'Van cuts up police car and gets pulled over.'
Discussion
SK425 said:
Bigends said:
The van driver was stuffed - whatever they did.
He could have planned to merge behind the vehicle that was alongside him at the lights.is the motorcyclist allowed in the bus lane?
SpikeBmth said:
SK425 said:
Bigends said:
The van driver was stuffed - whatever they did.
He could have planned to merge behind the vehicle that was alongside him at the lights.hornetrider said:
SK425 said:
I meant while they were stationary at the lights. At that point I think the van driver's plan should have been to merge behind the police car, not ahead.
Despite the fact that the police car is behind? That is an odd viewpoint.The police car is by no means fully behind the van at the lights, although it's not level alongside either. Even with that stagger, a plan to merge ahead of the police car calls for sufficiently positive acceleration when the lights change to be able to assert that position in the merge. Ordinarily, it might be reasonable for the van driver to plan on that basis, but not with the cyclist in front. It's extremely likely and completely predictable that when the lights change the cyclist is going to move off too slowly to allow the van driver to accelerate positively enough to control the expectations of the police driver, so in this case I think a plan to merge ahead of the police car is unwise.
The way to approach situations like this is to decide which option you're going to go for and then make it very clear to the other guy what you intend. Before the lights changed, the van driver should have been thinking along the lines of, "Although I am half a car length ahead at the moment, because of the cyclist in front of me I don't expect to be able to accelerate firmly enough to make it clear to the driver to my right that I intend to merge ahead of them, so I will move off in a manner that makes it clear that I intend to merge behind them."
hornetrider said:
I agree that planning to merge ahead of the police vehicle would require some degree of leeway/help on the part of the officer driving the car, which he did not give.
Yes. I think it was the wrong plan on the part of the van driver and the wrong response to the van driver's cock up on the part of the police driver.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 ? 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 ?
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 ? 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 ?
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 ? 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 ?
jm doc 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 ? 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 ?
please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action .
Title should read 'Police car tries to cut up van fails, and takes out his inadequacy on the van driver'. The van driver's
only mistake was not realising the plod driver was compensating, perhaps for some physical inadequacy.
He could have signalled, but if the idiot behind didn't expect the van to pull out, he shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, let alone one with shiny flashing lights.
only mistake was not realising the plod driver was compensating, perhaps for some physical inadequacy.
He could have signalled, but if the idiot behind didn't expect the van to pull out, he shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, let alone one with shiny flashing lights.
mph1977 said:
jm doc 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 ? 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 ?
please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action .
jm doc said:
mph1977 said:
jm doc 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 ? 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 ?
please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action .
i'll ask you again, please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action
mph1977 said:
jm doc said:
mph1977 said:
jm doc 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 ? 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 ?
please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action .
i'll ask you again, please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action
jm doc said:
mph1977 said:
jm doc said:
mph1977 said:
jm doc 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 ? 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 ?
please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action .
i'll ask you again, please forward your GMC number so i can take appropriate action
I am not a police officer and I have not established a professional relationship with you , although you appear to attempting to establish one with me.
I refuse to engage in further discussion with you regarding my health.
jm doc said:
As I suggested in my last reply, it's a personal opinion. Are you trying to make some sort of threat? Are you a serving Police Officer? Perhaps you could give me your number then so I can take appropriate action?
Psst. I know who he is, I can send you a picture of the chump if you like.Blimey, people do get very serious and personal on PH.
Its just a topic of discussion everyone. A video whereby people have clearly formed their own opinions.
There is no single correct or wrong answer to address the video I'd have thought, as the highway code does not give clear concise rules on any priority in merge-in-turn.
So the viewpoint is either
(a) you assume other road users will demonstrate 'common sense' and accept that if a vehicle manages to place its 'nose' in front of yours then this means you should slow and create a space for it to merge...
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. In which the vehicle before maneuvering should make sure there is a safe space to move in to. If not then that vehicle should slow to find space to slot in to.
Either way is an opinion.
[Until the highway code is amended to state otherwise]
(edit : I can't spell maneuver no matter how many times I write it!)
Its just a topic of discussion everyone. A video whereby people have clearly formed their own opinions.
There is no single correct or wrong answer to address the video I'd have thought, as the highway code does not give clear concise rules on any priority in merge-in-turn.
So the viewpoint is either
(a) you assume other road users will demonstrate 'common sense' and accept that if a vehicle manages to place its 'nose' in front of yours then this means you should slow and create a space for it to merge...
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. In which the vehicle before maneuvering should make sure there is a safe space to move in to. If not then that vehicle should slow to find space to slot in to.
Either way is an opinion.
[Until the highway code is amended to state otherwise]
(edit : I can't spell maneuver no matter how many times I write it!)
AA999 said:
Blimey, people do get very serious and personal on PH.
Its just a topic of discussion everyone. A video whereby people have clearly formed their own opinions.
There is no single correct or wrong answer to address the video I'd have thought, as the highway code does not give clear concise rules on any priority in merge-in-turn.
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?Its just a topic of discussion everyone. A video whereby people have clearly formed their own opinions.
There is no single correct or wrong answer to address the video I'd have thought, as the highway code does not give clear concise rules on any priority in merge-in-turn.
AA999 said:
So the viewpoint is either
(a) you assume other road users will demonstrate 'common sense' and accept that if a vehicle manages to place its 'nose' in front of yours then this means you should slow and create a space for it to merge...
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. In which the vehicle before maneuvering should make sure there is a safe space to move in to. If not then that vehicle should slow to find space to slot in to.
Either way is an opinion.
[Until the highway code is amended to state otherwise]
(a) seems a bit dubious to me - I wouldn't assume other road users will demonstrate common sense (which to me, in this scenario, means adhering to rule 163). I might hope that people would adhere to the rule but I can't be certain that they will, and indeed my experience tells me that sometimes they don't. That won't necessarily stop me being assertive though (although in the van driver's position in the video it probably would, because being assertive would put the cyclist at risk).(a) you assume other road users will demonstrate 'common sense' and accept that if a vehicle manages to place its 'nose' in front of yours then this means you should slow and create a space for it to merge...
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. In which the vehicle before maneuvering should make sure there is a safe space to move in to. If not then that vehicle should slow to find space to slot in to.
Either way is an opinion.
[Until the highway code is amended to state otherwise]
It's the same as if you're driving along and there's oncoming traffic and a parked car on the other side of the road. It's clearly your priority and the oncomer should wait, but sometimes they will come through anyway forcing you to slow or stop. You might choose to take an early assertive position (bold, defensive, whatever you want to call it) to claim your space. That might dissuade them from coming through if they were considering it, but they might still come through anyway. And ultimately, if you're faced with only two options - yield to their wrongdoing or crash into them - you don't need to reach for the Highway Code to work out which of those is better
.Opinion (b) is just wrong. Happily, there is no need to have to assume what the arrows mean - you can look it up: see diagram 1014, and it doesn't mean what is assumed in opinion (b). It's simply an instruction as to which side of the upcoming bus lane boundary one should pass. In particular, it says nothing that negates rule 163. Granted, you can't look it up in the Highway Code. Is that the issue - would your uncertainty be resolved if the meaning of the arrow was added to the Highway Code?
The whole road marking issue can be a mess IMO. We have a similar junction locally to that in the OP video. Except without the Bus lane, but the road does narrow from the left (i.e. lane 2 is straight on) However in this instance the “move over” arrow is in lane 2 pointing left –towards the lane that is disappearing How does that stack up ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff