Have I just been banned from driving :( :( UK

[twoblacklines]

Red Devil said:

These statements are contradictory and merely serve to confuse the reader.
I often wonder whether cruise control is responsible for the demise of acceleration sense.
You're not being forced to do anything: you are (or should be) in full control of your car..
If you have to make an emergency stop your hazard anticipation is distinctly sketchy.

Why is it so hard to see that they brake AFTER (I used the word THEN) they have sped up. The match your braking to keep you hemmed in, just as confirmed by the poster below me.

Technically on a motorway it is even safer just to do 70 in the 2nd lane because you know you are going to have to keep pulling out for trucks...but noooo that is a 3 point offense now.

I drove up to Cheshire just a few weeks ago and what I notice now is you will be in a stream of traffic doing 80 in the 3rd or 4th lane and you get (again MPV's) cars undertaking you in lane 2-3 and then cutting you up. Seen as undertaking is illegal what do you suggest here? Also whilst we are at it what to do about those chevron marks that say keep 2 chevrons between you and the car infront? Because I seem to be the only motorist who adheres to that yet people just use the space to cut me up, either pulling out to overtake or pulling in after undertaking me. It seems more dangerous to leave a big gap than just a normal gap to me.

Edited by twoblacklines on Saturday 27th August 16:15

[turbobloke]

AMGJocky said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Speed limits are increasingly plucked out of the air and changed on the whim of the councilors. Often against the advice of police and traffic engineers.

Citation please.

Rural roads in Oxon as an example (citation means?) police objected, so did a retired traffic engineer, me too but councillors got the lower limits anyway.

Police object to 20 limits as well from time to time and are ignored.

ETA Dr Jekyll got there first on the Oxon limits, I hadn't reached your post at the time Dr J.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 28th August 09:57

[elanfan]

twoblacklines said:

Technically on a motorway it is even safer just to do 70 in the 2nd lane because you know you are going to have to keep pulling out for trucks...but noooo that is a 3 point offense now.

I drove up to Cheshire just a few weeks ago and what I notice now is you will be in a stream of traffic doing 80 in the 3rd or 4th lane and you get (again MPV's) cars undertaking you in lane 2-3 and then cutting you up. Seen as undertaking is illegal what do you suggest here? Also whilst we are at it what to do about those chevron marks that say keep 2 chevrons between you and the car infront? Because I seem to be the only motorist who adheres to that yet people just use the space to cut me up, either pulling out to overtake or pulling in after undertaking me. It seems more dangerous to leave a big gap than just a normal gap to me.

Edited by twoblacklines on Saturday 27th August 16:15

I'd suggest you stop being a selfish twunt and pull into a left lane if it's clear for you to do so. Mindlessly ploughing along in lane 3/4 selfishly impeding others progress I'd suggest is more dangerous than being alert to the spaces around you and using them as the rules of the road dictate. Middle lane or even outer lane morons are just that. I'd love to see a much harder crackdown on MLM's if folk were more considerate traffic would move much better/quicker.

[George111]

elanfan said:

I'd suggest you stop being a selfish twunt and pull into a left lane if it's clear for you to do so. Mindlessly ploughing along in lane 3/4 selfishly impeding others progress I'd suggest is more dangerous than being alert to the spaces around you and using them as the rules of the road dictate. Middle lane or even outer lane morons are just that. I'd love to see a much harder crackdown on MLM's if folk were more considerate traffic would move much better/quicker.

Amen !

[7db]

Odd that the Highway Code has specific different advice for motorway lane discipline -- ie keep left when the lane ahead is clear instead of keep left unless overtaking:-


263:-
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear"

vs

160 & 163:-
"Keep to the left...The exceptions are when you want to overtake..."
"Move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in"

[ModernAndy]

7db said:

Odd that the Highway Code has specific different advice for motorway lane discipline -- ie keep left when the lane ahead is clear instead of keep left unless overtaking:-


263:-
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear"

vs

160 & 163:-
"Keep to the left...The exceptions are when you want to overtake..."
"Move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in"

I wouldn't take 264 as one that abrogates 160. Apart from that, "when the road ahead is clear" is entirely vague. I can't see it justifying being in the middle lane of 3 when there is no traffic other than a lorry three quarters of a mile ahead in lane 1.

[spookly]

Can't believe you'd lose any sleep over this one. If he didn't pull you you'll be fine.

Quite a load of years ago I was doing 90mph down the M1 and a white Range Rover (no police markings or blue lights shown) decided to attach itself to my rear bumper. I crept up to about 95mph and pulled in a couple of minutes later when there was a gap in lane 2... gave him a single finger salute only to look over and see it 4 up with armed police holding their weapons.... ooops. Copper in front passenger seat wags his finger at me and then they sped off.... lesson learnt.

[Ramona]

George111 said:

Don't worry, when you went past he wasn't accurately recording your speed - what woulds he say ? Bloke was going fast . . . I'd be surprised if that was enough for a prosecution or a ban.

I thought that the sworn testimony of a serving police officer that in their opinion the vehicle was driving in excess of the speed limit was regarded as sufficient evidence for a court to prosecute?

[Red Devil]

twoblacklines said:

Red Devil said:

These statements are contradictory and merely serve to confuse the reader.
I often wonder whether cruise control is responsible for the demise of acceleration sense.
You're not being forced to do anything: you are (or should be) in full control of your car..
If you have to make an emergency stop your hazard anticipation is distinctly sketchy.

Why is it so hard to see that they brake AFTER (I used the word THEN) they have sped up. The match your braking to keep you hemmed in, just as confirmed by the poster below me.

Are you claiming that these drivers are increasing speed in order to deliberately baulk you? If that is the case then maybe you could try anticipating that this might happen and establish yourself in lane 2 a bit sooner so that it doesn't occur. I don't experience the problem you do, but that may be because my car doesn't have cruise control* so I modulate the accelerator appropriately.

 * Even if it did I wouldn't use it where there are continuous streams of traffic in every lane because, imo, it's a device which promotes a lazy approach to the job in hand.

twoblacklines said:

Technically on a motorway it is even safer just to do 70 in the 2nd lane because you know you are going to have to keep pulling out for trucks...but noooo that is a 3 point offense now.

I don't find going back to lane 1 a problem. If people want to go faster than 70 in lane 2 I'm not impeding them. If not, our relative positions won't change and I can move out to lane 2 to pass the trucks.

twoblacklines said:

I drove up to Cheshire just a few weeks ago and what I notice now is you will be in a stream of traffic doing 80 in the 3rd or 4th lane and you get (again MPV's) cars undertaking you in lane 2-3 and then cutting you up. Seen as undertaking is illegal what do you suggest here?

Stay at 70 in lane 2. There is no point in becoming a lane 3/4 lemming if the traffic is that heavy. My stamping ground is the M25 and it is often quicker to stay in lane 1 as much as possible while everyone else is in a (slower!) freight train in the outer lanes. It makes for much more relaxed progress.

twoblacklines said:

Also whilst we are at it what to do about those chevron marks that say keep 2 chevrons between you and the car infront? Because I seem to be the only motorist who adheres to that yet people just use the space to cut me up, either pulling out to overtake or pulling in after undertaking me. It seems more dangerous to leave a big gap than just a normal gap to me.

You're not alone. I adhere to it as well. If someone takes my safety space I simply shrug my shoulders and feather the accelerator to re-establish the 2 chevron gap. They'll be bg off to do the same to someone else pretty soon. Life is too short to get overly stressed about such things.

[SS2.]

Ramona said:

I thought that the sworn testimony of a serving police officer that in their opinion the vehicle was driving in excess of the speed limit was regarded as sufficient evidence for a court to prosecute?

On a motorway maybe, but not on any other type of road.

[turbobloke]

From various comments on this and other sites over the years including from BiB, it appears that the law on vehicle speed is based on the premise that a single police officer's "expert opinion" of excess speed is enough to convict you of "speeding", while any equipment that's used to measure your speed merely corroborates that opinion. If a single officer in a police car with a working speedo then that's all they need, the speedo provides the corroboration. If there's no speed measurement equipment available for corroboration then two police officers will do nicely with the second corroborating the opinion of the first. Mway or A-road, no matter.

As posted by dvd (BiB) in a PH thread back in 2010:

Dwight VanDriver said:

Section 89 (2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the section that deals with speeding offences):

"(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

So one officer alone without any corroboration i.e. Vascar, speedo, radar etc cannot report.

BUT

He can if he and another officer at the same spot come to the conclusion a car is speeding. (One corroborates the other).

dvd

On a motorway where pedestrians are not allowed, a single BiB in a car will have the speedo as corroboration.

HTH

[SS2.]

turbobloke said:

If there's no speed measurement equipment available for corroboration then two police officers will do nicely with the second corroborating the opinion of the first. Mway or A-road, no matter.

On a road other than a motorway, yes - but those requirements are not the same for motorways.

[turbobloke]

SS2. said:

turbobloke said:

If there's no speed measurement equipment available for corroboration then two police officers will do nicely with the second corroborating the opinion of the first. Mway or A-road, no matter.

On a road other than a motorway, yes - but those requirements are not the same for motorways.

If only dvd had included that bit! Which section of the relevant law is that covered by?

[SS2.]

turbobloke said:

Which section of the relevant law is that covered by?

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 said:

17. Traffic regulation on special roads.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the use of special roads. Such regulations may, in particular:

(a) regulate the manner in which and the conditions subject to which special roads may be used by traffic authorised to do so,

<..snip..>

(4) If a person uses a special road in contravention of this section or of regulations under subsection (2) above, he shall be guilty of an offence.

This makes it an offence to exceed the speed limit on a motorway.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 said:

89. Speeding offences generally.

(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

RTRA 1984 s89(2) provides the corroboration requirements.

s.89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 continued.. said:

(3) The enactments to which this section applies are;

(a) any enactment contained in this Act except section 17(2);

And this specifically excludes RTRA s.17(2) (speed limits on special roads) from the corroboration requirements of s.89(2).

[turbobloke]

Genuine thanks for posting the regs but to a MoP / non-legal beagle it's not that clear. For example nowhere in the pasted text does it state clearly that a single officer outside of a moving car on a motorway requires no corroboration, though I accept this may still be the case even though to a non-beagle MoP it's not clear (without the full wording of sections/subsections referenced).

[turbobloke]

Other sites (pepipoo, DT motoring and so on) also state that on a motorway one officer does not need any 'extra evidence' so the mway situation pertains as you (SS2) suggest and as accepted.

Some discussion here:

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.ph...

[SS2.]

turbobloke said:

For example nowhere in the pasted text does it state clearly that a single officer outside of a moving car on a motorway requires no corroboration..

It confirms the evidence of just one witness is insufficient to convict a person for speeding on all roads other than a motorway.

This means that the evidence of one witness can be sufficient to convict a person for speeding on a motorway, even if your particular example is not specifically catered for.

[turbobloke]

SS2. said:

turbobloke said:

For example nowhere in the pasted text does it state clearly that a single officer outside of a moving car on a motorway requires no corroboration..

It confirms the evidence of just one witness is insufficient to convict a person for speeding on all roads other than a motorway.

This means that the evidence of one witness can be sufficient to convict a person for speeding on a motorway, even if your particular example is not specifically catered for.

Try the intervening post where wording from the link at pepipoo is very clear - though the point was already accepted anyway.

Thanks again.

[daytona111r]

KimJongHealthy said:

daytona111r said:

The way to keep your license is just to be very vigilant and pay attention to everything around you. When I have got pulled over by unmarked cars, I've always felt I've deserved the brown pants moment for not paying enough attention in the first place.

It's rather tricky to squint your eyes trying to spot blue lights tucked behind a grill in my rear view mirror, I tend to focus more on the road ahead when I'm going fast.

I agree it is difficult to spot the bd lights, but u I don't even try to look for them. Bearing in mind a patrol car has to measure your speed over something like 1/2 a mile, if a car suddenly speeds up and matches my speed after I've passed it, I won't give it a chance to tail me for that long

[Dibble]

It's a minimum of 0.2 miles for a follow check.