Not signaling in designated turning lane - without due care
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
If you knew he was behind you it might have been wise to indicate. Dot all the 'i's etc.
I didn't realise he was police till he sat on my bumper after turning right.He also wasn't even sure where I pulled onto galmington road as he thinks I came out much further down the road than I did.
I questioned then if he had the correct car.
JM said:
vonhosen said:
But he could have physically turned right, that's why the signal should be given to make clear to others his intent (the whole purpose of signals being fitted to the vehicle in the first place). If it was obvious to others he could have only physically have gone left then there wouldn't have been a need, but because he could there was a need.
If he was to turn right from the left side, left turn marked lane, then a right turn signal would be the signal to give. Turning left from a left turn lane is not exactly a surprise to anyone. 
He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 19:54
Putting aside the cop stuff, my problem with this is thus:
The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
Speed 3 said:
Putting aside the cop stuff, my problem with this is thus:
The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
I am also untrusting of people's signals. I will pull out if they're signalling off - but only if I'm pretty sure that I can get out of Dodge if they continue to come around. If they panic and brake, it serves them right. I can accelerate pretty quickly in 1st gear...The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
vonhosen said:
JM said:
vonhosen said:
But he could have physically turned right, that's why the signal should be given to make clear to others his intent (the whole purpose of signals being fitted to the vehicle in the first place). If it was obvious to others he could have only physically have gone left then there wouldn't have been a need, but because he could there was a need.
If he was to turn right from the left side, left turn marked lane, then a right turn signal would be the signal to give. Turning left from a left turn lane is not exactly a surprise to anyone. He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 19:54
Speed 3 said:
Putting aside the cop stuff, my problem with this is thus:
The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
The HC contains both advisory exerts & mandatory (referencing Acts/Regulations where it is).The HC is advisory as guidance not mandate. I was taught (many moons ago) to disregard other people's signals as not to be trusted. If you're at a T junction turning right and someone approaches from your right indicating left to go into the road you are emerging from, but doesn't actually do so and they t-bone you, you're at fault. I apply the same logic at roundabouts, you give way until you are actually clear its safe to go, therefore indicators are irrelevant and anyone actually on the roundabout has right of way.
This generally serves me well but it does seem to boil some peoples blood.
As an aside The RTA 1988 Sec 38(7) applies to the Highway Code.
Sec 38(7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of theTransport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
It can therefore be used in support Sec 3 RTA prosecutions.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 20:26
JM said:
vonhosen said:
JM said:
vonhosen said:
But he could have physically turned right, that's why the signal should be given to make clear to others his intent (the whole purpose of signals being fitted to the vehicle in the first place). If it was obvious to others he could have only physically have gone left then there wouldn't have been a need, but because he could there was a need.
If he was to turn right from the left side, left turn marked lane, then a right turn signal would be the signal to give. Turning left from a left turn lane is not exactly a surprise to anyone. He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
It wouldn't have harmed his case any way at all to have given it, only benefited it.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 20:30
vonhosen said:
JM said:
vonhosen said:
JM said:
vonhosen said:
But he could have physically turned right, that's why the signal should be given to make clear to others his intent (the whole purpose of signals being fitted to the vehicle in the first place). If it was obvious to others he could have only physically have gone left then there wouldn't have been a need, but because he could there was a need.
If he was to turn right from the left side, left turn marked lane, then a right turn signal would be the signal to give. Turning left from a left turn lane is not exactly a surprise to anyone. He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
coyft said:
vonhosen said:
There was someone around to see it with the OP & it formed part of the basis of what followed.
Thank God most of your colleagues posses common sense.That vonhosen AND most of his colleagues possess common sense.
Or that he doesn't and they do?
Arguing against the point he is making here is typical 'Advanced Driver' nonsense. Just indicate, It's far easier to do it than waste time thinking about it, and in view of the fact that you will be accurately showing what you intend to do, where is the sense in not doing it? Who cares if on occasion there is nobody to see it?
vonhosen said:
He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 19:54
Sounds like it's nailed on he's going to get 3 points and £100 for this terrible crime
vonhosen said:
He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 19:54
The question is not is good practice or helpful to other road users, (The only car was the officer approaching from the rear there were no cars approaching the roundabout from in front of me so I choose not to signal as in my information phase I deemed no one would benefit).
I appreciate there is 'no harm' in reinforcing the intention with a traficator/Indicator. However postioned left in a left hand turn lane I would expect the police driver or any driver to have a driving plan based on what they can reasonably expect to develop. That would be in my mind a car turning left positioned in a left hand turn.
The question being debated is not should I of signal!
The question being asked is in your professional opinion as an experienced roads policing officer, is there any sensible reason for the Sarg Dread or any officer to attempt to or even suggest that it is a clear case of driving without due care and attention be not signalling!
surveyor_101 said:
popeyewhite said:
If you knew he was behind you it might have been wise to indicate. Dot all the 'i's etc.
I didn't realise he was police till he sat on my bumper after turning right.He also wasn't even sure where I pulled onto galmington road as he thinks I came out much further down the road than I did.
I questioned then if he had the correct car.
popeyewhite said:
Hmm ok. Best just to keep schtum and accept a ticking off then, even if you thought the copper was wrong.
I know that is the best option.However I hate some officers walking round like they are judge/jury/executioner. Plus his own following distance leaves a lot to be desired, he needs educating in my opinion.
He has very little say on the charging decision or how the CPS/Police view it in the public interest. So acting like his word is gospel is far from correct. He is there to prevent crime and detect to gather evidence if there is a crime, that is it.
Not the first jumped up a&s to tell me I am guilty of an offence to find that his superiors disagree with his conduct and take no further action I can tell you.
We are trying to maintain policing by consent in this country not bullcrap and threats!
The guy's attitude changed so much when I said I knew his wife and son and my daughter was in his sons class.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 25th July 13:14
Surveyor 101 said
"Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
"Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
Edited by fidzer on Tuesday 25th July 13:24
surveyor_101 said:
Von your not normally this evasive...
The question being asked is in your professional opinion as an experienced roads policing officer, is there any sensible reason for the Sarg Dread or any officer to attempt to or even suggest that it is a clear case of driving without due care and attention be not signalling!
This might be an explanation for the threat of charging you with driving without due care and attention:The question being asked is in your professional opinion as an experienced roads policing officer, is there any sensible reason for the Sarg Dread or any officer to attempt to or even suggest that it is a clear case of driving without due care and attention be not signalling!
I was once stopped by a traffic officer for the spurious "offence" of not signalling when exiting a roundabout.
It was thus... Late at night, nobody about other than a following police traffic car of which I have been aware for a mile or so; 40mph speed limit, which I have assiduously observed at all times; large roundabout with 4 exits [exits are spaced equally at 12,3,6,and 9 O'clock]; as I am exiting said roundabout at 12 O'clock the police car enters at 6 O'clock [he is not yet quite on the roundabout as I am exiting]; At the next roundabout, we're now in a 30mph limit, he has closed-up behind me to within a single car length [far too close, is he trying to intimidate me? There are still no other vehicles about]; I signal off the roundabout this time as there is another road user [police traffic officer] who will benefit; police officer immediately pulls me over and begins berating me for not signalling off at the first roundabout [made some sarcastic comment about wondering if my indicators weren't working until I signalled off at the second roundabout]. I am told... "you must always signal whenever leaving a roundabout"
This was obviously a complete load of spurious nonsense. I didn't rise to it. I didn't refer him to "Roadcraft" and I didn't tell him that as I exited the roundabout at "12 O'clock", and having looked all around my vehicle, the only other road user I could see was himself who was about to enter the roundabout at "6 O'clock" and wouldn't, in my opinion, have benefited from a signal. No, that's not what I said... I just said... "yes, officer". It was obvious that he just wanted to stop and have a chat to find out if I had I been drinking, which I hadn't and, whilst he legally didn't need a reason to stop me in order to check documentation, he would have needed a "driving infraction" type of reason to stop me to ask about whether I'd been drinking. I reassured him that I hadn't been drinking and he got back in his car with a final... "don't forget, always signal when leaving a roundabout". I inwardly smiled to myself and went on my way.
So, I suspect that in your case the police officer believed that you were speeding but wasn't able to evidence it, so used the "failed to signal when exiting a roundabout", whether or not you should have done so, as reason to stop you and give you a b
king. 
[PS: Many years ago Von suggested that I was stopped for this "failing to signal when exiting a roundabout" infraction because the traffic officer perhaps didn't accept the the "Roadcraft" principle of signalling only when, in your opinion, another road would benefit. I didn't for one moment accept that was the real reason and I still don't]
cmaguire said:
Arguing against the point he is making here is typical 'Advanced Driver' nonsense. Just indicate, It's far easier to do it than waste time thinking about it, and in view of the fact that you will be accurately showing what you intend to do, where is the sense in not doing it? Who cares if on occasion there is nobody to see it?
Whether or not it is nonsense is up to individual opinion. However, from the advanced/standard driver point of view, the premise is that a driver considering a change of direction should look around to see if there was anyone who would benefit from the information 'I intend to turn [right] at the next junction'. It keeps the driver aware of other road users, be they drivers, cyclists, pedestrians or others. I think it is a good idea to generate reasons for a driver to look for other road users.fidzer said:
Surveyor 101 said
"Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
I did blat it abit out of the junction and up the hill, reason being people drive fast down the hill. I admit thats enough to get his attention and have no issue with that."Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
Edited by fidzer on Tuesday 25th July 13:24
However I stopped at the empty roundabout and make sure it was safe to proceed, I didn't blast onto it as it difficult to see if it clear until you stop and assess the situation. So no flying onto a roundabout. So I made sure it was safe before proceeding.
I didn't wipe the footage of my camera I merely suggested the officer shouldn't make any assumptions about the device being used to support his case and but if ' i wipe the date etc. He says the perverting court of justice. Again not a facts.
The son part came right after all the I will right at the end. This was after 5 minutes of chatting.
So your assuming alot there.
I pointed out he was single crewed and seemed to have made charging decisions on behalf of the CPS. I asked if he moonlighted as a Judge or JP as well. I am happy to deal with police officer who deal with facts but this I am the law and I say it so it must be true gets my goat.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 25th July 14:57
surveyor_101 said:
fidzer said:
Surveyor 101 said
"Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
I did blat it abit out of the junction and up the hill, reason being people drive fast down the hill. I admit thats enough to get his attention and have no issue with that."Ok so caught the eye of a local beat sergeant by pulling onto a steep hill in residential area and accelerating briskly to above 30 briefly. Then I get to the top of hill and there is a mini roundabout that has left and right only turn lanes. You can't go straight on there is a wall. I stopped and stayed in left lane and went left without signaling.
The hill is steep and people often speed down it so I don't hang about getting out of the junction.
Officer was in a non emgerency focus with no blue lights but I noticed him behind he at the roundabout as he was following me way to close. He followed me past the police station so I decided to stop.i have driven like an angel since turning left. He pulled in behind and asked me what the speed limit on the road I had been on and I said 30. He was single crewed and not happy. I give him my argument for getting out of the junction fast. He then says if he writes me up for not signaling in the left hand turn lane at the roundabout where I went left its without due care and he is positive it will go to court.
Ok so he tells me the car is insured with no drivers listed? So what it's insured. He says he can now sieze the car under section 12 PACE. Not sure why. He says he will sieze dash cam and is stated not much use if I wiped the card before we stopped. He then says that preventing the course of justice, which since I don't know I am being stopped by police why would it be.
Sounds more like to me that you blatted it up the steep hill, in your own words exceeding the speed limit, and got his attention there. Harsh acceleration and excessive revving is enough to get you a section 3 careless driving charge.
You then fly out of the roundabout to the left as sometimes other drivers come down the hill too quickly, all the while the Sergeant is following you in a pool car probably thinking, "this guy's driving like a dick, i'll have a word."
He gets out of the car to speak to you when an opportunity presents itself and your busy wiping the footage from the dashcam.
When he approaches the car, most likely with the intention of giving you words of advice, you say stuff like "I know your son, what school he goes to and the class he is in. I'll be seeing you at the school gates."
Can't imagine why it all went wrong and why you feel so aggrieved.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th July 13:24
However I stopped at the empty roundabout and make sure it was safe to proceed, I didn't blast onto it as it difficult to see if it clear until you stop and assess the situation. So no flying onto a roundabout. So I made sure it was safe before proceeding.
I didn't wipe the footage of my camera I merely suggested the officer shouldn't make any assumptions about the device being used to support his case and but if ' i wipe the date etc. He says the perverting court of justice. Again not a facts.
The son part came right after all the I will right at the end. This was after 5 minutes of chatting.
So your assuming alot there.
I pointed out he was single crewed and seemed to have made charging decisions on behalf of the CPS. I asked if he moonlighted as a Judge or JP as well. I am happy to deal with police officer who deal with facts but this I am the law and I say it so it must be true gets my goat.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th July 14:57
You have a goat?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th July 19:24
surveyor_101 said:
vonhosen said:
He knows he is doing that out of the options available to him, they don't.
That's why he gives the signal to assist them as to his intentions.
That's the purpose of the signals being fitted to the vehicle, to assist others as to what your intentions are rather than leaving them guessing if you are going to go left or right. It's another little piece of the information jigsaw to assist others in their plans during your interaction. It wouldn't have harmed giving it in the situation, it would only have helped.
It's common courtesy & considerate, only it's sadly not as common as it should be.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th July 19:54
The question is not is good practice or helpful to other road users, (The only car was the officer approaching from the rear there were no cars approaching the roundabout from in front of me so I choose not to signal as in my information phase I deemed no one would benefit).
I appreciate there is 'no harm' in reinforcing the intention with a traficator/Indicator. However postioned left in a left hand turn lane I would expect the police driver or any driver to have a driving plan based on what they can reasonably expect to develop. That would be in my mind a car turning left positioned in a left hand turn.
The question being debated is not should I of signal!
The question being asked is in your professional opinion as an experienced roads policing officer, is there any sensible reason for the Sarg Dread or any officer to attempt to or even suggest that it is a clear case of driving without due care and attention be not signalling!
I've already said I'm not offering an opinion on wether it amounted to a Sec 3 offence or not.
I wasn't there & I haven't heard what the other party says about why they think they have a stone bonker Sec 3.
It may be you say there wasn't anyone else & he says there was a pedestrian potentially looking to cross that you've missed in your checks.
All I did point out was a response to your original points posed.
1) A speedo doesn't 'have' to be calibrated in order to support opinion of speeding.
2) The arrows on the road aren't a mandatory marking (therefore your lane isn't a must turn left lane in all circumstances & a specific offence if you turn against what the marking says - it too would come under the auspice of Sec 3 & depends on circumstance). So the makings don't support a 'no need to signal because of the markings' position in the debate when it comes to signals for the benefit others (which is principle reason for their existence & why we should give them provided they aren't going to mislead).
Also for the avoidance of doubt.
a) I'm not Roads Policing (& never have been)
b) I'm not a serving Officer.
c) They are not my colleagues.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff