Letter from the police

[Debaser]

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

I have always been taught there is no problem crossing a broken line to overtake. Why would it be driving without due care and attention?

Crossing the lines is one decision amongst many, including the exact position you did it, what was around, how close you were to them, your speed etc etc.
Whether it amounts to without due care is with all things considered, & not just one facet of the many.

Thank you. So if you cross the broken lines for a completely safe and legal overtake, there’s no reason you should be done for driving without due care and attention?

[CoolHands]

There isn’t. All the other fluff is irrelevant to that.

[vonhosen]

Debaser said:

vonhosen said:

Debaser said:

I have always been taught there is no problem crossing a broken line to overtake. Why would it be driving without due care and attention?

Crossing the lines is one decision amongst many, including the exact position you did it, what was around, how close you were to them, your speed etc etc.
Whether it amounts to without due care is with all things considered, & not just one facet of the many.

Thank you. So if you cross the broken lines for a completely safe and legal overtake, there’s no reason you should be done for driving without due care and attention?

There isn't a specific offence of crossing the broken lines (if there was there wouldn't need to be any other evidence or to use the offence of WDCA).
In this case they've apparently given him a warning, that in the circumstances he did his overtake, it was considered WDCA.
He has admitted his wasn't a legal overtake, he said he exceeded the speed limit for a while whilst doing it.

[Random_Person]

Limit exceeded or not, the letter will still have been sent and the speed is not relevant as it will not form part of the justification of the letter being sent. If it did, 1000 dash cam clips a day would be sent on straight DC roads with people driving at what looks to be fast but isn't, etc etc.

The uneducated staff will have seen the car, seen the circs and clicked the button to send a letter without any formal right to do so, other than this local scheme agreed for that area.

I bet the TVR is not dark in colour. A light colour. That will all inflame the eyes and opinion of the uneducated. Rods and cones, and unconscious bias.

[Fermit]

Random_Person said:

Limit exceeded or not, the letter will still have been sent and the speed is not relevant as it will not form part of the justification of the letter being sent. If it did, 1000 dash cam clips a day would be sent on straight DC roads with people driving at what looks to be fast but isn't, etc etc.

The uneducated staff will have seen the car, seen the circs and clicked the button to send a letter without any formal right to do so, other than this local scheme agreed for that area.

I bet the TVR is not dark in colour. A light colour. That will all inflame the eyes and opinion of the uneducated. Rods and cones, and unconscious bias.

Yep. They'll have seen a flash noisy TVR, equated the roaring engine as 'maniac' because they don't have the concept of speed from their Honda Jazz (or whatever it was) I had it in my 335i one time, it shrieks at high revs, an old boy came alongside and told me 'you didn't need to overtake me at 90mph' Unlikely that I passed him at more than 60.

[Random_Person]

Colour of TVR please.

I am saying blue. And a lairy blue.

Or a green/purple tinge.

Guaranteed.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Limit exceeded or not, the letter will still have been sent and the speed is not relevant as it will not form part of the justification of the letter being sent. If it did, 1000 dash cam clips a day would be sent on straight DC roads with people driving at what looks to be fast but isn't, etc etc.

The uneducated staff will have seen the car, seen the circs and clicked the button to send a letter without any formal right to do so, other than this local scheme agreed for that area.

I bet the TVR is not dark in colour. A light colour. That will all inflame the eyes and opinion of the uneducated. Rods and cones, and unconscious bias.

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

[Ian Geary]

vonhosen said:

There isn't a specific offence of crossing the broken lines (if there was there wouldn't need to be any other evidence or to use the offence of WDCA).
In this case they've apparently given him a warning, that in the circumstances he did his overtake, it was considered WDCA.
He has admitted his wasn't a legal overtake, he said he exceeded the speed limit for a while whilst doing it.

Your posts are usually pretty sensible, but that one is clutching at straws imo

- the op said he sped a bit, but plod know they have no evidence and so it's irrelevant from this point on

- the manoeuvre as described is nowhere near wdca territory

- plod feel they have to do something (when they don't) so accuse him of dwca but they won't do anything "this time", thereby avoiding the complete lack of evidence to be scrutinised (challenging this would be stupidfor the op)

- voohen can't stand by and watch the police be criticised so cobbles together a weak justification for it


It's not a good look, but hardly the end of the world.


To the op, these things usually grate for a day or so, but ultimately it's a non event. The sad tosspot from the 40 everywhere brigade will go on being a sad tosspot.

You've already left him behind once - time to do it again.



Ian

[Random_Person]

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

[EdMX5]

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

Aren’t all police officers, except police in the armed forces such as RMP, civilian?

[Bigends]

EdMX5 said:

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

Aren’t all police officers, except police in the armed forces such as RMP, civilian?

Agreed, but within the Police you're either an officer or Police staff AKA Civvy.

[Konrod]

Lots of good stuff here

vonhosen said:

Crossing the lines is one decision amongst many, including the exact position you did it, what was around, how close you were to them, your speed etc etc.
Whether it amounts to without due care is with all things considered, & not just one facet of the many.

Yep, I get that. In my defence I have done IAM and RoSPA training (never did the tests - stupid!), as well as individual sessions with Class 1 ex-Plod instructors (paid for by my employer ) so I'm not the world's greatest driver but I do perhaps have more awareness than many. The overtake was safe, I wasn't up anyone's chuff beforehand as that reduces visibility. Perhaps the one thing they wouldn't have spotted was that I could see clearly down the left hand side of the truck as I left the roundabout, so had a good long view before looking down the right hand side. That would have required a viewer with above average skills :sigh:

Random_Person said:

.........

The uneducated staff will have seen the car, seen the circs and clicked the button to send a letter without any formal right to do so, other than this local scheme agreed for that area.

I bet the TVR is not dark in colour. A light colour. That will all inflame the eyes and opinion of the uneducated. Rods and cones, and unconscious bias.

Random_Person said:

Colour of TVR please.

I am saying blue. And a lairy blue.

Or a green/purple tinge.

Guaranteed.

Sorry to disappoint you, reflex charcoal. I really like it, but also didn't want to stand out too much for exactly the reason that started this thread



This is all a result of a one dimensional policing policy. Speed is the only factor being policed by cameras, so drivers are educated to think that provided they drive slowly they are good drivers. No lane control, no effective speed control, no distance control, no awareness. I can't think of any other similar situation that affects other people do we get qualifications and then sit on them until we die without any formal refresh of skills or uptraining.

I actually want to see more police traffic patrols if they will start pulling "brain in neutral" drivers and help "educate" them. There are no "accidents", they all have a cause and the root of all them is driver ability (my source for that is Cambridgeshire Road Traffic police themselves) - everything else is contributory. That is what we need to fix if we want road safety to improve. If the police really cared about safety (rather than speed) that is what they would be doing. Rant over.

[vonhosen]

Ian Geary said:

vonhosen said:

There isn't a specific offence of crossing the broken lines (if there was there wouldn't need to be any other evidence or to use the offence of WDCA).
In this case they've apparently given him a warning, that in the circumstances he did his overtake, it was considered WDCA.
He has admitted his wasn't a legal overtake, he said he exceeded the speed limit for a while whilst doing it.

Your posts are usually pretty sensible, but that one is clutching at straws imo

- the op said he sped a bit, but plod know they have no evidence and so it's irrelevant from this point on

- the manoeuvre as described is nowhere near wdca territory

- plod feel they have to do something (when they don't) so accuse him of dwca but they won't do anything "this time", thereby avoiding the complete lack of evidence to be scrutinised (challenging this would be stupidfor the op)

- voohen can't stand by and watch the police be criticised so cobbles together a weak justification for it


It's not a good look, but hardly the end of the world.


To the op, these things usually grate for a day or so, but ultimately it's a non event. The sad tosspot from the 40 everywhere brigade will go on being a sad tosspot.

You've already left him behind once - time to do it again.



Ian

I'm not justifying anything, I'm explaining a few things.

1) There isn't an offence of crossing the lines.
2) The offence of WDCA isn't about crossing the lines on its own, it is about more than that. What it's about in this case we don't know, because we haven't seen the video.
But somebody did think enough of it to send it in & somebody else thought enough of it to send a warning.
The OP didn't think much of it though. I've no opinion on it as I haven't seen it. I'm not condemning or supporting anyone on either side.
3) The person I was replying to said "So if you cross the broken lines for a completely safe and legal overtake", so I pointed out that wasn't the case here, Not because of my views, but because the OP said it wasn't the case here. I didn't make a judgement on it.

A lot of people here getting incandescent about something they have no personal knowledge of & is of little consequence.
The OP should forget it & get on with his life.

When it comes to WDCA it doesn't matter what we think of our driving.
What matters is how others, employed to look at these things, think about our driving.
If the authorities all the way up to & including the courts all think it's WDCA ,it doesn't matter if we think, we end up convicted.
If any of the authorities in the chain don't think it's a WDCA, then it doesn't matter what we think, there's no conviction.

The OP hasn't been convicted.
Stop worrying about it & move on.

[Forester1965]

An issue now is that any manoeuvre capable of eliciting a "I wouldn't have done that" response from another driver is liable to be filmed and sent to the authorities. Needs to be considered prior to every manoeuvre; "how would I explain this to the Police/Magistrates/Jury?".

[BertBert]

Nibbles_bits said:

It's kept on file. Just like you might keep your P60 "on file".

Just curious, what sort of filing system do the police have for such matters?

[vonhosen]

Konrod said:

Lots of good stuff here

vonhosen said:

Crossing the lines is one decision amongst many, including the exact position you did it, what was around, how close you were to them, your speed etc etc.
Whether it amounts to without due care is with all things considered, & not just one facet of the many.

Yep, I get that. In my defence I have done IAM and RoSPA training (never did the tests - stupid!), as well as individual sessions with Class 1 ex-Plod instructors (paid for by my employer ) so I'm not the world's greatest driver but I do perhaps have more awareness than many. The overtake was safe, I wasn't up anyone's chuff beforehand as that reduces visibility. Perhaps the one thing they wouldn't have spotted was that I could see clearly down the left hand side of the truck as I left the roundabout, so had a good long view before looking down the right hand side. That would have required a viewer with above average skills :sigh:

The offence of WDCA doesn't mean it was unsafe.
The offence would just mean that it fell below the standards expected.
It doesn't have to inconvenience anyone else either, that would be the offence of inconsiderate driving.
Experience, qualifications etc are also immaterial with it.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, no judgment from me.
Just pointing some things out.

A couple of other people viewed it differently to you.
That happens with so much of life, people viewing things differently.
You're not being prosecuted, so move on would be my advice.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

But with far more knowledge of policing and actual experience of what might constitute WDCA than most on PH.

[Nibbles_bits]

BertBert said:

Nibbles_bits said:

It's kept on file. Just like you might keep your P60 "on file".

Just curious, what sort of filing system do the police have for such matters?

Whatever database that particular force uses - ????

[GeniusOfLove]

Nibbles_bits said:

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

But with far more knowledge of policing and actual experience of what might constitute WDCA than most on PH.

Still a busybody bellend sending in little infractions from their dashcam though.

The world would be a much nicer place if people like that all vanished overnight, spiteful small minded petty little knobends.

[CHLEMCBH]

Given the length of time between the manoeuvre and the offence, I'm intrigued as to why you remember it so vividly or was there a still from the video on the letter?