Can anyone help me???? Please??
Discussion
The other day i was riding my motorcycle to work when i was stopped by the police and giving 3 points and a £60 fine. The only 'offence' i commited was filtering traffic?!?!
The situation is that i was waiting the opposite side of a roundabout to a light controlled pedestrian crossing for the lights to go green because the traffic had queued up at the red. When the lights went green i carried on and started to pass through the two lanes of traffic.
To my understanding the highway code says that with reference to the zig zag lines you must 'not to pass the moving vehicle closest to the stop sign or the vehicle closest to the stop line that has stopped to give way to pedestrians'. I passed cars before the crossing but to pass the car at the stop line having had a standing start from the opposite side of a mini rounabout would have been impossible. and i knew what it said so why would i break it?!
I then continued to pass through the lines of traffic after the crossing riding within the speed limit at all times and riding slowly and courtiously (i was commuting to work... not out for a trash!). i then moved over to get out of the way of the police car on blues behind me who proceded to pull me and give me points and a fine.
As far as i can see the law also reflects what the highway code says so i do not see how the traffic officer can accuse me of this as an offence. has anyone else head of this problem or do you know of any websites with traffic laws on that i could use for reference??
Any info will help as i'm planning on taking this to court to proove he's wrong...
a difficult task for a biker against a traffic cop!!!
PLEASE HELP!
Cheers
The situation is that i was waiting the opposite side of a roundabout to a light controlled pedestrian crossing for the lights to go green because the traffic had queued up at the red. When the lights went green i carried on and started to pass through the two lanes of traffic.
To my understanding the highway code says that with reference to the zig zag lines you must 'not to pass the moving vehicle closest to the stop sign or the vehicle closest to the stop line that has stopped to give way to pedestrians'. I passed cars before the crossing but to pass the car at the stop line having had a standing start from the opposite side of a mini rounabout would have been impossible. and i knew what it said so why would i break it?!
I then continued to pass through the lines of traffic after the crossing riding within the speed limit at all times and riding slowly and courtiously (i was commuting to work... not out for a trash!). i then moved over to get out of the way of the police car on blues behind me who proceded to pull me and give me points and a fine.
As far as i can see the law also reflects what the highway code says so i do not see how the traffic officer can accuse me of this as an offence. has anyone else head of this problem or do you know of any websites with traffic laws on that i could use for reference??
Any info will help as i'm planning on taking this to court to proove he's wrong...
a difficult task for a biker against a traffic cop!!!
PLEASE HELP!
Cheers
I thought the highway code says you must not make an overtaking manouevre anywhere along the zig-zag markings?
Anyway, you say the ticket was for filtering, not overtaking at a crossing, so it must be that the BiB thought you were filtering improperly - i.e. being impatient and passing traffic willy-nilly, rather than staying in a lane to yourself.
Unfortunately I can't see anything in the highway code about 'filtering', only about overtaking in queues in general, which states you shouldn't change lanes to overtake when queueing - you should stay in your lane - I'd guess 'filtering' involves popping in and out of the edges of both lanes to progress?
Anyway, you say the ticket was for filtering, not overtaking at a crossing, so it must be that the BiB thought you were filtering improperly - i.e. being impatient and passing traffic willy-nilly, rather than staying in a lane to yourself.
Unfortunately I can't see anything in the highway code about 'filtering', only about overtaking in queues in general, which states you shouldn't change lanes to overtake when queueing - you should stay in your lane - I'd guess 'filtering' involves popping in and out of the edges of both lanes to progress?
mmm-five said:
I thought the highway code says you must not make an overtaking manouevre anywhere along the zig-zag markings?
First point isn't correct.. see www.highwaycode.gov.uk/18.htm#167
167: You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD reg 10, 27 & 28
Christophe points this out correctly.
Christophe, assuming that the ticket actually mentions filtering and not a passing on a crossing offence?
From what you describe you'd never get an hassle here in London for that.
It wasn't the filtering that he actually charged me for it was the 'overtaking' on the zig zag lines.
What my ticket actually accused me of was "failing to accord precedence (overtaking)".
At the scene when he questioned me about what "i thought i'd done wrong" (yeah typical cocky arragant asshole of a cop!), i pointed out that i thought i could overtake any vehicle but the one directly before the crossing, which appears to be in the highway code, and the law...
But he still charged me!
Whats the deal?! just in the hope i'd take the fine and points because of the likely hood of me winning in a my word against his in court is minimal?!
Seems to me the idea of being innocent til proven guilty has gone out of the window.
Any more info would be greatly appreciated or if someone is or knows a nice lawyer that will represent a broke innocent guy just to proove my innocence and beat the police on principle then please feel free to contact me!
What my ticket actually accused me of was "failing to accord precedence (overtaking)".
At the scene when he questioned me about what "i thought i'd done wrong" (yeah typical cocky arragant asshole of a cop!), i pointed out that i thought i could overtake any vehicle but the one directly before the crossing, which appears to be in the highway code, and the law...
But he still charged me!
Whats the deal?! just in the hope i'd take the fine and points because of the likely hood of me winning in a my word against his in court is minimal?!
Seems to me the idea of being innocent til proven guilty has gone out of the window.
Any more info would be greatly appreciated or if someone is or knows a nice lawyer that will represent a broke innocent guy just to proove my innocence and beat the police on principle then please feel free to contact me!
vonhosen said:
filtering is overtaking.
Still does not count in the circumstances. He would have had to overtake the vehicle at the head of the queue. Now that is an area of contention. What is the head of the queue? If the traffic is stopped at the Crossing then it's the vehicle at the head of that queue. But if the traffic is moving then I would contend that as you approach the crossing itself you should not over or undertake the vehicle closer to the crossing.
telecat said:
vonhosen said:
filtering is overtaking.
Still does not count in the circumstances. He would have had to overtake the vehicle at the head of the queue. Now that is an area of contention. What is the head of the queue? If the traffic is stopped at the Crossing then it's the vehicle at the head of that queue. But if the traffic is moving then I would contend that as you approach the crossing itself you should not over or undertake the vehicle closer to the crossing.
I've no contention with that (haven't said that I have)
what the law said:
THE ZEBRA, PELICAN AND PUFFIN PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS REGULATIONS 1997
Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings
24. - (1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called "the approaching vehicle" ) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it -
(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
(2) In paragraph (1) -
(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b) the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th July 23:08
Not picking on you VH but the wording of the regulation. In theory, on a dual carriageway you cannot pass the last vehicle in the queue on the left, which means that if no vehicle is in the right lane the right lane couls be empty BACK to the vehicle alongside the LAST vehicle in the left hand lane. Hence they have then added a proviso stating that actually this only applies to the closest vehicle in whichever queue to the crossing. Guaranteed to confuse it essentially means that YES it is ok to overtake any vehicle EXCEPT that closest to the crossing. Trust a lawyer to make your life difficult!!
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 26th July 00:53
christophe said:
It wasn't the filtering that he actually charged me for it was the 'overtaking' on the zig zag lines.
What my ticket actually accused me of was "failing to accord precedence (overtaking)".
At the scene when he questioned me about what "i thought i'd done wrong" (yeah typical cocky arragant asshole of a cop!), i pointed out that i thought i could overtake any vehicle but the one directly before the crossing, which appears to be in the highway code, and the law...
But he still charged me!
Whats the deal?! just in the hope i'd take the fine and points because of the likely hood of me winning in a my word against his in court is minimal?!
Seems to me the idea of being innocent til proven guilty has gone out of the window.
Any more info would be greatly appreciated or if someone is or knows a nice lawyer that will represent a broke innocent guy just to proove my innocence and beat the police on principle then please feel free to contact me!
What my ticket actually accused me of was "failing to accord precedence (overtaking)".
At the scene when he questioned me about what "i thought i'd done wrong" (yeah typical cocky arragant asshole of a cop!), i pointed out that i thought i could overtake any vehicle but the one directly before the crossing, which appears to be in the highway code, and the law...
But he still charged me!
Whats the deal?! just in the hope i'd take the fine and points because of the likely hood of me winning in a my word against his in court is minimal?!
Seems to me the idea of being innocent til proven guilty has gone out of the window.
Any more info would be greatly appreciated or if someone is or knows a nice lawyer that will represent a broke innocent guy just to proove my innocence and beat the police on principle then please feel free to contact me!
Yeah, that's going to endear you to people on this forum.
I'm prepared to bet a pint of England's finest foaming ale that there's more to this story than you're telling us.
telecat said:
Not picking on you VH but the wording of the regulation. In theory, on a dual carriageway you cannot pass the last vehicle in the queue on the left, which means that if no vehicle is in the right lane the right lane couls be empty BACK to the vehicle alongside the LAST vehicle in the left hand lane. Hence they have then added a proviso stating that actually this only applies to the closest vehicle in whichever queue to the crossing. Guaranteed to confuse it essentially means that YES it is ok to overtake any vehicle EXCEPT that closest to the crossing. Trust a lawyer to make your life difficult!!
You're not making my life difficcult, it is exactly what the legislation I quoted says.
Relevant bit being
earlier post said:
(2) In paragraph (1) -
(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 26th July 06:53
vonhosen said:
telecat said:
Not picking on you VH but the wording of the regulation. In theory, on a dual carriageway you cannot pass the last vehicle in the queue on the left, which means that if no vehicle is in the right lane the right lane couls be empty BACK to the vehicle alongside the LAST vehicle in the left hand lane. Hence they have then added a proviso stating that actually this only applies to the closest vehicle in whichever queue to the crossing. Guaranteed to confuse it essentially means that YES it is ok to overtake any vehicle EXCEPT that closest to the crossing. Trust a lawyer to make your life difficult!!
You're not making my life difficcult, it is exactly what the legislation I quoted says.
Relevant bit being
earlier post said:
(2) In paragraph (1) -
(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 26th July 06:53
Which means no offence unless the leading vehicle is overtaken. Right?
s2art said:
vonhosen said:
telecat said:
Not picking on you VH but the wording of the regulation. In theory, on a dual carriageway you cannot pass the last vehicle in the queue on the left, which means that if no vehicle is in the right lane the right lane couls be empty BACK to the vehicle alongside the LAST vehicle in the left hand lane. Hence they have then added a proviso stating that actually this only applies to the closest vehicle in whichever queue to the crossing. Guaranteed to confuse it essentially means that YES it is ok to overtake any vehicle EXCEPT that closest to the crossing. Trust a lawyer to make your life difficult!!
You're not making my life difficcult, it is exactly what the legislation I quoted says.
Relevant bit being
earlier post said:
(2) In paragraph (1) -
(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 26th July 06:53
Which means no offence unless the leading vehicle is overtaken. Right?
Correct.
No offence unless you overtake the lead moving "motor vehicle" within the controlled area on approach
OR
You overtake the lead stationary "vehicle" (doesn't have to be a motor vehicle) at the crossing (according precedence etc).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 26th July 17:59
a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26
I think this is the relevant bit, 'any other vehicle' in the zig-zags. NOT just the front one .
In other words, don't overtake ANYTHING in the approach to the crossing.
That's how I've always interpreted it.
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26
I think this is the relevant bit, 'any other vehicle' in the zig-zags. NOT just the front one .
In other words, don't overtake ANYTHING in the approach to the crossing.
That's how I've always interpreted it.
fangio said:
a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26
I think this is the relevant bit, 'any other vehicle' in the zig-zags. NOT just the front one .
In other words, don't overtake ANYTHING in the approach to the crossing.
That's how I've always interpreted it.
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26
I think this is the relevant bit, 'any other vehicle' in the zig-zags. NOT just the front one .
In other words, don't overtake ANYTHING in the approach to the crossing.
That's how I've always interpreted it.
But you have to read paragraph 2 in conjunction with paragraph 1, because it's paragraph 2 that explains the meaning of "any other motor vehicle" in paragraph 1 as regards to the offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th July 16:28
Reading the original Post I cannot see how he committed an offence? If he stopped at the crossing and moved off at green He was/is one of the first vehicles at the front of the queue. Once he's across the crossing the ZIG-ZAG's on the other side don't count as he is no longer approaching the crossing. Sounds like a Panda BIB with Trafpol ambitions but not the knowledge of VH to me.
Fight it!!!
I would never pass the car at the front the queue at a crossing, which to me sounds you did what I'd do, thats what I was tought on my lessosn, did it in my test and passed!
As for filtering, I think the police frown upon anything 10 MPH over the vehicles your passing (ie 10mph in stationary traffic)
For gods sake, if bikes didn't filter traffc would come to a standstill!!
I would never pass the car at the front the queue at a crossing, which to me sounds you did what I'd do, thats what I was tought on my lessosn, did it in my test and passed!
As for filtering, I think the police frown upon anything 10 MPH over the vehicles your passing (ie 10mph in stationary traffic)
For gods sake, if bikes didn't filter traffc would come to a standstill!!
So basically i didn't do anything wrong. Which is good to know, as these are the same answers as i have got from all the research i've been doing.
Unfortunately being innocent is no longer a sure way of getting off a police accusation anymore. We seem to have to prove our innocence rather than being proved guilty. A result of a 'target' driven police force rather than a 'quality' driven one. This cannot be blamed solely on the police themselves as the government set the targets and the officers are there to meet them.
As for not endering myself to police officers... i comment on what i experience and what i know. if the truth isn't liked then i'm not going to lie to make friends. i have met nice traffic cops, and i have admitted when i've been wrong (3 points for speeding - on a clear dual carriageway on a bright sunny day! - but they caught me and treated me fairly). but nice ones are in the minoirty, and as far as the underhand behaviour of the majority goes - i object to being treated as an easy target... like getting regularly followed, pulled on a 'routine checks' etc etc. this behaviour not only alienates the police force but it actually makes people dispise them. If doing their job correctly they should be targeting people that are a danger... not giving them points and jail sentences for petty speeding offences etc but educating lane dicipline, correct vision and indication, drivers with no insurance or mot... but these people are harder to deal with, more paperwork and no revenue is raised!!! so why pull me? because i'm fully paid up on my insurance, tax, mot so i'm easily traced. i work full time and own a house so i have money and will pay my bills, unlike those on the dole in a stolen car!!!
But when someone acts arrogantly and charges me with a offence i didn't even commit then i object to it... as i would expect any citizen of this country to, including police officers themselves. Being accused of something you didn't do is bad enough, but when it costs you time and money to proove your own innocence... i think it is a disgrace. Not only on the police officer, the police force, but the whole legal system.
If i had been behaving dangerously, recklessly or innappropriately then i would have accepted a telling off, or a fine, of even points but the fact is i wasn't and that is what i really object to. I was minding my own business slowly ans safely making my way to work... he casued more danger trying to squeeze through traffic to catch up with me than i did my whole way from home to work.
In addition to this, the fact that the same police officer drove past my place of work several times and then actually stopped outside to apparently 'inspect' my motorcycle (until he saw someone watching him, so he left) really agrivates me. Deliberately researching and targeting someone you've recently pulled (for a dubious offence)????? is this Acceptable behaviour???
Unfortunately being innocent is no longer a sure way of getting off a police accusation anymore. We seem to have to prove our innocence rather than being proved guilty. A result of a 'target' driven police force rather than a 'quality' driven one. This cannot be blamed solely on the police themselves as the government set the targets and the officers are there to meet them.
As for not endering myself to police officers... i comment on what i experience and what i know. if the truth isn't liked then i'm not going to lie to make friends. i have met nice traffic cops, and i have admitted when i've been wrong (3 points for speeding - on a clear dual carriageway on a bright sunny day! - but they caught me and treated me fairly). but nice ones are in the minoirty, and as far as the underhand behaviour of the majority goes - i object to being treated as an easy target... like getting regularly followed, pulled on a 'routine checks' etc etc. this behaviour not only alienates the police force but it actually makes people dispise them. If doing their job correctly they should be targeting people that are a danger... not giving them points and jail sentences for petty speeding offences etc but educating lane dicipline, correct vision and indication, drivers with no insurance or mot... but these people are harder to deal with, more paperwork and no revenue is raised!!! so why pull me? because i'm fully paid up on my insurance, tax, mot so i'm easily traced. i work full time and own a house so i have money and will pay my bills, unlike those on the dole in a stolen car!!!
But when someone acts arrogantly and charges me with a offence i didn't even commit then i object to it... as i would expect any citizen of this country to, including police officers themselves. Being accused of something you didn't do is bad enough, but when it costs you time and money to proove your own innocence... i think it is a disgrace. Not only on the police officer, the police force, but the whole legal system.
If i had been behaving dangerously, recklessly or innappropriately then i would have accepted a telling off, or a fine, of even points but the fact is i wasn't and that is what i really object to. I was minding my own business slowly ans safely making my way to work... he casued more danger trying to squeeze through traffic to catch up with me than i did my whole way from home to work.
In addition to this, the fact that the same police officer drove past my place of work several times and then actually stopped outside to apparently 'inspect' my motorcycle (until he saw someone watching him, so he left) really agrivates me. Deliberately researching and targeting someone you've recently pulled (for a dubious offence)????? is this Acceptable behaviour???
Edited by christophe on Thursday 27th July 20:14
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff