Letter from the police

[Random_Person]

pavarotti1980 said:

What happens if the driver is not at the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver?

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 3rd May 16:28

That's the threshold test for DWDCA.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

So if the driver deems it's safe to do so, that's OK?

"Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??

Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 13:51

As usual, and is is always the case, people are not reading the thread. I have already given a precis for why it would be considered DWDCA twice and it had more reason on there than just a solid white line. You wouldn't overtake there on a driving school exercise would you? If you have even done one, seriously starting to doubt it based on your posting.

And it is nothing to do with the driver deeming it safe. It is about the fact you can cross the hatches when necessary - which includes an overtake.

Getting boring now anyway - as I have already said, I don't believe the driver received anything for that or that it is even a genuine incident. These videos are marketed and created for a reason - everyone is bickering over a penalty that may never have been issued.

Edited by Random_Person on Friday 3rd May 17:06

I agree with most of what you write - but necessity does not come in to it. If you see it to be safe, you can do it. You can drive along the entire broken line all day long if you want, and if it's safe.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

So if the driver deems it's safe to do so, that's OK?

"Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??

Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 13:51

As usual, and is is always the case, people are not reading the thread. I have already given a precis for why it would be considered DWDCA twice and it had more reason on there than just a solid white line. You wouldn't overtake there on a driving school exercise would you? If you have even done one, seriously starting to doubt it based on your posting.

And it is nothing to do with the driver deeming it safe. It is about the fact you can cross the hatches when necessary - which includes an overtake.

Getting boring now anyway - as I have already said, I don't believe the driver received anything for that or that it is even a genuine incident. These videos are marketed and created for a reason - everyone is bickering over a penalty that may never have been issued.

Edited by Random_Person on Friday 3rd May 17:06

Ah yes, Operation Snap the well known fake video staged by Devon and Cornwall Police to cause debate on PH.

Give your head a wobble.

If it was for a policing purpose then the overtake would be necessary.

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

That's the threshold test for DWDCA.

I know

[Nibbles_bits]

Debaser said:

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g

If you look at the overtake shown at 13 secs and again at 1min 45 secs you'll see an overtake across a hatched area which earned the overtaker a conviction for DWDCA and a driving course. To my mind that looked quick but safe, I can only think he was prosecuted for going over the solid white line at the start of the hatching so would have been ok if he'd entered the hatched area a couple of metres later.

It seems that the definition of DWDCA is fluid and a manoeuvre on the road may or not be considered for prosecution at the whim of an individual member of the Operation Snitch team.

In the OP's case I'd definitely write to the sender of his warning letter and request clarification of what criteria constitutes an offence of DWDCA and establish what justification they've got for accusing him of the offence, including the video evidence. A letter written in the spirit of wanting to learn a lesson would perhaps get a better response than an indignant letter.

Ultimately if one is blanked or ignored, the best course of action would be to submit a formal complaint, but if doing so insist that you will only communicate by letter or email, so that a formal record exists.

Can anyone explain exactly why the driver in this video was done for DWDCA, please?

In short = no.

All the facts and evidence aren't known.

[Random_Person]

Nibbles_bits said:

Ah yes, Operation Snap the well known fake video staged by Devon and Cornwall Police to cause debate on PH.

Give your head a wobble.

If it was for a policing purpose then the overtake would be necessary.

Again, you have misunderstood and failed to see my point. Clearly your experience is lacking.

[Random_Person]

Rusty Old-Banger said:

I agree with most of what you write - but necessity does not come in to it. If you see it to be safe, you can do it. You can drive along the entire broken line all day long if you want, and if it's safe.

That's what I have said all along, my responses around necessary are for those who are hung up on the HC verbatim about hatches. Its broken, therefore, it is permitted.

[vonhosen]

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

[Nibbles_bits]

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

According to some on here it's not WDCA

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Ah yes, Operation Snap the well known fake video staged by Devon and Cornwall Police to cause debate on PH.

Give your head a wobble.

If it was for a policing purpose then the overtake would be necessary.

Again, you have misunderstood and failed to see my point. Clearly your experience is lacking.

You've even suggested it was "staged". If it were "staged" ......what are they staging if not DWDCA??

[vonhosen]

Nibbles_bits said:

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

According to some on here it's not WDCA

We can all have an opinion, but it's just that, our opinion & of little real consequence.
That's because our opinion won't affect the outcome of it at all.
The opinions that will affect the outcome, are those of the people who are employed to make decisions about it (The Police employees viewing it & should it come to it, the CPS & court). Because if everybody in that chain is saying it fell below the standard expected you end up convicted, no matter how much you argue it was safe.
The bar for Careless driving/WDCA is a low bar.
Your best defence to it, is probably not to drive in a way that makes you stand out in a crowd.
Although it doesn't define what is or isn't WDCA, it's not a bad idea to consider if you'd have happily done it on your driving test.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

ScoobyChris said:

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

Sorry to be that guy, but it looks more like 40.

As the BMW drives away, you can see the two speed limit signs on either side of the road

According to Google maps, from where it enters the hatched area to roughly where it pulls back on to the left side of the road it 82m (in 3s) = approx 60mph
So perhaps that's why DWDCA

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 20:35

[Nibbles_bits]

[Forester1965]

Not sure the view ahead is the great if you're in the offside lane.

[Nibbles_bits]

Forester1965 said:

Not sure the view ahead is the great if you're in the offside lane.

Agreed. It's definitely a better view if you move to the nearside.

[donkmeister]

OP, doesn't look like you have posted a link to the road in question, but I know enough similar places that I could see this falling anywhere on the spectrum of a "naughty overtake" to "utter dick move". There's also the factor of what pushed the person reporting it from a tutt and a mutter up to taking time out of their day to tell the police that they reckon you're a dhead behind the wheel.

For instance, I've seen a few people do exactly the manoeuvre you described (never in a TVR, mind) and in the process it throws stones and crap up. The hatched areas don't get driven on at speed, or swept, so there's a fair bit of rubbish there.

Bet you'd be pissed off if someone started lobbing handfuls of gravel at that lovely paintwork as you drive past, maybe you pebbledashed someone's car?

[donkmeister]

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
.

Glad to see the tt at 2:55 got 8 points and a fine. I wonder how long he had been sat hogging the outside lane before that Vauxhall overtook him?

[Nibbles_bits]

donkmeister said:

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
.

Glad to see the tt at 2:55 got 8 points and a fine. I wonder how long he had been sat hogging the outside lane before that Vauxhall overtook him?

Any updates??

[Random_Person]

You really need to focus on whats important.

Life.

A snippet of a video posted by a police area. That's historic.With no corresponding facts or context.

Take a breath and go for a walk.

Every hour of every day - things are happening on the roads that are heinous. You, we, I - won't change it.

Self-preservation is the key. Abstract yourself from what happens, is happening and will continue to happen. PH will change nothing.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

You really need to focus on whats important.

Life.

A snippet of a video posted by a police area. That's historic.With no corresponding facts or context.

Take a breath and go for a walk.

Every hour of every day - things are happening on the roads that are heinous. You, we, I - won't change it.

Self-preservation is the key. Abstract yourself from what happens, is happening and will continue to happen. PH will change nothing.

Well there is a corresponding fact, it was DWDCA.

The context being, that the vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit.