White Lane Arrows, Advisory or Compulsory?

[agtlaw]

Moonhawk said:

Not sure I understand?

The highway code and the road traffic act, road traffic regulation act etc need to be considered together.

The highway code describes the behaviour you must/must not exhibit - then makes reference to the law under which you may be prosecuted under if you exhibit behaviors contrary to that stated in the highway code. For example:

Rule 105:

"You MUST obey signals given by police officers, traffic officers, traffic wardens (see ‘Signals by authorised persons’). and signs used by school crossing patrols."

Fail to do this and you may be subject to prosecution under:

"Laws RTRA sect 28, RTA 1988 sect 35, TMA 2004 sect 6, & FTWO art 3"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/sectio...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

etc

[Moonhawk]

SS2. said:

The Highway Code is just a guide, it isn't law.

Has anyone actually stated it is?

[Moonhawk]

agtlaw said:

It might be easier if you stated what you think is wrong with what I have written.

Am I mistaken in thinking that the highway code should not be taken in isolation - but the relevant RTA should also be considered?

Am I mistaken in thinking that the relevant RTAs are cited in the highway code?

Am I mistaken in thinking that a person who displays behaviour contrary to a "must" or "Must Not" rule in the highway code may be subject to prosecution under the relevant statute?

[agtlaw]

Moonhawk said:

Has anyone actually stated it is?

See section 38(8) RTA 1988. See also subsection 7.

[agtlaw]

Moonhawk said:

It might be easier if you stated what you think is wrong with what I have written.

Am I mistaken in thinking that the highway code should not be taken in isolation - but the relevant RTA should also be considered?

Am I mistaken in thinking that the relevant RTAs are cited in the highway code?

Am I mistaken in thinking that a person who displays behaviour contrary to a "must" or "Must Not" rule in the highway code may be subject to prosecution under the relevant statute?

see section 38.

[SS2.]

Moonhawk said:

SS2. said:

The Highway Code is just a guide, it isn't law.

Has anyone actually stated it is?

People do appear to be placing far too much weight on the HC.

The question was asked whether certain road markings are advisory or mandatory. Because it is so vague / misleading on the subject (and because it isn't 'law'), the HC cannot be relied upon (in any way) to provide correct answers to that question.

[Moonhawk]

agtlaw said:

Moonhawk said:

Has anyone actually stated it is?

See section 38(8) RTA 1988. See also subsection 7.

You mean:

"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

Isnt that pretty much what I said above - i.e. ".....you may be subject to prosecution....."

[Moonhawk]

SS2. said:

.....the HC cannot be relied upon (in any way) to provide correct answers to that question.

A fact I acknowledged in my first post.

[agtlaw]

Moonhawk said:

You mean:

"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

Isnt that pretty much what I said above - i.e. ".....you may be subject to prosecution....."

See section 38(8) which you've conveniently omitted - and directly answers your earlier question.

You've come to this thread from a position of ignorance. It's been pointed out where you're going wrong. If you don't understand now then you never will. I'm out.

[Moonhawk]

agtlaw said:

See section 38(8) which you've conveniently omitted - and directly answers your earlier question.

You've come to this thread from a position of ignorance. It's been pointed out where you're going wrong. If you don't understand now then you never will. I'm out.

I didn't ignore it - I didn't see how it was relevant. Section 38(8) simply sets out what is meant by "the highway code" (i.e. the definition):

"In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the M3Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment."

So it is a code containing directions and guidance.......yep.....and? Have I stated it is anything more than that?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 28th February 14:34

[TooMany2cvs]

agtlaw said:

Q: What's the law regarding X?
A: The Highway Code, Rule Y says ...

will be met with derision from me, but do feel free to carry on.

This is the speed, plod & LAW forum?

Well, HC144 does include this line at the end...
Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991
...just like every other legally-backed "MUST" or "MUST NOT" rule references the actual legislation.

But, of course, you remember that from last time you flicked through a copy, right?

[Vanin]

This is becoming complicated.

All I wanted to know was if I pulled up alongside an HGV, so that I am first in the right hand lane which has an arrow indicating right with no other directions, if I pulled out when the road was clear, gentle acceleration but easily pulling ahead of the HGV so that there was absolutely no competition or inconvenience on the roundabout or at the exit road, could I be fined?

The answer appears to be that it is not a offence to be in the right arrowed lane and go straight ahead if you continue to drive with due care and attention and consideration.

[CoolHands]

yes but last time it came you the coppers on here pointed out they could have you for driving without due care etc if they felt like it regardless of whether you got in the hgvs way are not.

probably give you section 59 too

[Moonhawk]

Vanin said:

This is becoming complicated.

All I wanted to know was if I pulled up alongside an HGV, so that I am first in the right hand lane which has an arrow indicating right with no other directions, if I pulled out when the road was clear, gentle acceleration but easily pulling ahead of the HGV so that there was absolutely no competition or inconvenience on the roundabout or at the exit road, could I be fined?

The answer appears to be that it is not a offence to be in the right arrowed lane and go straight ahead if you continue to drive with due care and attention and consideration.

Whilst there is no specific offence - you might find yourself the subject of this thread

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Cliftonite]

Vanin said:

This is becoming complicated.

All I wanted to know was if I pulled up alongside an HGV, so that I am first in the right hand lane which has an arrow indicating right with no other directions, if I pulled out when the road was clear, gentle acceleration but easily pulling ahead of the HGV so that there was absolutely no competition or inconvenience on the roundabout or at the exit road, could I be fined?

The answer appears to be that it is not a offence to be in the right arrowed lane and go straight ahead if you continue to drive with due care and attention and consideration.

That is just common sense and a perfectly reasonable point of view (which I share), so, no, a frayed knot! Sorry!

According to our esteemed Mr vonhosen, the CPS want the police to do you for it, regardless of lack of any demonstrated upset to other motorists.

See previous thread:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=1&a...

Enjoy!

[tapereel]

The Highway Code provides a useful set of rules and very often those rules have the relevant LAW that has led to that rule. In that respect the Highway Code is a source of law. It is not the primary source though.

[Cat]

As an example of why the Highway Code should not be relied on as a source of law consider what it says regarding solid white lines:-

Rule 129 said:

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road

According to the Highway Code there is nothing stopping you from moving to the opposing lane prior to the start of the solid line and remaining there for its duration.

Clearly this isn't correct and when you look at the actual legislation regarding solid white lines, which the Highway Code paraphrases, it states that vehicles must be driven so that the solid white line remains on the right hand or off side of the vehicle.

Cat

[Moonhawk]

Cat said:

According to the Highway Code there is nothing stopping you from moving to the opposing lane prior to the start of the solid line and remaining there for its duration.

Hence why you should take the highway code rule together with the relevant legislation it cites.

[Zedboy1200]

vikingaero said:

Compulsory for everyone who gained their licence before 1990. Everyone else and it's "the world WILL revolve around ME ME ME!"

In Kent & Surrey it seems to be the exact opposite!

[mph1977]

SS2. said:

The Highway Code is just a guide, it isn't law.

except where a MUST / MUST NOT clause is included , in that case the HC is paraphrasing law which is referenced in the text