Am I in the clear? Speeding and Double White Line

[Targarama]

Back in August I was caught by an unmarked Police car speeding along the A5 between Towcester and Daventry. He followed me doing 90mph in a 60 limit for quite a while. He also saw me cross a double white line for an overtake (no excuses, but it was safe, I accept I was wrong though etc.).

Anyway, he cautioned me and gave me a slip and said I'd be hearing from them. He said he had no power to give me a ticket there and then and the central office would be dealing with it. He was fair and I'd been a wally and 'fessed up immediately. Clean license forever etc.

Anyway, I've just received an invite to a 'Whats Driving Us' awareness course in the post, or take 3 points for the double white line offence. I took the course of course (https://www.northants.police.uk/#!/DrivingEducationalCourses/13540).

Question, on my 'ticket' the Policeman gave me at the time it says:

- Crossing Double White Line - TSxxx (I forget the actual code)
- Speeding 90 in a 60 limit (with no offence code).

Am I in the clear regarding the speeding, or do they still have the rest of the 6 month period to invite me to meet a judge?

Comments please?

[agtlaw]

Probably in the clear if you do the course.

If you were prosecuted for both offences then your score of 90 would likely win 5 or 6 points (and a fine), but no separate penalty for the traffic sign offence.

If you don't do the course then you may be prosecuted for one, both or some other offence.

In summary, do the course.

[TooMany2cvs]

Go and buy a lottery ticket.

[skodaphile]

Wow. Fair play to the officer involved. You, my friend, are one lucky man.

Good people do exist within the police you know... see my post in this thread this morning.

[Targarama]

Cheers guys. I have already booked the course, no issues there. Like I said, I'm guilty. I was a bit silly that evening and pushing on more than I would normally do. Hopefully the course will be interesting.

I actually overtook the unmarked car (as part of 3 or 4 overtakes, its a nice fast quiet road). He said he had no issue with me overtaking him (he was part of a road-train doing 50-ish) as I was driving safely and not really speeding at the time. He was driving a black Passat Estate, 59 plate I think. No extra mirrors or badges, just blue lights in the grille. Nice enough guy and it was obvious I was guilty after he was trying to keep up for 10 miles (ahem), I 'fessed up immediately.

I'll still keep any eye on the post until the 6 months are up just in case.

P.S. I do now drive more sensibly, so the event had the right effect on me.

[jbsportstech]

skodaphile said:

Wow. Fair play to the officer involved. You, my friend, are one lucky man.

Good people do exist within the police you know... see my post in this thread this morning.

Do they? Speed aside crossing solid white line and justifying it. Do you really want people let off for that or indeed their insurers not know. TS offences in my experience load private insurance policys.

Unfortunately solid white lines have not started appearing in some silly place were I live however they are put in the main were you don't want people coming into conflict with oncoming like the a303 illimnster bypass and there have been a load of fatals. If your doing 60 and this person pops out at 90 and hits you head on its like hitting a brick wall at 150mph.

Sounds like the op was very lucky needs to stay the right side of solids. Speed I don't know but do tend to do more than 80 in 60 single carriageway.

[Derek Smith]

jbsportstech said:

Do they? Speed aside crossing solid white line and justifying it. Do you really want people let off for that or indeed their insurers not know. TS offences in my experience load private insurance policys.

Unfortunately solid white lines have not started appearing in some silly place were I live however they are put in the main were you don't want people coming into conflict with oncoming like the a303 illimnster bypass and there have been a load of fatals. If your doing 60 and this person pops out at 90 and hits you head on its like hitting a brick wall at 150mph.

Sounds like the op was very lucky needs to stay the right side of solids. Speed I don't know but do tend to do more than 80 in 60 single carriageway.

Let's ignore the duff physics, at least for the moment.

Double white lines were brought in to protect dangerous locations, such as hump-back bridges, blind corners, that sort of thing. Now they are being used for traffic management. It is a shame but they didn't ask me. I'm sure we all know of perfectly safe overtaking opportunities being blocked by double whites. If you don't, try the 272 in West Sussex.

[Targarama]

Derek Smith said:

jbsportstech said:

Do they? Speed aside crossing solid white line and justifying it. Do you really want people let off for that or indeed their insurers not know. TS offences in my experience load private insurance policys.

Unfortunately solid white lines have not started appearing in some silly place were I live however they are put in the main were you don't want people coming into conflict with oncoming like the a303 illimnster bypass and there have been a load of fatals. If your doing 60 and this person pops out at 90 and hits you head on its like hitting a brick wall at 150mph.

Sounds like the op was very lucky needs to stay the right side of solids. Speed I don't know but do tend to do more than 80 in 60 single carriageway.

Let's ignore the duff physics, at least for the moment.

Double white lines were brought in to protect dangerous locations, such as hump-back bridges, blind corners, that sort of thing. Now they are being used for traffic management. It is a shame but they didn't ask me. I'm sure we all know of perfectly safe overtaking opportunities being blocked by double whites. If you don't, try the 272 in West Sussex.

Normally I never, ever, cross double whites illegally. Honestly! In my case is was a straight road (A5) and I crossed the line around 10M before it became broken again, the road was clear. Just a case of the line being longer than really needed. No excuses though, I'm an idiot for not waiting another second.

[skodaphile]

Targarama said:

Normally I never, ever, cross double whites illegally. Honestly! In my case is was a straight road (A5) and I crossed the line around 10M before it became broken again, the road was clear. Just a case of the line being longer than really needed. No excuses though, I'm an idiot for not waiting another second.

+1, neither do I. It's non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned.

It does seem it was a sensible plod that stopped you, and used his discretion wisely IMHO. You weren't 'let off' but he didn't get all arsey either. Everyone's a winner.

You're just lucky jbsportstech wasn't behind you with his dash cam...

[TooMany2cvs]

jbsportstech said:

TS offences in my experience load private insurance policys.

My experience of a rather embarrassing TS10 a few years back differs. A friendly Meerkat told me it made no more difference than an SP30 - both FPNs - and less than having my car hit while parked.

(My own fault entirely: approaching a set of lights, I was distracted and gazing off to one side, and didn't notice them changing until they went orange-red. I made the wrong choice, gave it a quick squirt to get through before the right-turn filters went green, and saw a box go flash-flash in my mirror...)

[IainT]

skodaphile said:

+1, neither do I. It's non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed but it's frustrating when they take one of the few safe overtaking spots on a road and change the dashed lines to doubles at the same time as dropping the limit to 50. My guess is the lower speed means legal overtakes would take a longer distance that makes them riskier...

[Derek Smith]

Targarama said:

Normally I never, ever, cross double whites illegally. Honestly! In my case is was a straight road (A5) and I crossed the line around 10M before it became broken again, the road was clear. Just a case of the line being longer than really needed. No excuses though, I'm an idiot for not waiting another second.

There are exemptions to crossing DWLs. This, I think, exposes them as no longer being a safety feature and merely management. I say merely, but I accept that traffic management is important.

There was some argument when the exemptions were brought in, some suggesting that drivers would now pass bicycles on approach to a hump-backed-bridge. When I taught traffic law, pre the legal exemption, the crossing of DWLs to pass pedestrians and cyclists was part of a lesson taught by my co-instructor. Our view was that whether it should be considered an offence or that the bicycle be considered an obstruction was a fact to be proved.

Some years later I was in charge of a process unit and a traffic officer had submitted a process for something similar. The driver had written in with an explanation (I forget the circs) and, after asking the officer for further details, we binned the process, telling her to use discretion in future. The officer's sergeant came to the unit and was seen by my sergeant - I was at court or something - and there was, I was told, a lot of shouting about absolute offences. The CPS was approached by traffic and were told to get a life (except in latin).

[GPSHead]

IainT said:

legal overtakes would take a longer distance that makes them riskier...

Does not compute. Slower is always, always, always, always safer. Why else would the finest minds on SP&L keep saying it was?

[Toltec]

GPSHead said:

IainT said:

legal overtakes would take a longer distance that makes them riskier...

Does not compute. Slower is always, always, always, always safer. Why else would the finest minds on SP&L keep saying it was?

I suspect he means overtaking a 40mph everywhere driver can be accomplished more quickly in a 60 limit and with therefore lower TEtD.

[GPSHead]

Toltec said:

GPSHead said:

IainT said:

legal overtakes would take a longer distance that makes them riskier...

Does not compute. Slower is always, always, always, always safer. Why else would the finest minds on SP&L keep saying it was?

I suspect he means overtaking a 40mph everywhere driver can be accomplished more quickly in a 60 limit and with therefore lower TEtD.

Yes, I understand (and agree).

[IainT]

GPSHead said:

Toltec said:

GPSHead said:

IainT said:

legal overtakes would take a longer distance that makes them riskier...

Does not compute. Slower is always, always, always, always safer. Why else would the finest minds on SP&L keep saying it was?

I suspect he means overtaking a 40mph everywhere driver can be accomplished more quickly in a 60 limit and with therefore lower TEtD.

Yes, I understand (and agree).

It's pretty much the only sane reason I can see for planners to make the change - that or you're into car-hating 'all overtaking is dangerous' territory...

[speedking31]

Considering the reduction from 60 to 50 mph limit. The time an overtake takes depends on the speed differential and the acceleration of the overtaker. Those are variables. The double white line advises that a certain combination is unwise, but for example passing a 20 mph tractor in a Ferrari may be safe, even where double whites have been applied.

I am feeling less and less respect for these blunt instruments. I have no qualms about straightlining a well-known S bend with good visibility, but I wouldn't overtake there. Most drivers seem to wander back and forth over the white lines whilst texting anyway.