Letter from the police
Discussion
Southerner said:
vonhosen said:
Overtaking isn't DWDCA, but how, when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Entering a hatched area isn't DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Exceeding a speed limit isn't necessarily DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
So what we’re saying then is, basically…. The police should utilise their personnel and time doing something much more useful.Entering a hatched area isn't DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Exceeding a speed limit isn't necessarily DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
That seems a pretty reasonable summary of the whole thing, frankly.
Along with Excess speed, no seatbelt, distracted driving (phone use) & drink/drug driving.
It's no surprise if the Roads Policing Department & it's staff are going to deal with RPD target offences.
Nibbles_bits said:
Possibly not.
Because as others have said - it's perfectly safe to enter the hatched area to overtake.
But in this case, the speed is excessive (60) for the posted speed limit (40)
I went out for a day of " training " with a serving traffic officer, maybe 15 years ago, so perhaps things would be different now. We used my car, which I still have, a Mitsubishi Evo. Your comment about excessive speed strikes a chord. While driving my car he regularly approached 100 mph on 60 limits on A and B roads ( which I have no problem with and will still do myself if circumstances allow ), but he also overtook across the end of driveways where visibility wasn't something I was comfortable with and wouldn't have done, and generally took liberties I wouldn't have considered while alone, let alone being in the position of being responsible for a passenger.Because as others have said - it's perfectly safe to enter the hatched area to overtake.
But in this case, the speed is excessive (60) for the posted speed limit (40)
He was unfazed by my comments afterwards, and I came away wondering what the hell his training had done to make him an ostensibly better driver than me.
In comparison to the above, I don't think the BMW driver has anything to answer for, and quite admired the decisiveness with which he carried out what, to me, seemed to be a largely risk free manoeuvre. I would have broken the speed limit there to take advantage of an opportunity such as that. I can't see a single thing about it that put anyone else in danger, or any indication that he wasn't paying enough attention to the matter at hand. Indeed, the immediacy of his seeing the opportunity and taking advantage of it would indicate the exact opposite.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:09
Heaveho said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Possibly not.
Because as others have said - it's perfectly safe to enter the hatched area to overtake.
But in this case, the speed is excessive (60) for the posted speed limit (40)
I went out for a day of " training " with a serving traffic officer, maybe 15 years ago, so perhaps things would be different now. We used my car, which I still have, a Mitsubishi Evo. Your comment about excessive speed strikes a chord. While driving my car he regularly approached 100 mph on 60 limits on A and B roads ( which I have no problem with and will still do myself if circumstances allow ), but he also overtook across the end of driveways where visibility wasn't something I was comfortable with and wouldn't have done, and generally took liberties I wouldn't have considered while alone, let alone being in the position of being responsible for a passenger.Because as others have said - it's perfectly safe to enter the hatched area to overtake.
But in this case, the speed is excessive (60) for the posted speed limit (40)
He was unfazed by my comments afterwards, and I came away wondering what the hell his training had done to make him an ostensibly better driver than me.
In comparison to the above, I don't think the BMW driver has anything to answer for, and quite admired the decisiveness with which he carried out what, to me, seemed to be a largely risk free manoeuvre. I would have broken the speed limit there to take advantage of an opportunity such as that. I can't see a single thing about it that put anyone else in danger, or any indication that he wasn't paying enough attention to the matter at hand. Indeed, the immediacy of his seeing the opportunity and taking advantage of it would indicate the exact opposite.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:09
Typical of a PH thread.
Nibbles_bits said:
Exceed the posted speed limit = not an issue.
Typical of a PH thread.
What point are you making? Genuine question. Are you saying you're religious about posted limits when you are driving your own vehicle in your own time, because if you are saying that, you aren't telling the truth. Apologies if I've somehow misunderstood what you're getting at.Typical of a PH thread.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:41
Heaveho said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Exceed the posted speed limit = not an issue.
Typical of a PH thread.
What point are you making? Genuine question. Are you saying you're religious about posted limits when you are driving your own vehicle in your own time, because if you are saying that, you aren't telling the truth. Apologies if I've somehow misunderstood what you're getting at.Typical of a PH thread.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:41
Since I did my standard response course, on non A/M roads that have NSL, I'll make progress IF the traffic, road conditions and weather permit. My reasoning for this, because in the area of my force where I work, we only have 2 such roads, yet I could and have been sent to other areas on an emergency call.
I'm not talking 90 or 100, but 70-80 (if the weather, roads and traffic permit).
If that were a 60mph road, and I was behind someone doing 40, I probably would have made the same overtake. But it's not. I don't think driving at 50% above the speed limit just to overtake someone who's driving at the correct speed is necessary (and may even be DWDCA).
On the flip side, if I'm travelling around town. I'll stick to the posted limit. Likewise if I'm on a A or M road, I normally set my cruise control to the displayed limit.
For reference, I've been driving on blues and twos for 4.5yrs, and don’t have any points and haven't attended any diversion courses (yet).
I had 2 collisions, both at work. One on blues, which I wasn't fault for, the other driver "thought I'd gone past" when they pulled into my lane.
The other, the other driver failed to give way at crossroads, and drove into the side of me. I wasn't on blues and was driving "normally".
My point being, overtaking at 60 in a 40 isn't, legal or necessary.
Nibbles_bits said:
Heaveho said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Exceed the posted speed limit = not an issue.
Typical of a PH thread.
What point are you making? Genuine question. Are you saying you're religious about posted limits when you are driving your own vehicle in your own time, because if you are saying that, you aren't telling the truth. Apologies if I've somehow misunderstood what you're getting at.Typical of a PH thread.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:41
Since I did my standard response course, on non A/M roads that have NSL, I'll make progress IF the traffic, road conditions and weather permit. My reasoning for this, because in the area of my force where I work, we only have 2 such roads, yet I could and have been sent to other areas on an emergency call.
I'm not talking 90 or 100, but 70-80 (if the weather, roads and traffic permit).
If that were a 60mph road, and I was behind someone doing 40, I probably would have made the same overtake. But it's not. I don't think driving at 50% above the speed limit just to overtake someone who's driving at the correct speed is necessary (and may even be DWDCA).
On the flip side, if I'm travelling around town. I'll stick to the posted limit. Likewise if I'm on a A or M road, I normally set my cruise control to the displayed limit.
For reference, I've been driving on blues and twos for 4.5yrs, and don’t have any points and haven't attended any diversion courses (yet).
I had 2 collisions, both at work. One on blues, which I wasn't fault for, the other driver "thought I'd gone past" when they pulled into my lane.
The other, the other driver failed to give way at crossroads, and drove into the side of me. I wasn't on blues and was driving "normally".
My point being, overtaking at 60 in a 40 isn't, legal or necessary.
The initial comment seems to be inferring that exceeding the speed limit is definitely an issue and should be regarded as such, but the latter comment goes on to say that it is acceptable on non-A/M roads if the immediate environment/conditions permit (which are statistically less safe than the A/M roads that cruise control is apparently used to ensure compliance...)
Which is it?
I am however slightly baffled that there might be only two roads suitable for exceeding the NSL in the whole of an administrative area patrolled, though - what area is it? Shetland?
Forester1965 said:
A careful and competent driver is entitled to use a hatched area, so long as it's safe and necessary to complete whatever manoeuvre they're doing. If they speed whilst they're doing it that isn't evidence of careless driving in and of itself.
The question is whether the actual manoeuvre was necessary. It was only the OP's impatience that made him deem the overtake necessary. What surprises me the most about this is that the Highway Code adds the wording about 'necessity', when the actual law (the TSGDR as already mentioned upthread) says nothing of the sort. The Highway Code isn't the law but I thought it was supposed to be reflective of it. Here it seems the HC plucks the vague and flexible concept of 'necessity' out of its fundament, which has caused pages of completely pointless bickering.
Roger Irrelevant said:
What surprises me the most about this is that the Highway Code adds the wording about 'necessity', when the actual law (the TSGDR as already mentioned upthread) says nothing of the sort. The Highway Code isn't the law but I thought it was supposed to be reflective of it. Here it seems the HC plucks the vague and flexible concept of 'necessity' out of its fundament, which has caused pages of completely pointless bickering.
I presume "you're perfectly allowed to do this, but if you do, someone who thinks you aren't may cause you quite a lot of hassle, so maybe bear that in mind" isn't quite what they're looking for.'Necessary' is necessary because without it, there'd be nothing in law or the HC to say you can't just drive along in the hatched area for s
ts and giggles (so long as it is safe). Adding 'necessary' prevents that- contravention of the HC is typically evidence of a s.3 contravention.
The wording should be improved for clarity, though.
ts and giggles (so long as it is safe). Adding 'necessary' prevents that- contravention of the HC is typically evidence of a s.3 contravention.The wording should be improved for clarity, though.
RSTurboPaul said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Heaveho said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Exceed the posted speed limit = not an issue.
Typical of a PH thread.
What point are you making? Genuine question. Are you saying you're religious about posted limits when you are driving your own vehicle in your own time, because if you are saying that, you aren't telling the truth. Apologies if I've somehow misunderstood what you're getting at.Typical of a PH thread.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 00:41
Since I did my standard response course, on non A/M roads that have NSL, I'll make progress IF the traffic, road conditions and weather permit. My reasoning for this, because in the area of my force where I work, we only have 2 such roads, yet I could and have been sent to other areas on an emergency call.
I'm not talking 90 or 100, but 70-80 (if the weather, roads and traffic permit).
If that were a 60mph road, and I was behind someone doing 40, I probably would have made the same overtake. But it's not. I don't think driving at 50% above the speed limit just to overtake someone who's driving at the correct speed is necessary (and may even be DWDCA).
On the flip side, if I'm travelling around town. I'll stick to the posted limit. Likewise if I'm on a A or M road, I normally set my cruise control to the displayed limit.
For reference, I've been driving on blues and twos for 4.5yrs, and don’t have any points and haven't attended any diversion courses (yet).
I had 2 collisions, both at work. One on blues, which I wasn't fault for, the other driver "thought I'd gone past" when they pulled into my lane.
The other, the other driver failed to give way at crossroads, and drove into the side of me. I wasn't on blues and was driving "normally".
My point being, overtaking at 60 in a 40 isn't, legal or necessary.
The initial comment seems to be inferring that exceeding the speed limit is definitely an issue and should be regarded as such, but the latter comment goes on to say that it is acceptable on non-A/M roads if the immediate environment/conditions permit (which are statistically less safe than the A/M roads that cruise control is apparently used to ensure compliance...)
Which is it?
I am however slightly baffled that there might be only two roads suitable for exceeding the NSL in the whole of an administrative area patrolled, though - what area is it? Shetland?
The question was whether I did? The answer is yes, I do speed, on occasions. Those occasions being on non A/M roads that have an NSL, IF the road, traffic and weather permit
I work in a city. It's It's own "administrative" area. It only has 2 single lane NSL roads.
Only driving on those roads (making use of my lawful exemptions) once or twice a week isn't much use for my refresher, where a majority of it is on single NSLs.
Nibbles_bits said:
I didn't say it was acceptable.
The question was whether I did? The answer is yes, I do speed, on occasions. Those occasions being on non A/M roads that have an NSL, IF the road, traffic and weather permit
I work in a city. It's It's own "administrative" area. It only has 2 single lane NSL roads.
Only driving on those roads (making use of my lawful exemptions) once or twice a week isn't much use for my refresher, where a majority of it is on single NSLs.
I'd be wary of exceeding the speed limit to practice for a refresher personally. Not allowed in my force. I can't see how it's for a policing purpose. The question was whether I did? The answer is yes, I do speed, on occasions. Those occasions being on non A/M roads that have an NSL, IF the road, traffic and weather permit
I work in a city. It's It's own "administrative" area. It only has 2 single lane NSL roads.
Only driving on those roads (making use of my lawful exemptions) once or twice a week isn't much use for my refresher, where a majority of it is on single NSLs.
Forester1965 said:
'Necessary' is necessary because without it, there'd be nothing in law or the HC to say you can't just drive along in the hatched area for sts and giggles (so long as it is safe). Adding 'necessary' prevents that- contravention of the HC is typically evidence of a s.3 contravention.
The wording should be improved for clarity, though.
That's sort of the point though- the law says you can drive along it for sts and giggles (so long as it is safe). Adding 'necessary' prevents that- contravention of the HC is typically evidence of a s.3 contravention.The wording should be improved for clarity, though.
ts and giggles or for any other reason if it is seen to be safe to do so. Adding 'necessary' adds nothing but confusion because, as we have seen, that gets interpreted as anything from 'necessary in order for me to do what I want' to 'necessary to save the world'.It's not too complicated. You drive into the hatched area when it's unnecessary and it may be used and accepted by the courts, all else being equal, as evidence you drove carelessly/inconsiderately.
The regs say you can enter the hatched area if it's safe, the HC plays the notional careful and competent driver and adds only if necessary. Necessary being in the context of needing to use it to complete an otherwise legal manoeuvre (such as an overtake or driving around an obstacle in the road).
The regs say you can enter the hatched area if it's safe, the HC plays the notional careful and competent driver and adds only if necessary. Necessary being in the context of needing to use it to complete an otherwise legal manoeuvre (such as an overtake or driving around an obstacle in the road).
LosingGrip said:
Nibbles_bits said:
I didn't say it was acceptable.
The question was whether I did? The answer is yes, I do speed, on occasions. Those occasions being on non A/M roads that have an NSL, IF the road, traffic and weather permit
I work in a city. It's It's own "administrative" area. It only has 2 single lane NSL roads.
Only driving on those roads (making use of my lawful exemptions) once or twice a week isn't much use for my refresher, where a majority of it is on single NSLs.
I'd be wary of exceeding the speed limit to practice for a refresher personally. Not allowed in my force. I can't see how it's for a policing purpose. The question was whether I did? The answer is yes, I do speed, on occasions. Those occasions being on non A/M roads that have an NSL, IF the road, traffic and weather permit
I work in a city. It's It's own "administrative" area. It only has 2 single lane NSL roads.
Only driving on those roads (making use of my lawful exemptions) once or twice a week isn't much use for my refresher, where a majority of it is on single NSLs.
I didn't say it was for a policing purpose. The only time training would be for a policing purpose is if it was part of an approved training programme. But that's 1 day every 5 years.
Unlike the job cars, my personal car doesn't have telematics or cameras. So my driving in my own car isn't going to get randomly checked, or checked because someone has made a complaint.
I'm well aware of the risks involved when speeding. It's a choice that I make. I'd own the consequences, rather than bleat on about a being a "police state" or "only just being over" or that the police are going for "low hanging fruit".
But again, I wouldn't be overtaking people at nearly 50% over the posted limit, because it's not necessary.
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Monday 6th May 10:33
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Monday 6th May 10:41
Nibbles_bits said:
You're right, same in my Force.
I didn't say it was for a policing purpose.
Unlike the job cars, my personal car doesn't have telematics or cameras. So my driving in my own car isn't going to get randomly checked, or checked because someone has made a complaint.
But again, I wouldn't be overtaking people at nearly 50% over the posted limit.
Ah I took it the wrong way in your post! Makes sense! I didn't say it was for a policing purpose.
Unlike the job cars, my personal car doesn't have telematics or cameras. So my driving in my own car isn't going to get randomly checked, or checked because someone has made a complaint.
But again, I wouldn't be overtaking people at nearly 50% over the posted limit.
Interestingly I've just done my standard bike course and was told to overtake in the hatch markings to make progress.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff