Letter from the police

[Nibbles_bits]

Fermit said:

That BMW overtake is in no way DWDC, it's clearly sighted, and no opposite direction traffic.

Again, was it necessary to overtake at that point?

[ScoobyChris]

Paul Dishman said:

The course is the penalty

I might be misreading this:

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

Specifically the bit that says:

Must endorse and may disqualify. If no disqualification impose 3 – 9 points


I don't see any mention of offering a course instead?

Chris

[Nibbles_bits]

ScoobyChris said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Was it necessary though?
If they'd waited 20s they wouldn't have needed to enter the chevoned area at all.

It was necessary to enter the hatched area to complete the overtake they decided to take, yes. Whether they should have decided to overtake further up the road is another matter.

Chris

But could they have waited until after the chevrons?

Yes, so entering the hatched area was unnecessary.

[ScoobyChris]

Nibbles_bits said:

But could they have waited until after the chevrons?

Yes, so entering the hatched area was unnecessary.

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

[pavarotti1980]

ScoobyChris said:

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

I think his reference is RTA not HC

[Random_Person]

ScoobyChris said:

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

[otolith]

I'd read it as "don't routinely drive on this bit unless you have a reason to" - so where they have used a big central strip of cross hatchings to visually narrow the road and calm traffic, you're not expected to ignore it and use it as part of your lane.

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

Observation doesnt seem to be one of your skills. he said previously he was recently retired after 30 years and last 10 spent on RPU. I would hazard a guess he might be a driver

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

ScoobyChris said:

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

But it wasn't necessary to overtake at that point, therefore it wasn't necessary to enter the hatched area.

Perhaps it's you that's not understanding the issue here, because he was sent on a course which is a very strong suggestion that this was DWDCA.

[Nibbles_bits]

pavarotti1980 said:

Random_Person said:

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

Observation doesnt seem to be one of your skills. he said previously he was recently retired after 30 years and last 10 spent on RPU. I would hazard a guess he might be a driver

Sorry Pav, not retired, still very much in and working for a "real" police force 😉

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

Nibbles_bits said:

But it wasn't necessary to overtake at that point,

If he’d left it later, until the end of the hatchings as you seem to be suggesting, it would have been a much less safe overtake due to the approaching right-hand bend. So yes, I’d argue that it was necessary to overtake at that point rather than later, and therefore to enter the hatchings, in order to make the overtake safe.

[Nibbles_bits]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

If he’d left it later, until the end of the hatchings as you seem to be suggesting, it would have been a much less safe overtake due to the approaching right-hand bend. So yes, I’d argue that it was necessary to overtake at that point rather than later, and therefore to enter the hatchings, in order to make the overtake safe.

So that stretch of road isn't a safe place to overtake.....because there's a chevroned area on before the right hand bend??

How else can this be DWDCA??

Because he drove over the solid part of the broken white lines forming part of the hatched area where they meet to form the broken white lines around the hatched area??

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Thursday 2nd May 14:38

[pavarotti1980]

Nibbles_bits said:

Sorry Pav, not retired, still very much in and working for a "real" police force ??

Haha sorry to burst your bubble and realise no retirement just yet. Hopefully not much longer till you can hang up your white hat

[Random_Person]

Nibbles_bits said:

Sorry Pav, not retired, still very much in and working for a "real" police force ??

Looks like its not my observation skills in question then.

[Random_Person]

Nibbles_bits said:

But it wasn't necessary to overtake at that point, therefore it wasn't necessary to enter the hatched area.

Perhaps it's you that's not understanding the issue here, because he was sent on a course which is a very strong suggestion that this was DWDCA.

You speak like you are the authority behind the definition of necessary and it's application to DWDCA. They are two separate things entirely.

The BMW driver deemed it necessary to enter the hatched area, and that is not the issue. The only issue is committing early and using a right hand filter lane from the opposing carriageway.

Hence the only possible argument for DWDCA is the fact that he has overtaken within a physical feature, i/e a filter lane, and then crossed the solid white. Everything after that without issue.

[Debaser]

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?

[Paul Dishman]

Nibbles_bits said:

Random_Person said:

ScoobyChris said:

They could have not overtaken at all ... so the overtake wasn't necessary. Maybe they were driving for fun, so the journey wasn't necessary. You are misinterpreting the wording in the HC - it is not about whether the overtake is necessary, it's about whether entering the hatching is necessary and to complete the overtake at that point on the road, the answer is yes.

Chris

Exactly, and this is why the overtake was perfectly fine. I too think DWDC is a steep move for that - if it was even a genuine penalty. Who is to say the results are not made up purely for the video - no way to disprove it and it may well be.

But either way, that looks like a 60mph road with the filming vehicle doing around 40mph, so perfectly fine if committed to a bit early. And it was necessary to enter the hatches to overtake. You say you are in the force Nibbles - presume your not a driver then

But it wasn't necessary to overtake at that point, therefore it wasn't necessary to enter the hatched area.

Perhaps it's you that's not understanding the issue here, because he was sent on a course which is a very strong suggestion that this was DWDCA.

The driver could well have opted to take a course rather than argue his case in court and risk a bigger fine and three points on his licence.

This is just another example of Dash Cam wkerdom playing into the hands of the local Police Commissioner Useless Hernandez and her moronic idea of getting drivers to take her Vision Zero pledge

[Nibbles_bits]

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.?

[Panamax]

Surely the point here isn't about the detail of the manoeuvre. It's that,

• Another road user was sufficiently motivated to take the time and effort to send dashcam footage to the police, and
• The police were sufficiently interested to follow up that dashcam footage rather than just binning it.

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

Looks like its not my observation skills in question then.

Well his comment (which you missed) did say done 30 years so its fair to draw inferences from that. Maybe you don't think RPU are drivers.....

Are you a cop or civvy in the Met?