Ahead from right turn lane

[vonhosen]

allergictocheese said:

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).

It goes further than 'may', it says examples where 'they are likely to be regarded as inconsiderate'.
If there are people going ahead as per the lane marking (queueing) & another misuses the other lane (contravenes marking) to gain an advantage over them, then there is an inconsiderate advantage gained as per the CPS guidance.
Of course if there aren't others in the lane marked ahead, then there is no advantage gained, so no person to be inconvenienced. Or if there is no right arrow in lane 2 then there is no inconsiderate misuse resulting in an advantage.

A conviction can take place without a 'victim' giving evidence too.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th January 21:16

[allergictocheese]

CPS guidance is not law. The law requires that another is inconvenienced. Not may be, or might, or could. Is.

Unless you can can prove beyond reasonable doubt someone else was inconvenienced by the driving, the prosecution fails.

[vonhosen]

allergictocheese said:

CPS guidance is not law. The law requires that another is inconvenienced. Not may be, or might, or could. Is.

Unless you can can prove beyond reasonable doubt someone else was inconvenienced by the driving, the prosecution fails.

The CPS guidance is built on what in their experience carries a realistic prospect of a conviction & satisfies public interest, that's why it's resulted in being their charging standard.
In a queue jump (even without a victim coming forward to say they were inconvenienced by it) a court may quite properly conclude that test is satisfied. You don't 'have' to produce the victim, a court can be satisfied that those in queues are inconvenienced by others jumping it (without those passed giving evidence of inconvenience) & that those gaining such an advantage over them through misuse of a lane are guilty of inconsiderate driving in doing so.

Of course people are at liberty to roll the dice as they are with any other matter.

[allergictocheese]

That's all very well Von, yet the court has to be convinced that another was inconvenienced by the driving. They are not entitled to suppose or think they might or could have been. They must be sure that they were.

[vonhosen]

allergictocheese said:

That's all very well Von, yet the court has to be convinced that another was inconvenienced by the driving. They are not entitled to suppose or think they might or could have been. They must be sure that they were.

I know that, what I'm saying is the court is at liberty to be convinced of that & through their ruling conclude that someone was inconvenienced ,without the person so inconvenienced giving evidence of it themselves. The officer can say what they observed & the court can be satisfied from that that somebody was inconvenienced.

[Cliftonite]

allergictocheese said:

That's all very well Von, yet the court has to be convinced that another was inconvenienced by the driving. They are not entitled to suppose or think they might or could have been. They must be sure that they were.

In practice, though, it wouldn't go to court, would it? The driver, having made, in his own mind, good, safe use of available road space would probably just pay the unjustified "ticket" and this would colour his view of police for ever more.

[vonhosen]

Cliftonite said:

allergictocheese said:

That's all very well Von, yet the court has to be convinced that another was inconvenienced by the driving. They are not entitled to suppose or think they might or could have been. They must be sure that they were.

In practice, though, it wouldn't go to court, would it? The driver, having made, in his own mind, good, safe use of available road space would probably just pay the unjustified "ticket" and this would colour his view of police for ever more.

Naturally he'll view it as unjustified, but those cheering in the queue won't.

[Red Devil]

So let me get this straight, if the police officer believes that I was inconvenienced (and I don't believe anything of the sort - I was neither impeded in any way, nor cut up: the other driver just moved off from the lights quicker than me) then the magistrates may well convict the other driver simply on that basis alone?

[vonhosen]

Red Devil said:

So let me get this straight, if the police officer believes that I was inconvenienced (and I don't believe anything of the sort - I was neither impeded in any way, nor cut up: the other driver just moved off from the lights quicker than me) then the magistrates may well convict the other driver simply on that basis alone?

The officer being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the CPS.
The CPS being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the court.
The court being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced secures a conviction.
That can be achieved without any 'victim' giving evidence that they were inconvenienced.
Beyond reasonable doubt isn't 100% certain.

[Bigends]

vonhosen said:

The officer being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the CPS.
The CPS being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the court.
The court being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced secures a conviction.
That can be achieved without any 'victim' giving evidence that they were inconvenienced.
Beyond reasonable doubt isn't 100% certain.

..and the prosecution being in the public interest..full code test

[allergictocheese]

It's a supposedly simple summary only offence. The police make the charging decision and the first time the CPS look at it is probably when the poor sod prosecuting opens the file the morning of the the first hearing.

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

The officer being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the CPS.
The CPS being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced gets it to the court.
The court being convinced beyond reasonable doubt somebody was inconvenienced secures a conviction.
That can be achieved without any 'victim' giving evidence that they were inconvenienced.
Beyond reasonable doubt isn't 100% certain.

..and the prosecution being in the public interest..full code test

I've said that earlier re CPS charging standards. The example they give means it is the sort of activity that will regard as satisfying both the realistic chance of a conviction & public interest test.

[paulrockliffe]

Round here there are quite a few traffic lighted junctions that expand from 1 or 2 lanes to 2 or 3 at the lights, then reduce again shortly after. Some you can't turn right at, others aren't exclusively right turn only in the right-most lane.

Why are these junctions like this if they're using them is likely to be inconsiderate? There aren't nearby junctions that are kept clear by stacking the cars in multiple lanes.

On my way to work there's a short two-lane section up a hill, presumably as a crawler lane. There's a roundabout at the top, so traffic sometimes builds up, back past another junction. Very few cars use the outside lane.

It appears that my using the outside lane to get past all these cars is inconsiderate. but by not using the lane the earlier junction is blocked and anyone wanting to leave the road there is inconvenienced. Seems like you can't win.

[vonhosen]

paulrockliffe said:

Round here there are quite a few traffic lighted junctions that expand from 1 or 2 lanes to 2 or 3 at the lights, then reduce again shortly after. Some you can't turn right at, others aren't exclusively right turn only in the right-most lane.

Why are these junctions like this if they're using them is likely to be inconsiderate? There aren't nearby junctions that are kept clear by stacking the cars in multiple lanes.

On my way to work there's a short two-lane section up a hill, presumably as a crawler lane. There's a roundabout at the top, so traffic sometimes builds up, back past another junction. Very few cars use the outside lane.

It appears that my using the outside lane to get past all these cars is inconsiderate. but by not using the lane the earlier junction is blocked and anyone wanting to leave the road there is inconvenienced. Seems like you can't win.

If it isn't marked as right turn lane, then there is no misuse, it was open to all.
If there is a misuse it wasn't open to all.
Overtaking isn't inconsiderate, misusing a lane to gain advantage over others a court could quite properly take a different view.

[7db]

Does that mean ESVs should avoid using these lanes when on a blue light run since they aren't exempt from inconsiderate driving?

[vonhosen]

7db said:

Does that mean ESVs should avoid using these lanes when on a blue light run since they aren't exempt from inconsiderate driving?

Potentially but there is a different public interest consideration for them in doing what they do for the reasons they are doing it.

Likewise If you were to continually headlamp flash others in order for them to assist you in progressing down the motorway (another considered likely inconsiderate driving for CPS), it probably wouldn't pass the public interest test for prosecution with ESVs but would for others.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th January 23:27

[silverfoxcc]

Red Devil,
sorry for delay in replying. In response to your last comment on turning left, you can turn lft from the middle lane, as the arrows indicate. however due to the brain dead around here i play it safe by staying in the LH lane
I think arrows should be made compulsory , like the round blue turn signs
Until then..........

[SK425]

vonhosen said:

Overtaking isn't inconsiderate, misusing a lane to gain advantage over others a court could quite properly take a different view.

FFS stop saying 'advantage'! It's a completely inapplicable term to the simple concept of driving past a vehicle that is travelling slower than you. If the driver who is passed thinks they are losing out in some sort of race, it is they who are suffering from a dangerous attitude problem.

By way of comparison, in an unfamiliar area it is quite a common, unremarkable thing to find oneself inadvertently in the wrong lane at a junction/roundabout/traffic lights etc, having missed a sign or road marking during the information overload on the approach. In that situation, one might have to resign oneself to taking the direction of the lane one is in and sorting it out afterwards, but one might not. An example might be when one is in a car and is alongside a lorry, with ample space available. Knowing that one can easily out-accelerate the lorry, one might simply pull ahead, return to the lane for one's intended route and continue on one's way.

As long as the manoeuvre was safe and the lorry driver was not affected - ie was able to also continue on his way without having to do anything different on account of the car passing him - nobody would find anything about that to criticise at all. It's a completely uncontroversial way of sorting out a mistaken lane choice. The only difference with the OP is the reason he's there - he is not in that lane inadvertently, he happens to be there intentionally. But if his manoeuvre is just as safe and has just the same impact (ie zero) on the driver he passes, all you are left with if you want to find fault is to suggest that his different reason for being there - his desire to overtake - constitutes inconsiderate driving even in the complete absence of any adverse impact from his manoeuvre on anybody else. Which would be ludicrous.

[vonhosen]

SK425 said:

vonhosen said:

Overtaking isn't inconsiderate, misusing a lane to gain advantage over others a court could quite properly take a different view.

FFS stop saying 'advantage'! It's a completely inapplicable term to the simple concept of driving past a vehicle that is travelling slower than you. If the driver who is passed thinks they are losing out in some sort of race, it is they who are suffering from a dangerous attitude problem.

By way of comparison, in an unfamiliar area it is quite a common, unremarkable thing to find oneself inadvertently in the wrong lane at a junction/roundabout/traffic lights etc, having missed a sign or road marking during the information overload on the approach. In that situation, one might have to resign oneself to taking the direction of the lane one is in and sorting it out afterwards, but one might not. An example might be when one is in a car and is alongside a lorry, with ample space available. Knowing that one can easily out-accelerate the lorry, one might simply pull ahead, return to the lane for one's intended route and continue on one's way.

As long as the manoeuvre was safe and the lorry driver was not affected - ie was able to also continue on his way without having to do anything different on account of the car passing him - nobody would find anything about that to criticise at all. It's a completely uncontroversial way of sorting out a mistaken lane choice. The only difference with the OP is the reason he's there - he is not in that lane inadvertently, he happens to be there intentionally. But if his manoeuvre is just as safe and has just the same impact (ie zero) on the driver he passes, all you are left with if you want to find fault is to suggest that his different reason for being there - his desire to overtake - constitutes inconsiderate driving even in the complete absence of any adverse impact from his manoeuvre on anybody else. Which would be ludicrous.

When you are walking down the isle towards the tills & somebody walks faster than you past you it's an advantage but not an inconsiderate one being taken.
When you are in a queue at the till & somebody walks past you & pushes in then that can be an inconsiderate advantage.

Incosiderate & unsafe are different matters, that's why we have two separate Sec 3 offences. Careless & inconsiderate. Inconsiderate doesn't have to be unsafe.
As I always say each case would be dealt with on it's merits

I use the word 'advantage' because I'm quoting the CPS charging standards in parts. If I didn't some pedant here would say it's not what it says.

An advantage isn't a problem, where it isn't inconsiderately (towards others) gained.

[LoonR1]

I'm not sure I'd use a right turn only lane to go straight on in the car very often, although I'm sure I've done it occasionally in the last. However, on the bike I will do it all the time at every queue. I filter past everyone to the front without fail. Is that inconsiderate, or gaining an advantage? The reason I ask is that I was both taught to do it during my lessons and advised that I would fail if I didn't. There was no restriction on use of lanes either, in fact use of a right turn only lane to filter past, was encouraged to create a gap between you amd the cars you are filtering past.