'Van cuts up police car and gets pulled over.'
Discussion
daveinhampshire said:
Police driver had his nose put out, it's not hard to work out.
I agree with this.3 times in last couple of months I have seen the same police car and driver approach cross-roads controlled by traffic lights driving in the left turn only lane with no indicator on. There is always more traffic in the outside straight-on and right turn lane. When the lights change the police car's blues come on, he pushes into the outside lane, turns right and then the blues are turned off. I have 2 of these instances on my dash video camera.
Perhaps I should try to get in the outer lane partly beside the police car and not give way if he tries that manoeuvre on me. Have my camera turned partly to the left to ensure the incident is filmed (for the 3rd time) and then take a copy of the film to the local police station. But then that would probably guarantee quite a few 'stops' in the following weeks.
Glosphil said:
...When the lights change the police car's blues come on, he pushes into the outside lane, turns right and then the blues are turned off. I have 2 of these instances on my dash video camera.
I'm not one to pick a side for or against the Police because I believe that like all of us they can be both "right" and "wrong" on occasions.But I'm going to call you on this.
Post up the videos and we'll all decide.
caziques said:
If there was no traffic around the correct lane to be in is clearly the left, and I believe there is no need to indicate if you are in the left hand lane as you are not changing lanes. Anyone in the right hand lane should indicate left as they are the ones changing lanes.
Are you watching the same video as everyone else?!caziques said:
In my opinion the van driver was completely correct, clearly well ahead of the police car - who in any case should have been indicating.
Indicating which way, to whom, and why?With no other traffic around, anyone coming up to this junction should be in the left hand lane - otherwise they are "failing to keep left".
If one other person then comes up to the junction, and takes the right hand lane - what happens when the lights change to green?
Does the left lane man have to give way because he is being overtaken? So the clever driver who isn't keeping left can get ahead?
The Pacific Coast Highway from Sydney up to Brisbane is rife with stretches of overtaking lanes (as most of it is single carriageway), at the end of which the nearside lane disappears. No wonder driving standards in the Antipodes are so low.
The rule is keep left, not give way to anything that overtakes you.
If one other person then comes up to the junction, and takes the right hand lane - what happens when the lights change to green?
Does the left lane man have to give way because he is being overtaken? So the clever driver who isn't keeping left can get ahead?
The Pacific Coast Highway from Sydney up to Brisbane is rife with stretches of overtaking lanes (as most of it is single carriageway), at the end of which the nearside lane disappears. No wonder driving standards in the Antipodes are so low.
The rule is keep left, not give way to anything that overtakes you.
caziques said:
With no other traffic around, anyone coming up to this junction should be in the left hand lane - otherwise they are "failing to keep left".
What has a discussion of what one might do when there is no traffic around got to do with a situation where there is plenty of traffic and it's queueing in both lanes at the lights?In particular, how does any of what you've posted support your bizarre assertion that the police driver should have been signalling left?
caziques said:
The rule is keep left, not give way to anything that overtakes you.
If there's a rule here, it is to tackle the merge with planning and cooperation. Both drivers could have done better on that front.Edited by SK425 on Sunday 22 February 22:46
Police car should yield, the van was ahead with bus lane and cyclist ahead, where else could he go apart from stopping & getting stuck as everybody else zoomed past? Poor anticipation by Police in my view.
But the van should have indicated that he was passing a cyclist and merging out of the bus lane, so probably will get into trouble.
But the van should have indicated that he was passing a cyclist and merging out of the bus lane, so probably will get into trouble.
threespires said:
Police car should yield, the van was ahead with bus lane and cyclist ahead, where else could he go apart from stopping & getting stuck as everybody else zoomed past? Poor anticipation by Police in my view.
But the van should have indicated that he was passing a cyclist and merging out of the bus lane, so probably will get into trouble.
But, is that what the highway code says/suggests?But the van should have indicated that he was passing a cyclist and merging out of the bus lane, so probably will get into trouble.
Simply being ahead and proceeding sort of contradicts the highway code that one should not perform any maneouvre that causes another motorist to suddenly brake or change direction in avoidance.
I would interpret it to be safer for the motorist that finds a blockage in his/her path to slow/stop if necessary, then mirror/signal/maneouvre in to a lane when its safe to do so.
(This should be the 'model' for urban low speed roads at least - slowing and stopping on higher speed roads, well, the highway code needs additional content for guidance I would say).
AA999 said:
But, is that what the highway code says/suggests?
Simply being ahead and proceeding sort of contradicts the highway code that one should not perform any maneouvre that causes another motorist to suddenly brake or change direction in avoidance.
I would interpret it to be safer for the motorist that finds a blockage in his/her path to slow/stop if necessary, then mirror/signal/maneouvre in to a lane when its safe to do so.
(This should be the 'model' for urban low speed roads at least - slowing and stopping on higher speed roads, well, the highway code needs additional content for guidance I would say).
Merging like this always involves adjusting your speed to slot into your gap and allowing others to slot into theirs, and you can't approach a hazard like this without expecting and planning to accommodate others around you. I think it's a mistake to believe that, once at the merge, either driver gains priority over the other by virtue of which lane they happened to start in. That's over-complicating it. The simple fact is that the van driver was ahead and the police driver was behind. If the police driver desires to reverse that order, all he needs to do is identify a safe overtaking opportunity and pass. The point he tried to pass the van did not look like a safe overtaking opportunity to me, and once he had declined the option to slot into his natural merge position behind the van, his need to change speed or course to avoid the van was entirely of his own making.Simply being ahead and proceeding sort of contradicts the highway code that one should not perform any maneouvre that causes another motorist to suddenly brake or change direction in avoidance.
I would interpret it to be safer for the motorist that finds a blockage in his/her path to slow/stop if necessary, then mirror/signal/maneouvre in to a lane when its safe to do so.
(This should be the 'model' for urban low speed roads at least - slowing and stopping on higher speed roads, well, the highway code needs additional content for guidance I would say).
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 ? 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.
or does panholio just suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome ?
SK425 said:
Merging like this always involves adjusting your speed to slot into your gap and allowing others to slot into theirs, and you can't approach a hazard like this without expecting and planning to accommodate others around you. I think it's a mistake to believe that, once at the merge, either driver gains priority over the other by virtue of which lane they happened to start in. That's over-complicating it. The simple fact is that the van driver was ahead and the police driver was behind. If the police driver desires to reverse that order, all he needs to do is identify a safe overtaking opportunity and pass. The point he tried to pass the van did not look like a safe overtaking opportunity to me, and once he had declined the option to slot into his natural merge position behind the van, his need to change speed or course to avoid the van was entirely of his own making.
This lack of priority guidance from the highway code leaves open the situation whereby it is a race for the gap in front in order to get one's vehicle in front of the other. (Which is what I have noticed mainly at the end of dual-carriageway sections with various goings on ahead of me).In my opinion (for its lack of worth), I would have thought that the vehicle encountering a hazard/obstacle in its path is the one that should be 'giving way' to non-obstructed vehicles. Therefore priority would be established and both parties would know where they stand.
I think there are a number of areas of the highway code that do need to establish a definitive priority and further clarification on actions by individuals.
Eclassy said:
Common sense is all that was required by one of the 2 drivers not more text added to the highway code.
By the responses on here, I think it clear to see which driver lacked it.
But more and more motorists lack this basic requirement. I see it more or less everyday.By the responses on here, I think it clear to see which driver lacked it.
One way around the issue 'could' be to clarify certain areas of the highway code.
When I view that video, I see the van driver not indicating and moving across in to the path of another vehicle. To me the van driver should have mirror/signal then wait for a safe opportunity to maneouvre.
The merge in turn, without clear indication of priority, leaves the situation open that people will demonstrate lack of common sense like you say, or start to compete for who is ahead on the basis that they think who ever is in front has 'won' the space.
DeuxCentCinq said:
IMO, Police driver is deliberately trying to cause an incident to pull the van over.
Absolutely this.It's not unusual for drivers to change their car's speed or direction to create an incident so that they can assert their authority by flashing lights or hooting their horn.
AA999 said:
This lack of priority guidance from the highway code leaves open the situation whereby it is a race for the gap in front in order to get one's vehicle in front of the other. (Which is what I have noticed mainly at the end of dual-carriageway sections with various goings on ahead of me).
In my opinion (for its lack of worth), I would have thought that the vehicle encountering a hazard/obstacle in its path is the one that should be 'giving way' to non-obstructed vehicles. Therefore priority would be established and both parties would know where they stand.
I think there are a number of areas of the highway code that do need to establish a definitive priority and further clarification on actions by individuals.
I don't think priority is ambiguous at all, but I think it's important to appreciate a couple of points:In my opinion (for its lack of worth), I would have thought that the vehicle encountering a hazard/obstacle in its path is the one that should be 'giving way' to non-obstructed vehicles. Therefore priority would be established and both parties would know where they stand.
I think there are a number of areas of the highway code that do need to establish a definitive priority and further clarification on actions by individuals.
1) By the merge point, there is only one lane. It is wide enough for a full car's width of lateral position difference, but it is only one lane. And it isn't staying that wide for much longer!
2) The arrows simply mean "pass to the right of the bus lane boundary ahead" (see diagram 1014) and that message applies to everybody in the lane - it applies as much to the police driver as it does to the van driver. The arrows do not have a special meaning only for those who happen to be positioned towards one side of the lane or the other.
Understanding that, I don't see how the police driver could expect to get ahead of the van by any means other than a normal overtake - and that requires a safe opportunity. The fact that the lane is very wide does not provide a safe overtaking opportunity because the lane is imminently going to narrow.
If some system of priority were to be introduced, how would it work? What is it that would convey priority? Is it which lane I was in further back when there were two lanes? Is it simply my lateral position within the lane now? And where does the priority take effect? Normally, where one has to yield priority to another there is a road marking to indicate the point at which to yield - lane markings, give way lines, roundabout entries, centre lines, that kind of thing. There is no marking here to define the point of priority, so how would it be defined? And if one lateral position had priority over the other, everyone would just queue on that side. I don't think that's how situations like this are meant to work at all.
AA999 said:
When I view that video, I see the van driver not indicating and moving across in to the path of another vehicle. To me the van driver should have mirror/signal then wait for a safe opportunity to maneouvre.
He's not manoeuvring, he's just driving along his lane. I still think you are over-complicating it. I see two vehicles, one behind the other, in a wide but imminently narrowing lane, and the driver behind attempting to overtake at an extremely inadvisable moment. There is a road marking indicating to both of them that they are to pass to the right of the bus lane boundary ahead. It should be clear to both that the lane is not going to remain that wide for much longer and there is nothing to indicate one driver's right to pass the other by any means other than a normal overtake.SK425 said:
AA999 said:
But, is that what the highway code says/suggests?
Simply being ahead and proceeding sort of contradicts the highway code that one should not perform any maneouvre that causes another motorist to suddenly brake or change direction in avoidance.
I would interpret it to be safer for the motorist that finds a blockage in his/her path to slow/stop if necessary, then mirror/signal/maneouvre in to a lane when its safe to do so.
(This should be the 'model' for urban low speed roads at least - slowing and stopping on higher speed roads, well, the highway code needs additional content for guidance I would say).
Merging like this always involves adjusting your speed to slot into your gap and allowing others to slot into theirs, and you can't approach a hazard like this without expecting and planning to accommodate others around you. I think it's a mistake to believe that, once at the merge, either driver gains priority over the other by virtue of which lane they happened to start in. That's over-complicating it. The simple fact is that the van driver was ahead and the police driver was behind. If the police driver desires to reverse that order, all he needs to do is identify a safe overtaking opportunity and pass. The point he tried to pass the van did not look like a safe overtaking opportunity to me, and once he had declined the option to slot into his natural merge position behind the van, his need to change speed or course to avoid the van was entirely of his own making.Simply being ahead and proceeding sort of contradicts the highway code that one should not perform any maneouvre that causes another motorist to suddenly brake or change direction in avoidance.
I would interpret it to be safer for the motorist that finds a blockage in his/her path to slow/stop if necessary, then mirror/signal/maneouvre in to a lane when its safe to do so.
(This should be the 'model' for urban low speed roads at least - slowing and stopping on higher speed roads, well, the highway code needs additional content for guidance I would say).
In spades.
AA999 said:
When I view that video, I see the van driver not indicating and moving across in to the path of another vehicle. To me the van driver should have mirror/signal then wait for a safe opportunity to maneouvre.[/qwuote]
And I see a police officer who should be observant enough to have noticed while waiting at the lights that there is an upcoming bus lane. He/she should therefore anticipate that a vehicle ahead of him/her in the left hand lane is likely to need to move over to the right. Trying to force a way through demonstrates a lamentable lack of defensive driving. I appreciate the van doesn't indicate but given that the move was eminently predictable the officer should have hung back.
And I see a police officer who should be observant enough to have noticed while waiting at the lights that there is an upcoming bus lane. He/she should therefore anticipate that a vehicle ahead of him/her in the left hand lane is likely to need to move over to the right. Trying to force a way through demonstrates a lamentable lack of defensive driving. I appreciate the van doesn't indicate but given that the move was eminently predictable the officer should have hung back.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff