Discussion
Ironically given my comment on m2 thread, a section 59 has been recived in the post for accelerating from a roundabout and undertaking in wet conditions causing a nuisance/annoyance to other road users and moving from l1 to 3 and proceeding 'at speed'
Definitely undertook in an empty l1 at an indicated 70 on a DC (3 lanes at times) with multiple middle lane drives pootling at 60.
Also accelerated from the roundabout.
Don't dispute this.
Conditions were not wet and didnt speed however, so indicated 70 was fine for the very slightly damp conditions.
Maintained indicated 70 in a clear l1 as well and was not weaving in and out as some will no doubt posture (not that the section 59 mentioned that) and moved from l1 to l3 when l1 and l2 were populated by slower moving vehicles, but did so in a safe manner indicating into each and in 2 moves not one fell swoop from 1 to 3. Then returned to l1 by same means.
slightly annoyed by this and would dispute it if such a means existed but understand there isn't sadly, as feel undertaking , slowly, without speeding or constantly changing lanes is not inconsiderate driving, the inconsiderate driving is all those vehicles in l2 for 0 reason. Others may disagree. But i digress.
main question is the fact this was received this in the post without being stopped. Should there not have been a stop and warned of this? Is there any recourse in fact?
The in hindsight warning of this was as overtaking in l3 at 70 a second time, a volvo suv, who had accelerated behind from the roundabout and sat in l2 and used l3 to overtake as stayed in l1, doing erratic speeds (the volvo) the older driver with his lady passenger, assumedley offduty with his wife, flashed what assume was police badge thing from his wallet in the drivers window. thought nothing of it and continued on way at 70 and in the correct lanes.
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
Definitely undertook in an empty l1 at an indicated 70 on a DC (3 lanes at times) with multiple middle lane drives pootling at 60.
Also accelerated from the roundabout.
Don't dispute this.
Conditions were not wet and didnt speed however, so indicated 70 was fine for the very slightly damp conditions.
Maintained indicated 70 in a clear l1 as well and was not weaving in and out as some will no doubt posture (not that the section 59 mentioned that) and moved from l1 to l3 when l1 and l2 were populated by slower moving vehicles, but did so in a safe manner indicating into each and in 2 moves not one fell swoop from 1 to 3. Then returned to l1 by same means.
slightly annoyed by this and would dispute it if such a means existed but understand there isn't sadly, as feel undertaking , slowly, without speeding or constantly changing lanes is not inconsiderate driving, the inconsiderate driving is all those vehicles in l2 for 0 reason. Others may disagree. But i digress.
main question is the fact this was received this in the post without being stopped. Should there not have been a stop and warned of this? Is there any recourse in fact?
The in hindsight warning of this was as overtaking in l3 at 70 a second time, a volvo suv, who had accelerated behind from the roundabout and sat in l2 and used l3 to overtake as stayed in l1, doing erratic speeds (the volvo) the older driver with his lady passenger, assumedley offduty with his wife, flashed what assume was police badge thing from his wallet in the drivers window. thought nothing of it and continued on way at 70 and in the correct lanes.
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
theplayingmantis said:
Ironically given my comment on m2 thread, a section 59 has been recived in the post for accelerating from a roundabout and undertaking in wet conditions causing a nuisance/annoyance to other road users and moving from l1 to 3 and proceeding 'at speed'
Definitely undertook in an empty l1 at an indicated 70 on a DC (3 lanes at times) with multiple middle lane drives pootling at 60.
Also accelerated from the roundabout.
Don't dispute this.
Conditions were not wet and didnt speed however, so indicated 70 was fine for the very slightly damp conditions.
Maintained indicated 70 in a clear l1 as well and was not weaving in and out as some will no doubt posture (not that the section 59 mentioned that) and moved from l1 to l3 when l1 and l2 were populated by slower moving vehicles, but did so in a safe manner indicating into each and in 2 moves not one fell swoop from 1 to 3. Then returned to l1 by same means.
slightly annoyed by this and would dispute it if such a means existed but understand there isn't sadly, as feel undertaking , slowly, without speeding or constantly changing lanes is not inconsiderate driving, the inconsiderate driving is all those vehicles in l2 for 0 reason. Others may disagree. But i digress.
main question is the fact this was received this in the post without being stopped. Should there not have been a stop and warned of this? Is there any recourse in fact?
The in hindsight warning of this was as overtaking in l3 at 70 a second time, a volvo suv, who had accelerated behind from the roundabout and sat in l2 and used l3 to overtake as stayed in l1, doing erratic speeds (the volvo) the older driver with his lady passenger, assumedley offduty with his wife, flashed what assume was police badge thing from his wallet in the drivers window. thought nothing of it and continued on way at 70 and in the correct lanes.
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
You admit that you were accelerating away from the roundabout to 'undertake' pootling vehicles in L2 & L3, so aren't you bang to rights?Definitely undertook in an empty l1 at an indicated 70 on a DC (3 lanes at times) with multiple middle lane drives pootling at 60.
Also accelerated from the roundabout.
Don't dispute this.
Conditions were not wet and didnt speed however, so indicated 70 was fine for the very slightly damp conditions.
Maintained indicated 70 in a clear l1 as well and was not weaving in and out as some will no doubt posture (not that the section 59 mentioned that) and moved from l1 to l3 when l1 and l2 were populated by slower moving vehicles, but did so in a safe manner indicating into each and in 2 moves not one fell swoop from 1 to 3. Then returned to l1 by same means.
slightly annoyed by this and would dispute it if such a means existed but understand there isn't sadly, as feel undertaking , slowly, without speeding or constantly changing lanes is not inconsiderate driving, the inconsiderate driving is all those vehicles in l2 for 0 reason. Others may disagree. But i digress.
main question is the fact this was received this in the post without being stopped. Should there not have been a stop and warned of this? Is there any recourse in fact?
The in hindsight warning of this was as overtaking in l3 at 70 a second time, a volvo suv, who had accelerated behind from the roundabout and sat in l2 and used l3 to overtake as stayed in l1, doing erratic speeds (the volvo) the older driver with his lady passenger, assumedley offduty with his wife, flashed what assume was police badge thing from his wallet in the drivers window. thought nothing of it and continued on way at 70 and in the correct lanes.
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
I'm with the OP on this.
The inconsiderate driving is the people who can't choose the right lane - I see it daily now and the police take no interest whatsoever.
The police (mis) use of section 59 has been commented on here quite often.
Sounds like a frustrated copper who can't see the wood for the trees.
However, from what I read of section 59 over the years, use it is deliberately unaccountable, and I have yet to ever meet a copper who will admit they were wrong (unless a judge has evidence of it at which point some qualified statement of regret might be forthcoming).
The inconsiderate driving is the people who can't choose the right lane - I see it daily now and the police take no interest whatsoever.
The police (mis) use of section 59 has been commented on here quite often.
Sounds like a frustrated copper who can't see the wood for the trees.
However, from what I read of section 59 over the years, use it is deliberately unaccountable, and I have yet to ever meet a copper who will admit they were wrong (unless a judge has evidence of it at which point some qualified statement of regret might be forthcoming).
Yup with the OP too. So many drive with their brain turned off nowadays, zero attention to other road users and zero attention to "correct" driving standards.
Did the plod also issue warnings to those driving in overtaking lanes i wonder?
Could this have been footage submitted via dashcam?
Did the plod also issue warnings to those driving in overtaking lanes i wonder?
Could this have been footage submitted via dashcam?
theplayingmantis said:
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
I mentioned in another thread about Section 59s recently. But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
For one to be issued you need to have a careless offence. (Or riding off road).
Undertaking could be deemed as careless. Just because someone is in lane two/three when maybe they shouldn't be doesn't make it OK. (They may also have been issued one).
Section 59 lasts for 12 months on you and your car. If you drive mine and drive carelessly it could be seized. Likewise if I did the same in yours.
It won't be removed before the 12 months.
The Section 59 can be issued without any warning. It's kinda a warning in itself to warn you the vehicle could be seized if its done again.
Via post and not stopped I'd have to check. Not something I'd do personally.
Did you get a ticket for the due care offence?
You did say it was damp, that can be classed as wet.
You also said you went from L1 to L2 and L3 and back again which could be classed as undertaking.
It seems you only have a marker on the car for a year. It could be worse, unless you drive like that often. It is frustrating being stuck behind lane hogs but I try now to just accept and let the journey progress with less stress.
You also said you went from L1 to L2 and L3 and back again which could be classed as undertaking.
It seems you only have a marker on the car for a year. It could be worse, unless you drive like that often. It is frustrating being stuck behind lane hogs but I try now to just accept and let the journey progress with less stress.
I received one by post many years ago.
I'd been following a flat bed transit on a wide residential road when he indicated to turn right, I went to go up the inside when he changed his mind and continued in front of me. Next right turn he indicated again so again I went to go up the inside but put my foot down to ensure I was passed before he changed his mind again. He did change his mind!
Received a S59 through the post a few days later stating a PCSO had witnessed me undertake the transit and mentioned something about excessive acceleration.
Furious called the police station asking to be put through to the PCSO several times also asking for them to call me back. Nothing, never managed to speak to them.
They appear to be able to dish them out acting as judge and jury without seeing the whole picture. Then they wonder why the police are losing the publics support.
I'd been following a flat bed transit on a wide residential road when he indicated to turn right, I went to go up the inside when he changed his mind and continued in front of me. Next right turn he indicated again so again I went to go up the inside but put my foot down to ensure I was passed before he changed his mind again. He did change his mind!
Received a S59 through the post a few days later stating a PCSO had witnessed me undertake the transit and mentioned something about excessive acceleration.
Furious called the police station asking to be put through to the PCSO several times also asking for them to call me back. Nothing, never managed to speak to them.
They appear to be able to dish them out acting as judge and jury without seeing the whole picture. Then they wonder why the police are losing the publics support.
This description of events sounds like potentially Careless Driving. So how can a copper decide it does not meet the threshold for prosecution for that actual offence which itself is pretty broad, but hey, ho, I'll issue a Section 59 instead?
Could the same car have been spotted doing silly things before? It seems like a total misuse of powers.
Could the same car have been spotted doing silly things before? It seems like a total misuse of powers.
GasEngineer said:
You admit that you were accelerating away from the roundabout to 'undertake' pootling vehicles in L2 & L3, so aren't you bang to rights?
No I admit I accelerated from roundabout not at excessive speed to join l1And I admit later on I undertook at 70 in l1. Simply by staying in lane.
Bang to rights on each but I dispute they were illegal/inconsiderate given the situtaion.
But it is what it is. More interested in lack of stop, only comms via post, and what happens to markers if done again and car impounded other than a small retrieval fee. Seems a stupid deterrent. As there not much of one other than inconvenience
BrettMRC said:
What sort of car were you driving OP?
Any other interactions with the Volvo?
A fast and little loud, briefly, 500hp saloon when accelerating in dynamic. Which I was away from roundabout before sitting in eco on the DC. I know noise can be a factor. And mildy interesting, decent cars can attract attention from certain types with chips on shoulders.Any other interactions with the Volvo?
Not that I picked up on. Other than noticing them accelerating from RB and ther erratic changes in speed in l2 and 3.
Edited by theplayingmantis on Thursday 5th December 11:00
LosingGrip said:
theplayingmantis said:
Again Iunderstand no burden of proof on plod and were to get flagged again within a year, in danger of a car seizure and paying to retrieve it which is no big deal.
But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
I mentioned in another thread about Section 59s recently. But is the marker then removed?
Understand the point of this legislation for antisocial driving but its open to abuse imo but ultimately want to understand if they can just be issued via the post.
As I say did accelerate from a roundabout and undertake (well if maintaining a constant speed in l1 is undertaking), bit keen to understand the procedure, recourse, what happens to markers if car is seized and retrieved.
Tin hat no doubt on.
Edit as phone typing.
For one to be issued you need to have a careless offence. (Or riding off road).
Undertaking could be deemed as careless. Just because someone is in lane two/three when maybe they shouldn't be doesn't make it OK. (They may also have been issued one).
Section 59 lasts for 12 months on you and your car. If you drive mine and drive carelessly it could be seized. Likewise if I did the same in yours.
It won't be removed before the 12 months.
The Section 59 can be issued without any warning. It's kinda a warning in itself to warn you the vehicle could be seized if its done again.
Via post and not stopped I'd have to check. Not something I'd do personally.
Did you get a ticket for the due care offence?
No ticket. Just a 59 in post.
mac96 said:
This description of events sounds like potentially Careless Driving. So how can a copper decide it does not meet the threshold for prosecution for that actual offence which itself is pretty broad, but hey, ho, I'll issue a Section 59 instead?
Could the same car have been spotted doing silly things before? It seems like a total misuse of powers.
Possibly as i i do undertake below speed limit in a clear l1 on multi lane roads. Apart from that 2 speeding tickets in all my years each for 79 in a 70.Could the same car have been spotted doing silly things before? It seems like a total misuse of powers.
LosingGrip said:
Undertaking could be deemed as careless. Just because someone is in lane two/three when maybe they shouldn't be doesn't make it OK. (They may also have been issued one).
Undertaking within speed limits staying in lane is a grey area per HW Code. Its not illegal in those circumstances or is it?And we all know the multiple lane hogs didn't get one. It was an annoyed/bored/jealous (god knows why) plod after low hanging fruit having been forced to go Saturday shopping with his old dear. But I take my medicine. Just curious at the process and baffled at the powers this gives. Given no burden of proof and a nightmare I would think if legally challenged. Assume that's why the ramifications are minor as it wouldn't stand up if any one could be bothered to challenge properly, so a small reclaim fee and inconvenience are deemed minor enough for people not to bother challenging...assuming they repeat and car is seized.
If the lane hogging was dealt with no one would undertake.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff