Castle Combe Sat / Sun
Discussion
Streetcop said:
ON AN EMERGENCY RUN...I wouldn't overtake on solid white lines where I couldn't see far enough in front to perform it safely.
I think that goes without saying.
Streetcop said:
However, the solid white lines that appear to be put down on roads due to accident rates, and the line of sight is 100s of metres, I would consider overtaking in. If not do so so would hinder my progress.
Progress in an emrgency sense or just progress?
Streetcop said:
The overriding rule is: no emergency warrants putting myself and others in danger.
Street
Accepted. But would you ALWAYS book a MoP for a solid white line offence, even if it was done in complete safety?
Streetcop said:
ON AN EMERGENCY RUN...I wouldn't overtake on solid white lines where I couldn't see far enough in front to perform it safely.
Nor should anyone else.
streetcop said:
However, the solid white lines that appear to be put down on roads due to accident rates, and the line of sight is 100s of metres, I would consider overtaking in. If not do so so would hinder my progress.
Yes I tend to do that occasionally.
streetcop said:
The overriding rule is: no emergency warrants putting myself and others in danger.
...lifted pretty well straight from the page of "Roadcraft." Yes I sometimes read it too.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
ca092003 said:
However, the solid white lines that appear to be put down on roads due to accident rates, and the line of sight is 100s of metres, I would consider overtaking in. If not do so so would hinder my progress.
Progress in an emrgency sense or just progress?
Emergency sense only!
Streetcop said:
The overriding rule is: no emergency warrants putting myself and others in danger.
Street
[quote=ca092003]Accepted. But would you ALWAYS book a MoP for a solid white line offence, even if it was done in complete safety?
Yep..absolutely. Like I would book them for exceeding speed limits, or going through a red traffic light.
Street
ca092003 said:
And it will only continue to get worse...
What will continue?
Discretion is a wonderful thing, but very hard to justify later....
One driver gets off with an offence and another gets done for the same offence. Lets say the drivers were of different colours....try justifying that at a later discipline hearing....
Discretion can mean weakness
Street
Streetcop said:
And it will only continue to get worse...
What will continue?
Discretion is a wonderful thing, but very hard to justify later....
One driver gets off with an offence and another gets done for the same offence. Lets say the drivers were of different colours....try justifying that at a later discipline hearing....
Discretion can mean weakness
Street
Assuming you are on about speeding, I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some days ago. If you pull someone and they cannot answer positively to questions like:
What is the overall stopping distance at 70MPH?
What is the limit point?
What is the most important rule to observe when driving progressively?
Blah blah
Then they have no understanding of what it means to drive fast safely. Therefore 'book em. If they do understand, then perhaps some advice would be more appropriate. It goes without saying that where people are discriminated against because of ther colour, that is totally unacceptable.
ca092003 said:
Accepted. But would you ALWAYS book a MoP for a solid white line offence, even if it was done in complete safety?
Streetcop said:
Yep..absolutely. Like I would book them for exceeding speed limits, or going through a red traffic light.
Street
What a waste....
Just my 2p worth!
I think what Street is trying to tell you is that if it's an emergency AND it's safe to do so, he'll cross a solid line to 'make progress'
Members of the public are never involved in emergencies so should rightly be booked for crossing solid lines. Everyone knows what they mean so should expect the consequences if caught (medical emergencies excepted but that would be dealt with by discretion I'm sure)
Red lights are the same.
Whether it's legal for BiB to cross solid lines or not is a separate issue(ie the law should be changed) Just because the law appears to be an ass doesn't mean you should take it out on Street, he's just doing his job, go and lobby your MP or someone who could actually change the law.
Speeding is a different issue.....discretion might be a good idea
mcecm said:
Just my 2p worth!
I think what Street is trying to tell you is that if it's an emergency AND it's safe to do so, he'll cross a solid line to 'make progress'
Members of the public are never involved in emergencies so should rightly be booked for crossing solid lines. Everyone knows what they mean so should expect the consequences if caught (medical emergencies excepted but that would be dealt with by discretion I'm sure)
Red lights are the same.
Whether it's legal for BiB to cross solid lines or not is a separate issue(ie the law should be changed) Just because the law appears to be an ass doesn't mean you should take it out on Street, he's just doing his job, go and lobby your MP or someone who could actually change the law.
Speeding is a different issue.....discretion might be a good idea
I'm not taking it out on Street - I am merely educating him that his view of the world is not necessarily correct. He'd be the first to ram it down my throat, or indeed your throat, if he got the opportunity.
Is it possible to exceed the speed limit in total safety? Yes.
Is it possible to exceed the cross a red light in total safety? Yes.
Is it possibe to cross a solid white line in total safety? Yes.
Personally, I only do the first one but each to his/her own.
Streetcop said:
I just have a problem with the police being labelled as hypocrites regarding traffic laws...
It does seem to me that this forum has of late developed a distressing tendency towards plod-bashing, with nits being picked apparently for the sake of picking nits.
I don't have a problem with the statement that someone performing an overtake on double whites, even if it was safe, gets an automatic pull. Without a pull there would seem to be no means of ascertaining whether the manoeuvre was deliberately safe or an act of recklessness that happens to have been performed in safety. The fact that the pullee either didn't spot the police car or didn't care about it would seem to suggest that their observation or reckoning was not up to scratch, anyway.
Streetcop said:
I do have a problem with tongue studs though
Pigeon said:
It does seem to me that this forum has of late developed a distressing tendency towards plod-bashing, with nits being picked apparently for the sake of picking nits.
If that is aimed at me, 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.
Pigeon said:
I don't have a problem with the statement that someone performing an overtake on double whites, even if it was safe, gets an automatic pull. Without a pull there would seem to be no means of ascertaining whether the manoeuvre was deliberately safe or an act of recklessness that happens to have been performed in safety. The fact that the pullee either didn't spot the police car or didn't care about it would seem to suggest that their observation or reckoning was not up to scratch, anyway.
Car may have been unmarked. I'm not actually advocating that people 'get away' with solid white line offences. I am advocating that if BiB's need an exemption then they should seek one. What they should not do is flout the law as that sends completely the wrong signal. Enforcers of the law must be above reproach.
The way I look at it, if BiB don't believe this law applies to them then what other laws don't apply to them?
ca092003 said:
It does seem to me that this forum has of late developed a distressing tendency towards plod-bashing, with nits being picked apparently for the sake of picking nits.
If that is aimed at me, 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.
No, it wasn't aimed at any individual. It was aimed at the general tone of a lot of threads on this forum lately.
ca092003 said:
I don't have a problem with the statement that someone performing an overtake on double whites, even if it was safe, gets an automatic pull. Without a pull there would seem to be no means of ascertaining whether the manoeuvre was deliberately safe or an act of recklessness that happens to have been performed in safety. The fact that the pullee either didn't spot the police car or didn't care about it would seem to suggest that their observation or reckoning was not up to scratch, anyway.
Car may have been unmarked. I'm not actually advocating that people 'get away' with solid white line offences. I am advocating that if BiB's need an exemption then they should seek one. What they should not do is flout the law as that sends completely the wrong signal. Enforcers of the law must be above reproach.
The way I look at it, if BiB don't believe this law applies to them then what other laws don't apply to them?
It would be interesting to see what Streetcop's inspector has to say on this thread... I would hazard a guess that the risk of sending the wrong signal in this case is minimal. It's taken this thread 5 pages to get to the point where someone else "believes" there is no exemption; I reckon the average MOP assumes that emergency vehicles can do all the things the MOP wishes they were allowed to
I do agree that if an exemption is needed then they should seek one, but Streetcop's inspector presumably has good reason to think that they already do. mcecm said:
ca092003 said:
Accepted. But would you ALWAYS book a MoP for a solid white line offence, even if it was done in complete safety?
Streetcop said:
Yep..absolutely. Like I would book them for exceeding speed limits, or going through a red traffic light.
Street
What a waste....
Just my 2p worth!
I think what Street is trying to tell you is that if it's an emergency AND it's safe to do so, he'll cross a solid line to 'make progress'
Members of the public are never involved in emergencies so should rightly be booked for crossing solid lines. Everyone knows what they mean so should expect the consequences if caught (medical emergencies excepted but that would be dealt with by discretion I'm sure)
Red lights are the same.
Whether it's legal for BiB to cross solid lines or not is a separate issue(ie the law should be changed) Just because the law appears to be an ass doesn't mean you should take it out on Street, he's just doing his job, go and lobby your MP or someone who could actually change the law.
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 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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff