New Police Powers - £100 Middle Lane Hogging Fines and more...

[Owenski]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/motorway-middle-lane-hoggers-and-careless-drivers-to-face-onthespot-100-police-fines-8644817.html

About ruddy time IMO.
Im sure if I read deeper than the headlines I'll see some dirt they're hiding, but on the face of it its about time poor driving was punished BEFORE an accident occurs.

[daveyrach]

We debated this in the office this morning, split opinions, I for one agree with them. Some of the things you can now be fined for should have been included long ago as they, I think, constitute careless driving in many cases.

[Bibio]

how to squeeze more money out the public for bullets.

what's next a baby tax.

[SvNewbie]

I hate middle lane hoggers as much as the next guy, but 3 points seems a bit extreme.

[Red Herring]

It's gonna be a minefield.....so open to interpretation! Careless driving, or at least the "without due consideration for other road users" bit of it is so subjective that it will be almost impossible to introduce any kind of consistency.

Hopefully it will only get used for the most blatant of transgressions.

[daveyrach]

It's gonna be a minefield.....so open to interpretation! Careless driving, or at least the "without due consideration for other road users" bit of it is so subjective that it will be almost impossible to introduce any kind of consistency.

Hopefully it will only get used for the most blatant of transgressions.

Agreed, hopefully those BM/Audi drivers which blatantly and deliberately drive in your boot will be the ones who get caught

[Ch00]

I can see court time increasing not the other way!!

[Red Herring]

I can see court time increasing not the other way!!

Yup, at the moment you might get a pull and a bollicking at most, it would have to be megga antisocial for anything more. Once this comes in officers will dish out tickets instead and you can bet a significant chunk of these will go to court, (or get dropped because the officer hasn't actually got any evidence....). Either way significantly more admin time incurred.

[Dave20046]

What if you're in the middle lane for a reason??with slight curvature left I find I can see further ahead making me far less likely to plough in to the back of other vehicles in my rangerrover at 140mph

[AJC]

I for one am very happy to read this. I recently was fined and got points for speeding which is fair enough, no argument. But I am thoroughly sick of seeing other more serious (imo) driving offences go unpunished because the officer didn't want to take the time to take them to court. Time they could use dishing out lesser fines to reach their monthly target. Or, more serious offences get the same punishment as lesser ones because again the officers dont want to write a report and gather evidence for a court case.

I don't think its harsh at all. You are told just as clearly in your test/highway code/etc that you move to the inside lane when not overtaking, same as your told to obey speed limits etc. Its just lazy and sometimes dangerous driving that needs stamped out. Yesterday I was stuck behind a guy merging onto a busy motorway at 35mph, reason: as I overtook him he was texting. I dunno if you get points for this but you should really!

Personally its hit a nerve since I was effectively involved in an accident right in front of a police car and they did near as nothing about it. I was in the straight through or right turn lane when a woman tried to turn right from the straight through only lane on my left. Luckily I reacted quickly, braking and hitting the horn. We ended up basically sitting against each other, me losing a indicator lens. Police moved over and checked I was okay, then asked so... do you want us to do anything about it?. I said. err wont she get done with careless driving or the likes? The reply basically being, well that would involve taking her to court, we'll just have a word. The word took less time than it took me to get my helmet on and get going again. So totally unpunished, but you pass the same police car on an empty motorway at 85 and you know the rest...

Basically I am hoping this will get dozy lazy drivers to actually start paying attention to what they are doing as the points tot up. The £100 fine increase slightly screams of more profit to be made but the points I agree with...

[NTECUK]

A bit more common sense from traffic we wouldnt need this

[AJC]

P.s before any offence caused. I don't blame police officers in general, I blame the system (heh good cliche but true!). Particularly the targets system.

[Souldude]

Much as I agree with the legislation, how many will get caught as police cannot be everywhere. How many take the risk of using phone or a bit of speeding knowing full well the chance of being caught is minimal. I would never do either of course.

[Red Herring]

Just to clarify a mis-understanding. Traffic cops don't have targets, they are allowed to nick as many people as they like and don't have to stop once they reach any particular figure.....

[Sid Squid]

It's gonna be a minefield.....so open to interpretation! Careless driving, or at least the "without due consideration for other road users" bit of it is so subjective that it will be almost impossible to introduce any kind of consistency.

Hopefully it will only get used for the most blatant of transgressions.
This.

[Balky001]

Any law has to be applied fairly and appropriately so as long as this is then I think it is good news given the current road laws. Whether it will ever be properly applied is questionable.

Middle laners usually fall between the oblivious (feel safe in the middle lane/don't know what lanes are for), lazy (I'll be overtaking that car in a minute so can't be asked to change lane or indicate!) or the arrogant knobbler no-one likes.

However, all this could be solved by allowing overtaking in any lane. That or people knowing the current law and being considerate...(that will never happen!)

[Red Herring]

Technically there is no specific offence of overtaking on the nearside, it's the how and why it's done then gets people into trouble. If I'm in lane one catching something in lane two and there is nothing ahead of me in my lane then I'm not about to go out and try and force them out of the way, or go all the way out to the third lane if available, in order to pass.

[Grant66]

Don't think they went far enough. Mobile phone/texting should be an instant ban (research shows its as dangerous as drink driving).
300 fine for no Insurance is a joke, should be at least 10 times average quote. If the fine is cheaper than paying for insurance where is the deterrent?

[Biker Biggles]

Technically there is no specific offence of overtaking on the nearside, it's the how and why it's done then gets people into trouble. If I'm in lane one catching something in lane two and there is nothing ahead of me in my lane then I'm not about to go out and try and force them out of the way, or go all the way out to the third lane if available, in order to pass.

Im not sure all your colleagues would agree though.The highway code says you shouldnt do it unless queing traffic is moving more slowly in the right hand lane or you are turning left which can give a stroppy coppy an excuse to slap a dangerous driving ticket on you.To avoid that possibility I usually go round the obstruction rather than just pass it on the left.

[PyroUK]

using the wrong lane on a roundabout!!! YES!!!

that does my head in!

had a good number of near misses thanks to dopey cage drivers not using the right lanes! only problem is that every time nota copper in sight. they should install cameras on the roundabouts to check this. like avg speed cams only for lanes.

[Braindead101]

Don't think they went far enough. Mobile phone/texting should be an instant ban (research shows its as dangerous as drink driving).
300 fine for no Insurance is a joke, should be at least 10 times average quote. If the fine is cheaper than paying for insurance where is the deterrent?
Completely agree with this post. Anyone caught driving without insurance, should have their car crushed.

[Balky001]

Re: undertaking - I always thought you could only undertake in slow moving traffic, on a filter lane or if someone was turning right?

[Biker Biggles]

using the wrong lane on a roundabout!!! YES!!!

that does my head in!

had a good number of near misses thanks to dopey cage drivers not using the right lanes! only problem is that every time nota copper in sight. they should install cameras on the roundabouts to check this. like avg speed cams only for lanes.

Would you include the bikers who filter up between the lanes and then turn left at the roundabout?

[PyroUK]

i understood it that, in a multiple lane carriage way, you were only allowed to pass on the left if the traffic was queueing and or moving slower on the right and you do not exceed the posted speed limit.

so if some numpty is driving in the right or middle lane and there are no other cars around and he is going 10 mph slower than the speed limit you can pass on the left as long as you dont break the limit.

yey or ney?


obv if it is proper slow moving traffic that is different as otherwise no one would get anywhere if you didnt pass on the left.

[Biker Biggles]

Don't think they went far enough. Mobile phone/texting should be an instant ban (research shows its as dangerous as drink driving).
300 fine for no Insurance is a joke, should be at least 10 times average quote. If the fine is cheaper than paying for insurance where is the deterrent?

Would you include the unfortunate drivers who got conned by the fake insurance fraud a couple of years ago?
And Im not convinced using a phone is more dangerous than being rattar&ed while driving or lighting a fag,or chatting with your mates in the car,or tuning the radio,or the hundred ane one other things people do when they should be concentrating on driving.

[PyroUK]

Would you include the bikers who filter up between the lanes and then turn left at the roundabout?

i guess it would depend, when i filter up to a round about i always try to get in to the correct lane a couple of cars up from the junction to ensure i am in the correct lane when entering the roundabout.

or if the traffic is slow enough get right to the front and clearly plonk my a$$ in the correct lane.

obviously i would indicate as needed to show my intended direction of travel.

if i were to filter up and then stay in the wrong lane and cut into the correct lane mid roundabout and risk myself and another road user i would take the fine on the chin.

there are quite a few round abouts in my area and route to work that have multiple lanes and the number of times i see drivers and bikers take the wrong lane and cut someone up is ridiculous. another thing that really does my head in is turning right at a no right turn junction. there are 2 on 1 stretch of road on my commute. one time i was stuck in traffic and a car tried to turn right when he shouldnt and thanks to the mile long standard exhaust, clipped me and tipped me over.

[Grant66]

Would you include the unfortunate drivers who got conned by the fake insurance fraud a couple of years ago?

Then they would use that as their defence in court.


And Im not convinced using a phone is more dangerous than being rattar&ed while driving or lighting a fag,or chatting with your mates in the car,or tuning the radio,or the hundred ane one other things people do when they should be concentrating on driving.

Plenty of documented research says it is, I'd supply some links but I assume you can use Google yourself :-P

[Spank86]

Completely agree with this post. Anyone caught driving without insurance, should have their car crushed.

Happened to me once, I got my dates mixed up and was 5 days out of insurance on a car.

The current penalty is quite enough thanks, or at least it is for those of us who normally insure, it's cost a LOT more than £300 I can tell you, extra £500 on my next years premiums to start.

[Biker Biggles]

Then they would use that as their defence in court.
Strict liability.There is no defence for having no insurance



Plenty of documented research says it is, I'd supply some links but I assume you can use Google yourself :-P

My common sense trumps any so called research:wink:
Ive seen the aftermath of enough crashes in my time to know that there are many distractions that cause these incidents,mobile phones being just one of them,and I simply do not believe that phones are more dangerous than,say,drink driving.Whatever the laboratory experts may tell us.

[yorkie_chris]

Re the no insurance I think that one problem with the current laws is getting punished again and again and again.

The punishment should fit the crime and that should be it.

As it is, if you're a scrote and get caught with no insurance... once you're caught once you will never be able to afford insurance to try and drive legally.
Big fine, crush car, maybe even a possible future sanctions but they should be from the state and should not encourage nay guarantee repeat offences. The punishments from the state being laughable is only part of the issue.


I welcome this new law but I am not holding my breath that it's enforcement will have much effect.

[Spank86]

I agree no insurance points should not raise your premiums IMHO, however the police ought to be on the look out for you in case you do it again, increase the penalty that way.

[DJ123]

Most motoring fixed penalties offences will rise under the changes:

a non-endorsable (where the driver does not receive points on their licence) £30 fixed penalty notice will rise to £50
an endorsable (where points are given) £60 and non-endorsable fixed penalty notice will rise to £100
an endorsable £120 fixed penalty notice will rise to £200
the fixed penalty notice for driving with no insurance will rise from £200 to £300
Graduated fixed penalties (mainly for commercial goods and passenger carrying vehicles and including offences like drivers’ hours and overloading) and financial deposits (for drivers without a satisfactory UK address) will also increase:

a £30 non-endorsable fine will rise to £50
a £60 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £100
a £120 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £200
a £200 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £300
http://i515.photobucket.com/albums/t358/focus550/penalty_zps0980b341.jpg

[Sir Trev]

As we don't have enough Rozzers out there enforcing our current laws I'm not sure this is likely to have much of an impact. Mr Middle Manager A-hole in his 5-series/A6 ignores speed limits while cutting people up and never moving out of lane three while on the phone already because he knows he is unlikely to get caught.

[yorkie_chris]

Ahhh speeding gone up to £100 as well.

cheap way to get that through and earn a bit more scamera revenue without it seeming too unpopular :(

[DJ123]

Yup! It's the usual introduce new popular laws to distract people from other laws and fines being imposed. At least it's a round figure, only need to keep 2 £50 notes in your wallet now :lol:

[yorkie_chris]

And wasn't careless a 3 pointer before anyway? What has actually changed?

[DJ123]

I think its variable, at least 3 and possibly up to 6?

all of these have changed: Most motoring fixed penalties offences will rise under the changes:

a non-endorsable (where the driver does not receive points on their licence) £30 fixed penalty notice will rise to £50
an endorsable (where points are given) £60 and non-endorsable fixed penalty notice will rise to £100
an endorsable £120 fixed penalty notice will rise to £200
the fixed penalty notice for driving with no insurance will rise from £200 to £300
Graduated fixed penalties (mainly for commercial goods and passenger carrying vehicles and including offences like drivers’ hours and overloading) and financial deposits (for drivers without a satisfactory UK address) will also increase:

a £30 non-endorsable fine will rise to £50
a £60 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £100
a £120 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £200
a £200 endorsable and non-endorsable fine will rise to £300

[Phoenix22]

A 40% increase!! Obviously fine revenues are not included in the inflation calculator index then?

All well and good bringing in new offences but not much good if there is nobody out there to enforce them. Hope they have invented one for granny & motorhomes holding everybody up.

Done a few thousand miles so far this year and seen loads of poor driving but very few traffic police.

[embee]

I can see some of these new powers being a minefield as others have said. Presumably the "middle lane hogger" will be written as failing to move to a suitably vacant lane to the left in an approproiate time/manner/fashion or somesuch wording ("middle" only applies to odd number of lanes, what about 2 or 4 lanes etc?), but the problem is there'll be no definitive numbers to apply unlike a speed limit or blood alcohol level etc. so it's all a matter of opinion.

Even if video evidence is taken by a following police car, when will it be considered an offence? We (the great unwashed) are entitled to some decent guidelines if we're going to be arbitrarily slapped with 3 points on the whim of a copper. It's not even like "without due care" or similar where some clearly unacceptable action has been made, the "middle lane hog" offence will be an interpretation of how long is too long to stay in the lane.

Sounds a bit like some political headlining rather than real benefit.

[Red Herring]

Im not sure all your colleagues would agree though.The highway code says you shouldnt do it unless queing traffic is moving more slowly in the right hand lane or you are turning left which can give a stroppy coppy an excuse to slap a dangerous driving ticket on you.To avoid that possibility I usually go round the obstruction rather than just pass it on the left.

I'm not the slightly bit bothered if he/she agrees with me or not, what matters is what they can evidence. To get anywhere they would need to show that I either drove without due care and attention, or without due consideration for another road user.

Examples of the former would be where I passed on the nearside when it would have been reasonable to expect the other vehicle to move over and hadn't allowed for that possibility (so don't do it if there isn't a hard shoulder available as an escape route), and an example of inconsiderate is where you drive up the inside of someone waiting to pass another vehicle and then cut in front of them.

Like I said, careless driving is very subjective and actually quite hard to prove unless you interview and investigate properly, which is why it rarely goes to court unless there has been a collision.

[Bibio]

so speeding is just a fine and no points?

[Berlin]

Any new law is bad. It's insidious creek and the government gaining more and more control. The government is there to uphold the laws we already have, not introduce new ones. And if they do, they should be forced to remove an old one so there are a set number.

[Fordward]

Explaining how to undertake without comitting an offence is a bit of a dangerous thing to be discussing on an internet forum. No offence to anyone specific, but I see some of the posts that go onto threads about accidents or traffic laws and they prove some of the users of this forum (and every other) are total driving numpties!

It would be better if the vast majority just continued to think it is illegal and do what they normally do, rather than trying to do something they don't understand.

Since it's already out there, and the presence of an escape route has already been mentioned, I guess all that remains is to say don't do it if your speeding and watch your speed differential with the car you are undertaking. Either could make you guilty of an offence.

Also you need to be damn sure you don't become guilty of an offence involving another vehicle in the process of doing it. It's really only permissable on an empty motorway where you have a completely blatant lane hogger who you'd need to traverse all three lanes to pass, and three lanes back again afterwards.

If there's other traffic about do what you'd normally do.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Red Herring]

That's a bit defeatist of you Fordward. Are you suggesting we treat everybody as if they are unable to make decisions for themselves? The internet is simply another communication tool and can be an incredibly effective way of learning things. I see evidence on a daily basis that supports your view about some drivers, and riders, but that doesn't mean we need to dumb down any discussion just in case they don't understand what we are saying. I always try and support my views with explanation and examples but it is for the reader to form their own opinion. Nobody is going to be right all of the time.

[Fordward]

That's a bit defeatist of you Fordward

I know, anything for an easy life I suppose, but how many times have you heard someone say, "XYZ who's a copper told me..." and it's absolute nonsense?

I'd expect most reading this thread wouldn't try 'but a copper on the sv650 forum said it was OK' as their defense to the beak, but somebody will repeat it in another thread a few months down the line. Somebody else will 'educate' their mates in the pub. These things turn into chinese whispers and before you know it you've got those people doing dangerous undertakes because they think it's not illegal and can't get booked for it.

Are you suggesting we treat everybody as if they are unable to make decisions for themselves?

I sure you realise the irony in that question, given we're talking about traffic law ;-)

[Owenski]

How long has it been £60?
Is this just inflation and we've actually been ruddy lucky to have it kept at £60 for so long?

Is it that the majority of offenders don't see £60 as a hit anymore?
Is it that 3 points don't carry much weight with your insurance premiums, so jack the fine make it a bigger deterrent again?


Reading back on the no insurance argument, by hiking insurance premiums you only hurt the ones like spank who genuinely forgot to re-insure but normally do have cover. Next time they come to insure boom they're hit hard again. Those who never insure and never will will pay the fine and keep driving regardless with no second hit for them. Solution IMO is make the fine £2000, make it more than double the average insurance premium that way at least it wont make sense to risk getting caught (to those it currently makes sense to).

Mobile phone use while driving = inexcusable, I don't disagree that we've regularly got other distractions which we can inadvertently subject ourselves to but to pull out your phone and either answer a call or make one (dont get me started on texters) is an action we're actively choosing to take and thus inexcusable. Its illegal for a reason plain and simple, if you must answer/call then pull the feck over - delay your journey don't risk ending it prematurely.

[Owenski]

I know, anything for an easy life I suppose, but how many times have you heard someone say, "XYZ who's a copper told me..." and it's absolute nonsense?

I'd expect most reading this thread wouldn't try 'but a copper on the sv650 forum said it was OK' as their defense to the beak, but somebody will repeat it in another thread a few months down the line. Somebody else will 'educate' their mates in the pub. These things turn into chinese whispers and before you know it you've got those people doing dangerous undertakes because they think it's not illegal and can't get booked for it.

I sure you realise the irony in that question, given we're talking about traffic law ;-)


I've got to admit, when I was knocked off the push iron recently the officer attending kept repeating "you undertook" despite me using the term "overtaking on the left" he rolled his eyes, even face palmed on one occasion. He did end up telling me "stop using that term, you undertook, end of".
When I asked him to explain why my understanding of that rule was incorrect he refused.
He was a hugely belligerent SOB but I did get that feeling of "who is actually correct here, the people sat behind a keyboard or the guy in front of me with a badge".

[Spank86]

Reading back on the no insurance argument, by hiking insurance premiums you only hurt the ones like spank who genuinely forgot to re-insure but normally do have cover. Next time they come to insure boom they're hit hard again. .
I sold my car and only use bikes now.

Oddly it made almost no difference to my bike insurance.:confused:

[Mauler]

Mostly welcome changes, people who drive properly and safely shouldn't have too much to worry about. There's no excuse for bad driving, everyone on the road follows the same highway code and was (hopefully) taught to the same standard and passed the same standard of driving test.

I'm with Owenski for insurance & mobiles - talking on a mobile without a hands-free is totally inexcusible. With a handsfree kit I don't see the problem, it's not like you can get done for talking to a passenger next to you. Passing a freely moving car (ie not moving slowly in a queue of traffic) on the inside is always a risky move legally, most of the time it's considered an undertake and can get your collar felt if Plod are watching and feeling picky.

Personally I'd like to invent a laser device that projects MOVE OVER FFS onto the rear-view mirror of the vehicle in front. There's nothing more annoying than getting stuck behind a mongpiece in the outside lane who isn't even doing the speed limit (apart from people who don't indicate).

[Spank86]

"who is actually correct here, the people sat behind a keyboard or the guy in front of me with a badge".
Both?


Wiki:

"...Undertaking or overtaking on the inside[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-Aus-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-3)..."

"United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) - The Highway Code discourages undertaking on motorways with some exceptions (rule 268): "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". Undertaking is permitted in congested conditions when frequent lane changing is not recommended.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-4) On other roads, the Code advises drivers "should only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" (rule 163).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-5) Rule 163 uses advisory wording and "will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted", but may be used in evidence to establishing liability in any court proceedings.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertaking_(driving)#cite_note-6) On all roads, undertaking is permitted if the vehicles in the lane to the right are queueing and slow moving. Undertaking in an aggressive or reckless manner could be considered Careless Driving or more seriously Dangerous Driving, both of which are legally enforceable offences."


Mostly welcome changes, people who drive properly and safely shouldn't have too much to worry about. There's no excuse for bad driving, everyone on the road follows the same highway code and was (hopefully) taught to the same standard and passed the same standard of driving test.

Are you kidding?

Of course they didn't, they learned based on several different iterations of the highway code and lots of different tests including a very few who were grandfathered in without any test.

[yorkie_chris]

I suppose the point about Owenski's case is that he was knocked off... the copper wasn't trying to do him for the undertake.

[Mauler]

Are you kidding?

Of course they didn't, they learned based on several different iterations of the highway code and lots of different tests including a very few who were grandfathered in without any test.

Without a test? We've had driving tests since 1935, assuming that the legal age of driving was the same as now I don't think we've still got many, if any, motorists aged 95 or over who started driving before then.
Rules covering overtaking and lane dicipline rules haven't really changed since 1931; Page 4 of the 1931 highway code states:

RULE OF THE ROAD
Vehicles - Keep to the left except when overtaking over vehicles or avoiding obstructions.

Complete with underlining and emboldening. There's really no excuse for not knowing how lanes work and it's not difficult. lol

[yorkie_chris]

The test has got absolutely f all to do with such "finer points" as this and never has, IMO.

Maybe that is part of the problem.

[Fordward]

Highway code stuff

What Red Herring is discussing is not what the highway code permits or does not permit. It's what can be proven in a court of law. There is no specific offence for undertaking/overtaking on the left/whatever you want to call it, it would be prosecuted as careless or dangerous driving in which case the prosecution have to prove that your standard of driving fell below or far below that of a prudent motorist. If you did it under circumstances whereby you were being prudent, how will they prove that?

What the layman may struggle with, and I don't profess to understand it to the level that Red Herring does, is what a court of law considers to be prudent, or not prudent. Unless you fully understand that, you can't be guaranteed that you're not going to fall foul of the law.

Just follow the highway code, it's written specifically for layman like you and I to be able to understand, and to keep us on the right side of the law. Yes, the highway code has some silly rules under certain circumstances, but usually it's the circumstance that's wrong not the rule itself, road markings/signage/poor highways design/some idiot in an office at the council.

[NTECUK]

Just like to point out The publicity The blocking the over take l lanes had no effect this morning on the A12.
65 mph in the overtake lanes 9 ft spacing to next cars.
I'll have a bag of left undertake thanks .

[Spank86]

Without a test? We've had driving tests since 1935, assuming that the legal age of driving was the same as now I don't think we've still got many, if any, motorists aged 95 or over who started driving before then.
I did say very few:

http://news.stv.tv/north/226295-world-war-ii-veteran-passes-advanced-driving-test-at-95-year-old/

[Mauler]

If we're still on the subject of overtaking specifically then I respectfully disagree; knowing how to position your vehicle on the road is a fundamental part of learning how to drive, as it knowing how and when to safely pass an obstruction in your lane, moving or otherwise.

You may have a point when it comes to how often the opportunity to overtake a moving car crops up on a driving test but regardless of that all learners and qualified drivers should know which lane to drive in and when as it's covered in the instruction book for using the road.

I think that most people who need to be worried by this new legislation are complacent drivers who haven't bothered to use lanes properly for so long they've forgotten how and special snowflake bar stewards who think that they can drive how they like without getting caught. I'm quite happy to see either of these stereotypes getting shaken up so that I can scoot down a dual-carriageway without having to pass them on the left and risk getting done or have some moron two feet off my back wheel when I'm overtaking someone with my 125 flat-out at 70mph. Don't laugh, I have my SV in the garage. Soon. :P

[Spank86]

What Red Herring is discussing is not what the highway code permits or does not permit. It's what can be proven in a court of law. .
which is why I replied to owenski not you or red, I think that explanation provides a decent guideline for why it may be inadvisable to undertake but not in itself illegal.

As to what courts will decide it's based on a hypothetical reasonable person.

[Mauler]

I did say very few:

http://news.stv.tv/north/226295-world-war-ii-veteran-passes-advanced-driving-test-at-95-year-old/

True, true :) GO VETS!

[NTECUK]

I'm 51 . Now lots of old farts my age still driving .Never had a exercise or questions on dual craigeways on our tests.
not a mention or exercise on how to overtake.
So are all theses people ignorant of the way they should behave or just selfish ???
You pull up behind them flash etc . They do jack to move

[Ch00]

If you did it under circumstances whereby you were being prudent, how will they prove that?


What I look for in some cases are...

Did anyone have to brake due to their actions?
Did anyone have to alter course due to their actions?
Or take avoidance action
Sound horn etc
Speed of the vehicle.

Tick most of those boxes and your off to court.

[NTECUK]

can you clarify"Speed of Vehicle".

[veenee]

I agree some of these new penalties will be tricky to execute, however mobile phones use should be quite easy and straight forward (I hope) to do.

The one of the things I wish was punished regularly and which I absolutely HATE when other drivers do, is not indicating (especially on roundabouts!)
Some people behave like they don't know how to use those bloody levers (yes, 90% of time it's cage drivers)

£20 for not signalling the maneuver would quickly teach some that it is worth doing - and as much as I hate introducing new fines, I am really fed up with this.

[Fordward]

which is why I replied to owenski

who was replying to me, part of the same thread of conversation...

[Red Herring]

I know, anything for an easy life I suppose, but how many times have you heard someone say, "XYZ who's a copper told me..." and it's absolute nonsense?

I'd expect most reading this thread wouldn't try 'but a copper on the sv650 forum said it was OK' as their defense to the beak, but somebody will repeat it in another thread a few months down the line. Somebody else will 'educate' their mates in the pub. These things turn into chinese whispers and before you know it you've got those people doing dangerous undertakes because they think it's not illegal and can't get booked for it.


Anybody who follows any kind of advice that blindly has only themselves to blame if they come unstuck and they would have to be a complete idiot to try that excuse. I have never done anything on the road simply because I've been told to (and trust me I've had a few people try to make me over the years) I do things because I understand why they can be done, how it works, and the potential consequences of me doing/not doing it.

I've been incredibly lucky over the years, not only have I had some of the best training available but I get to learn from everybody else's mistakes first hand. I'm also lucky enough to have been able to make a living out of doing what I like to do as a hobby, ie: ride and drive vehicles.

All I try and do on here is promote some thought so that others may do likewise. The single most adjustable item on any bike is the large nut that holds the handlebars (or the carbon interface if we want to use modern speak that youngsters can understand). Use it, or risk losing it.

[Fordward]

can you clarify"Speed of Vehicle".

Not wishing to answer on behalf of Ch00, and conscious that I may get it wrong, but I'm sure he'll correct me if so.

Mustn't be in excess of the speed limit. So if on a motorway in NSL the vehicle is already doing 70 (most vehicles hogging the middle lane are), overtake on the right, that way your only liable to get done for speeding.

I would use the same rule as when filtering on a motorbike or overtaking a stationary vehicle, not more than 20mph speed differential. So if the idiot is doing 40mph in the middle lane on an empty motorway, and you're approaching from behind at 70, you need to slow to 60 to overtake on the left.

[Ch00]

can you clarify"Speed of Vehicle".

Fordward has the idea.

More based on the speed of the subject vehicle in comparison with everyone else.

[Spank86]

who was replying to me, part of the same thread of conversation...
asking who is correct...

[NTECUK]

ok do I take it that given the audi /BMW train has slowed to 55mph .its ok ish to gun it up the near side past 4 cars and Mr chippy on his mobile discussing the door he's gona fit .as long as I don't eclipse 77 mph .
Cos I don't want to poodle by and then Mr A6 get the hump and swing into the NS lane.

[Red Herring]

I would suggest that were you to approach in the nearside lane, pause long enough to be confident the middle lane hogger isn't just completing an overtake and being a bit tardy moving back in, and then accelerate moderately briskly past whilst at all times having an option to abort should they wake up and drift across without checking their nearside then any copper, however bad a day they are having, is going to struggle to demonstrate a lack of due care on your part.

Committing yourself up the inside with a 20/30 mph+ closing speed from 50 yards back is another matter altogether.


ps: should we be starting another thread for this or is the derail now complete....?

[NTECUK]

I mis Readder .
He easy was king of the de rail

[Ceri JC]

I for one am very happy to read this. I recently was fined and got points for speeding which is fair enough, no argument. But I am thoroughly sick of seeing other more serious (imo) driving offences go unpunished because the officer didn't want to take the time to take them to court. Time they could use dishing out lesser fines to reach their monthly target. Or, more serious offences get the same punishment as lesser ones because again the officers dont want to write a report and gather evidence for a court case.

I don't think its harsh at all. You are told just as clearly in your test/highway code/etc that you move to the inside lane when not overtaking, same as your told to obey speed limits etc. Its just lazy and sometimes dangerous driving that needs stamped out. Yesterday I was stuck behind a guy merging onto a busy motorway at 35mph, reason: as I overtook him he was texting. I dunno if you get points for this but you should really!

Personally its hit a nerve since I was effectively involved in an accident right in front of a police car and they did near as nothing about it. I was in the straight through or right turn lane when a woman tried to turn right from the straight through only lane on my left. Luckily I reacted quickly, braking and hitting the horn. We ended up basically sitting against each other, me losing a indicator lens. Police moved over and checked I was okay, then asked so... do you want us to do anything about it?. I said. err wont she get done with careless driving or the likes? The reply basically being, well that would involve taking her to court, we'll just have a word. The word took less time than it took me to get my helmet on and get going again. So totally unpunished, but you pass the same police car on an empty motorway at 85 and you know the rest...

Basically I am hoping this will get dozy lazy drivers to actually start paying attention to what they are doing as the points tot up. The £100 fine increase slightly screams of more profit to be made but the points I agree with...

+1. I suspect the motivation for doing it is not wholly honourable, but the net result of putting idiots who can't drive in at least the same bracket as people who disregard speeds limits that are not appropriate, is a step in the right direction.

Really, what I'd like to see is first offence, you get pulled over and "educated" and let off with a warning. If it happens again within 12 months, you get the points and the fine for both the original offence and the re-offence.

[TamSV]

then any copper, however bad a day they are having, is going to struggle to demonstrate a lack of due care on your part.

The problem with this recent change is that they won't have to worry about proving their case for a lot of these types of offences anymore - they'll just issue a FPN safe in the knowledge that most people will just take it rather than risk court (which is a gamble no matter how good you think your case is).

Some will think this is a good thing, on the basis that they don't think it'll happen to them.

[Red Herring]

The problem with this recent change is that they won't have to worry about proving their case for a lot of these types of offences anymore - they'll just issue a FPN safe in the knowledge that most people will just take it rather than risk court (which is a gamble no matter how good you think your case is).

Some will think this is a good thing, on the basis that they don't think it'll happen to them.

I agree. All the more reason to wise up and avoid being one of the ones they take advantage of.

[ChrisCurvyS]

I agree. All the more reason to wise up and avoid being one of the ones they take advantage of.
Yep. For me with all the dawdling, tailgaiting, lane-straddling, non-indicating idiots I have to contend with every day on my commute who the trafpol would previously be reluctant to tackle, I think it can only be a good thing.

I'm sure there will still be room for officer discretion, as has always been the case with fixed penalties for speeding when actually given in person (which I've benefited from more than once). Plus doesn't every traffic car have a camera in it these days, so it's pretty hard for the police to completely fabricate an offence?

[Bibio]

another back door tax. nothing more nothing less. people wont stop doing what they do and the Gov know this. but as usual we the public will just bend over and say yes please and can i have more.

[NTECUK]

Most of the people who do the offences wont get caught as you dont have meany plain looking cars.
We have all been stuck on the end of the. 65Mph line when mr police car is just bobbing along.