Letter from the police
Discussion
Random_Person said:
So speed is DWDCA in your world?
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
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. Because - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
"Factors indicating higher culpability.
Excessive speed or aggressive driving"
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.
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. Because - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
"Factors indicating higher culpability.
Excessive speed or aggressive driving"
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.
"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
Wow. What a hold you are digging yourself into. Its quite comical but concerning if what you claim to be be is true. Serious lack of understanding of the law.
The speed can be measured by other means if it really was required, not just a home office approved device. There is also nothing unsafe in the manoeuvre, or inconsiderate.
Yes I was / am a driver and motorcyclist. Spent my career developing my skills, ending up as a trainer.
The speed can be measured by other means if it really was required, not just a home office approved device. There is also nothing unsafe in the manoeuvre, or inconsiderate.
Yes I was / am a driver and motorcyclist. Spent my career developing my skills, ending up as a trainer.
Nibbles_bits said:
Quite right, which is why in the same post I suggested that the speed and using the hatched area together might be DWDCA
That means driving school would be DWDCA for the majority of all the driving courses and refreshers.I would love to carry on with this farcical conversation but I genuinely have other stuff to do. Enjoy the bickering, I'm off.
Random_Person said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Quite right, which is why in the same post I suggested that the speed and using the hatched area together might be DWDCA
That means driving school would be DWDCA for the majority of all the driving courses and refreshersI would love to carry on with this farcical conversation but I genuinely have other stuff to do. Enjoy the bickering, I'm off.
Random_Person said:
The speed can be measured by other means if it really was required, not just a home office approved device. There is also nothing unsafe in the manoeuvre, or inconsiderate.
Yes. Someone would have to physically attend the location and measure the road markings, and then examine the footage to establish how long it took for the
BMW to travel the distance.
Or, because speed is a factor = DWDCA.
"Nothing unsafe" except the speed. You yourself said the BMW appeared to be doing 60 (in a 40) and the DCW doing 40 (in a 40).
So, you thoughts are that the speed, approximately 20mph over the posted limit, isn't unsafe?
And you're training people??
Nibbles_bits said:
Random_Person said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Quite right, which is why in the same post I suggested that the speed and using the hatched area together might be DWDCA
That means driving school would be DWDCA for the majority of all the driving courses and refreshersI would love to carry on with this farcical conversation but I genuinely have other stuff to do. Enjoy the bickering, I'm off.
ScoobyChris said:
Nibbles_bits said:
"Nothing unsafe" except the speed.
Curious, what specifically makes the speed “unsafe”? If the speed limit was 60 would it still be unsafe? Video looks pretty uneventful.Chris
Because as others have said - it's perfectly safe to enter the hatched area to overtake.
But in this case, the speed is excessive (60) for the posted speed limit (40)
ScoobyChris said:
Nibbles_bits said:
"Nothing unsafe" except the speed.
Curious, what specifically makes the speed “unsafe”? If the speed limit was 60 would it still be unsafe? Video looks pretty uneventful.Chris
Driving just has to fall below the standard expected.
This whole discussion seems somewhat... fuzzy...
... in that if one can legally enter a hatched area to overtake (because it would be necessary to enter it to effect the overtake, rather than whether or not that overtake is 'necessary') but doing so might be seen as not falling within 'the standard expected' by a passing plod / a bod in the office that receives the footage from DCWs and therefore fall under DWDCA ...
... then it seems to basically mean that overtaking on hatched areas cannot be done unless one is brave/foolhardy/willing to argue the toss in court as to the subjective application of DWDCA.
... in that if one can legally enter a hatched area to overtake (because it would be necessary to enter it to effect the overtake, rather than whether or not that overtake is 'necessary') but doing so might be seen as not falling within 'the standard expected' by a passing plod / a bod in the office that receives the footage from DCWs and therefore fall under DWDCA ...
... then it seems to basically mean that overtaking on hatched areas cannot be done unless one is brave/foolhardy/willing to argue the toss in court as to the subjective application of DWDCA.
RSTurboPaul said:
This whole discussion seems somewhat... fuzzy...
... in that if one can legally enter a hatched area to overtake (because it would be necessary to enter it to effect the overtake, rather than whether or not that overtake is 'necessary') but doing so might be seen as not falling within 'the standard expected' by a passing plod / a bod in the office that receives the footage from DCWs and therefore fall under DWDCA ...
... then it seems to basically mean that overtaking on hatched areas cannot be done unless one is brave/foolhardy/willing to argue the toss in court as to the subjective application of DWDCA.
Overtaking isn't DWDCA, but how, when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.... in that if one can legally enter a hatched area to overtake (because it would be necessary to enter it to effect the overtake, rather than whether or not that overtake is 'necessary') but doing so might be seen as not falling within 'the standard expected' by a passing plod / a bod in the office that receives the footage from DCWs and therefore fall under DWDCA ...
... then it seems to basically mean that overtaking on hatched areas cannot be done unless one is brave/foolhardy/willing to argue the toss in court as to the subjective application of DWDCA.
Entering a hatched area isn't DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Exceeding a speed limit isn't necessarily DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
vonhosen said:
Overtaking isn't DWDCA, but how, when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Entering a hatched area isn't DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Exceeding a speed limit isn't necessarily DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
So what we’re saying then is, basically…. The police should utilise their personnel and time doing something much more useful.Entering a hatched area isn't DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
Exceeding a speed limit isn't necessarily DWDCA, but how when & where you do it may amount to DWDCA.
That seems a pretty reasonable summary of the whole thing, frankly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff