Ahead from right turn lane

[supermono]

Derek Smith said:

If there is a vehicle in the nearside lane, I'd suggest careless every time. So in other words, not an offence to fail to comply with the arrow but given that the person on the nearside expected you to turn right, then careless. If hey had to moderate their direction or speed in any way, then great corroboration, but not necessary.

Further, on the OPs' own statement, he attempts to beat another car to a pinch lane by using rapid acceleration from traffic lights. I'd be happy to nod that through as careless. If there is an impact or an accident, then possibly dangerous depending on circs.

Would you be able to convince a magistrate a well thought out and executed operation that caused no problem to anyone was "careless" without lying? Do you have other examples of creating an offence where the law inconveniently doesn't provide one?

With respect it's a bit poor really, unless I've misunderstood your first sentence.

[Red Devil]

silverfoxcc said:

Have a look at the A329 going southbound at the Winnersh crossroads, ( sorry no link completely hopeless at it)
As you approach the lights there are white signs advising the RH lane is superstore only, and at the junction to Sainsburys the road markings are
LH lane straight on
RH lane right turn arrow
Also the traffic lights at the junction are LH one normal green light
RH the green is a right turn arrow

And yes the idiots always steam past it in the RH lane going straight ahead. because the road markings are advisory

However the local plod normal do a stake out and pull the RH lane mob over, for what offence i know not, but DWDCA could be the answer

Here you go - http://goo.gl/TKmvdN - the issue is the cross roads and the superstore junctions are so close together. People fall into two camps. Those who can't read and interpret the sign and the traffic light GP types who fancy a race to see who can get in front before having to squeeze into the single straight ahead lane for Bracknell.

silverfoxcc said:

And just as an afterthought, at the Twin Bridges roandabout at Bracknell coming north along the A3095 the three lanes are marked both on the road and a white 'get in lane' sign

LH lane Left
Middle lane Left and straight on (left onto a DC A329)
RH lane Straight and Right turn

Here - http://goo.gl/c7KojH

silverfoxcc said:

The guy in the Far Eastern Builders type utility st heap, just pulled away and went from LH to middle lane right in front of me.
I am just happy i wasnt going to turn left.. BUT the fking signs dont matter do they, likewis, lanes at said roundabout where straight lining is a regular hazard, esp when the fkwits think you are the problem when you stay in lane.

Prats like this make me want to get a webcam....just in case

But if you had been intending to turn left you wouldn't have been in the middle lane in the first place.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

vonhosen said:

It could be considered careless/inconsiderate without an accident.
It would be a serious fault & therefore failure on a driving test too.

Excellent, not illegal then. Thanks!

Not being barred in statute as a specific offence doesn't mean it won't be illegal under a wider net. If you want to avoid prosecution altogether best to avoid doing it.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

Derek Smith said:

If there is a vehicle in the nearside lane, I'd suggest careless every time. So in other words, not an offence to fail to comply with the arrow but given that the person on the nearside expected you to turn right, then careless. If hey had to moderate their direction or speed in any way, then great corroboration, but not necessary.

Further, on the OPs' own statement, he attempts to beat another car to a pinch lane by using rapid acceleration from traffic lights. I'd be happy to nod that through as careless. If there is an impact or an accident, then possibly dangerous depending on circs.

Would you be able to convince a magistrate a well thought out and executed operation that caused no problem to anyone was "careless" without lying? Do you have other examples of creating an offence where the law inconveniently doesn't provide one?

With respect it's a bit poor really, unless I've misunderstood your first sentence.

Sec 3 isn't only about careless it also covers inconsiderate.

CPS charging advice gives an example of inconsiderate as

.........misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;

[llewop]

supermono said:

A route I use sometimes has a right turn and straight on lane at some lights. The phasing of the lights is such that both go green at the same time and the island is far enough away to complete a safe overtake from the right lane given the horsepower/reaction time advantage performing an emergency start.

Now after this junction (and before) is s/c A road usually infested with slowsters or trucks doing 40mph so this affords a safe opportunity to get past a few rather than / in addition to using the odd overtaking straights.

If one should make use of this as I did recently since I was in a hurry, aside from being a bit rude is it an offence?

Going back to the start of things (ignoring the interesting and slightly disappointing discussion re arrows on the road) - the lights themselves.... the right turn lane light: does it have a 'turn right' green light/arrow? The highway code on light signals seems to say you can proceed on green - but only in the direction shown by the arrow.

[Some Gump]

Lmao at "emergency start".

Op, do you havr those special red boots for driving, like Michael Schumacher does?

[SK425]

supermono said:

A route I use sometimes has a right turn and straight on lane at some lights. The phasing of the lights is such that both go green at the same time and the island is far enough away to complete a safe overtake from the right lane given the horsepower/reaction time advantage performing an emergency start.

Now after this junction (and before) is s/c A road usually infested with slowsters or trucks doing 40mph so this affords a safe opportunity to get past a few rather than / in addition to using the odd overtaking straights.

If one should make use of this as I did recently since I was in a hurry, aside from being a bit rude is it an offence?

It sounds to me like what you’ve described might be referred to simply as an overtaking opportunity. Whilst noting all the comments here about how terribly, terribly evil it is, it’s certainly not something I’d rule out, but I’d want to be sure of a couple of things. Firstly, that I was definitely going to comfortably out-accelerate the vehicle to my left – so either an HGV or other large vehicle that I know is simply not capable of acceleration anywhere near comparable to a car, or if it’s a car to my left then I’d want to have consistently observed that the driver doesn’t like to trouble the pedal closest to the door when they move off from a standstill (and in that case, turning right after all has to be my backup plan if they decide they are actually going to use it this time). And secondly, I’d want enough space to be able to complete the overtake and move back in with zero fuss and zero influence on the driver behind. I don’t know the junction you’re thinking of, but from your description of relying on better reaction time and an ‘emergency start’(!), I get the impression that that second criterion maybe isn’t really met.

As an aside, I absolutely despise the use of language like ‘gain an advantage’ in situations like this. Driving is a team sport, not a race, so ‘advantage’ has no meaning. Someone who thinks of their interactions with other road users in terms of ‘advantage’ probably shouldn’t be driving.

[9mm]

SK425 said:

supermono said:

A route I use sometimes has a right turn and straight on lane at some lights. The phasing of the lights is such that both go green at the same time and the island is far enough away to complete a safe overtake from the right lane given the horsepower/reaction time advantage performing an emergency start.

Now after this junction (and before) is s/c A road usually infested with slowsters or trucks doing 40mph so this affords a safe opportunity to get past a few rather than / in addition to using the odd overtaking straights.

If one should make use of this as I did recently since I was in a hurry, aside from being a bit rude is it an offence?

It sounds to me like what you’ve described might be referred to simply as an overtaking opportunity. Whilst noting all the comments here about how terribly, terribly evil it is, it’s certainly not something I’d rule out, but I’d want to be sure of a couple of things. Firstly, that I was definitely going to comfortably out-accelerate the vehicle to my left – so either an HGV or other large vehicle that I know is simply not capable of acceleration anywhere near comparable to a car, or if it’s a car to my left then I’d want to have consistently observed that the driver doesn’t like to trouble the pedal closest to the door when they move off from a standstill (and in that case, turning right after all has to be my backup plan if they decide they are actually going to use it this time). And secondly, I’d want enough space to be able to complete the overtake and move back in with zero fuss and zero influence on the driver behind. I don’t know the junction you’re thinking of, but from your description of relying on better reaction time and an ‘emergency start’(!), I get the impression that that second criterion maybe isn’t really met.

As an aside, I absolutely despise the use of language like ‘gain an advantage’ in situations like this. Driving is a team sport, not a race, so ‘advantage’ has no meaning. Someone who thinks of their interactions with other road users in terms of ‘advantage’ probably shouldn’t be driving.

That's most people then. How else can we explain the frothing over being overtaken, gap closing, (not) merging in turn, ignoring advisory road signs, barging out into main roads forcing people to give way, circling a roundabout instead of queuing for the left exit, an unwillingness to brake behind cyclists and overtake on the wrong side of the road at any cost and lastly the failure to accept that if there's an obstacle on your side of the road, you should wait behind it until oncoming traffic has passed?

[v12Legs]

What about traffic lights with a filter arrow? I think those are legally binding, correct?
(that is, if I go straight on when the straight on is red but the right turn is green, that is a red light offence, even if I cross the stop line in the right hand lane)

[supermono]

as regards the considerations, I did this having been behind a queue of cars that I'd been so far unable to overtake. The queue was being held up by someone failing to maintain a reasonable speed so it seemed likely they'd amble away a few seconds after the lights changed. In fact when they did I took off and was comfortable in front and in the correct lane in plenty of time and as far as I could tell this slowster hadn't even noticed.

I did it once before after being stuck for miled behind an HGV who was attempting the world record queue, he was honking and flashing for the few moments he was still visible on account of me reducing his haul by one car.

So yes, it goes without saying the move is considered and not in any way reckless or careless (apart from von's new speak/police speak bdisation of the plain English word to squeeze a mean spirited vexatious prosecution, reducing the respect the public has for police by another click)

Edited by supermono on Friday 16th January 19:01

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

as regards the consideations, I did this having been behind a queue of cars that I'd been so far unable to overtake. The queue was being held up by someone failing to maintain a reasonable speed so it seemed likely they'd amble away a few seconds after the lights changed. In fact when they did I took off and was comfortable in front and in the correct lane in plenty of time and as far as I could tell this slowster hadn't even noticed.

I did it once before after being stuck for miled behind an HGV who was attempting the world record queue, he was honking and flashing for the few moments he was still visible on account of me reducing his haul by one car.

So yes, it goes without saying the move is considered and not in any way wreckless or careless (apart from von's new speak/police speak bdisation of the plain English word to squeeze a mean spirited vexatious prosecution, reducing the respect the public has for police by another click)

Not my speak, it's the CPS charging standard (which I didn't write) for Sec 3 legislation introduced by our government & exactly what some of those you share the road with (probablyincluding the HGV driver) want to see people stopped/reported for. In fact if police witnessed it & did nothing about it, there'd likely be somebody whinging on a driving website about it.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th January 19:07

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

Not my speak, it's the CPS charging standard (which I didn't write) & exactly what some of those you share the road with (probablyincluding the HGV driver) want to see people stopped/reported for.

Indeed, vexatious is exactly the right word. Prosecution for absolutely no good reason. Also I don't believe any of this stuff is coming from the general public, I speak with the general public all the time and we're all sick of the back door creation of the police state. Redefining careless to apply to careful but imaginitave driving for example. Show me one survey where joe public asked for this. As regards the meathead trucker, what possible grounds other than stupidity would he have a problem with being safely overtaken like this? And if the CPS are going along with it then more fool them.

Particularly with so many actual problems going unaddressed.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

vonhosen said:

Not my speak, it's the CPS charging standard (which I didn't write) & exactly what some of those you share the road with (probablyincluding the HGV driver) want to see people stopped/reported for.

Indeed, vexatious is exactly the right word. Prosecution for absolutely no good reason. Also I don't believe any of this stuff is coming from the general public, I speak with the general public all the time and we're all sick of the back door creation of the police state. Redefining careless to apply to careful but imaginitave driving for example. Show me one survey where joe public asked for this. As regards the meathead trucker, what possible grounds other than stupidity would he have a problem with being safely overtaken like this? And if the CPS are going along with it then more fool them.

Particularly with so many actual problems going unaddressed.

I'm not saying careless I'm saying inconsiderate. Careless hasn't been redefined, the legislators put two distinct separate offences in Sec 3 RTA & the CPS have charging standards for both.

I don't write the DVSA guidance on defined outcomes & assessment of faults that lead to it failing a driving test either.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th January 19:13

[allergictocheese]

For s3 Inconsiderate it must be proven that another was inconvenienced by the driving. It doesn't automatically follow that the behaviour here would meet that test.

I think if you were considered under s3 Careless you'd possibly have a harder time defending the behaviour (issues with HC adherence, would be a DSA fail, no guarantee that driver alongside would appreciate what you're doing and know to avoid conflict etc.).

A common sense test is; would you do it in full view of marked up Police car and not expect a tug?

[vonhosen]

allergictocheese said:

For s3 Inconsiderate it must be proven that another was inconvenienced by the driving. It doesn't automatically follow that the behaviour here would meet that test.

Queue jumping in such a fashion is exactly how it is in the CPS charging standards.
It would also result in a fail in a DVSA test.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

[supermono]

allergictocheese said:

For s3 Inconsiderate it must be proven that another was inconvenienced by the driving. It doesn't automatically follow that the behaviour here would meet that test.

I think if you were considered under s3 Careless you'd possibly have a harder time defending the behaviour (issues with HC adherence, would be a DSA fail, no guarantee that driver alongside would appreciate what you're doing and know to avoid conflict etc.).

A common sense test is; would you do it in full view of marked up Police car?

I'll be honest, that test has become rather hard to pass when you consider the overreaction of comical proportions those TV cops are guilty of. Pretty much every aspect of normal driving -- safe but fun -- is deliberately misinterpreted and cited as death defying these days. Very sad state of affairs when one considers that 25 years ago it was a comfort when you saw an officer of the law

This whole redefinition of careless to apply to careful is a perfect example.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

This whole redefinition of careless to apply to careful is a perfect example.

It isn't a redefinition of careless, it's the Road Traffic Act 1988 (27 years ago).

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

It isn't a redefinition of careless, it's the Road Traffic Act 1988 (27 years ago).

I guess the change is the mindset of the policeman seeking to apply it to careful driving

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

vonhosen said:

It isn't a redefinition of careless, it's the Road Traffic Act 1988 (27 years ago).

I guess the change is the mindset of the policeman seeking to apply it to careful driving

No, 27 years ago it was no different.

[allergictocheese]

vonhosen said:

Queue jumping in such a fashion is exactly how it is in the CPS charging standards.
It would also result in a fail in a DVSA test.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

The CPS guidance gives an example of a circumstance where inconvenience to others may arise. It doesn't negate the need for the inconvenience to crystalise (beyond reasonable doubt).