A lot of words to the wise if you organise or go on runs!
Discussion
Background
I started organising PH runs on the Scotland forum some years ago. Others have been doing so more recently.
A couple of years ago on a PH run there was a small accident involving one of those attending and another car. The PH car skidded on some water going around a corner. There were other factors as always.
After that I circulated this advice to those who organise runs both on this and other forums and clubs. It was for discussion and comment.
This is a slightly amended version of what was circulated, which I trust people will find helpful.
I HAVE NOT UPDATED THIS FROM THEN.
This is part of what was written referring initially to the incident and the Police action:
The police seemed to have a complete obsession about trying to find other cars that were participating on the run including a “red Ferrari” and various other “sports cars” driving at “high speed” although there appeared to be no real evidence of anyone actually speeding. I also received various reports from those on the run that they were quite concerned at the police’s attitude as it seemed to be particularly obsessed about trying to find out about the run and less interested in the wellbeing and welfare of the injured driver. That upset quite a few people.
Whilst I am perfectly clear that I and others who have organised runs both on and off Pistonheads and on other car clubs do so entirely legitimately, legally and without any intention of illegality it is best to be forearmed and prepared in case issues arise and to be aware of the law, the problems and to have a standardised approach. Clearly because of my work I would not countenance or be involved in any manner or means of anything that amounted to illegality nor would I give or be expected to give any advice about covering up illegality.
It is in that context that the following is open for discussion:-
Statutory Provisions
There are a few offences which are potentially relevant of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The first is Section 2 which is “A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on the road or public place is guilty of an offence.”
Dangerous driving is defined in Section 2A of the Act “2A(a) The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent careful driver and (b) it would be obvious to a competent careful driver that driving that way would be dangerous.” Sub Section 3 provides “In Sub Section (1) and (2) above dangerous refers to danger either of the injury to any person or serious damage to property; and in determining for the purpose of those sections what would be expected of or obvious to a competent and careful driver in a particular case regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he would be expected to be aware but also any circumstances shown or to be within the knowledge of the accused.”
In the case of McQueen v Buchanan 1996 a driver was charged with driving on a single carriageway with a 60mph limit at 114 mph. The Court of Appeal held that it was for the Sheriff to take account of all the facts and circumstances including that the traffic was light in both directions but also the degree to which other drivers may be perceived or put at risk by the accused’s excessive speed and therefore the test was satisfied. The Court held in that case along with many others that excessive speed may in itself give rise to obvious risk in certain circumstances but that the statutory is test satisfied without requiring to carry out a minute examination of the road layout and the presence or otherwise of other road users. This stated that the demands of public safety require a common sense approach to determine what amounts to dangerous driving. Potential risks which must be assessed when considering the particular circumstances which existed at the time.
Predictably the High Court decided to stand away from that when it suited them and in the subsequent case of Howdle v O’Connor 1998 the Sheriff acquitted a driver of driving at 119mph on a motorway because there were no hazards on the motorway and the traffic was moderate. The Court of Appeal on a Crown Appeal held that the Sheriff was wrong and that the gross excess of speed and the presence of other cars and meant the accused was guilty of dangerous driving. Although that position has been qualified in an English case called Milton in 2006 the Scottish Courts are unlikely to pay much attention to that.
The next offence is careless driving which is Section 3 which provides “If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road or other public place without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road is guilty of an offence.”
The standard of care and attention is an objective one fixed and impersonal governed by the general needs of the public fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway.
The issue of whether someone was driving carelessly raises only a question of fact. Courts will not normally look to identify whether there has been an error or judgement or not.
Whilst careless driving is a less serious offence than dangerous increasingly cases involving excessive speed, driving at close proximity etc. are considered to be careless driving.
To get a conviction it is necessary for the Crown to show actual inconvenience rather than inconvenience may have been caused. Additionally other persons on the road can include passengers in the car.
The next and probably most relevant Section for our purpose is Section 12 which provides “A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public way is guilty of an offence. A public way is a public road in Scotland .”
There is relatively little law on Section 12. Two people agree to comply with the law i.e. not to contravene any road traffic regulations but trying to see who can get to a particular point first could be regarded as a race. There does not require to be any prior agreement and the decision to race can be spontaneous.
From experience these type of cases tend to arise when it appears that vehicles are effectively racing or urging with each other to pass one another, or one seems to be keeping the other deliberately behind and both travelling at speed. Because dangerous driving is probably an easier catch all decision, it tends to be more commonly charged than Section 12.
Although two cars could be regarded as racing it is not necessary to charge both drivers or to actually catch both drivers. It is sufficient for the Crown to charge and fine one driver of racing. Accordingly somebody could be attempting to race you but you would be doing nothing to race them.
The other offence which is relevant is Section 13 and 13a.
Section 13 provides “A person who promotes and takes part in a competition or trial (other than a race or trial speed) involving motor vehicles on a public way is guilty of an offence unless the competition or trial is (a) authorised and (b) is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed by or under any regulations under the section (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to authorise and provide for the authorising and holding of competitions and trials (other than race or trials at speed) involving the use of motor vehicles on a public way either (a) generally or (b) as regards any area in regard to any class or description of competition trial or any competition or trial subject to such conditions including conditions requiring payment of fees that may be imposed under these Regulations.
The appropriate Regulations for Scotland are the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) ( Scotland ) Regulations 1976.
The Regulations made under that Section are extensive. They provide that an event means “competition or trial involving the use of motor vehicles on public highways”.
An exclusion or pre authorised event is defined in terms of Regulation 5(b) as being “An event in which no merit is attached to completing the event with the lowest mileage and in which in respect of such part of the event as is held on a public highway, there are no performance tests and no route and competitors are not timed or required to visit the same places, except they may be required to finish at the same place by a specified time.” Accordingly for the type of events that we organise it is fairly clear that the regulations do not apply but I think that we have to have a series of disclaimers which are put out as a precursor to any event that we wish to organise.
What would concern me is if, for example, we have a predetermined finish and start point and estimation of times and a route with suggested stop points for coffee or scenery that that could be regarded as an event requiring compliance with Section 13. I would see that as being more of a problem for the organisers where the police could try and chuck it in as a means of trying to find anything to charge a person with as they could not get them on principal offences.
I appreciate that we have no control over who comes on the event; we have no control on how people choose to drive on the event nor the standards of driving except to indicate to people that they are not welcome to continue or to request that they do not return.
Proposals for future runs:-
I appreciate all of this is open for discussion and agreement. There are several possibilities for the organisation of runs:-
(1) At the start of any postings fixing a run or any emails arranging these that the following disclaimers or instructions are provided.
(2) That either separately or additionally on each run, a handout is given to every person attending containing these points.
(3) That the runs are effectively organised off forum, if possible, on a private and confidential basis.
(4) No runs are organised.
Suggested disclaimer/opening statements:-
(1) The organiser is proposing a meeting and car run. Event arrangements are provided privately.
(2) There are no prizes, awards or timing or fixed routes other than a departure time, a start point and suggested finish point.
(3) The purpose of the run is for fun, chat, food, appreciating scenery and other people’s cars.
(4) Food and coffee are essentials of the run.
(5) The fastest anyone is expected or required to go is no faster than the applicable national speed limit.
(6) Participants are expected to stop for photo, viewing scenery or coffee as often as they like.
(7) Your cars attract our own, other road users, the public and police attention. Show them all respect and courtesy.
(8) No one should drive aggressively or inappropriately. Remember others are constantly viewing your cars and your driving.
(9) We all go to the same place (if you are not the 25% who always get lost) so there is no hurry to arrive.
(10) Cars will depart in small groups to minimise disruption to others.
(11) Taking part on the run is organised only on this basis. If it is not what you are looking for, do not come!
Summary
As indicated earlier, the idea is to be forewarned and prepared in the event that problems arise. The police have certain statutory powers to compel the production of names and addresses for frankly no reason; they can claim or justify the inspection of any car they wish; they can require the production of your driving license, MOT and insurance documents again for virtually no reason; and in certain circumstances they can compel you to provide a witness statement. It is one thing to have all this information, but somewhat different to be confronted by a couple of police officers trained in investigation trying to obtain information from you which may have an impact on whether potentially you are involved or complicit in an offence as they see it. My concern is that the police will try to charge organisers of events with a contravention of Section 13 or alternatively causing and permitting of Section 12 i.e. causing or permitting or organising a road race. Contravention of Section 2 or 12 is a mandatory one year disqualification. A contravention of Section 13 is a fine, Section 3 is 3-9 points or disqualification. Whatever the rights or wrongs the main concern is someone is actually charged with an offence whether it ever goes to Court or not or if it does go to Court whether there is any proper evidence to support it. Accordingly I think from an organiser’s point of view all we can do is be forearmed and prepared, know what the law actually is, what we are actually doing and organise and co-ordinate it in the most effective way in accordance with the law.
I frequently say to clients; “We have to get our end right, it is a matter for the other side if they get their end completely wrong”.
I hope all of this is helpful and I appreciate some of you will not be able to get to the meeting and therefore I would be delighted to receive any email comments or observations you have.
Paul Santoni
Freelands
Solicitors
139 Main Street
Wishaw
ML2 7AU
I started organising PH runs on the Scotland forum some years ago. Others have been doing so more recently.
A couple of years ago on a PH run there was a small accident involving one of those attending and another car. The PH car skidded on some water going around a corner. There were other factors as always.
After that I circulated this advice to those who organise runs both on this and other forums and clubs. It was for discussion and comment.
This is a slightly amended version of what was circulated, which I trust people will find helpful.
I HAVE NOT UPDATED THIS FROM THEN.
This is part of what was written referring initially to the incident and the Police action:
The police seemed to have a complete obsession about trying to find other cars that were participating on the run including a “red Ferrari” and various other “sports cars” driving at “high speed” although there appeared to be no real evidence of anyone actually speeding. I also received various reports from those on the run that they were quite concerned at the police’s attitude as it seemed to be particularly obsessed about trying to find out about the run and less interested in the wellbeing and welfare of the injured driver. That upset quite a few people.
Whilst I am perfectly clear that I and others who have organised runs both on and off Pistonheads and on other car clubs do so entirely legitimately, legally and without any intention of illegality it is best to be forearmed and prepared in case issues arise and to be aware of the law, the problems and to have a standardised approach. Clearly because of my work I would not countenance or be involved in any manner or means of anything that amounted to illegality nor would I give or be expected to give any advice about covering up illegality.
It is in that context that the following is open for discussion:-
Statutory Provisions
There are a few offences which are potentially relevant of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The first is Section 2 which is “A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on the road or public place is guilty of an offence.”
Dangerous driving is defined in Section 2A of the Act “2A(a) The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent careful driver and (b) it would be obvious to a competent careful driver that driving that way would be dangerous.” Sub Section 3 provides “In Sub Section (1) and (2) above dangerous refers to danger either of the injury to any person or serious damage to property; and in determining for the purpose of those sections what would be expected of or obvious to a competent and careful driver in a particular case regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he would be expected to be aware but also any circumstances shown or to be within the knowledge of the accused.”
In the case of McQueen v Buchanan 1996 a driver was charged with driving on a single carriageway with a 60mph limit at 114 mph. The Court of Appeal held that it was for the Sheriff to take account of all the facts and circumstances including that the traffic was light in both directions but also the degree to which other drivers may be perceived or put at risk by the accused’s excessive speed and therefore the test was satisfied. The Court held in that case along with many others that excessive speed may in itself give rise to obvious risk in certain circumstances but that the statutory is test satisfied without requiring to carry out a minute examination of the road layout and the presence or otherwise of other road users. This stated that the demands of public safety require a common sense approach to determine what amounts to dangerous driving. Potential risks which must be assessed when considering the particular circumstances which existed at the time.
Predictably the High Court decided to stand away from that when it suited them and in the subsequent case of Howdle v O’Connor 1998 the Sheriff acquitted a driver of driving at 119mph on a motorway because there were no hazards on the motorway and the traffic was moderate. The Court of Appeal on a Crown Appeal held that the Sheriff was wrong and that the gross excess of speed and the presence of other cars and meant the accused was guilty of dangerous driving. Although that position has been qualified in an English case called Milton in 2006 the Scottish Courts are unlikely to pay much attention to that.
The next offence is careless driving which is Section 3 which provides “If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road or other public place without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road is guilty of an offence.”
The standard of care and attention is an objective one fixed and impersonal governed by the general needs of the public fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway.
The issue of whether someone was driving carelessly raises only a question of fact. Courts will not normally look to identify whether there has been an error or judgement or not.
Whilst careless driving is a less serious offence than dangerous increasingly cases involving excessive speed, driving at close proximity etc. are considered to be careless driving.
To get a conviction it is necessary for the Crown to show actual inconvenience rather than inconvenience may have been caused. Additionally other persons on the road can include passengers in the car.
The next and probably most relevant Section for our purpose is Section 12 which provides “A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public way is guilty of an offence. A public way is a public road in Scotland .”
There is relatively little law on Section 12. Two people agree to comply with the law i.e. not to contravene any road traffic regulations but trying to see who can get to a particular point first could be regarded as a race. There does not require to be any prior agreement and the decision to race can be spontaneous.
From experience these type of cases tend to arise when it appears that vehicles are effectively racing or urging with each other to pass one another, or one seems to be keeping the other deliberately behind and both travelling at speed. Because dangerous driving is probably an easier catch all decision, it tends to be more commonly charged than Section 12.
Although two cars could be regarded as racing it is not necessary to charge both drivers or to actually catch both drivers. It is sufficient for the Crown to charge and fine one driver of racing. Accordingly somebody could be attempting to race you but you would be doing nothing to race them.
The other offence which is relevant is Section 13 and 13a.
Section 13 provides “A person who promotes and takes part in a competition or trial (other than a race or trial speed) involving motor vehicles on a public way is guilty of an offence unless the competition or trial is (a) authorised and (b) is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed by or under any regulations under the section (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to authorise and provide for the authorising and holding of competitions and trials (other than race or trials at speed) involving the use of motor vehicles on a public way either (a) generally or (b) as regards any area in regard to any class or description of competition trial or any competition or trial subject to such conditions including conditions requiring payment of fees that may be imposed under these Regulations.
The appropriate Regulations for Scotland are the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) ( Scotland ) Regulations 1976.
The Regulations made under that Section are extensive. They provide that an event means “competition or trial involving the use of motor vehicles on public highways”.
An exclusion or pre authorised event is defined in terms of Regulation 5(b) as being “An event in which no merit is attached to completing the event with the lowest mileage and in which in respect of such part of the event as is held on a public highway, there are no performance tests and no route and competitors are not timed or required to visit the same places, except they may be required to finish at the same place by a specified time.” Accordingly for the type of events that we organise it is fairly clear that the regulations do not apply but I think that we have to have a series of disclaimers which are put out as a precursor to any event that we wish to organise.
What would concern me is if, for example, we have a predetermined finish and start point and estimation of times and a route with suggested stop points for coffee or scenery that that could be regarded as an event requiring compliance with Section 13. I would see that as being more of a problem for the organisers where the police could try and chuck it in as a means of trying to find anything to charge a person with as they could not get them on principal offences.
I appreciate that we have no control over who comes on the event; we have no control on how people choose to drive on the event nor the standards of driving except to indicate to people that they are not welcome to continue or to request that they do not return.
Proposals for future runs:-
I appreciate all of this is open for discussion and agreement. There are several possibilities for the organisation of runs:-
(1) At the start of any postings fixing a run or any emails arranging these that the following disclaimers or instructions are provided.
(2) That either separately or additionally on each run, a handout is given to every person attending containing these points.
(3) That the runs are effectively organised off forum, if possible, on a private and confidential basis.
(4) No runs are organised.
Suggested disclaimer/opening statements:-
(1) The organiser is proposing a meeting and car run. Event arrangements are provided privately.
(2) There are no prizes, awards or timing or fixed routes other than a departure time, a start point and suggested finish point.
(3) The purpose of the run is for fun, chat, food, appreciating scenery and other people’s cars.
(4) Food and coffee are essentials of the run.
(5) The fastest anyone is expected or required to go is no faster than the applicable national speed limit.
(6) Participants are expected to stop for photo, viewing scenery or coffee as often as they like.
(7) Your cars attract our own, other road users, the public and police attention. Show them all respect and courtesy.
(8) No one should drive aggressively or inappropriately. Remember others are constantly viewing your cars and your driving.
(9) We all go to the same place (if you are not the 25% who always get lost) so there is no hurry to arrive.
(10) Cars will depart in small groups to minimise disruption to others.
(11) Taking part on the run is organised only on this basis. If it is not what you are looking for, do not come!
Summary
As indicated earlier, the idea is to be forewarned and prepared in the event that problems arise. The police have certain statutory powers to compel the production of names and addresses for frankly no reason; they can claim or justify the inspection of any car they wish; they can require the production of your driving license, MOT and insurance documents again for virtually no reason; and in certain circumstances they can compel you to provide a witness statement. It is one thing to have all this information, but somewhat different to be confronted by a couple of police officers trained in investigation trying to obtain information from you which may have an impact on whether potentially you are involved or complicit in an offence as they see it. My concern is that the police will try to charge organisers of events with a contravention of Section 13 or alternatively causing and permitting of Section 12 i.e. causing or permitting or organising a road race. Contravention of Section 2 or 12 is a mandatory one year disqualification. A contravention of Section 13 is a fine, Section 3 is 3-9 points or disqualification. Whatever the rights or wrongs the main concern is someone is actually charged with an offence whether it ever goes to Court or not or if it does go to Court whether there is any proper evidence to support it. Accordingly I think from an organiser’s point of view all we can do is be forearmed and prepared, know what the law actually is, what we are actually doing and organise and co-ordinate it in the most effective way in accordance with the law.
I frequently say to clients; “We have to get our end right, it is a matter for the other side if they get their end completely wrong”.
I hope all of this is helpful and I appreciate some of you will not be able to get to the meeting and therefore I would be delighted to receive any email comments or observations you have.
Paul Santoni
Freelands
Solicitors
139 Main Street
Wishaw
ML2 7AU
Macd355 said:
Surely just telling them that I'm a Freeman on the land and I don't subscribe to the road traffic act is better?
LewisCan you just confirm to everyone, that that was not a legal defence I advised on ( publicly). Or you could try:
I wasn't driving fast, just flying too low
Or
I am trying to escape from all those cars behind me, who I think want to mug/do something bad/.....to me!
Or an old fav of mine from a Doctor family friend to police who stopped him:
Get out of my F***** way, I am going to an emergency! then drive off even faster!
Thanks for these inputs. I hope the thread makes people think and be aware. As someone said on the newest run thread, THE ONLY reason they are coming along is they have met people on here and know that people are responsible.
As I see it the main problem, is the lack of consistency in policing. I know down south, traffic cops have stopped non ph car club runs under section 13! It was plainly wrong of them to do so , but did provide ' their' solution, which the clubs agreed to. most reasonable people would agree to a reasonable request anyway. the issue is when the request is neither legally based or well founded.
As someone posted, the problem is that these cars 'look' or sound fast, even if stationary. further the sanctimonious lane hoggers and not letting you overtake drivers, who are the most dangerous don't appreciate that, nor are prosecuted, which is what should happen
Happy for other input
Paul
As I see it the main problem, is the lack of consistency in policing. I know down south, traffic cops have stopped non ph car club runs under section 13! It was plainly wrong of them to do so , but did provide ' their' solution, which the clubs agreed to. most reasonable people would agree to a reasonable request anyway. the issue is when the request is neither legally based or well founded.
As someone posted, the problem is that these cars 'look' or sound fast, even if stationary. further the sanctimonious lane hoggers and not letting you overtake drivers, who are the most dangerous don't appreciate that, nor are prosecuted, which is what should happen
Happy for other input
Paul
Monaro5.7 said:
Thanks for your kind comments guys. I still organise the national meet for them Monaro/Hsv forum but try to stay away from doing runs and go to an event like York Raceway this year.
Last run i was on i saw some dangerous overtakes and thought it was time to get out. Iam sure they are well organised and routes are perfect for a drive but you cant account for some drivers and what they do and that scares me if i did a run and my name was against the run.
Suppose you could eliminate people from the runs if you people were willing to pipe up about dangerous driving on a run anonymous email to run organised and a yellow card issued if enough evidence provided and if caught again red carded and banned for a run or 2. Just an idea.
I just spoke to people and asked them to calm their driving down or joked about in front of everyone to get the message across. I appreciate that I am a bit unusual in that I am so blunt scary looking and to the point. It did work however and those spoken to, were fine and took heed. Last run i was on i saw some dangerous overtakes and thought it was time to get out. Iam sure they are well organised and routes are perfect for a drive but you cant account for some drivers and what they do and that scares me if i did a run and my name was against the run.
Suppose you could eliminate people from the runs if you people were willing to pipe up about dangerous driving on a run anonymous email to run organised and a yellow card issued if enough evidence provided and if caught again red carded and banned for a run or 2. Just an idea.
Your suggestions are worth everyone taking into account
thanks
Paul
Hi there
Welcome to the forum. You are correct the section does say or and not and. My misprint. It would not alter the fundamental issue as to whether or not what is being organised is a contravention of sec13. Simply liability would fall on participants and organisers. However that isn't what any of the runs actually do.
Appreciate the correction and you pointing it out.
Hope to see you at events soon
Regards
Paul
Welcome to the forum. You are correct the section does say or and not and. My misprint. It would not alter the fundamental issue as to whether or not what is being organised is a contravention of sec13. Simply liability would fall on participants and organisers. However that isn't what any of the runs actually do.
Appreciate the correction and you pointing it out.
Hope to see you at events soon
Regards
Paul
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff