'Van cuts up police car and gets pulled over.'
Discussion
Looks like we have a difference in point of view.
I can see what the other view point is, numerous in this thread have kindly explained it clearly.
To answer a question posed from above : how would a system of priority be introduced/indicated?
Something in the highway code that follows the existing line of approach to any obstacle found in the carriageway.
Say for example the road is two lanes (I know the argument from the other viewpoint that its only one lane but bear with me), and there is no bus lane but say a skip full of rubbish in lane 1.
In this situation the common sense approach, and I think the highway code approach, is for the lane 1 vehicle is to mirror/signal then maneouvre around when safe to do so.
Something in the highway code to bring merge-right-in-turn in line with the above could help?
I can see what the other view point is, numerous in this thread have kindly explained it clearly.
To answer a question posed from above : how would a system of priority be introduced/indicated?
Something in the highway code that follows the existing line of approach to any obstacle found in the carriageway.
Say for example the road is two lanes (I know the argument from the other viewpoint that its only one lane but bear with me), and there is no bus lane but say a skip full of rubbish in lane 1.
In this situation the common sense approach, and I think the highway code approach, is for the lane 1 vehicle is to mirror/signal then maneouvre around when safe to do so.
Something in the highway code to bring merge-right-in-turn in line with the above could help?
AA999 said:
Looks like we have a difference in point of view.
I can see what the other view point is, numerous in this thread have kindly explained it clearly.
To answer a question posed from above : how would a system of priority be introduced/indicated?
Something in the highway code that follows the existing line of approach to any obstacle found in the carriageway.
Say for example the road is two lanes (I know the argument from the other viewpoint that its only one lane but bear with me), and there is no bus lane but say a skip full of rubbish in lane 1.
In this situation the common sense approach, and I think the highway code approach, is for the lane 1 vehicle is to mirror/signal then maneouvre around when safe to do so.
Something in the highway code to bring merge-right-in-turn in line with the above could help?
Could help with what? Provided people behave sensibly, which most do, the current system works very well.I can see what the other view point is, numerous in this thread have kindly explained it clearly.
To answer a question posed from above : how would a system of priority be introduced/indicated?
Something in the highway code that follows the existing line of approach to any obstacle found in the carriageway.
Say for example the road is two lanes (I know the argument from the other viewpoint that its only one lane but bear with me), and there is no bus lane but say a skip full of rubbish in lane 1.
In this situation the common sense approach, and I think the highway code approach, is for the lane 1 vehicle is to mirror/signal then maneouvre around when safe to do so.
Something in the highway code to bring merge-right-in-turn in line with the above could help?
Two lanes vs one lane is a fundamental difference. When it's a lane change as in your skip example, the place at which I must yield is clear - the lane marking. The thing I must not do is cross the lane marking into the path of somebody established in the other lane. In the case of a single, wide lane, there is no road marking to indicate where I should yield, so how would you introduce a priority system?
The approach you describe is fair enough in the case of a temporary obstruction but I don't think it would be common sense at all where the permanent road layout involves a reduction in the number of lanes. In the preceding two lane section, nobody would ever drive in the lane on the non-priority side, and that can't be a good thing.
There are roads all over the place with lanes at least as wide as two cars. Here's one. If I'm on that road I can do various things. I can drive behind the white car. I can adopt a different lateral position within the lane if I wish. I can overtake if it's safe to do so. But nobody would suggest it's OK to drive alongside the other car, let alone force them into a nearside hazard should one come along. So what reason is there for someone to think doing the same is OK on the stretch of very wide lane in this video?
SK425 said:
Could help with what?
Nevermind.I accept I have a different opinion on the issue to you.
The motorists in my part of the world must exhibit different behaviours (or I am noticing different behaviours), if you have the opinion that all can be sorted by people displaying 'common sense' - and thats fair enough - its your opinion.
My opinion is formed from what I notice on a more or less daily basis with 'merge in turn' near accident situations (and numerous accidents that I have been aware of) and people's desire to race for the gap in order they think they obtain priority to gain/keep position on the road.
Mound Dawg said:
Seems to me that two lanes turned into one, the traffic in front merges in turn but the Police car tries to squirt past the van despite being behind it at the merge point. I think the van driver was probably surprised by this.
Assuming the Police driver was familiar with the junction (may not have been) what he tried to do was a bit clumsy.
I'd agree however the van should be indicating. tAssuming the Police driver was familiar with the junction (may not have been) what he tried to do was a bit clumsy.
tty driving by the copper though, should be merging like a zip there.AA999 said:
Nevermind.
I accept I have a different opinion on the issue to you.
The motorists in my part of the world must exhibit different behaviours (or I am noticing different behaviours), if you have the opinion that all can be sorted by people displaying 'common sense' - and thats fair enough - its your opinion.
My opinion is formed from what I notice on a more or less daily basis with 'merge in turn' near accident situations (and numerous accidents that I have been aware of) and people's desire to race for the gap in order they think they obtain priority to gain/keep position on the road.
In my experience, almost everybody merges in turn at points like this. It's only the first two off the line who have the opportunity to race for the gap anyway - as soon as one of them gets there first, that's the zip defined for everybody else (notwithstanding the occasional cock further back who is far more important than everybody else and won't play ball). And the race, if people even bother racing, isn't really any different from, say, the race to a roundabout. Very often on the approach to a roundabout you can be faced with the chance to join ahead of a vehicle that's coming from the right if you can get there soon enough. Come to the end of a side road looking to join the main road and the same opportunity might present - get there soon enough and you'll be ahead of the vehicle coming along the main road, take longer and you'll have to wait for them. Turning right off a main road into a side road with an oncoming vehicle on the main road? Get to your turn soon enough and you might be able to turn ahead of them, take longer to get there and you'll have to wait. These scenarios are a normal, everyday part of driving aren't they?I accept I have a different opinion on the issue to you.
The motorists in my part of the world must exhibit different behaviours (or I am noticing different behaviours), if you have the opinion that all can be sorted by people displaying 'common sense' - and thats fair enough - its your opinion.
My opinion is formed from what I notice on a more or less daily basis with 'merge in turn' near accident situations (and numerous accidents that I have been aware of) and people's desire to race for the gap in order they think they obtain priority to gain/keep position on the road.
Nothing wrong with proposing different rules if you think they would work better, but I still don't know how the place to yield priority would be defined in your solution, and even if you solved that I think it would just end up with nobody using the lane on the non-priority side and everybody in the other lane, whereas the entire point of the current system is for use both lanes to be used. You'd need to explain why creating a massive disincentive to use on of the lanes was a good thing.
Cant see how this is anything other than the driver of the police car being a complete idiot. Van was well in front of him, he knew that van had to pull across to merge but tried to shut the door on him by accelerating - even did that too late.
In defence of traffic police, isn't this just a local patrol car so driven by an untrained numpty.
In defence of traffic police, isn't this just a local patrol car so driven by an untrained numpty.
heebeegeetee said:
I'm surprised how many feel the police car suddenly accelerates when we can all see that the van driver applies the brakes, albeit momentarily.
I think you're right. My initial impression on watching the video was that the police car accelerated but I've watched it quite a few more times now and I'm not sure it did. The point it seems to accelerate is as it exits the box junction, about 23 seconds into the video, but watching that phase of the video the aliasing of the police car's wheels doesn't seem to change, and I'd have thought it would change if the car's speed was changing. I think the perception of the police car accelerating comes from its movement relative to the van and the camera vehicle, both of which are decelerating.heebeegeetee said:
Zip merging is one thing, but not indicating and then adjusting your speed to bring the vehicle behind alongside, makes it difficult.
That's where I think the van driver got it wrong. With the cyclist immediately in front, accelerating positively to assert his position in the merge wasn't going to be on, and yet that's what he tried to do anyway. It looked to me like he'd committed in his mind to merging in front of the police car before he'd even moved off. That would be a tad premature at the best of times, but all the more so with the cyclist in front.SK425 said:
That's where I think the van driver got it wrong. With the cyclist immediately in front, accelerating positively to assert his position in the merge wasn't going to be on, and yet that's what he tried to do anyway. It looked to me like he'd committed in his mind to merging in front of the police car before he'd even moved off. That would be a tad premature at the best of times, but all the more so with the cyclist in front.
Didn't the police officer driving the car spot the cyclist and therefore hang back to give the van driver room to move into?If the police officer didn't spot the cyclist in front of the van was that a potential hazard that they should have allowed for?
If you put yourself into a narrowing gap, a piece of road that's only going to get smaller don't be surprised if it gets smaller and disappears.
carinaman said:
SK425 said:
That's where I think the van driver got it wrong. With the cyclist immediately in front, accelerating positively to assert his position in the merge wasn't going to be on, and yet that's what he tried to do anyway. It looked to me like he'd committed in his mind to merging in front of the police car before he'd even moved off. That would be a tad premature at the best of times, but all the more so with the cyclist in front.
Didn't the police officer driving the car spot the cyclist and therefore hang back to give the van driver room to move into?If the police officer didn't spot the cyclist in front of the van was that a potential hazard that they should have allowed for?
If you put yourself into a narrowing gap, a piece of road that's only going to get smaller don't be surprised if it gets smaller and disappears.
carinaman said:
1. Didn't the police officer driving the car spot the cyclist and therefore hang back to give the van driver room to move into?
2. If you put yourself into a narrowing gap, a piece of road that's only going to get smaller don't be surprised if it gets smaller and disappears.
1. He does, doesn't he? The police car remains all but stationary as the van sets off, but the van dithers and then even brakes, for no apparent reason. If the van is being held up by the cyclist then the van should be looking to merge behind the police car, instead of letting one cyclist hold two lanes of traffic up.2. If you put yourself into a narrowing gap, a piece of road that's only going to get smaller don't be surprised if it gets smaller and disappears.
2. That's exactly what the van does, he places himself between the cyclist and the police car as the gap narrows, but then just pulls over onto the vehicle to his right with no indication, in the time-honoured manner.
heebeegeetee said:
1. He does, doesn't he? The police car remains all but stationary as the van sets off, but the van dithers and then even brakes, for no apparent reason. If the van is being held up by the cyclist then the van should be looking to merge behind the police car, instead of letting one cyclist hold two lanes of traffic up.
2. That's exactly what the van does, he places himself between the cyclist and the police car as the gap narrows, but then just pulls over onto the vehicle to his right with no indication, in the time-honoured manner.
Given the mess he'd got himself into, a signal from the van driver - "Help! I've ballsed it up. Do you mind if I slot in front of you anyway?" - would probably have been appropriate. More generally though in a merge like this, I might be quite wary of signalling. Every case is different and, like so may questions in driving, the answer to whether one ought to signal is "it depends", but in the normal course of events (no cyclists or other confounding factors), if you've established your merge position and then signal that could be interpreted by the driver behind as you requesting their permission to merge, that you are willing for them to pass you if they wish, which is probably exactly the opposite of what you want them to be thinking just as you are all reaching the point where the road narrows.2. That's exactly what the van does, he places himself between the cyclist and the police car as the gap narrows, but then just pulls over onto the vehicle to his right with no indication, in the time-honoured manner.
heebeegeetee said:
I'm surprised how many feel the police car suddenly accelerates when we can all see that the van driver applies the brakes, albeit momentarily.
Take another look. The van does indeed dip his brakes, but it barely affects his momentum. However the police car does squeeze the throttle and accelerate right at 23 seconds on the video. You can tell this because it shoots forward from the cameras (bike riders) perspective.At the end of the day, the road markings are clear. The nearside lane needs to merge in turn (or like a zip) with the offside lane.
In this sequence of events, the van and police car are both 2nd in the queue at the lights. The car in the nearside lane goes first into the merge point, then it's the car that was first in the offside lane. The natural way then would be for plod to not accelerate so quickly as to allow the van to merge. It's just the proper way of doing things.
However the plod creates the situation by trying to follow immediately behind the 1st offside lane vehicle. Poor driving by anyones standards.
Police driver should have seen the lanes merging - shouldnt even have attempted the overtake. Especially poor driving if theyre local and know the road. Its clear by 25secs they werent going to get past with the island in the middle of the road looming.
The van driver was stuffed - whatever they did.
Either take the cyclist out or get fined for driving in the bus lane then gets pulled by the cop.
The van driver was stuffed - whatever they did.
Either take the cyclist out or get fined for driving in the bus lane then gets pulled by the cop.
Edited by Bigends on Thursday 26th February 10:40
Edited by Bigends on Thursday 26th February 10:45
hornetrider said:
Take another look. The van does indeed dip his brakes, but it barely affects his momentum. However the police car does squeeze the throttle and accelerate right at 23 seconds on the video.
I'm not sure it does.hornetrider said:
You can tell this because it shoots forward from the cameras (bike riders) perspective.
That just tells you that the speed of the police car relative to the motorbike changes. They are two ways that can happen 
.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff