Bypassing traffic lights using filter lane and U Turn?
Discussion
There is a junction on the A5 at Weedon where if you approach to cross the A5 from the M1 towards Daventry on the A45 it is possible to take the left hand filter lane to head South on the A5 and then immediately do a U turn then taking the left filter lane again to continue along the A45 having avoided waiting at the traffic lights.
My son was stopped by the BIB after pulling this manoeuvre although they did not do anything other than check his car etc. etc. and this is probably because I have set a bad example by doing the same myself at this particular junction
I would not pull this move during a driving test, advanced or otherwise because it stinks of impatience and may be seen as "queue jumping" by other drivers but what are others views on "making progress" in this way??
My son was stopped by the BIB after pulling this manoeuvre although they did not do anything other than check his car etc. etc. and this is probably because I have set a bad example by doing the same myself at this particular junction
I would not pull this move during a driving test, advanced or otherwise because it stinks of impatience and may be seen as "queue jumping" by other drivers but what are others views on "making progress" in this way??
https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.233282,-1.075692&...
I would if safe and did not inconvenience anyone else
I would if safe and did not inconvenience anyone else
There are / were junctions in Manchester Road, Bradford (one each direction) where I used to do this, when the lights changed at the approipriate time.
The junctions in Northampton (Harlestone Road and Bants Lane) where I used to do this have had the left hand "Give Way" lanes paved over.
The junctions in Northampton (Harlestone Road and Bants Lane) where I used to do this have had the left hand "Give Way" lanes paved over.
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with a manoeuvre such as the one described, provided it is safe. Whether I would do it is another matter.
The problem we have is that there is a little known provision in the RTA 1988, section 3, which deals with "Driving without reasonable consideration". So what, you might ask? Unfortunately, for proponents of this type of manoeuvre, the CPS has issued guidelines that state, inter alia,... misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; is considered an offence under the provisions of "Driving without reasonable consideration"
I would be interested to know what others think as to whether or not the CPS would have a case for prosecuting this manoeuvre, or similar, under section 3. Has the driver "gained some advantage over other drivers"? Might be difficult to refute that one. But, have any other drivers been inconvenienced?
The relevant section of CPS guidance is reproduced below:
Driving without reasonable consideration:
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
Charging Practice
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
The problem we have is that there is a little known provision in the RTA 1988, section 3, which deals with "Driving without reasonable consideration". So what, you might ask? Unfortunately, for proponents of this type of manoeuvre, the CPS has issued guidelines that state, inter alia,... misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; is considered an offence under the provisions of "Driving without reasonable consideration"
I would be interested to know what others think as to whether or not the CPS would have a case for prosecuting this manoeuvre, or similar, under section 3. Has the driver "gained some advantage over other drivers"? Might be difficult to refute that one. But, have any other drivers been inconvenienced?
The relevant section of CPS guidance is reproduced below:
Driving without reasonable consideration:
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
Charging Practice
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Edited by johnao on Sunday 9th February 11:45
johnao said:
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with a manoeuvre such as the one described, provided it is safe. Whether I would do it is another matter.
The problem we have is that there is a little known provision in the RTA 1988, section 3, which deals with "Driving without reasonable consideration". So what, you might ask? Unfortunately, for proponents of this type of manoeuvre, the CPS has issued guidelines that state, inter alia,... misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; is considered an offence under the provisions of "Driving without reasonable consideration"
I would be interested to know what others think as to whether or not the CPS would have a case for prosecuting this manoeuvre, or similar, under section 3. Has the driver "gained some advantage over other drivers"? Might be difficult to refute that one. But, have any other drivers been inconvenienced?
The relevant section of CPS guidance is reproduced below:
Driving without reasonable consideration:
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
Charging Practice
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
I think that as the filter lanes are being used for their purpose and a "U" turn is a legitimate manoeovre then "misuse of any lane" would not apply. Agreed there is "use" of a lane to avoid queuing but that should not constitute an offence as it is effectively no different that using an empty lane at traffic lights to avoid a queue in the other lane. (Assuming of course that both lanes are straight on lanes)The problem we have is that there is a little known provision in the RTA 1988, section 3, which deals with "Driving without reasonable consideration". So what, you might ask? Unfortunately, for proponents of this type of manoeuvre, the CPS has issued guidelines that state, inter alia,... misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; is considered an offence under the provisions of "Driving without reasonable consideration"
I would be interested to know what others think as to whether or not the CPS would have a case for prosecuting this manoeuvre, or similar, under section 3. Has the driver "gained some advantage over other drivers"? Might be difficult to refute that one. But, have any other drivers been inconvenienced?
The relevant section of CPS guidance is reproduced below:
Driving without reasonable consideration:
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
Charging Practice
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Edited by johnao on Sunday 9th February 11:45
There are so, so many traffic controlled junctions throughout the country now where lights are not needed for most, if not all, of the day. And don't even get me started on traffic lights on roundabouts!!!
If it weren't so often totally safe to cross these junctions when lights are at red it would not be possible to do the more complex manouevres detailed here.
I am also sure that it is the apparently unchecked proliferation of (unneeded) traffic lights in the UK that encourages more and more people to pass lights on red just after they have changed.
I would not be the first to wonder why we don't have 4-way flashing ambers throughout the night at these unnecessary lights. It has worked for decades on mainland Europe, where I first saw them around 1970.
How can we press for these to be brought in? Would a Government petition reach the required 100,000 signatures?
Wojja fink?
jagracer said:
Sorry to hijack but did there used to be a hotel there called Crossroads Hotel?
Yes! There was. And there is:http://www.chefandbrewer.com/pub/cross-roads-hotel...
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff