Advised to drive dangerously (in writing) by the Police.

[Who_Goes_Blue]

FFS OP just post a copy of the letter

[Bill]

I suspect the OP has an issue: if he doesn't post the letter we'll assume he's a fool, but if he does it'll be proven.

[Vanordinaire]

Jediworrier said:

Hi davek, I was pulling onto a roundabout from a lane with a pretty big arrow pointing me onto it and apparently I cut up couple of police officers (causing them to nearly have an accident - their own words) attempting to turn right from the lane with the 10ft left arrow in it.

This is the bit I can't get my head round.
The OP says he was pulling onto the roundabout from the left lane of the approach road (with the arrow on it). The other car was also in this same lane , so obviously either behind or in front of the OP in the same lane. How could he possibly "cut off" a car in this same lane as him, the approach road with the left arrow?
Unless, what he means is that the police car was already coming round the roundabout in the left lane , and he pulled out in front of it because " it shouldn't have been there"?
Happy to be corrected OP, but your description doesn't make sense to me.

[BertBert]

Vanordinaire said:

Jediworrier said:

Hi davek, I was pulling onto a roundabout from a lane with a pretty big arrow pointing me onto it and apparently I cut up couple of police officers (causing them to nearly have an accident - their own words) attempting to turn right from the lane with the 10ft left arrow in it.

This is the bit I can't get my head round.
The OP says he was pulling onto the roundabout from the left lane of the approach road (with the arrow on it). The other car was also in this same lane , so obviously either behind or in front of the OP in the same lane. How could he possibly "cut off" a car in this same lane as him, the approach road with the left arrow?
Unless, what he means is that the police car was already coming round the roundabout in the left lane , and he pulled out in front of it because " it shouldn't have been there"?
Happy to be corrected OP, but your description doesn't make sense to me.

It does make sense if you squint a bit. OP was in the RH lane, plod in LH lane from which they were planning to turn right. I presume OP tried to take exit 2 and plod were trying to take exit 3.
Bert

[JNW1]

Marcellus said:

slight change to my guess after the more elusive/vagueness of the OP;

At entry to roundabout
- OP was in right lane.
- Police were in Left lane.

OP wanted exit #2 which if looked at as a clock was somewhere between 20:00 and 01:00 and leads to a MaccyDs
Police wanted exit #3 or 4 which was somewhere between 01:00 and 05:00.

OP cut nose off police in getting his burger, fries and shake.

Therefore, and the point of this whole topic...... OP is saying the left turn arrow on the road refers to exit #1 and exit #1 only.

If this revised guess is correct I think it would be reasonable to assume that all cars entering the roundabout in the right hand lane not taking exit #1 would be going to exit #3 or #4 and therefore if in the left hand lane and not taking exit #1 it woudl be safe to go around to exit #3 or #4.

What isn't safe would be for a car to change lanes on a roundabout to exit a roundabout when there is a car in the lane that they need to cross to get there.

As I say this is all guess work, why not post a link to the actual junction.

Still confused as to where you've got it in writing so please explain!

We are all speculating a bit here but the bit I've highlighted in bold is where I'm confused!

Given the road marking shouldn't anyone approaching the roundabout in the left lane be taking the first exit and turning left? The marking on the road doesn't indicate the left lane is for straight-on or left, it's for left only. Therefore, to my mind anyone going straight-on from the left lane is in no position to complain if they're subsequently "cut-up" by someone going straight-on from the right lane; to me the person who's taken the right lane has interpreted the road marking correctly and it's the person who's taken the left lane to go straight-on (or even worse turn right!) that's made the mistake!

If I'm guessing correctly the police car was in the left lane, didn't turn left and was subsequently cut-up by the OP who had taken the right lane to go straight-on. If that's what happened I'd say the police car was in the wrong lane and therefore not in a position to castigate the OP's driving....

[Bill]

In the absence of a map link, who knows?

[Pica-Pica]

REALIST123 said:

Flumpo said:

I’ve just received a letter from the police regarding this incident. They have also included a photo still from their on onboard camera.

It clearly states and shows the op was in fact in the left lane but going right at the third exit. The police were in the correct right hand lane and going straight over. He apparently nearly hit them so they stopped him to explain the Highway Code.

I’ve just received one of those letters too. I’m not posting it up though, you’d be able to judge how much I’ve misunderstood it if I did that.

I have been advised I should get one soon. I fear it will be written in squid ink on rice paper.

[culpz]

Jediworrier said:

culpz said:

OP, regardless of what happened here, which is about as clear as mud (or at least explained as such), the Police can and will advise you something potentially unorthodox for certain scenarios. I'm not 100% clued up on the Law but i'm pretty sure that's the case. Either way, i'm not really sure what you're after doing with this information or where you're looking to take this next.

Ideally I would like to know why I have been advised to drive in a manner that is likely to cause an accident. (I took out the dangerous driving bit there as it appears i used the wrong terminology - should I use driving with scant reagard for road markings and other drivers?)

I'm still struggling to understand exactly what's happened. You recently replied to someone with the below;

Jediworrier said:

I was pulling onto a roundabout from a lane with a pretty big arrow pointing me onto it and apparently I cut up couple of police officers (causing them to nearly have an accident - their own words) attempting to turn right from the lane with the 10ft left arrow in it.

So, what makes you think you were in the right here? In your words, you cut a copper up and potentially did something dangerous, which is how they have described the incident, but now you're claiming that you received a letter from them that they told you to do something dangerous? What exactly were they asking you to do? Did you follow the arrow or did you do something you thought was right, which turns out to be the opposite?

My point above, in reference to the Police being able to ask you to do something that might go against what the Highway Code might tell you, is what i think is the cause to all of this. For example, if the Police are blocking one lane of a roundabout that is to go straight on, and you wish to go in that direction, do you go into the other lane and go straight on, or do you sit there and beep the Police car or even have a collision to make your point?

In you specific scenario, i've got a feeling that you did the latter, which would be seen as both stupid and dangerous, which is exactly how the Police described your actions. You also said you had no issue in putting up a picture of this said letter on the first few pages. We're 6 pages in now and still nothing.

[Marcellus]

Vanordinaire said:

This is the bit I can't get my head round.
The OP says he was pulling onto the roundabout from the left lane of the approach road (with the arrow on it). The other car was also in this same lane , so obviously either behind or in front of the OP in the same lane. How could he possibly "cut off" a car in this same lane as him, the approach road with the left arrow?
Unless, what he means is that the police car was already coming round the roundabout in the left lane , and he pulled out in front of it because " it shouldn't have been there"?
Happy to be corrected OP, but your description doesn't make sense to me.

He says he pulled onto the roundabout from a lane with an arrow on it, there's an arrow in both lanes, in his photo the arrow in teh right hand lane is obscured.

[dukeboy749r]

Ignoring the to-ing and fro-ing of this thread - a genuine question:

Near me (in Colchester) is a normal road (downhill is the direction of travel for the sake of this question) - at the end the road widens sufficiently that two cars can be at the roundabout together. The road widens sufficiently that the single lane is then marked as two lanes

The left hand portion of this 'lane' has a large 'turn left' arrow on the floor, whilst the right-hand side of the same (essentially widened single lane) has an arrow indicating straight on.

If someone in the left hand lane (which I'd assume people would use to turn left using), does go straight on, then you (often) get a lot of horn beeping as it (frequently) leads the person in the right hand lane to have to brake whilst said driver from the left hand lane sails on merrily straight ahead.

Regardless of other signage, surely the road markings would take precedence?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8847194,0.835120...

[Marcellus]

JNW1 said:

We are all speculating a bit here but the bit I've highlighted in bold is where I'm confused!

Given the road marking shouldn't anyone approaching the roundabout in the left lane be taking the first exit and turning left? The marking on the road doesn't indicate the left lane is for straight-on or left, it's for left only.

You're right we are speculating because the OP is being evasive, if he weren't then we could give an opinion based on the actual junction.

I'm not convinced that the left arrow is for the 1st exit only, but if you want to take the 1st exit then you should only use that lane.

[JNW1]

Marcellus said:

JNW1 said:

We are all speculating a bit here but the bit I've highlighted in bold is where I'm confused!

Given the road marking shouldn't anyone approaching the roundabout in the left lane be taking the first exit and turning left? The marking on the road doesn't indicate the left lane is for straight-on or left, it's for left only.

You're right we are speculating because the OP is being evasive, if he weren't then we could give an opinion based on the actual junction.

I'm not convinced that the left arrow is for the 1st exit only, but if you want to take the 1st exit then you should only use that lane.

But if the marking isn't for left only shouldn't it have one arrow to the left and another for straight-on? That to me would then imply you use the left lane to turn left but you can also use it to take a later exit off the roundabout if you wish. However, a marking with an arrow only to the left implies to me the lane is to be used to turn left at the first exit; if it doesn't mean that why have the marking at all?

[Marcellus]

JNW1 said:

But if the marking isn't for left only shouldn't it have one arrow to the left and another for straight-on? That to me would then imply you use the left lane to turn left but you can also use it to take a later exit off the roundabout if you wish. However, a marking with an arrow only to the left implies to me the lane is to be used to turn left at the first exit; if it doesn't mean that why have the marking at all?

who knows??

All I'm saying is if I were to regularly use a roundabout with a dual carriageway entry, exit #1 at 19:00, a driveway (exit #2) at 22:00 and a dual carriageway ext #3 at 03:00 then if there were nothing in the left lane on entry I don't see anything too wrong with using that lane to exit at #3 (possibly cheeky but not out and out wrong). What I think would be wrong is a vehicle in the right hand lane on entry trying to cut the nose off a car in the left lane to get to the driveway #2 at 22:00.

If played out to extreme the accident would be left lanes car Offside front quarter to right lanes car nearside rear quarter and I the claim would go against the right lanes car as it was he that was changing lanes not the left lane car...... there's nothing technically wrong with driving around the outside of a roundabout.

[culpz]

See, some roundabouts are more simple than others. If you're new to an area and you're coming up to a large roundabout with no signage to show you how many exits it's got, you're essentially taking a punt anyway. What else are you really expected to do?

It's the more basic and obvious roundabouts where it winds me up, when people just don't understand how to use them. Whenever there's heavy traffic, people tend to just use all lanes of certain roundabouts and it ends up being a complete free-for-all.

[BertBert]

culpz said:

See, some roundabouts are more simple than others. If you're new to an area and you're coming up to a large roundabout with no signage to show you how many exits it's got, you're essentially taking a punt anyway. What else are you really expected to do?

And how many 'large' roundabouts are there with no signage?

[JNW1]

Marcellus said:

JNW1 said:

But if the marking isn't for left only shouldn't it have one arrow to the left and another for straight-on? That to me would then imply you use the left lane to turn left but you can also use it to take a later exit off the roundabout if you wish. However, a marking with an arrow only to the left implies to me the lane is to be used to turn left at the first exit; if it doesn't mean that why have the marking at all?

who knows??

All I'm saying is if I were to regularly use a roundabout with a dual carriageway entry, exit #1 at 19:00, a driveway (exit #2) at 22:00 and a dual carriageway ext #3 at 03:00 then if there were nothing in the left lane on entry I don't see anything too wrong with using that lane to exit at #3 (possibly cheeky but not out and out wrong). What I think would be wrong is a vehicle in the right hand lane on entry trying to cut the nose off a car in the left lane to get to the driveway #2 at 22:00.

If played out to extreme the accident would be left lanes car Offside front quarter to right lanes car nearside rear quarter and I the claim would go against the right lanes car as it was he that was changing lanes not the left lane car...... there's nothing technically wrong with driving around the outside of a roundabout.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point I'm afraid!

If I was coming to a "normal" roundabout (so an exit left, an exit straight-on and an exit right) with two lanes around it and I was wanting to turn right (the 03.00 in your scenario) I would definitely be in the right hand lane on approach and indicating right. For me the only direction where the choice of lane on approach is a grey area is if you're going straight-on (in which case for me traffic conditions would probably dictate whether I opted for the left or right lane). However, turning left you clearly need to be in the left lane and (IMO) turning right you clearly need to be in the right lane; personally I see it as plain wrong to be selecting the left lane on approach and then driving all the way round the outside of the roundabout to turn right.

I'm not sure what the Highway Code says on this but if I was a driving examiner - and someone on a driving test without good reason selected the left lane on approach to a roundabout to turn right - I'd fail them!

[tinnitusjosh]

It's pretty obvious what happened, isn't it? OP was in the right hand lane to go straight over and unmarked plod was in the left hand land trying to do the same thing. OP assumed that plod was going left, which seems like a fairly legitimate expectation to me, so drifted towards the exit, inadvertently cutting up plod.

Was OP right to assume that plod were going left because of the big left arrow? Probably. Should he have checked the left was clear before trying to turn of exit 2? Probably.

We're told that the letter advised OP that "the lane with the left arrow is for turning left, going straightish and entering the road to the cafe down a dead end or (the route the officers were taking) the third exit off the roundabout". OK.

OP has interpreted that as an instruction to "drive in a manner that has no consideration to other road users and is likely to cause an accident". That's quite a leap, isn't it?

Aren't plod just saying that, on this particular roundabout, you need to be cognisant of people going straight on or attempting to turn right by going all the way around the roundabout in the outside lane. They're hardly 'advising' you to drive dangerously...

[shakotan]

JNW1 said:

Marcellus said:

JNW1 said:

But if the marking isn't for left only shouldn't it have one arrow to the left and another for straight-on? That to me would then imply you use the left lane to turn left but you can also use it to take a later exit off the roundabout if you wish. However, a marking with an arrow only to the left implies to me the lane is to be used to turn left at the first exit; if it doesn't mean that why have the marking at all?

who knows??

All I'm saying is if I were to regularly use a roundabout with a dual carriageway entry, exit #1 at 19:00, a driveway (exit #2) at 22:00 and a dual carriageway ext #3 at 03:00 then if there were nothing in the left lane on entry I don't see anything too wrong with using that lane to exit at #3 (possibly cheeky but not out and out wrong). What I think would be wrong is a vehicle in the right hand lane on entry trying to cut the nose off a car in the left lane to get to the driveway #2 at 22:00.

If played out to extreme the accident would be left lanes car Offside front quarter to right lanes car nearside rear quarter and I the claim would go against the right lanes car as it was he that was changing lanes not the left lane car...... there's nothing technically wrong with driving around the outside of a roundabout.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point I'm afraid!

If I was coming to a "normal" roundabout (so an exit left, an exit straight-on and an exit right) with two lanes around it and I was wanting to turn right (the 03.00 in your scenario) I would definitely be in the right hand lane on approach and indicating right. For me the only direction where the choice of lane on approach is a grey area is if you're going straight-on (in which case for me traffic conditions would probably dictate whether I opted for the left or right lane). However, turning left you clearly need to be in the left lane and (IMO) turning right you clearly need to be in the right lane; personally I see it as plain wrong to be selecting the left lane on approach and then driving all the way round the outside of the roundabout to turn right.

I'm not sure what the Highway Code says on this but if I was a driving examiner - and someone on a driving test without good reason selected the left lane on approach to a roundabout to turn right - I'd fail them!

People who turn right from left lanes annoy the living fk out of me, usually they dont indicate, and therefore come swinging around and surprising people trying to enter the roundabout from the 3rd exit, they are also needlessly block people who want to enter and the 1st exit and leave at the 2nd. They also get in the way of people who are correctly manoeuvring the roundabout from the right hand lane who end up battling with the idiots who've gone all the way around the outside and want the same exit as them.

[Marcellus]

btw just to clarify all of my comments are on the basis that there is no straight over!

There's a 19/20:00 road, a 22:00 driveway to maccy ds and an 03:00 road.

I'm thinking that the 19:00 and 03:00 are both slip ways to a dual carriageway/motorway.

but as we've all said this is all speculation as the OP is being evasive as to where it happened.

[mikeveal]

Last time I was pulled over by the Police it was for furious pedalling. They sent me a letter later telling me that I should disregard the first law of thermodynamics in the highway code and power my bicycle with a perpetual motion engine. Apparently I was dangerously sweaty near their lane on a roundabout, at a location I will refuse to disclose.

Has anyone else ever had a letter from the Police advising them to ignore the highway code and to go and do a perpetual motion?

and, if so,

has anyone ever got a response from the powers that be as to why they have been advised to ignore first law of thermodynamics?


If so who did you email/ask?


Please don't bother asking me to prove this incredulous fairy tale that I may or may not have made up after a rather enjoyable lunchtime pint of "Boltmaker", because I'm not going to post a picture of the letter, or type any of it's contents.

This is the internet, if you're not prepared to believe everything you read here, or if you want more information before you can advise, then frankly you shouldn't be on here.