'Van cuts up police car and gets pulled over.'

[AA999]

SK425 said:

Rule 163 seems to have got it covered: "Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so." Is that not clear and concise enough for you? Are you looking for a rule that is more specific to only this kind of road layout? Why would one think such a rule is needed when 163 has got it covered?

Merge-in-turn ; rule 163 being about overtaking. A merge-in-turn is not described in the highway code as 'overtaking' is it? (I happily stand corrected if it is).
But if you deem either vehicle to be conducting an overtaking maneuver then the van driver doesn't obey the rule right?

SK425 said:

Opinion (b) is just wrong.

In your opinion of course, which is fair enough.

Diag 1014 has multiple 'meanings', I think the most common interpretation is of meaning 'b' and 'd' (an obstruction in the carriageway ahead or reduction in number of traffic lanes), in this case the obstruction is that the lane is 'ending' and turning in to a lane for buses only - reduction of lanes is apparent enough. And backed up by meaning 'a' regarding the road markings for the bus lane I presume.

Again, its about opinion. Do you look at it from the perspective of the police car or the van? Without a clear indication of priority in the H-C it will always be open to opinion.


But my opinion is that when a vehicle approaches an obstruction in their lane/carriageway, it is the responsibility of that vehicle to ensure it is safe to pass. (ie. m-s-m when safe to do so and not in to the path of any other vehicle - ie. police car).
So applying this to merge-in-turn would mean that to perform any maneuver you must mirror then signal prior to doing so, then only maneuver if it is safe. Maneuvering from lane 1 in to lane 2 as lane 1 comes to an end should be the responsibility of the van driver to give-way if necessary and not the police car.... but again I must state that is my opinion.

[SK425]

AA999 said:

SK425 said:

Opinion (b) is just wrong.

In your opinion of course, which is fair enough.

I've reached my conclusion based on looking at road markings and reading what they mean. You appear to have reached your conclusion based on how you would like it to work. I don't claim infallibility, but I contend that if one wishes to know what the rules are, my method is superior to the one your appear to be using. The question of what the rules ought to be is a matter of opinion - you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The question of what the rules currently are is different. That is not a question where all opinions are equal.

AA999 said:

Diag 1014 has multiple 'meanings', I think the most common interpretation is of meaning 'b' and 'd' (an obstruction in the carriageway ahead or reduction in number of traffic lanes), in this case the obstruction is that the lane is 'ending' and turning in to a lane for buses only - reduction of lanes is apparent enough. And backed up by meaning 'a' regarding the road markings for the bus lane I presume.

Nonsense. The fact that the marking can have different meanings is not an invitation to choose whichever meaning you happen to fancy when you encounter the marking. Which of the meanings applies in a particular case is deduced from the context. Here we have diagram 1014 placed at a point where there is no obstruction ahead (watch a bus or other permitted vehicle carry merrily straight on to demonstrate that), where there is no low bridge or overhanging structure ahead, where the road currently has one lane (and you can't reduce to less than that), and where there is no tramcar-only route ahead. So from context, meanings (b), (c), (d) and (e) do not apply here. There is a bus lane boundary ahead - one of the other road markings referred to in meaning (a) - and so we are able to conclude what, in this particular context, the arrow means.

Moreover, you appear to wish that the rules required the van driver to have to signal and to have to yield to the police car in the same way as he would if he were changing lanes. Nothing in any of the meanings of the arrow marking suggests that. All five meanings are silent on the issue of priority between two vehicles that approach the marking. If you wanted to demonstrate that that was the rule, the presence of the arrow wouldn't help you.

AA999 said:

But my opinion is that when a vehicle approaches an obstruction in their lane/carriageway, it is the responsibility of that vehicle to ensure it is safe to pass. (ie. m-s-m when safe to do so and not in to the path of any other vehicle - ie. police car).

That's how a lane change works. If the van driver wishes to cross a lane boundary in front of the police car, that's how he must do it. But unless you can explain how a lane change can happen at a place where diagram 1005 (or some other lane division marking) is not present, there is no reason to believe that the priority rules that apply to a lane change must also apply here. And that's before even thinking about the question of how you would apply a priority rule that works with a defined boundary line on the rather more vague basis of relative lateral position.

Edited by SK425 on Friday 27th February 15:55

[AA999]

SK425 said:

I've reached my conclusion based on looking at road markings and reading what they mean. You appear to have reached your conclusion based on how you would like it to work. I don't claim infallibility, but I contend that if one wishes to know what the rules are, my method is superior to the one your appear to be using. The question of what the rules ought to be is a matter of opinion - you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The question of what the rules currently are is different. That is not a question where all opinions are equal.

You are really going in to a "mine is better than yours" argument?

I have no intention of going down that route thanks very much.

AA999 thread ---> exit

[Fastra]

panholio said:

I'm sorry? I'm talking about exiting a roundabout, with no indication whatsoever. Let's say we're going for the third exit. I may be completely mental, but I would be using my indicators to advise other road users of my intention.

This is jist of it for me.
Yes the officer (or car behind) should be totally aware of the bus lane and it's warning and drive accordingly.
BUT because the vast majority of the public don't see the nose on their own face then the van driver should have indicated before changing lane, to at least give them a chance to taking avoiding action - I expect this will be the main point of chastisement from the officer.
Too many people don't indicate and think 'fk you, I'm going anyway'.

[okgo]

Police car didn't need to accelerate to close that gap, I'd say it was perfectly fine assuming it was a 2 lane to 1 job, police being antagonist by speeding up.

Hang on, did I just see a cyclist coming the other way? Don't those fks know who the roads belong to?

[SK425]

AA999 said:

SK425 said:

I've reached my conclusion based on looking at road markings and reading what they mean. You appear to have reached your conclusion based on how you would like it to work. I don't claim infallibility, but I contend that if one wishes to know what the rules are, my method is superior to the one your appear to be using. The question of what the rules ought to be is a matter of opinion - you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The question of what the rules currently are is different. That is not a question where all opinions are equal.

You are really going in to a "mine is better than yours" argument?

I worded that very carefully. I said "you appear" in both places very deliberately, because I do not know you and I do not know the basis for your view, all I know is what I see you write. It appears to me, from seeing what you write, that what fundamentally underpins your position is a desire for the rules to be a certain way. You are perfeclty entitled to such a desire, but I don't believe it is at all controversial to suggest that, compared to reading the rules, simply desiring them to be a certain way is an inferior method of establishing what they actually are.

Don't forget where this bit of the conversation started:

AA999 said:

So the viewpoint is either

<snip>

or (b) you assume that the force left/right arrows is an instruction to the vehicle approaching them to perform the mirror/signal/maneuver sequence.

There are five possible meanings for the arrow and none of them are that. As a method of answering a question, looking up the answer is superior to guessing.

Edited by SK425 on Friday 27th February 16:45

[Mk3Spitfire]

I think you two should stop flirting and just get a room and be done with it.

[GT119]

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

Silly driving by the police officer. Clearly deliberately accelerated.

I consistently see bad driving by marked police cars. The number of times I have seen them fail to indicate off roundabouts in my local area beggars belief.

does the lack of signal not give information that is required ?

or does panholio just suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome ?

I'm sorry? I'm talking about exiting a roundabout, with no indication whatsoever. Let's say we're going for the third exit. I may be completely mental, but I would be using my indicators to advise other road users of my intention.

do you understand the concept of giving and taking information from road users and when this happens ?

Dunning-Kruger proposed that a sufferer would recognise their own ineptitude IF trained to correctly carry out the task that they did not know they were inept at.

So here are (in a futile attempt to reduce accidents in your neck of the woods) the Highway Code instructions for roundabouts and signals. Keep repeating loudly to yourself 'signal left when leaving, signal left when leaving' ....

186
Signals and position

When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout
you should not normally need to signal on approach
stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.

[mph1977]

GT119 said:

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

Silly driving by the police officer. Clearly deliberately accelerated.

I consistently see bad driving by marked police cars. The number of times I have seen them fail to indicate off roundabouts in my local area beggars belief.

does the lack of signal not give information that is required ?

or does panholio just suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome ?

I'm sorry? I'm talking about exiting a roundabout, with no indication whatsoever. Let's say we're going for the third exit. I may be completely mental, but I would be using my indicators to advise other road users of my intention.

do you understand the concept of giving and taking information from road users and when this happens ?

Dunning-Kruger proposed that a sufferer would recognise their own ineptitude IF trained to correctly carry out the task that they did not know they were inept at.

So here are (in a futile attempt to reduce accidents in your neck of the woods) the Highway Code instructions for roundabouts and signals. Keep repeating loudly to yourself 'signal left when leaving, signal left when leaving' ....

186
Signals and position

When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout
you should not normally need to signal on approach
stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.

I see no MUST statements there ...

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

[Phatboy317]

mph1977 said:

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

How do you figure that?

[mph1977]

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

How do you figure that?

have you taken and given information properly ?...

i.e.the mirror- signal -manouvere mindset rather than using IPSGA properly

[Phatboy317]

mph1977 said:

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

How do you figure that?

have you taken and given information properly ?...

i.e.the mirror- signal -manouvere mindset rather than using IPSGA properly

It's got nothing to do with observation.
Automatic signalling does not necessarily mean failure to observe properly, although not signalling when you should have can be said to be so.

OTOH, automatically changing direction because you are indicating is definitely failure to observe properly.

[Bigends]

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

How do you figure that?

have you taken and given information properly ?...

i.e.the mirror- signal -manouvere mindset rather than using IPSGA properly

It's got nothing to do with observation.
Automatic signalling does not necessarily mean failure to observe properly, although not signalling when you should have can be said to be so.

OTOH, automatically changing direction because you are indicating is definitely failure to observe properly.

A signal that is of no benefit to anybody is an unnecessary signal - you only know if it will be of benefit to anybody else by proper obervation

[Phatboy317]

Bigends said:

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

Phatboy317 said:

mph1977 said:

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

How do you figure that?

have you taken and given information properly ?...

i.e.the mirror- signal -manouvere mindset rather than using IPSGA properly

It's got nothing to do with observation.
Automatic signalling does not necessarily mean failure to observe properly, although not signalling when you should have can be said to be so.

OTOH, automatically changing direction because you are indicating is definitely failure to observe properly.

A signal that is of no benefit to anybody is an unnecessary signal - you only know if it will be of benefit to anybody else by proper obervation

And you only know if it won't be of benefit after proper observation - by which time any indicating might no longer be of benefit to anyone, in cases when you're responding to unexpected events.

So what if it's deemed unnecessary after the fact? By the same token, most brake lights are unnecessary as well. In fact, one could use the same logic about speed limits and many other things.

I'd rather someone indicated unnecessarily, than not indicated when they ought to have.

Just to be clear - I'm not talking about the mindset that believes that indicating gives them automatic right to manoeuvre without first observing.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 28th February 13:51

[GT119]

mph1977 said:

GT119 said:

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

Silly driving by the police officer. Clearly deliberately accelerated.

I consistently see bad driving by marked police cars. The number of times I have seen them fail to indicate off roundabouts in my local area beggars belief.

does the lack of signal not give information that is required ?

or does panholio just suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome ?

I'm sorry? I'm talking about exiting a roundabout, with no indication whatsoever. Let's say we're going for the third exit. I may be completely mental, but I would be using my indicators to advise other road users of my intention.

do you understand the concept of giving and taking information from road users and when this happens ?

Dunning-Kruger proposed that a sufferer would recognise their own ineptitude IF trained to correctly carry out the task that they did not know they were inept at.

So here are (in a futile attempt to reduce accidents in your neck of the woods) the Highway Code instructions for roundabouts and signals. Keep repeating loudly to yourself 'signal left when leaving, signal left when leaving' ....

186
Signals and position

When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout
you should not normally need to signal on approach
stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.

I see no MUST statements there ...

automatic signalling becasue you are changing direction is a sign of someone who does not observe properly

We are specifically talking about exiting a roundabout here, where you chose to infer that someone observing a police car leaving a roundabout without signalling was inept and unaware of their ineptitude.

The scenario in which you are leaving a roundabout when you are within observation of other road users is not one you can control entirely by your own (obviously highly developed in your case) powers of observation.

Just indicate left when you leave the roundabout, its what the Highway Code says, it's not a personal failure on your part you know..

[SK425]

Phatboy317 said:

I'd rather someone indicated unnecessarily, than not indicated when they ought to have.

I agree. The first isn't really a problem in itself. I think what underlies people's concerns though is that indicating unnecessarily might be the result of not thinking properly about communication. As long as the driver is thinking about good communication, that's fine. If they aren't, that's a problem - but the problem is with the thinking, the unnecessary signal is just a symptom.

[panholio]

I can make my example a bit clearer for you mph1977 if you like as you seem to be struggling. One that happened to me today in fact.

I am approaching a roundabout, a police car has just entered coming from my right. I pause as they are not signalling (no lights or sirens on either) but they leave the roundabout at the exit I'm coming on at. Not the end of the world but annoying and bad driving in my view. Had they been showing their left indicator I would have proceeded with caution and the flow of traffic would have been improved.

I see it regularly. My point is that all police cars should be driven in a manner that sets an example. The video in the OP is another police officer not setting an example.

[mph1977]

panholio said:

I can make my example a bit clearer for you mph1977 if you like as you seem to be struggling. One that happened to me today in fact.

I am approaching a roundabout, a police car has just entered coming from my right. I pause as they are not signalling (no lights or sirens on either) but they leave the roundabout at the exit I'm coming on at. Not the end of the world but annoying and bad driving in my view. Had they been showing their left indicator I would have proceeded with caution and the flow of traffic would have been improved.

I see it regularly. My point is that all police cars should be driven in a manner that sets an example. The video in the OP is another police officer not setting an example.

and do you know the driving grade held by the driver ? or if the vehicle was in fact driven by a holder of the office of constable ?

much as it would be nice for everyone who drives marked police vehicles to attend at least the first week if not more of the response course on a pass / fail basis ( as NHS /VAS and responsible PAS none emergency ambulance drivers do ) the costs in doing so are not felt to be a priority

[Phatboy317]

SK425 said:

Phatboy317 said:

I'd rather someone indicated unnecessarily, than not indicated when they ought to have.

I agree. The first isn't really a problem in itself. I think what underlies people's concerns though is that indicating unnecessarily might be the result of not thinking properly about communication. As long as the driver is thinking about good communication, that's fine. If they aren't, that's a problem - but the problem is with the thinking, the unnecessary signal is just a symptom.

Many drivers were taught to always signal before turning, and they now do it automatically.
Of course, the fact that they do so automatically doesn't mean that they don't think about the rest of their driving.

[Bigends]

mph1977 said:

panholio said:

I can make my example a bit clearer for you mph1977 if you like as you seem to be struggling. One that happened to me today in fact.

I am approaching a roundabout, a police car has just entered coming from my right. I pause as they are not signalling (no lights or sirens on either) but they leave the roundabout at the exit I'm coming on at. Not the end of the world but annoying and bad driving in my view. Had they been showing their left indicator I would have proceeded with caution and the flow of traffic would have been improved.

I see it regularly. My point is that all police cars should be driven in a manner that sets an example. The video in the OP is another police officer not setting an example.

and do you know the driving grade held by the driver ? or if the vehicle was in fact driven by a holder of the office of constable ?

much as it would be nice for everyone who drives marked police vehicles to attend at least the first week if not more of the response course on a pass / fail basis ( as NHS /VAS and responsible PAS none emergency ambulance drivers do ) the costs in doing so are not felt to be a priority

My force only requires a check drive prior to new drivers being allowed out in patrol vehicles -so they have no initial training - they cant attend any incidents graded immediate. Response courses come later.