Advised to drive dangerously (in writing) by the Police.
Discussion
The arrows would be better if they weren't there. They serve no purpose if you can pass the first junction.
The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
So plod was in the L lane (marked L) and wanted to turn right at 3rd or 4th exit.
OP was in the R lane and and was going just L of straight on, (marked R / straight on).
Plod gets all uppity / on a power trip when they almost collide.
I am with the OP on this one. Agreed some poor road design and poor awareness contributed, but plod has driven below a standard to which should be expected. If you are turning R from a L lane then you need to be aware that someone to your R might be wanting to exit before you.
Is there any way of pushing for some more driver training for plod? Although the letter suggests that the OP would be better in the L lane, it does not suggest that plod would have been better in the R lane...
OP was in the R lane and and was going just L of straight on, (marked R / straight on).
Plod gets all uppity / on a power trip when they almost collide.
I am with the OP on this one. Agreed some poor road design and poor awareness contributed, but plod has driven below a standard to which should be expected. If you are turning R from a L lane then you need to be aware that someone to your R might be wanting to exit before you.
Is there any way of pushing for some more driver training for plod? Although the letter suggests that the OP would be better in the L lane, it does not suggest that plod would have been better in the R lane...
Shuvi McTupya said:
I would be tempted (if you wanted to take it further) to write to whichever department is responsible for road markings and asking for their opinion on what that the arrows mean.
If they disagree with the police, you could then have an interesting discussion with both of them..
in which case your interpretation of 'interesting' would differ vastly from mine!If they disagree with the police, you could then have an interesting discussion with both of them..
Pica-Pica said:
So, the letter advises you to drive carefully at roundabouts then. I see no advice to drive dangerously.
I agree the letter doesn't advise the OP to drive dangerously but IMHO it really is pretty poor advice to suggest you should be approaching that roundabout in the left lane with a view to doing anything other than turning left. If - as the author of the letter claims - the left hand lane is suitable for turning left or going straight-on why does the advisory arrow not look like the one in the left lane in the picture below? I'd suggest it doesn't because the aerial view of the roundabout confirms the left lane on approach is best suited to turning left only!
My conclusion to all this is the OP hasn't been advised to drive dangerously by the Police but, let's face it, none of us ever believed he had. However, I suspect that in the incident he highlighted it was actually the police car that was more in the wrong; of course you need to pay attention to the traffic around you but disregarding advisory road markings to push your way into the traffic isn't great either (especially from people who are meant to set an example). The letter sounds like an officer trying to justify the actions of his colleagues but for me it's just defending the indefensible; given the road markings and layout of the roundabout he's a complete plant-pot if he thinks going straight-on from the left lane makes as much a sense as turning left...
Who_Goes_Blue said:
Finally he`s posted it. And no surprise that the thread title is total garbage.
Is it? Does driving in a manner that could cause an accident not seem dangerous?Are you suggesting I should ignore the highway code and follow the advise from the chap that found the markings confusing that apparently nearly caused a law abiding officer to have a crash due to my terrible driving?
How bad does a crash have to be before it's dangerous?
This has made me think!
Should I follow the advice and cause an accident (which would obviously be my fault) would it help in the aftermath if I produced a letter advising me I should ignore the advise offered from the highway code at this location?
Hi JNW1,
The letter advises me to ignore the highway code and drive in a manner that apparently caused two officers to nearly have an accident. They felt the need to follow me to a dead and and shout at me so I do believe they nearly had an accident unless.. do you think they were lying?
Too dangerous for me, I'll stick to the right hand lane.
The letter advises me to ignore the highway code and drive in a manner that apparently caused two officers to nearly have an accident. They felt the need to follow me to a dead and and shout at me so I do believe they nearly had an accident unless.. do you think they were lying?
Too dangerous for me, I'll stick to the right hand lane.
woodyTVR said:
The arrows would be better if they weren't there. They serve no purpose if you can pass the first junction.
The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
I have no qualms with internet peeps thinking I'm stupid, what I can't get my head round is ignoring big freaking arrows! The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
Presumably whilst making your judgement about the copper being right (for neglecting to note road markings and follow accordingly as is suggested in rule 184...etc) you took into account the keep clear markings and the accessability of the roundabout when at peak times,with backed up traffic, only the right hand lane has access to the roundabout?
Some confusion is added by the signage on approach to the roundabout. Streetview shows :
So the turn into the Services is shown as a 90 left, which does sort of accord with the arrow on the road. Nevertheless I think the plod were the plonkers - but not such big plonkers as whoever is responsible for the signage.
So the turn into the Services is shown as a 90 left, which does sort of accord with the arrow on the road. Nevertheless I think the plod were the plonkers - but not such big plonkers as whoever is responsible for the signage.
Having received that letter I might be inclined to reply to the author thanking him for taking the time to investigate the incident and coming to the conclusion that the arrows were confusing and misleading.
With that in mind perhaps the author might similarly issue a communique to the officers concerned reminding them of THEIR obligation to be more observant when entering a roundabout and that given their advanced training perhaps they should anticipate motorists’ confusion regarding the arrows.
The author might further remind the officers that perhaps it would be better to try to educate and advise motorists on what appears to be a genuine mistake over confusing road markings rather than admonishing them in a threatening and aggressive manner.
I’m with the OP: I would view the markings as the left lane being for the left turn and the right lane being for either of the two on the roundabout.
With that in mind perhaps the author might similarly issue a communique to the officers concerned reminding them of THEIR obligation to be more observant when entering a roundabout and that given their advanced training perhaps they should anticipate motorists’ confusion regarding the arrows.
The author might further remind the officers that perhaps it would be better to try to educate and advise motorists on what appears to be a genuine mistake over confusing road markings rather than admonishing them in a threatening and aggressive manner.
I’m with the OP: I would view the markings as the left lane being for the left turn and the right lane being for either of the two on the roundabout.
robinessex said:
The arrow explicitly indicates a turn to the LEFT only. Any other is interpretation is WRONG. The Police action was wrong, the letter b
ks. I'd pass this to the chief constable myself. Ex BSM qualified driving instructor is me.
Yup, i would love to see what happened if the shoe was on the other foot and you tried to go straight on from the left hand lane and there was a cop car getting in your way!ks. I'd pass this to the chief constable myself. Ex BSM qualified driving instructor is me.Shuvi McTupya said:
robinessex said:
The arrow explicitly indicates a turn to the LEFT only. Any other is interpretation is WRONG. The Police action was wrong, the letter bks. I'd pass this to the chief constable myself. Ex BSM qualified driving instructor is me.
Yup, i would love to see what happened if the shoe was on the other foot and you tried to go straight on from the left hand lane and there was a cop car getting in your way!ks. I'd pass this to the chief constable myself. Ex BSM qualified driving instructor is me.gothatway said:
Some confusion is added by the signage on approach to the roundabout. Streetview shows :
So the turn into the Services is shown as a 90 left, which does sort of accord with the arrow on the road. Nevertheless I think the plod were the plonkers - but not such big plonkers as whoever is responsible for the signage.
But the police weren't taking any of the junctions to the left, they only went to the services to admonish the OP so should have taken the outside lane anyway.So the turn into the Services is shown as a 90 left, which does sort of accord with the arrow on the road. Nevertheless I think the plod were the plonkers - but not such big plonkers as whoever is responsible for the signage.
Jediworrier said:
Hi JNW1,
The letter advises me to ignore the highway code
This is why people have been negative, it DOES NOT advise you of that, the letter does not tell you to "ignore the highway code"...the way you wrote it was "I have a letter telling me to ignore the highway code"....we would then expect those words.The letter advises me to ignore the highway code
Surely you can understand the difference?
The letter explains how to interpret the highway code and agrees it is confusing.
What we do all agree is that the Police should have been more careful as it would be very safe for any other driver to assume that they were going to turn left, therefore they should have pre-empted that.
Jediworrier said:
woodyTVR said:
The arrows would be better if they weren't there. They serve no purpose if you can pass the first junction.
The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
I have no qualms with internet peeps thinking I'm stupid, what I can't get my head round is ignoring big freaking arrows! The copper is technically right but he's an idiot for not expecting you to take the Service station lane and an even bigger idiot for arguing the point. I'd imagine most people posting in the advanced driving forum would say he should have anticipated it and driven accordingly because technically you're in the right too and very likely to go into that lane.
In fact I'd post this in the advanced driving section but word it as though you were the one in the left lane and someone from the right lane cut you up. Unless they've read this I bet the majority tell you, you were stupid.
Presumably whilst making your judgement about the copper being right (for neglecting to note road markings and follow accordingly as is suggested in rule 184...etc) you took into account the keep clear markings and the accessability of the roundabout when at peak times,with backed up traffic, only the right hand lane has access to the roundabout?
Caddyshack said:
This is why people have been negative, it DOES NOT advise you of that, the letter does not tell you to "ignore the highway code"...the way you wrote it was "I have a letter telling me to ignore the highway code"....we would then expect those words.
Surely you can understand the difference?
The letter explains how to interpret the highway code and agrees it is confusing.
What we do all agree is that the Police should have been more careful as it would be very safe for any other driver to assume that they were going to turn left, therefore they should have pre-empted that.
I agree the OP could have given the thread a better title but I don't agree the letter explains how to interpret the Highway Code; it just tries to justify the actions of officers who it seems were far more at fault than the OP. If (as the OP has now suggested) they were taking the final exit off the roundabout to head to London then a) what then on earth were they doing in the left lane approaching the roundabout and b) how did they have the bare faced cheek to then criticise the OP for his driving when they were the ones in the wrong? Surely you can understand the difference?
The letter explains how to interpret the highway code and agrees it is confusing.
What we do all agree is that the Police should have been more careful as it would be very safe for any other driver to assume that they were going to turn left, therefore they should have pre-empted that.
Rather than writing a letter trying to excuse their incompetence the author would have been better reminding his own colleagues about the Highway Code (and perhaps politely suggesting that when they next make a mistake they don't adopt attack as the best form of defence by taking it out on an innocent member of the public!).
Caddyshack said:
This is why people have been negative, it DOES NOT advise you of that, the letter does not tell you to "ignore the highway code"...the way you wrote it was "I have a letter telling me to ignore the highway code"....we would then expect those words.
Surely you can understand the difference?
The letter explains how to interpret the highway code and agrees it is confusing.
What we do all agree is that the Police should have been more careful as it would be very safe for any other driver to assume that they were going to turn left, therefore they should have pre-empted that.
As I stated earlier I was under the impression following the highway code was mandatory and have pretty much tried to follow those rules for a fair few years without any incidents. Surely you can understand the difference?
The letter explains how to interpret the highway code and agrees it is confusing.
What we do all agree is that the Police should have been more careful as it would be very safe for any other driver to assume that they were going to turn left, therefore they should have pre-empted that.
I'm informed in the letter that I should have been in the left hand lane to take my preferred exit but I have to agree I'm not advised to follow this advise though I'm pretty sure that is what the letter implies, apologies for the bad thread title,
How does the letter explain how to interpret the highway code.
How on earth does anyone in a position to advise on driving find the road markings difficult?
Bad thread title, possibly - finding the road markings very confusing, that's were I'm lost!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff