Letter from the police

[pavarotti1980]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I know

[Nibbles_bits]

Debaser said:

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g

If you look at the overtake shown at 13 secs and again at 1min 45 secs you'll see an overtake across a hatched area which earned the overtaker a conviction for DWDCA and a driving course. To my mind that looked quick but safe, I can only think he was prosecuted for going over the solid white line at the start of the hatching so would have been ok if he'd entered the hatched area a couple of metres later.

It seems that the definition of DWDCA is fluid and a manoeuvre on the road may or not be considered for prosecution at the whim of an individual member of the Operation Snitch team.

In the OP's case I'd definitely write to the sender of his warning letter and request clarification of what criteria constitutes an offence of DWDCA and establish what justification they've got for accusing him of the offence, including the video evidence. A letter written in the spirit of wanting to learn a lesson would perhaps get a better response than an indignant letter.

Ultimately if one is blanked or ignored, the best course of action would be to submit a formal complaint, but if doing so insist that you will only communicate by letter or email, so that a formal record exists.

Can anyone explain exactly why the driver in this video was done for DWDCA, please?

In short = no.

All the facts and evidence aren't known.

[vonhosen]

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

[Nibbles_bits]

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

According to some on here it's not WDCA

[Nibbles_bits]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You've even suggested it was "staged". If it were "staged" ......what are they staging if not DWDCA??

[vonhosen]

Nibbles_bits said:

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

I suspect because, with everything considered, they believe the driving displayed fell below that expected of a competent & careful driver.
The bar for WDCA is a low bar.

According to some on here it's not WDCA

We can all have an opinion, but it's just that, our opinion & of little real consequence.
That's because our opinion won't affect the outcome of it at all.
The opinions that will affect the outcome, are those of the people who are employed to make decisions about it (The Police employees viewing it & should it come to it, the CPS & court). Because if everybody in that chain is saying it fell below the standard expected you end up convicted, no matter how much you argue it was safe.
The bar for Careless driving/WDCA is a low bar.
Your best defence to it, is probably not to drive in a way that makes you stand out in a crowd.
Although it doesn't define what is or isn't WDCA, it's not a bad idea to consider if you'd have happily done it on your driving test.

[Nibbles_bits]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[Nibbles_bits]

[anonymous-user]

Not sure the view ahead is the great if you're in the offside lane.

[Nibbles_bits]

Forester1965 said:

Not sure the view ahead is the great if you're in the offside lane.

Agreed. It's definitely a better view if you move to the nearside.

[donkmeister]

OP, doesn't look like you have posted a link to the road in question, but I know enough similar places that I could see this falling anywhere on the spectrum of a "naughty overtake" to "utter dick move". There's also the factor of what pushed the person reporting it from a tutt and a mutter up to taking time out of their day to tell the police that they reckon you're a dhead behind the wheel.

For instance, I've seen a few people do exactly the manoeuvre you described (never in a TVR, mind) and in the process it throws stones and crap up. The hatched areas don't get driven on at speed, or swept, so there's a fair bit of rubbish there.

Bet you'd be pissed off if someone started lobbing handfuls of gravel at that lovely paintwork as you drive past, maybe you pebbledashed someone's car?

[donkmeister]

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
.

Glad to see the tt at 2:55 got 8 points and a fine. I wonder how long he had been sat hogging the outside lane before that Vauxhall overtook him?

[Nibbles_bits]

donkmeister said:

Paul Dishman said:

This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
.

Glad to see the tt at 2:55 got 8 points and a fine. I wonder how long he had been sat hogging the outside lane before that Vauxhall overtook him?

Any updates??

[Nibbles_bits]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well there is a corresponding fact, it was DWDCA.

The context being, that the vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit.

[Nibbles_bits]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Speed, entering the hatched area when unnecessary and unsafe = Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.

And as the speed can't be measured by an approved and calibrated device

Are you even a police officer or driver?

Because - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...

"Factors indicating higher culpability.
Excessive speed or aggressive driving"

Or perhaps you could argue with CPS -
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...

"The following may, depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, amount to careless driving:

speeding, which is not aggravated by the prevailing road or traffic conditions, but which is inappropriate"




Again, if entering the hatched area isn't the DWDCA and speed isn't DWDCA.....why is it DWDCA??

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 5th May 14:18

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 5th May 14:23

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 5th May 14:33

[anonymous-user]

Nibbles_bits said:

Are you even a police officer or driver?

Because - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...

"Factors indicating higher culpability.
Excessive speed or aggressive driving"

I hope you're not.

You're using a list of aggrevating features as evidence of an offence when they refer to sentencing once one has been proven.

A careful and competent driver is entitled to use a hatched area, so long as it's safe and necessary to complete whatever manoeuvre they're doing. If they speed whilst they're doing it that isn't evidence of careless driving in and of itself.

[Nibbles_bits]

Forester1965 said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Are you even a police officer or driver?

Because - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...

"Factors indicating higher culpability.
Excessive speed or aggressive driving"

I hope you're not.

You're using a list of aggrevating features as evidence of an offence when they refer to sentencing once one has been proven.

A careful and competent driver is entitled to use a hatched area, so long as it's safe and necessary to complete whatever manoeuvre they're doing. If they speed whilst they're doing it that isn't evidence of careless driving in and of itself.

Quite right, which is why in the same post I suggested that the speed and using the hatched area together might be DWDCA

"The following may, depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, amount to careless driving:

speeding, which is not aggravated by the prevailing road or traffic conditions, but which is inappropriate"

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 5th May 16:39

[RSTurboPaul]

Have we had AGT Law's take on overtaking on hatched areas yet?

[anonymous-user]

I was overtaken on one last weekend.
It was very dodgy in my case!
Me doing 40 in a 40, car in front of me.

The plonker behind performed a 2 car overtake, also used the other side of a traffic island!

On the A4 near Reading.

I have DCW footage, but didn’t dob him in.

[Wills2]

It's all getting a bit democratic people's republic of... isn't it.