Letter from the police

[The Gauge]

Mandat said:

TikTak said:

An overtake is not going to be deemed as necessary at all unless in avoidance of something so this will be the reason for the letter.

There is nothing saying that the overtake itself needs to be necessary.

The correct question to ask is whether it was necessary to enter the hatched area. In the OP's case, the simple answer is yes, it was necessary to enter the hatchings in order to carry out a safe overtake.

I think the term necessary in this situation would relate to having to enter the hatched area to pass a parked vehicle, negotiate roadworks, avoid something in a carriageway etc. I doubt an overtake would be deemed necessary in a section of road where the hatchings appear, as you can always overtake elsewhere on the road instead.

Personally I avoid entering such hatched areas as that's normally where stones, nails and shards of glass etc tend to settle having been picked up in tyre treads and flung about, eventually settling in the hatched area where they lay in wait for a nice new and freshly fitted tyre to pass over them. which is why you often see a plume of dust and debris fly up into the air behind the car.

Edited by The Gauge on Monday 29th April 18:35

[Random_Person]

Scandalous. You have done nothing wrong OP.

The police freely overtake on hatches and chevrons surrounded by a broken white line during all their driver training, it is perfectly acceptable. The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time.

Don't forget this letter will be almost auto generated, one of hundreds sent that day to the constant influx of dashcam warriors that send in low level clips. It will have been sent by a member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence, in line with a locally written policy. It is not a prosecution of any sort, as they don't even know who the driver is and if there were any bones in it the force would have used the correct methodology to ascertain the driver details under the RTA 1988.

Its all a nonsense, and designed to try and appease the public who complain. Think of the yellow jackets and clipboards in road safety areas, where you get a similar letter.

[jondude]

You could perhaps write back saying 'as the registered owner of the car, could you please inform me why this matter is kept on file, your reasons for doing so and for how long the file is kept? Who will have access to this file?'

(No-one has asked for the driver's details, so do not offer them)


Otherwise yes, bin it. Personally, I would like to know what they are going to do with this file on you.

[Pickled Piper]

vonhosen said:

Did you exceed the 60 limit?

OP you haven't answered the question above.

The Police can't prosecute for speeding based on dashcam footage. So a NIP / warning for driving without due care and attention is often the the option taken.

[lancslad58]

Random_Person said:

Scandalous. You have done nothing wrong OP.

The police freely overtake on hatches and chevrons surrounded by a broken white line during all their driver training, it is perfectly acceptable. The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time.

Don't forget this letter will be almost auto generated, one of hundreds sent that day to the constant influx of dashcam warriors that send in low level clips. It will have been sent by a member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence, in line with a locally written policy. It is not a prosecution of any sort, as they don't even know who the driver is and if there were any bones in it the force would have used the correct methodology to ascertain the driver details under the RTA 1988.

Its all a nonsense, and designed to try and appease the public who complain. Think of the yellow jackets and clipboards in road safety areas, where you get a similar letter.

" The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time. "
what a great idea, so long as the driver thinks it's sake then it's okay

"member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence"
I don't have a pilots licence but I could possibly work that say putting a Jumbo jet into a 45% nose dive in not a good idea!

[QuickQuack]

lancslad58 said:

Random_Person said:

Scandalous. You have done nothing wrong OP.

The police freely overtake on hatches and chevrons surrounded by a broken white line during all their driver training, it is perfectly acceptable. The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time.

Don't forget this letter will be almost auto generated, one of hundreds sent that day to the constant influx of dashcam warriors that send in low level clips. It will have been sent by a member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence, in line with a locally written policy. It is not a prosecution of any sort, as they don't even know who the driver is and if there were any bones in it the force would have used the correct methodology to ascertain the driver details under the RTA 1988.

Its all a nonsense, and designed to try and appease the public who complain. Think of the yellow jackets and clipboards in road safety areas, where you get a similar letter.

" The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time. "
what a great idea, so long as the driver thinks it's sake then it's okay

"member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence"
I don't have a pilots licence but I could possibly work that say putting a Jumbo jet into a 45% nose dive in not a good idea!

And that's why you're NOT a pilot. I'm not a pilot either but even I can actually think of a situation where it may be necessary to do just that with a jumbo jet. In fact, that was exactly what Air France flight 447 needed although it was an Airbus A330. Unfortunately, an inexperienced pilot made a huge mistake, the aircraft stalled mid-air, dropped like a stone and 228 people died.

There's a good reason why the person in charge of a vehicle at the time is the one trusted with these judgements.

[Forester1965]

If they're doing nothing about it, file under 'B'.

Also, bear in mind there are plenty of bored people with dashcams who will report non-events. Best not to give them ammunition.

[The Gauge]

Pickled Piper said:

vonhosen said:

Did you exceed the 60 limit?

OP you haven't answered the question above.

The Police can't prosecute for speeding based on dashcam footage. So a NIP / warning for driving without due care and attention is often the the option taken.

They aren't accusing him of speeding, are they?

[The Gauge]

Random_Person said:

The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time.

What a wonderful world you must live in. What's it like, please tell us?

[Ham_and_Jam]

QuickQuack said:

And that's why you're NOT a pilot. I'm not a pilot either but even I can actually think of a situation where it may be necessary to do just that with a jumbo jet. In fact, that was exactly what Air France flight 447 needed although it was an Airbus A330. Unfortunately, an inexperienced pilot made a huge mistake, the aircraft stalled mid-air, dropped like a stone and 228 people died.

There's a good reason why the person in charge of a vehicle at the time is the one trusted with these judgements.

Ahhh!! You beat me to it, I was thinking exactly the same scenario

[BertBert]

The whole "necessary" thing is irrelevant as it's part of a "should" HWC clause. It would need to be part of a "must" clause to be part of statute.

[martinbiz]

Pickled Piper said:

vonhosen said:

Did you exceed the 60 limit?

OP you haven't answered the question above.

The Police can't prosecute for speeding based on dashcam footage. So a NIP / warning for driving without due care and attention is often the the option taken.


,

It's irrelevant, the OP has already said he has received a letter saying he won't be prosecuted

And the Police most certainly can prosecute for speeding from video footage, normally high end, but they can and do

[standards]

I’d be tempted to frame the letter alongside relevant HC page with 130 highlighted.

Some people.

[martinbiz]

jondude said:

You could perhaps write back saying 'as the registered owner of the car, could you please inform me why this matter is kept on file, your reasons for doing so and for how long the file is kept? Who will have access to this file?'

(No-one has asked for the driver's details, so do not offer them)


Otherwise yes, bin it. Personally, I would like to know what they are going to do with this file on you.

Yes, I would suggest just a little frightener, quite often has the desired effect especially when dealing with the younger generation, a bit like a roadside warning that you maybe reported, plenty dished out and plenty not followed through. I am sure a present day serving officer on here can confirm it still happens. Their copy will probably end up in the bin in the end also

[Richard-D]

martinbiz said:

jondude said:

You could perhaps write back saying 'as the registered owner of the car, could you please inform me why this matter is kept on file, your reasons for doing so and for how long the file is kept? Who will have access to this file?'

(No-one has asked for the driver's details, so do not offer them)


Otherwise yes, bin it. Personally, I would like to know what they are going to do with this file on you.

Yes, I would suggest just a little frightener, quite often has the desired effect especially when dealing with the younger generation, a bit like a roadside warning that you maybe reported, plenty dished out and plenty not followed through. I am sure a present day serving officer on here can confirm it still happens. Their copy will probably end up in the bin in the end also

The question (at least in part) is "what are they trying to frighten him about?" though. I had also understood the manoeuvre to be a perfectly acceptable one. I've done exactly the same in front of a police car, was I wrong to?

[CoolHands]

Write back and demand to be prosecuted

[oyster]

Scenario A:
Police officer witnesses you overtaking using hatched markings with a broken line. You get pulled and given a warning that you were driving without due care and attention, but that on this occasion you will be let off with a warning and won't be prosecuted.

Scenario B:
Dashcam footage shows you overtaking using hatched markings with a broken line. The police give you a warning that you were driving without due care and attention, but that on this occasion you will be let off with a warning and won't be prosecuted.

I can't see the difference.
Except Scenario B opens up a much wider web of catching really dangerous driving that Scenario A ever will.

[andrebar]

Operation Dashcam needs some ‘positive outcomes’ to justify its existence.

[CHLEMCBH]

Voldemort said:

Ask them for a copy of the footage using the Data Protection Act and also what information 'they will be retaining on file'

Not DPA as it's no longer in place. Make a subject access request, asking for EVERYTHING they have on you

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Scandalous. You have done nothing wrong OP.

The police freely overtake on hatches and chevrons surrounded by a broken white line during all their driver training, it is perfectly acceptable. The definition of necessary is as you deem it to be at the time.

Don't forget this letter will be almost auto generated, one of hundreds sent that day to the constant influx of dashcam warriors that send in low level clips. It will have been sent by a member of staff who may not even possess a driving licence, in line with a locally written policy. It is not a prosecution of any sort, as they don't even know who the driver is and if there were any bones in it the force would have used the correct methodology to ascertain the driver details under the RTA 1988.

Its all a nonsense, and designed to try and appease the public who complain. Think of the yellow jackets and clipboards in road safety areas, where you get a similar letter.

I would say that the police doing it during training is necessary......as part of the training.