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

[Jediworrier]

woodyTVR said:

I think you'll find if you read my post again I'm agreeing with you.

I think I was questioning how the copper was technically right?

[Jediworrier]

Marcellus said:

OP at this point where were you in relation to the Police car?

My thinking being if you were in front then yes police were being a bit ttish, but if they were in front they might view it the other way.

I was at the front of the right hand lane, they were in the left hand lane. When an opportunity arose to enter the roundabout in a safe manner I put the pedal to the metal and unleashed the full power of my turboless diesel works van that I've owned for over 16years in a crazy attempt to cut them up, cause an accident and realise my van is worth more to me intact than being in an accident for driving like a tw@.

Or I could have just started executing the manouvre earlier as the traffic passed me (in the righthand lane) before it passed the traffic in the left?

[Jediworrier]

JNW1 said:

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?

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!).

I was lucky to get this letter, apparently I'd been given incompete details when I asked for their ID and was initially told they were untraceable.

[Marcellus]

Jediworrier said:

I was at the front of the right hand lane, they were in the left hand lane. When an opportunity arose to enter the roundabout in a safe manner I put the pedal to the metal and unleashed the full power of my turboless diesel works van that I've owned for over 16years in a crazy attempt to cut them up, cause an accident and realise my van is worth more to me intact than being in an accident for driving like a tw@.

Or I could have just started executing the manouvre earlier as the traffic passed me (in the righthand lane) before it passed the traffic in the left?

We’ve got that, the question was where were you both on the road where the sign post on the road was, ie before the road opened out to the junction?

[Shuvi McTupya]

Marcellus said:

We’ve got that, the question was where were you both on the road where the sign post on the road was, ie before the road opened out to the junction?

I can't see why that would be relevant, although my thoughts would be that the cop car took the left hand lane as it is probably less travelled and allowed him to pass a couple of cars on the approach to the roundabout and then got pissed off when his progress was impeded by someone following the road markings..

[JNW1]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Marcellus said:

We’ve got that, the question was where were you both on the road where the sign post on the road was, ie before the road opened out to the junction?

I can't see why that would be relevant, although my thoughts would be that the cop car took the left hand lane as it is probably less travelled and allowed him to pass a couple of cars on the approach to the roundabout and then got pissed off when his progress was impeded by someone following the road markings..

My thoughts entirely! Reading between the lines the driver of the unmarked police car thought he was going to be a clever devil by taking the wrong lane to approach the roundabout and then bouncing whatever was in the right lane to make a few places on the road. He's then got irritated because his plan hasn't worked, the more so because it's been thwarted by an old van; he's then worked on attack as the best form of defence by having a go at the OP. All in all very poor all round from the driver of the unmarked police car in my view...

[Marcellus]

JNW1 said:

Shuvi McTupya said:

Marcellus said:

We’ve got that, the question was where were you both on the road where the sign post on the road was, ie before the road opened out to the junction?

I can't see why that would be relevant, although my thoughts would be that the cop car took the left hand lane as it is probably less travelled and allowed him to pass a couple of cars on the approach to the roundabout and then got pissed off when his progress was impeded by someone following the road markings..

My thoughts entirely! Reading between the lines the driver of the unmarked police car thought he was going to be a clever devil by taking the wrong lane to approach the roundabout and then bouncing whatever was in the right lane to make a few places on the road. He's then got irritated because his plan hasn't worked, the more so because it's been thwarted by an old van; he's then worked on attack as the best form of defence by having a go at the OP. All in all very poor all round from the driver of the unmarked police car in my view...

Equally a works van could have been behind a car and thought as they approached a roundabout then they would unleashed the full power of their van to try and nip around a car and was surprised when the car wasn't taking the first exit and wasn't quite far enough ahead as the full power of the van wasn't quite enough to safely complete the move.

We're only getting one side of the story here guys, the letter does remind the OP that they have an "obligation to check sufficiently for other vehicles before manoeuvring" to me that reads that once on the roundabout there was a van on the inner lane and a car on the outer lane and the van tried to exit the roundabout without sufficient room to do so.

Winding the scenario back to before the entry; if the van were ahead and then the car decided to undertake across the left turn arrow then and put itself in the blind side of the van then the car is a tt!

However, if the car were ahead whilst it may have been a surprise to the van that the car was on it's blindside as the van was overtaking the car they should have been aware of it's existence and ensured that they took their exit in a safe manner and the car might not have been such a tt.

Looking at the aerial view of the roundabout (ignore the arrow for a moment) then there's not that significant a in the angle of exit to either junction from the angle of approach that the OP was on;

[robinessex]

This shows the corner better. The left arrow means GO TO THE A27 ONLY

[Antony Moxey]

Marcellus said:

the letter does remind the OP that they have an "obligation to check sufficiently for other vehicles before manoeuvring"

Indeed. I wonder if a similar letter was sent to the officers, who given their training should be even more aware of their obligations and the potential for possible driving mistakes from members of the public than your average motorist.

This obviously passed them by completely so they decided the best way to deal with the situation was to wade in two footed with aggression and confrontation. Poor form from plod, they could have handled it much better.

[Riley Blue]

robinessex said:

This shows the corner better. The left arrow means GO TO THE A27 ONLY

Without an explicit instruction on the road, i.e. 'A27' or 'turn left' I understand it is advisory, not mandatory.

[JNW1]

Riley Blue said:

robinessex said:

This shows the corner better. The left arrow means GO TO THE A27 ONLY

Without an explicit instruction on the road, i.e. 'A27' or 'turn left' I understand it is advisory, not mandatory.

But it's advisory for a reason and that's because, given the road layout, it makes no sense to be selecting the left lane to do anything other than turn left. That being the case the advice given to the OP in the letter - which is the left lane would have been the more appropriate one for him to be occupying - is just nonsense IMO.

[Marcellus]

Antony Moxey said:

Indeed. I wonder if a similar letter was sent to the officers, who given their training should be even more aware of their obligations and the potential for possible driving mistakes from members of the public than your average motorist.

Not if they weren't changing lanes on a roundabout though, it may explain what then happened, especially if they were at the roundabout entry before the van, so therefore actually established in their lane past the road marking!

[robinessex]

Riley Blue said:

robinessex said:

This shows the corner better. The left arrow means GO TO THE A27 ONLY

Without an explicit instruction on the road, i.e. 'A27' or 'turn left' I understand it is advisory, not mandatory.

Er, the arrow on the road says TURN LEFT. No reason for it to be there otherwise.

[Shuvi McTupya]

JNW1 said:

But it's advisory for a reason and that's because, given the road layout, it makes no sense to be selecting the left lane to do anything other than turn left. That being the case the advice given to the OP in the letter - which is the left lane would have been the more appropriate one for him to be occupying - is just nonsense IMO.

Indeed. I imagine if a cop saw you going straight on from the obviously marked left hand turn lane, he would have something to say about it..

[JNW1]

Marcellus said:

Antony Moxey said:

Indeed. I wonder if a similar letter was sent to the officers, who given their training should be even more aware of their obligations and the potential for possible driving mistakes from members of the public than your average motorist.

Not if they weren't changing lanes on a roundabout though, it may explain what then happened, especially if they were at the roundabout entry before the van, so therefore actually established in their lane past the road marking!

What do you mean by "established in their lane past the road marking"? Just because (hypothetically) they'd gone past the arrow and were sitting at (say) the give-way to enter the roundabout why would that mean another road user would be expecting them to do anything other than turn left? If they were in the left lane both the road markings and the layout of the road suggest only a left turn is appropriate; therefore, yes the police car was established in its lane and from that lane it should have turned left - problem is it went straight-on!

[JNW1]

Marcellus said:

However, if the car were ahead whilst it may have been a surprise to the van that the car was on it's blindside as the van was overtaking the car they should have been aware of it's existence and ensured that they took their exit in a safe manner and the car might not have been such a tt.

The OP said he was at the front of the right lane waiting to enter the roundabout with the police car in the left lane; that being the case I don't see how the police car can ever have been in front of the OP on the roundabout?

Given the road layout the OP has presumably joined the roundabout and then moved to the left once beyond the exit to the A27 because he wanted to leave at the next exit. Now perhaps he hasn't checked his mirrors to make sure nothing was on his inside - in which case his mistake - but the police car shouldn't have been there because from the lane it was in approaching the roundabout it should have turned left.

So perhaps the OP made an error by assuming someone wouldn't go straight-on from the left lane; however, in my book the person who is the real idiot is the one who did go straight-on from the left lane!

[Jediworrier]

Marcellus said:

We're only getting one side of the story here guys, the letter does remind the OP that they have an "obligation to check sufficiently for other vehicles before manoeuvring" to me that reads that once on the roundabout there was a van on the inner lane and a car on the outer lane and the van tried to exit the roundabout without sufficient room to do so.

When I pulled out to join the roundabout there was no obvious danger. The first I knew that I'd apparently upset someone was when I heard a horn and looked in my nearside mirror to see a car extremely close to the rear of my vehicle straddling the red area marked with white lines.
There was no lane changing on the roundabout and the only place there may have been insufficient room upon exiting the roundabout was the distance between the rear of my vehicle and the one that I'd apparently cut up causing me to say to the passenger 'I think I'm about to be on the receiving end of some road rage' as I was followed to the cafe at the dead end.

[Jediworrier]

Antony Moxey said:

Indeed. I wonder if a similar letter was sent to the officers, who given their training should be even more aware of their obligations and the potential for possible driving mistakes from members of the public than your average motorist.

This obviously passed them by completely so they decided the best way to deal with the situation was to wade in two footed with aggression and confrontation. Poor form from plod, they could have handled it much better.

What mistake did I make?

[Jediworrier]

JNW1 said:

The OP said he was at the front of the right lane waiting to enter the roundabout with the police car in the left lane; that being the case I don't see how the police car can ever have been in front of the OP on the roundabout?

Given the road layout the OP has presumably joined the roundabout and then moved to the left once beyond the exit to the A27 because he wanted to leave at the next exit. Now perhaps he hasn't checked his mirrors to make sure nothing was on his inside - in which case his mistake - but the police car shouldn't have been there because from the lane it was in approaching the roundabout it should have turned left.

This pretty much sums it up. I didn't check my mirror for a couple of seconds after pulling out as I was positioning myself on the roundabout and thought looking where I was going was a slightly better idea.

[Antony Moxey]

Marcellus said:

Antony Moxey said:

Indeed. I wonder if a similar letter was sent to the officers, who given their training should be even more aware of their obligations and the potential for possible driving mistakes from members of the public than your average motorist.

Not if they weren't changing lanes on a roundabout though, it may explain what then happened, especially if they were at the roundabout entry before the van, so therefore actually established in their lane past the road marking!

Why do you keep making up a scenario to match your viewpoint? There’s nothing in the story so far that says the police were ahead of the OP, yet time and again you’ve put forward this theory. Why not accept the OP’s version?