Overtaking - how fast??

[Fat Audi 80]

parrot of doom said:

I'd have been straight past him on principle alone. How would he know you broke the speed limit? Got laserguns in his eyes has he? I think this is an extreme case of "I think its too dangerous to overtake therefore nobody else shall do so" which normally applies to civilians, but this copper obviously thought he could back it up with his uniform. Ask him why he didn't pull the trucker over for allowing a large queue to form behind him, and not pulling aside.

Single carriageway HGV limit is 40mph

scary but true

Cheers,

Steve

[james_j]

parrot of doom said:

I'd have been straight past him on principle alone. How would he know you broke the speed limit? Got laserguns in his eyes has he? I think this is an extreme case of "I think its too dangerous to overtake therefore nobody else shall do so" which normally applies to civilians, but this copper obviously thought he could back it up with his uniform. Ask him why he didn't pull the trucker over for allowing a large queue to form behind him, and not pulling aside.

Going at 20 in a 40 seems like an invitation for you to overtake. The BIB mind probably is suspicious of anyone following at such a low speed and not overtaking.

I always overtake a BIB when they're (usually) just below the limit, quite probably inviting you to overtake.

Often, even on a dual carriageway, there's a long line of "sheep" behind the bib, all seemingly afraid to overtake. (Mind you, overtaking seems to be impossible for some people anyway even behind a 5mph tractor on a wide road. GRRRRR.)

[Evocator]

Nonegreen

At no time did I say it was "unacceptable to overtake a BiB at any time" I merely stated that IF you break the law whilst doing so expect to get a talking to.

Thanks for the three educational points and I have said that before that we are "all in need of education" perhaps you will just learn the hard way

1. The law is the law, ignore it in certain circumstances as many of us do, but if seen by the BiB, you will probably have to defend your actions (This is why I said the BiB in this case seemed reasonable)

2. I take it you refer to the way in which the panda car stopped Cheeky and I agree from the description that it was OTT. However, as I said earlier once a conversation had ensued it seemed to go reasonably.

3. Again only if you break the law. Chances are the guy was only protecting is own back in case one of the numpties in the line of traffic reported him for not acting (I'm sure that causes more inconvenience to the BiB)

The reason I looked at the overall experience and thought it was reasonable is this:

Every now and again I expect to be stopped. In most of these cases I'll have stretched the boundaries somewhere and I would like the BiB to look at the whole picture objectively. Where it is deemed my transgressions are on the wrong side of acceptability, I hope that the BiB will discuss the matter and "educate" as opposed to slamming a ticket. I know which will change my driving style to a greater extent after all.

As part of this I also expect to be stopped when the BiB do not have concrete proof that I was breaking the law, but that does not mean I wasn't. (in fact I don't even think they require reasonable cause nowadays?) In these cases the same discussions can take place about appropriate speed etc, its just that the outcome will be slightly more predictable. – You never know, you may actually learn something!!

Why the attitude? The BiB are just doing a job and calling the BiB "pricks" is the worst attitude I've seen expressed to the BiB in a good few years (and I'm surprised Ted has let this go). Okay so I shock easily perhaps, but if everyone started thinking that anyone but a Traffic Cop's opinion was "worthless", we'd all be sliding closer to the plug hole. More Bobbies on the street? Yes please (but remember their opinion is worthless!!)

[nonegreen]

Evocator said:

Nonegreen At no time did I say it was "unacceptable to overtake a BiB at any time" I merely stated that IF you break the law whilst doing so expect to get a talking to. Thanks for the three educational points and I have said that before that we are "all in need of education" perhaps you will just learn the hard way 1. The law is the law, ignore it in certain circumstances as many of us do, but if seen by the BiB, you will probably have to defend your actions (This is why I said the BiB in this case seemed reasonable) 2. I take it you refer to the way in which the panda car stopped Cheeky and I agree from the description that it was OTT. However, as I said earlier once a conversation had ensued it seemed to go reasonably. 3. Again only if you break the law. Chances are the guy was only protecting is own back in case one of the numpties in the line of traffic reported him for not acting (I'm sure that causes more inconvenience to the BiB) The reason I looked at the overall experience and thought it was reasonable is this: Every now and again I expect to be stopped. In most of these cases I'll have stretched the boundaries somewhere and I would like the BiB to look at the whole picture objectively. Where it is deemed my transgressions are on the wrong side of acceptability, I hope that the BiB will discuss the matter and "educate" as opposed to slamming a ticket. I know which will change my driving style to a greater extent after all.

Now you really are talking nonsense. The traffic cop is a trained driver. He is definately going to have a higher level of skill than the average driver who is a civilian, particularly on Mways and urban driving. His opinion is therefore worth listening to. A Pc given a Panda car however is no different than any other muppet in a car, maybe better, maybe worse. If his ego is so large and his brain is so small that he feels he has to stop someone because they overtook him then he is a prick, plain and simple. It ammounts to nothing more than road rage, the fact that he wears a uniform is of no consequense. He had no viable proof that cheaky was exceeding the speed limit and Cheakys best bet would have been to deny it and force the man to either accompany him to the station to speak to superior officer (ie a non- prick) or to drop it and grow up. Faced with the prospect of having to repeat crap like "you should expect trouble if you overtake the police" etc is likely to have the effect of making him back down. Especially as he was driving a vehicle not aproved for persuit and he had not had the training to do so.

Evocator said:

As part of this I also expect to be stopped when the BiB do not have concrete proof that I was breaking the law, but that does not mean I wasn't. (in fact I don't even think they require reasonable cause nowadays?) In these cases the same discussions can take place about appropriate speed etc, its just that the outcome will be slightly more predictable. – You never know, you may actually learn something!! Why the attitude? The BiB are just doing a job and calling the BiB "pricks" is the worst attitude I've seen expressed to the BiB in a good few years (and I'm surprised Ted has let this go). Okay so I shock easily perhaps, but if everyone started thinking that anyone but a Traffic Cop's opinion was "worthless", we'd all be sliding closer to the plug hole. More Bobbies on the street? Yes please (but remember their opinion is worthless!!)

I believe it is you who have the attitude problem, clearly you are driving in a way that antagonises the police and they pull you. I don't so perhaps you might learn something from the fact that I do not get pulled over every few miles. I have been in the past and there are 2 reasons for it.

1, Your car looks a wreck

2 You are driving lake a plonker (this may be slow but still like a plonker)

I invariably got pulled for the 1st reason suring my teenage driving years

I referred to this individual officer as a prick and I continue to do so because I believe what he did to be utterly reprehensible for the reasons I have stated. I do not generally refer to police as pricks and never have. They do indeed have a job to do and I respect them for that, I do not take kindly to your misrepresentation of my words. This individual, however appears to have forgotten that his job is to uphold the law not let his emotions get the better of him and harrass the general public.

I have consulted with my circle of freinds who are IAM members and the odd class 1 retired. They agree the opinion of a panda car driver on those sort of circumstances is worthless. In fact they are concerned about the general standard of panda car driving. It sometimes falls way below what is acceptable from the general public, never mind the police.

Your remarks about police on the street indeed reflect what everone wants. Than does not include untrained personell straying into territory where they have no expertise though. Lets have them out of cars and on foot, thanks for listenning. Oh and BTW the police still need to have reasonable grounds to stop you. It is not yet a police state.

[big dazza]

cheeky_chops said:

I overtook the back one - a police car - Enough room, vision, dashed line.... A mile later i overtook the car and lorry on a long straight, again clear vision.... Next thing, i can see him doing the same and nailing it after me - he slams on the brakes about 2 ft from my bumper... Then the lights

As around a mile had passed since the overtake of the bib car and the tug happened immediately after the 80mph+ overtake of the lorry, I would've thought plod felt cheeky was taking the pi$$ by doing 80 in front of him, rather than actually overtaking his panda car? His "Overtaking a cop car is asking for trouble" could've a bad choice of words (after all, some plod are not famous for being that articulate with the english language)

Having said that, I agree that it was safer to overtake quickly rather than concentrate on my speedo to keep within the 60 limit. Although I'm not sure I would chance whether or not a following bib would agree with me.

However from what cheeky said, the attitude of this particular copper was poor. Its officers like this that give credence to the "All coppers think they're better than god" way of thinking. Which reminds me, where's streetcop lately?

[TripleS]

big dazza said:

...where's streetcop lately?

I dunno, but he's back - just.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Evocator]

Well Nonegreen, it appears you try reading between the lines rather than the actual words on them. Once more you have either misunderstood or assumed too much

I do not get stopped, what I said was I EXPECT to get stopped every now and again.

I also did not say that the opinions of a panda car driver and a traffic cop were of equal standing with regard to this incident, what I said was that the PC’s opinion in any case is not worthless and to assume this without being present is risky at the very least.

What you fail to see is that the PC does not know whether Cheeky is an IAM instructor (making the slight case of speeding acceptable) or a driver who was unaware of potential dangers (in which case some education may well save his life)

Your stance would seem to be that there is nothing that a low ranking PC can teach you (and you may well be right) but take a step back – How is the PC supposed to know that without talking to you?

I stand by what I said that fact that Cheeky was stopped after speeding past a Police car is acceptable (and to be expected) and given the PC was not rude or aggressive there is no problem. Gone said that he too would have done the same as its seen to be taking the p!ss (I believe he is a Traffic Cop)

In short the Police have earned the right to a little respect and I’m surprised at your opinion that a low ranking PC’s opinion is worthless. If that is the stance of an upstanding Piston Header like you, then what can they expect from the more untoward?

PS. I thought the prevention of terrorism act meant we could get stopped without probable cause, but I stand corrected.

[streaky]

Evocator said:

[ ... ] PS. I thought the prevention of terrorism act meant we could get stopped without probable cause, but I stand corrected.

Although the Terrorism Act 2000 widened the 'stop and search' powers of police officers, there are controls.

Terrorism Act 2000:
41. - (1) A constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.

43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4) An authorisation may be given-

(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Exercise of power. 45. - (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)-

(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.

(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.

(5) Where-

(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.

(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.

Duration of authorisation. 46. - (1) An authorisation under section 44 has effect, subject to subsections (2) to (7), during the period-

(a) beginning at the time when the authorisation is given, and
(b) ending with a date or at a time specified in the authorisation.
(2) The date or time specified under subsection (1)(b) must not occur after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the authorisation is given.

(3) The person who gives an authorisation shall inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(4) If an authorisation is not confirmed by the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when it is given-

(a) it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period, but
(b) its ceasing to have effect shall not affect the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on it before the end of that period.
(5) Where the Secretary of State confirms an authorisation he may substitute an earlier date or time for the date or time specified under subsection (1)(b).

(6) The Secretary of State may cancel an authorisation with effect from a specified time.

(7) An authorisation may be renewed in writing by the person who gave it or by a person who could have given it; and subsections (1) to (6) shall apply as if a new authorisation were given on each occasion on which the authorisation is renewed.

Hope this clarifies - Streaky

[gone]

james_j said:

If going past more slowly was somehow safer I'd be amazed. In most instances, you need to get past an obstruction, such as the one you describe, as quickly as possible. It's common sense. Speed limits are not always "common sense".

Common sense!
Now let me see.
Marked vehicle to be overtaken or in the immediate vicinity of your need to exceed the limit. Then sit back and wait until the marked vehicle has disappeared and you will not be troubled!

That is common sense. Those that do not have any common sense will ultimately get the condescending twaddle or even a ticket to reflect on!

Can't say fairer than that either

[streaky]

nonegreen said:

A Pc ... is a prick [ ... ] superior officer (ie a non- prick)

nonegreen - at what stage of a police officer's development do you feel that they move from being a "prick" to being a "non-prick"? On promotion to sergeant, to inspector, or what? Does it happen when they pass their exam, or when they receive their stripes or pips? [Note that my editing of nonegreen's quote was done solely for the sale of brevity.]

I wonder not just because of this thread, but also because of an article I read today wherein was quoted a CC in Yorkshire explaining that the arrest of (as it turned out) an innocent person had provided them with some valuable lessons. I wondered why those lessons hadn't previously been learned by their superiors and applied when 'managing' the affair.

We all learn, but we don't have to put our hands in the fire so to do.

Streaky

[nonegreen]

streaky said:

Lots of vindictive crap that nonegreen never said Streaky

[welshdaz]

nonegreen said:

Oh and BTW the police still need to have reasonable grounds to stop you. It is not yet a police state.

We have the power to stop any vehicle, while in uniform, for ANY purpose.

Sect 163 of the RTA states :

163.—(1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

Nothing about requiring reasonable grounds there.

[Mrs Fish]

julianc said:

What are you taught to do regarding your speed during overtaking on a RideDrive course? (I plan to do this course in a couple of months)

When I did my Ride Drive course, one of the main things I wanted to be taught was safe overtaking...

The speed I was doing in order to do this safely wasn't taken into consideration.

[nonegreen]

Mrs Fish said:

julianc said: What are you taught to do regarding your speed during overtaking on a RideDrive course? (I plan to do this course in a couple of months) When I did my Ride Drive course, one of the main things I wanted to be taught was safe overtaking... The speed I was doing in order to do this safely wasn't taken into consideration.

Roadcraft and the IAM say you must not exceed the limit. This is universally regarded as crap and IAM hierarchy apologise for it in advance. IMO its not just crap its very dangerous indicating that lifting off at 60 mid overtake is good practice is insanity.

[gone]

nonegreen said:

Yes some police are pathetic little pricks arn't they? (same in all walks of life really) Fancy being so immature as to feel that being overtaken is having the piss taken.

I didn't say that and you know it!
What I said was that if you exceed the limit to do so, rather than taking a common sense look at the impending and probable result, then you are most definately taking the piss!

I have no doubt that is something that you would do without hesitation Nonegreen! Challenge everything you can because they system stinks and it does not suit you. How selfish !

Maturity is more about being reasonable I think you will find . Not many of your posts show any of that at all. Most are extreme views which advocate that people should ignore laws and gratify their own personal wishes in the process regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

Taking the piss in front of a Police officer may well lead to you having to spend some of your valuable time defending your actions at a Magistrates court. You may well win that particular personal battle but there is always the possibility that you will not and it will cost you more than your time!
The Police Officer is payed to be there, very often on double time because it is not convenient to get him/her there during normal working times when the court is sitting.


The Police are there to prevent and detect offences. that is the basic definition of their job. Motoring law comes within that remit! If you steal in front of a Police Officer or punch someone in the face and they happen to see it you will be dealt with. If you exceed the permitted limit in front of a Police officer, then expect to be dealt with in one way or another.

I am not so stupid to think that the 'pathetic little prick' remark was aimed at me. How utterly transparent of you Nonegreen !

Nonegreen said:

Unforunately its a risk you take, best bet is have as little to do as possible.

That is probably the first resonable bit of advice I have ever seen you post on this site. Maybe for a man of your age, you are starting to become a little more mature .

nonegreen said:

The only reason the handbooks don't say exceeding the limit is OK while the overtake is on is purely political. The general consensus among the experts is it would be better to allow the limit to be exceeded. There is no real problem with your position though the prick would look very silly in court with nothing to coroborate his opinion and a very silly statement in the first place.

So why invite the situation in the first place so the prick can put you into a position where you have to to rebut his silly evidence about your immature behaviour?

I find this particular post actually quite abusive!
Why resort to insulting language? Is that mature ?
I know you probably don't give a damn about that.
Other more mature and reasonable people may well start to form an opinion about you Nonegreen!

[tvrgit]

don't know what the official IAM position now, but when I was an observer we taught "get past and back in to your own side of the road as quickly as possible" - ie full throttle in the right gear - the TED on the wrong side of the road is far greater than the importance of the speed limit.

This was the view of the examiners - serving Class 1 Traffpol - who were happy as long as you didn't totally take the mick.

[gone]

nonegreen said:

Now you really are talking nonsense. The traffic cop is a trained driver. He is definately going to have a higher level of skill than the average driver who is a civilian, particularly on Mways and urban driving. His opinion is therefore worth listening to. A Pc given a Panda car however is no different than any other muppet in a car,

Now who is talking nonsense!
I drive panda cars on occasions. So do many other ex trafpol. So do some trafpol who are actually still trafpol!

Assumption again Nonegreen
Very mature !

nonegreen said:

Your remarks about police on the street indeed reflect what everone wants. Than does not include untrained personell straying into territory where they have no expertise though.

You don't know that!
You know nothing about the expertise of any Police officer that happens to stop you!

nonegreen said:

Lets have them out of cars and on foot, thanks for listenning. Oh and BTW the police still need to have reasonable grounds to stop you. It is not yet a police state.

And of course you would know about what constitutes reasonable wouldn't you?

[Streetcop]

Deltafox said:

give em a uniform and they think theyre god.......

same in canteens... "You can't have chips unless you have the fish"..

[Pigeon]

"If ye don't eat yer meat - ye can't have any pudding! Hoo can ye have any pudding if ye don't eat yer meat?"

[nonegreen]

gone said:

nonegreen said: Yes some police are pathetic little pricks arn't they? (same in all walks of life really) Fancy being so immature as to feel that being overtaken is having the piss taken. I didn't say that and you know it! I find this particular post actually quite abusive! Why resort to insulting language? Is that mature ? I know you probably don't give a damn about that. Other more mature and reasonable people may well start to form an opinion about you Nonegreen!

Since when did I direct any of my flames at you?

I was responding to evocators forelock touching. Why so touchy today? See I do care what you think

None of what you said is particularly contentious, but I would make a series of judgements if someone pulled me in a panda car for overtaking then decared I should expect trouble if I overtake the police. You see I had a misspent youth and I know a lot about being pulled up by the police