Castle Combe Sat / Sun
Discussion
I have read with interest the intellectual ping pong between ca092003 & Street Cop, 6 pages in all with no definitive answer. I tend to belive (not naively) that TrafPol is probably right and some form of exemption can be found buried in the annuals of Road Traffic History (probably alongside the bit that says a man with a red flag must preceed all motorised vehicles) but has that been the point of this exercise. I think ca092003 is just using this grey area to smugly have a bash at BiB's in general or Street Cop in particular, either way it's not big and it's not clever. To return to the original post as A biker I take on board the issues surrounding noisy race Cans and mini number plates and if I had any spare points left on my licence I may consider riding with a loud exhaust but I do ride with a legally tinted visor I am Taxed Insured MOT'd and try not to attract the attention of Plod, unlike the small number plate gang who wheelie down the road get pulled then whinge and whine when they get ticketed. why can't people get on with their hobby/pastime without impinging on others by flouting the law.
white panman said:
I have read with interest the intellectual ping pong between ca092003 & Street Cop, 6 pages in all with no definitive answer. I tend to belive (not naively) that TrafPol is probably right and some form of exemption can be found buried in the annuals of Road Traffic History (probably alongside the bit that says a man with a red flag must preceed all motorised vehicles) but has that been the point of this exercise. I think ca092003 is just using this grey area to smugly have a bash at BiB's in general or Street Cop in particular, either way it's not big and it's not clever. To return to the original post as A biker I take on board the issues surrounding noisy race Cans and mini number plates and if I had any spare points left on my licence I may consider riding with a loud exhaust but I do ride with a legally tinted visor I am Taxed Insured MOT'd and try not to attract the attention of Plod, unlike the small number plate gang who wheelie down the road get pulled then whinge and whine when they get ticketed. why can't people get on with their hobby/pastime without impinging on others by flouting the law.
white panman
You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not bashing him on purpose. He claims there is an exemption but he has failed to provide a clear and definitive reference for that claim. Now, call me old fashioned but I tend to think that when someone tells me something that I don't necessarily agree with, then I go away and research it. I have done this in this case.
But, if there is no exemption, there is no exemption and to prosecute MoP for such offences while also breaking the same law is, in my honest opinion, off-side.
I am actively involved in my community and come into contact with local BiB all the time. I have no reason to bash the police. They do a difficult job in todays world. But they, too, have to abide by the rules, except where they have a exemption.
Here's my 2p's worth.
Having read the whole thread (which is now really off thread), I'm not sure there is an exemption for emergency service vehicles to cross double white lines, except in the same circumstances that apply to other road users.
However, I have got someone checking for a "definitive" answer for me, and as soon as I have it, I'll post it here.
As an aside, what should I do when I'm on an emergency run, with blues and twos, and MoP pulls to side of road in DWL area, without enough room for me to pass without crossing DWL? The fact that the MoP has stopped would not seem to be covered in the exemptions for crossing a DWL.
Having read the whole thread (which is now really off thread), I'm not sure there is an exemption for emergency service vehicles to cross double white lines, except in the same circumstances that apply to other road users.
However, I have got someone checking for a "definitive" answer for me, and as soon as I have it, I'll post it here.
As an aside, what should I do when I'm on an emergency run, with blues and twos, and MoP pulls to side of road in DWL area, without enough room for me to pass without crossing DWL? The fact that the MoP has stopped would not seem to be covered in the exemptions for crossing a DWL.
No probs with me Dibble....
I think you've hit it on the head with the stopped car example...if a MoP does that, then crossing the solid white line would have to be done....
It's a judgement call and if it's justified...I'll do it...If of course I collide with an oncoming car..I'll spend some time grabbing my ankles in the Superintendants office, I don't doubt....
As for ca09200335873799532 comments....I think he/she would be only too happy for a BiB to cross a solid white line if it meant them reaching his emergency quicker...
Or perhaps not...some people's ideas and morals are so cast in stone they'd rather suffer than lose face.
Street
I think you've hit it on the head with the stopped car example...if a MoP does that, then crossing the solid white line would have to be done....
It's a judgement call and if it's justified...I'll do it...If of course I collide with an oncoming car..I'll spend some time grabbing my ankles in the Superintendants office, I don't doubt....
As for ca09200335873799532 comments....I think he/she would be only too happy for a BiB to cross a solid white line if it meant them reaching his emergency quicker...
Or perhaps not...some people's ideas and morals are so cast in stone they'd rather suffer than lose face.
Street
Streetcop said:
No probs with me Dibble....
I think you've hit it on the head with the stopped car example...if a MoP does that, then crossing the solid white line would have to be done....
It's a judgement call and if it's justified...I'll do it...If of course I collide with an oncoming car..I'll spend some time grabbing my ankles in the Superintendants office, I don't doubt....
As for ca09200335873799532 comments....I think he/she would be only too happy for a BiB to cross a solid white line if it meant them reaching his emergency quicker...
Or perhaps not...some people's ideas and morals are so cast in stone they'd rather suffer than lose face.
Street
Streetcop
I think this thrad has trun its natural course now. We are going round in circles.
Anyway, I have no real problem with BiB's crossing a DWL if done safely. On that point I think we all agree.
Imagine if there was a TrafPol car targetting people crossing DWL's on a B road. He targets and prosecutes 4 drivers. A local panda car comes along, crosses the DWL but the TrafPol takes no action.
Is it because:
1. The panda guy is "on the good guys side"
2. The panda guy has a higher level of training
3. The maneovure was done in total safety
Personally, I would hope that it was 3, but I am not so sure.
I don't consider my ideas or views to be set in stone. I consider them flexible. I am persuaded by a decent argument and will, where necessary, admit I was wrong and modify my position. You should try it sometime.
Mornin Street
jayjay said:
What happens if a truck is broken and the only way around it is to cross the white line?
You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
Street
ca092003 said:
ca092003 said:
I don't consider that I am plod-bashing. I consider that I am hypocrisy bashing. It *is* hypcritical for MoP's to be prosecuted for solid white line offences when BiB's don't.
Is it therefore hypocritcal that police can exceed the speed limit and treat red lights as 'Give Ways' on emergency runs also
Sort out your 'chip' or you'll end up with a shoulder injury....
Street
StreetCop
This is the last time I am going to explain this to you. If you can't understand it, then that is not my problem.
The Road Traffic Act (1988) specificly permits speed limits and red lights to be ignored. I have seen the text there in black and white. Do you want a link to it?
There is no such exemption to permit the crossing of solid white lines.
NOW do you understand?
The fact that none of your BiB colleagues have come to your defence on this issue speaks volumes.
So, CAxxxxxx,
Perhaps you should look at this thread
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=130845&f=10&h=0
Where it is demonstrated that it is legally permissible for a policeman to cross a solid white line.
Streetcop said:
So much for discretion then.... Might as well just replace you with more civilian camera operatives.
Absolutely! No need for a police officer to be in the back of a van....
Sorry Gary, you are absolutely wrong on this one. A recent court ruling referred to an old case where it was defined that the initial impression of speed must be made by a CURRENTLY SERVING POLICE OFFICER. The speed measurement device is merely corroborative evidence and may not be used as primary evidence.
Should you receive a NIP from a Talivan operation simply ask for the POLICE OFFICER's number, if no police officer then there is 'no case to answer'.
kevinday said:
So, CAxxxxxx,
Perhaps you should look at this thread
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=130845&f=10&h=0
Where it is demonstrated that it is legally permissible for a policeman to cross a solid white line.
As we now have a dedicate thread on the subject of DWL's - I'll continue there.
kevinday said:
Sorry Gary, you are absolutely wrong on this one. A recent court ruling referred to an old case where it was defined that the initial impression of speed must be made by a CURRENTLY SERVING POLICE OFFICER. The speed measurement device is merely corroborative evidence and may not be used as primary evidence.
Can you confirm the details of this ruling?
The reason I ask, is the following, from one of my "sources":
"Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states a person cannot be convicted of an offence of speeding solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding the specified limit.
This subsection requires corroborative evidence; it does not require that there must necessarily be more than one witness. Corroboration is usually provided by some mechanical device, which is read by an operator who may then give evidence of its reading. These readings will provide corroboration of the operator's opinion of the speed of the vehicle in question.
Normally this method of enforcement is undertaken by a police officer, although Section 89 of the act does not specify that the witness has to be a police officer.
The witness will have to satisfy the court as to their ability to form an opinion of a vehicle speeding.
The requirements of corroboration do not apply to general speeding offences on motorways."
I'd caution PHers against using this defence unless it was confirmed - not because I think they should get done, but wouldn't like to see them get unnecessarily hammered if found guilty, when without using this "defence", they may have accepted FPN or pleaded guilty and got lesser penalty (hope that makes sense).
Dibble said:
Sorry Gary, you are absolutely wrong on this one. A recent court ruling referred to an old case where it was defined that the initial impression of speed must be made by a CURRENTLY SERVING POLICE OFFICER. The speed measurement device is merely corroborative evidence and may not be used as primary evidence.
Can you confirm the details of this ruling?
The reason I ask, is the following, from one of my "sources":
"Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states a person cannot be convicted of an offence of speeding solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding the specified limit.
This subsection requires corroborative evidence; it does not require that there must necessarily be more than one witness. Corroboration is usually provided by some mechanical device, which is read by an operator who may then give evidence of its reading. These readings will provide corroboration of the operator's opinion of the speed of the vehicle in question.
Normally this method of enforcement is undertaken by a police officer, although Section 89 of the act does not specify that the witness has to be a police officer.
The witness will have to satisfy the court as to their ability to form an opinion of a vehicle speeding.
The requirements of corroboration do not apply to general speeding offences on motorways."
I'd caution PHers against using this defence unless it was confirmed - not because I think they should get done, but wouldn't like to see them get unnecessarily hammered if found guilty, when without using this "defence", they may have accepted FPN or pleaded guilty and got lesser penalty (hope that makes sense).
Hi Dibble,
Case is DPP v Whelton 2nd April 2004 at Bristol Crown Court. This is a persuasive precedent, plus
In Neath Magistrates court on 19th May 2004 this Whelton case was referenced by the defence. The prosecution immediately dropped the speeding charge. I know this is a non-binding case (Neath) but the Whelton case is (Crown Court).
Also these cases:
Weatherhogg v Johns (1931) 95JP Jo 364, DC.
Russell v Beasley [1937] I All ER 527, DC.
In these cases the defendant was convicted on the evidence of one police officer following the defendant’s car and noting the speedometer reading on the police vehicle, and of a person who checked the speedometer and found it to be recording accurately.
Brighty -v- Pearson [1938] 4 All ER 127
In this case the defendant was convicted on the evidence of two police officer, the second corroborating the opinion of the first as to excess speed.
Plus:
Barton v Gilbert [1984] R.T.R. 162 - Wilkinson 6.81
adds weight to it.
Enjoy!
All we want is sensible policing by police, not robotic enforcement of rules which do very little for safety, dependent on the local conditions at the time.
kevinday
Many thanks for the prompt response!
I shall pass these cases/details on to my "source".
As I said, I only cautioned against using this defence because I wouldn't want to see someone get unnecessarily hammered (notwithstanding that getting done for 35 in a 30 isn't getting unecessarily hammered in the first place, but I hope you see where coming from).
Many thanks for the prompt response!
I shall pass these cases/details on to my "source".
As I said, I only cautioned against using this defence because I wouldn't want to see someone get unnecessarily hammered (notwithstanding that getting done for 35 in a 30 isn't getting unecessarily hammered in the first place, but I hope you see where coming from).
I understand Dibble.
I would like to see Dangerous Driving or DWDCA where the speed is actually causing a problem to somebody rather than the speeding. Also drop the automatic charge of Dangerous Driving if over 120 mph or whatever it is. Save it for a situation where the driving is dangerous, not just because an arbitary number was exceeded.
I would like to see Dangerous Driving or DWDCA where the speed is actually causing a problem to somebody rather than the speeding. Also drop the automatic charge of Dangerous Driving if over 120 mph or whatever it is. Save it for a situation where the driving is dangerous, not just because an arbitary number was exceeded.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff