopped, so you don't fulfill offense, you don't get sanctioned, if you stopped voluntarily (freiwillig), § 13 III OWiG. (The details are more complicated.) This may be the case in your example, but beeing seen by a police officer is no reason for Freiwilligkeit. So you may have attempted the offence. But an attempted offence gets only sanctioned if this is expressly provided by law, § 13 II OWiG. This is provided for no traffic violation. (But for some of the Straftaten in context of traffic, e.g. § 315b StGB Dangerous disruption of road traffic.) So the answer to your question is a clear: No Specific aspects of your case I have searched the norms for your case, a red light offence for cyclist: § 37 II Nr. 1, Nr. 2, Nr. 6 Straßenverkehrsordnung: the rules for traffic light § 49 III Nr. 2 StVO: declaring violations of § 37 StVO as regulatory offences (legal basis: § 24 I Straßenverkehrsgesetz) Nr. 132a Anlage 1 Bußgeldkatalog-Verordnung: sets 60 € fine for red ligth violations of cyclists (legal basis: § 1 I BKatV) Nr. 132a Anlage 1 BKatV: sets 100 € fine for red ligth violations of cyclists after at least one second Nr. 3.2.19 Anlage 13 Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung: sets fine of one point in Fahreignungsregister (driving ability register) for these offences (legal basis: § 40 FeV) In none of these laws a sanction for attempt is defined. I'm not sure what you did after getting of your bike, you migth have violated the red ligth walking. For this you can get a 5 € fine (Nr. 130 Anlage 1 BKatV), strictly speaking not a Bußgeld (fine), but only a Verwarnungsgeld (warning fine). But the competent authority can but doesn't have to sanction the offence, § 47 I OWiG. So the officer just didn't gave you the warning and thought it is OK.
RockApe's answer is correct but I think it would be better to explain what did happen: the officer is not compelling the suspect to buy the water, she is offering him the opportunity of avoiding arrest, thus if the suspect refuses to clean his mess, he will be arrested, but the charge will not be &quot;he refused to buy water&quot; but &quot;they urinated where he was supposed not to&quot; (however that translates into the English legal code). That arrest would not be a punishment for not buying the water, but for the urination. In this case, buying the water seems to have been the most immediate way of getting the water required to clean. If there was some other water source (for example a public fountain) the police officer could have allowed the suspect to get the water from there. Even if there was some public fountain and the police officer insisted in the accused buying the water, the situation would revert to 2 --&gt; the suspect can simply refuse and he will not be punished for refusing.
While local law varies, most jurisdictions do not authorize citizens' arrests for traffic violations. Generally, citizens arrests are authorized only for misdemeanors and felonies outside the traffic code. Indeed, there are many traffic offenses for which law enforcement is authorized only to stop a violator and issue a ticket, but not even law enforcement is authorized to actually arrest someone. And there is no such thing as a citizen's citation or ticket. Citizens arrests also usually require that the citizen witnessed the crime in progress, but that requirement would be met in this case. If the case had been a hit and run, however, a citizens' arrest probably would have been legally authorized, although the wiser course of action would still be to call the police and to follow the offender at a safe distance.
No. The laws specify what you can and what you cannot do. If the intent of the authority was that you were allowed to drive at 45 mph, you would have a speed limit of 45 mph, not a speed limit of 40 mph. If you go at 41 mph, you are breaking a law and can be punished. That said, law enforcement officers usually have some leeway on how to enforce the law, and they could very well let it pass with just a warning (or even ignore it if they have more pressing issues); the circunstances of it are specific to every situation and officer. The only point that could be made would be if the difference was so small that it could be argued that it can invalidate the evidence on the basis of margin of errors. If the radar catches you driving at 41 mph but the error margin of the radar is 5%, you could argue that you were driving at 39 mph and that the reading is due to the error in the radar1. That would enable you to challenge the evidence (but here the point is not that you are allowed to drive at 41 mph but that there is no proof that you were driving at 41 mph). From what I know, most police forces will be aware of that and avoid issuing fines unless you are well above that margin of error2. 1In fact, in Spain word of the street is that radars are set to account to possible margin of error of the radar, plus possible margin of error of the vehicle speedometer -even if it is the vehicle owner's responsibility to ensure that it works correctly- and some leeway. 2Some people post on the internet the "magic formula" of how many % of speed you can go over the posted speed limit based on those calculations. Of course those magic formulas rely in the radar and the speedometer being 100% accurate and the driver never getting distracted a few seconds and passing it. So, even assuming that those magic formulas are correct, if either the radar or the speedometer are not accurate or the driver gets distracted for a few seconds, you are at risk of getting a ticket.
germany In Germany, the described situation could lead to a fine up to € 2000. As the rider of a horse, you are subject to the existing traffic rules and regulations for all vehicle traffic (§28(2) StVO). As the 'driver' of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is safe to drive (§23(1) StVO). The administrative offense for the rider of a horse is defined in §49(2) StVO and the possible fine for this offense in §24(3)(5) StVG. Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung (StVO) 2013 Road Traffic Regulations no English version of law text § 23 - Sonstige Pflichten von Fahrzeugführenden (1)... Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, hat zudem dafür zu sorgen, dass das Fahrzeug, der Zug, das Gespann sowie die Ladung und die Besetzung vorschriftsmäßig sind und dass die Verkehrssicherheit des Fahrzeugs durch die Ladung oder die Besetzung nicht leidet. ... § 23 - Other obligations of vehicle drivers (1)... Anyone who drives a vehicle must also ensure that the vehicle, the train, the combination, the load and the occupants are in accordance with the regulations and that the road safety of the vehicle is not impaired by the load or the occupants. ... § 28 - Tiere (2) Wer reitet, Pferde oder Vieh führt oder Vieh treibt, unterliegt sinngemäß den für den gesamten Fahrverkehr einheitlich bestehenden Verkehrsregeln und Anordnungen. ... § 28 - Animals ... (2) Anyone who rides horses, leads horses or cattle or drives cattle is subject to the existing traffic rules and regulations for all vehicle traffic. ... § 49 - Ordnungswidrigkeiten (2) Ordnungswidrig im Sinne des § 24 Absatz 1 des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes handelt auch, wer vorsätzlich oder fahrlässig § 24(3)(5) StVG: Geldstrafe bis zu € 2000 ... 4. Als Reiter, Führer von Pferden, Treiber oder Führer von Vieh entgegen § 28 Absatz 2 einer für den gesamten Fahrverkehr einheitlich bestehenden Verkehrsregel oder Anordnung zuwiderhandelt, ... § 49 - Administrative offenses ... (2) Anyone who acts intentionally or negligently is also an administrative offense within the meaning of Section 24 (1) of the Road Traffic Act [§ 24(3)(5) StVG: Fine up to € 2000] ... 4. As a rider, handler of horses, drivers or handlers of cattle, contrary to § 28 paragraph 2, violates a traffic rule or order that applies uniformly to all traffic, ... What is a 'vehicle' (Fahrzeug)? Everything that is not definded in §24 StVO: (1) Schiebe- und Greifreifenrollstühle, Rodelschlitten, Kinderwagen, Roller, Kinderfahrräder, Inline-Skates, Rollschuhe und ähnliche nicht motorbetriebene Fortbewegungsmittel sind nicht Fahrzeuge im Sinne der Verordnung. Für den Verkehr mit diesen Fortbewegungsmitteln gelten die Vorschriften für den Fußgängerverkehr entsprechend. (2) Mit Krankenfahrstühlen oder mit anderen als in Absatz 1 genannten Rollstühlen darf dort, wo Fußgängerverkehr zulässig ist, gefahren werden, jedoch nur mit Schrittgeschwindigkeit. (1) sliding and push rim wheelchairs, toboggans, strollers, scooters, children's bikes, inline skates, roller skates and similar non-motorized means of transportation are not vehicles for the purposes of the regulation. For the marketing of these means of transport regulations for pedestrian traffic apply accordingly. (2) With wheelchairs or with other as mentioned in paragraph 1 wheelchairs may be driven where pedestrian traffic is allowed, but only at walking speed. What is a 'Motor vehicle' (Kraftfahrzeug)? §1 - Zulassung - Straßenverkehrsgesetz (StVG) ... (2) Als Kraftfahrzeuge im Sinne dieses Gesetzes gelten Landfahrzeuge, die durch Maschinenkraft bewegt werden, ohne an Bahngleise gebunden zu sein. (2) Motor vehicles within the meaning of this Act are land vehicles that are moved by machine power without being tied to railway tracks.
I've contested many of my own traffic tickets in a state where traffic tickets are also considered misdemeanor criminal violations. I would appear in court before the time limit on your ticket. I'd plead not guilty, and I would not waive any rights- which means I would request a trial by jury. Under Georgia law you do have the right to a jury trial IF your ticket is not considered a petty offense. Otherwise you can have a bench trial. If your case starts in a Municipal Court and you request a jury trial, the case will be sent to the State or Superior Court of that county. Jury trials on traffic citations are rare, but it is probably a good tactic because you might be able to work out a better solution than you can in Municipal court. Once the court accepts your plea, then I would make sure the court set a pre-trial hearing. At this hearing make a motion to the judge that you would like the dash-cam video of the officer and the vehicle he stopped you in. If the prosecutor argues that it's not relevant (and they might) explain to the judge why they are relevant (the officer didn't realize exactly what intersection you were at). IMPORTANT: Introduction of your own evidence requires that you 'lay the foundation' of the evidence. This usually means that you must declare officially in court, in front of the prosecution, that your evidence (pictures you take, etc.) are taken by you, and that they are 'true and correct' representations of the location where the alleged offense took place, and that the date and time was (whatever it was). You usually must state this while under oath. OTHERWISE, the prosecution will object to your evidence most likely on the grounds of no foundation. Please read up on how to lay the foundation in either a trial or in a pre-trial setting. For something like this you might need to just present the evidence and lay your foundation at trial. So you'll need to read up on how to lay foundation and present your evidence at trial. You could get lucky and the officer won't show up at trial. So in that case I would make a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (you can't cross examine a witness that didn't show up) You'll get to choose jurors, etc. in a process called Voire Dire. So read up on that too. You will not be forced to testify if you don't want to (because of the constitutional right to not incriminate yourself) but if you do choose to testify, the prosecution can ask you questions).
UK seat belt law is here. What you were doing is illegal and carries a fine of £500. As to your specific questions: How illegal is this? It is not a criminal offence in any way. What is the possibility of me getting caught? If a police officer notices you will almost certainly be booked. What is the possibility of being noticed? Depends where you are. If I'm caught what fines and / or penalties can I expect? £500 What's the absolute worst that could happen as a consequence of my actions? You could crash and your passengers could die, you would then go to jail for dangerous driving occasioning death. Having 2 people in a seat belt is extremely hazardous - it would be far safer (but still illegal) to have one person in the seat belt and the other one unrestrained. Could it be possible for me to get away with a warning? No Could I get my licence revoked? (:/) Seat belts offences do not carry a points penalty so, of itself, it would not lead to loss of your licence.
One issue is whether that left-turn (that's what it's normally for, not a u-turn) has a sign that allows u-turns. If it isn't marked, then I think these rules would control: U-turns are prohibited in these locations (from Oregon's DMV): Intersections controlled by a traffic signal, unless a sign permits the turn. Between intersections in a city. Any location within city limits where your vehicle cannot be seen by traffic coming from either direction within 500 feet. Any location outside city limits where your vehicle cannot be seen by traffic coming from either direction within 1,000 feet. At or on a railroad crossing. Any location where U-turns are prohibited by official signs or markings. I find them a little contradictory, but that may be because my state, California, is more permissive with u-turns. I also live in an area that's too crowded so it's easier to get the space and time to make a u-turn 'between intersections.'