Stopped... without good reason? & "undertaking"?
Discussion
Yesterday evening I was stopped when I don't believe I should have been and I would like to get the collective's thoughts on whether I should have been and what I ought to have done.
The end result was not a problem - breathalysed and allowed to carry on - but I felt I should not have been stopped.
I was coming down a slight hill in south west London, using an out-of-hours bus lane and slowing for a red light, when the red light changed to green. I very gently accelerated (I know it was gentle because I had left it in a high gear), passing a BMW sitting in lane 2 that was starting up from the lights.
That BMW turned out to be an unmarked police car. It pulled me over. I could not think why I had been pulled over so I said something like "I didn't think I was doing over 30 but apologies if I was." I was pretty certain that I hadn't been but it was the only offence I could conceive there being the slightest possibility of.
I was told by one of the officers that I had undertaken them. I was also told that I must have been doing over 30 because they had been doing 30 and I had passed them. I said that I had not undertaken them but had simply carried on in the (out of hours) bus lane while they had started up from the lights. One of them said that, since I had passed on the left while they were doing 30, that meant I had undertaken them. He also said it was just like coming up to someone on the motorway who is bumbling along in the middle lane and that passing him on the left would be undertaking in just the same way.
Two issues there:
(i) I am 100% certain they were well below the speed limit as they had just started up from the lights; I am also fairly (but not completely) certain that I was under the speed limit too. But what comeback do I have when they state that they were at 30 when they weren't, and use that as their basis for opining that I was over 30?
(ii) Surely I was well within my rights to carry on past them as I did? Tell me if I'm wrong. And also tell me how I might have persuaded them of that notion without getting their backs up - the first officer seemed to be a tricky one - my attempt at a polite just-in-case apology as mentioned above resulted in him asking if I had therefore been driving without due care and attention!
I thought there wasn't an offence of undertaking, and that proceeding as I did was just fine?
Anyway, the second officer explained that they were just using road traffic offences as excuses to breathalyse people, and that all they were interested in was whether I passed a breath test. Fine, I thought, since all I had done yesterday was go to a couple of job interviews and visit my Grandma.
But not fine, I also thought - as far as I was concerned, they had invented offences as an excuse to stop me. I knew I would be on my way very soon and that it had only cost a few minutes, but I was not at all happy to have been stopped without (in my opinion) good reason.
There's a bit of me that wants to complain about it. There's a bit of me that thinks if I do then my car may be targeted in future. But most of me just wants to check with you lot:
1. Is my understanding of the law in this instance erroneous?
2. How might I have been able to refute the accusations levelled at me, either at the time or, if necessary, at a later juncture?
The end result was not a problem - breathalysed and allowed to carry on - but I felt I should not have been stopped.
I was coming down a slight hill in south west London, using an out-of-hours bus lane and slowing for a red light, when the red light changed to green. I very gently accelerated (I know it was gentle because I had left it in a high gear), passing a BMW sitting in lane 2 that was starting up from the lights.
That BMW turned out to be an unmarked police car. It pulled me over. I could not think why I had been pulled over so I said something like "I didn't think I was doing over 30 but apologies if I was." I was pretty certain that I hadn't been but it was the only offence I could conceive there being the slightest possibility of.
I was told by one of the officers that I had undertaken them. I was also told that I must have been doing over 30 because they had been doing 30 and I had passed them. I said that I had not undertaken them but had simply carried on in the (out of hours) bus lane while they had started up from the lights. One of them said that, since I had passed on the left while they were doing 30, that meant I had undertaken them. He also said it was just like coming up to someone on the motorway who is bumbling along in the middle lane and that passing him on the left would be undertaking in just the same way.
Two issues there:
(i) I am 100% certain they were well below the speed limit as they had just started up from the lights; I am also fairly (but not completely) certain that I was under the speed limit too. But what comeback do I have when they state that they were at 30 when they weren't, and use that as their basis for opining that I was over 30?
(ii) Surely I was well within my rights to carry on past them as I did? Tell me if I'm wrong. And also tell me how I might have persuaded them of that notion without getting their backs up - the first officer seemed to be a tricky one - my attempt at a polite just-in-case apology as mentioned above resulted in him asking if I had therefore been driving without due care and attention!
I thought there wasn't an offence of undertaking, and that proceeding as I did was just fine?
Anyway, the second officer explained that they were just using road traffic offences as excuses to breathalyse people, and that all they were interested in was whether I passed a breath test. Fine, I thought, since all I had done yesterday was go to a couple of job interviews and visit my Grandma.
But not fine, I also thought - as far as I was concerned, they had invented offences as an excuse to stop me. I knew I would be on my way very soon and that it had only cost a few minutes, but I was not at all happy to have been stopped without (in my opinion) good reason.
There's a bit of me that wants to complain about it. There's a bit of me that thinks if I do then my car may be targeted in future. But most of me just wants to check with you lot:
1. Is my understanding of the law in this instance erroneous?
2. How might I have been able to refute the accusations levelled at me, either at the time or, if necessary, at a later juncture?
There is no requirement for 'probable cause' or a 'reasonable suspicion' to stop a driver
There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
mph1977 said:
There is no requirement for 'probable cause' or a 'reasonable suspicion' to stop a driver
There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
I don't think they had reasonable suspicion of an offence. But (a) they claimed they did nevertheless, and (b) how could I have made that point without getting their backs up/getting into trouble for no reason?There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
cheeky said:
mph1977 said:
There is no requirement for 'probable cause' or a 'reasonable suspicion' to stop a driver
There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
I don't think they had reasonable suspicion of an offence. But (a) they claimed they did nevertheless, and (b) how could I have made that point without getting their backs up/getting into trouble for no reason?There is however a requirement that there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence for them to be able to breathalyse people ( as random breath testing gets the frothers in a froth - despite the fact that if it were introduced in the UK , barring a few 'booze bus' purges it would make little or no difference )
i only mentioned probabl e casue becasue some muppet will mention it at some point despite the fact that UK law doesn;t recognise or use 'probable cause' instead using the lower standard of proof of 'reasonable suspicion'. same as the UK police have more powers of entry and seizure on the basis of Holding the Office of COnstable and/or authorisation from a senior officer vs requiring a judge issued warrant.
They could have stopped you anyway, and if they thought you looked intoxicated they could have breathlysed / field impiarment test / decided you were on drugs and arrested you anyway pending review by the FME.
cheeky said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Life's too short. They can stop any car they want. They used the 'undertake' as an excuse to justify the test. Forget it.
"Forget it" precludes learning.I prefer to learn.
I'll add, grow up and accept responsibility for your actions.
cheeky said:
I don't think they had reasonable suspicion of an offence. But (a) they claimed they did nevertheless, and (b) how could I have made that point without getting their backs up/getting into trouble for no reason?
I suspect they thought you looked a bit suspicious, so stopped you for a check which showed you were who you said you were, not pissed, stinking of weed or driving a collapsing car. And off you went, no problem except 10 minutes lost.That is their job, no?
eldar said:
I suspect they thought you looked a bit suspicious, so stopped you for a check which showed you were who you said you were, not pissed, stinking of weed or driving a collapsing car. And off you went, no problem except 10 minutes lost.
That is their job, no?
As a man in his 40s in a suit in a clean Corvette, I doubt it! So no I don't think that's their job.That is their job, no?
I am all for their breath testing (or stopping and advising) people who are driving poorly, but not stopping those who are not (for a variety of reasons).
cheeky said:
Any thoughts on (ii) in the original post please? As far as I have long understood, what I was doing when I passed on the left in the circumstances described was not wrong. Am I mistaken?
TBH I would have done exactly the same, nothing wrong if exactly as described in my book.They were likely just looking for an excuse for a pull though
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff