View Full Version : Definition of a stationary vehicle?
theboatman
06-10-13, 12:50 PM
Hi guys,
I'm intrigued, what is the definition of a stationary vehicle as far as the highway code is concerned?
Red Herring
06-10-13, 01:17 PM
Let me guess, is this going to head off in the direction of solid white lines?
Red ones
06-10-13, 01:20 PM
I thought solid white lines meant below 10 mph.
Spank86
06-10-13, 01:29 PM
Hi guys,
I'm intrigued, what is the definition of a stationary vehicle as far as the highway code is concerned?
not moving I'd suppose.
Things like the highway code seldom define words that ought to be understood by a reasonable person.
BoltonSte
06-10-13, 02:39 PM
Yes RH, just a discussion we had, I had been told by one of those fellows in a uniform, that if it is intending to move off it is not stationary. i.e. crossing solids whilst filtering past stopped traffic (either at lights or roadworks) is a no.
Spank86
06-10-13, 02:48 PM
That sounds more like his interpretation than a legal position.
Stationary is stationary. They'd be better pointing out the "if it is safe to do so" part.
BoltonSte
06-10-13, 03:04 PM
Ftr, this was just a chat we were having. But may also make some video editing easier.
Unless your copper friend feels he should start a new career rewriting the world's dictionaries for a living, stationary means not moving, stopped and immobile. I wouldn't care less if it was about to move off, until it actually has it's stationary as far as I'm concerned.
Unfortunately there are still a great number of police officers who haven't got enough brain cells in their head to fill the gaps in their ears let alone between them, and they are the ones who usually make complete ar5es of themselves when putting across their interpretation of the written laws - Current members of the thin blue line who post to this forum excepted.
Bluepete
06-10-13, 03:52 PM
The telly people did a documentary on the cops recently. Here's one of the best bits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jkBOU9etRA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Pete ;)
theboatman
06-10-13, 04:00 PM
The telly people did a documentary on the cops recently. Here's one of the best bits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jkBOU9etRA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Pete ;)
And there was me thinking Pete might manage to bring some sense of order to the conversation! More fool me!
BTW, if anyone happens to work for swinton bikes on here, I suggest you don't answer the phone till about 9:05 on Monday morning....
andrewsmith
06-10-13, 04:09 PM
What you smashed up this time?
theboatman
06-10-13, 04:11 PM
What you smashed up this time?
Nothing, but good job I wasn't riding today in the end, as the plod might have liked me.... NOT!
andrewsmith
06-10-13, 04:18 PM
All you needed was an open pipe and credit card size plate and you would have been target practice :lol:
Red Herring
06-10-13, 06:43 PM
Unless your copper friend feels he should start a new career rewriting the world's dictionaries for a living, stationary means not moving, stopped and immobile. I wouldn't care less if it was about to move off, until it actually has it's stationary as far as I'm concerned.
Unfortunately there are still a great number of police officers who haven't got enough brain cells in their head to fill the gaps in their ears let alone between them, and they are the ones who usually make complete ar5es of themselves when putting across their interpretation of the written laws - Current members of the thin blue line who post to this forum excepted.
Much as it pains me to admit it Lozzo is, with the possible exception of the psychological analysis, about right. It is pretty much folklore amongst traffic officers that vehicles temporarily held up in traffic are not stationery, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. I did once get so worked up over it that I actually sought the professional view of the force solicitor, yet even when armed with his support I couldn't convince them that stationery meant not moving. Those that did try and argue the point invariably tried to rely on another element of the exception, that it has to be "necessary" to cross the lines in order to pass a stationery vehicle, their point being that it isn't necessary to pass a vehicle that is only temporarily held up as it will move off in a moment. This was a few years ago now but as far as I am aware there still isn't any stated case on the issue but anybody who knows differently feel free to shout up.
Personally I would have no hesitation crossing a solid white line to filter past a marked Traffic car that was stationery in traffic, provided it was safe to do so. This point is fairly important, remember the lines are often there for a reason and if you did it over a blind brow or into a bend with no clear view then they would rightly be after you for careless/dangerous. I would suggest filtering to the front of the queue at a level crossing when the barriers are down and the 9:30 from Paddington is thundering past would be a safer bet. Take this advice on it's merits folks, deliberately provoking a traffic copper can be a bit fraught so be very sure of yourself first!
BoltonSte
06-10-13, 06:53 PM
;Lozzo, he ain't a friend...that's something other people have.
RH I do appreciate the 'if safe'
Si, you were correct, although I wasn't arguing, I did have the cavest this is what traffic told me'
Everyone else, if you cross solids and get a tug, say "Red Herring said it was Ok if it's safe";) ( but actually thanks for clearing it)
Red Herring
06-10-13, 07:09 PM
Everyone else, if you cross solids and get a tug, say "Red Herring said it was Ok if it's safe";) ( but actually thanks for clearing it)
I wouldn't under any circumstance admit to knowing me, they would definitely find something on you then.
Incidentally, if they pull out and follow you in order to give you the tug, and you're feeling particularly brave, ask them under what authority they did so, especially if they are single crewed. There is no exception in law for a police car to cross a solid white line either, the only one they can try and use is the "following direction by a constable in uniform" which is a bit awkward if they are on their own...... Of course your case is helped considerably if they reply "It was necessary to pass the stationery vehicles.....":D
theboatman
06-10-13, 07:52 PM
Cheers guys, I like to know where I stand!
Personally I would have no hesitation crossing a solid white line to filter past a marked Traffic car that was stationery in traffic, provided it was safe to do so. I would suggest filtering to the front of the queue at a level crossing when the barriers are down would be a safer bet.
i have done this exact thing and not an eyebrow was raised by the officers in the car.
stationary is a loose term. if on a mobile for instance i would expect to be in neutral and the handbrake on. if in a cue of traffic safe to say you can be in gear unless at the front of the cue.
crossing solid whites lines when there is a cue of very slow or stationary traffic with a clear view ahead is safe and i would say fine to do so.
anyway wont matter what you do these days if they think they can get a tug they will. you cant argue as officers only interpret the law and that is why we have judges to determine if you have in fact broken the law. yes it's a bit silly and in some circumstances common sense should prevail.
Cheers guys, I like to know where I stand!
Generally you stand still... which is kind of the same as stationary...
*grabs coat, leaves*
Littlepeahead
07-10-13, 10:36 AM
Not to be confused with one of these - which is a stationery vehicle
http://p.playserver1.com/ProductImages/2/9/0/4/5/5/9/9554092_300x300_1.jpg
;)
theboatman
07-10-13, 10:42 AM
Not to be confused with one of these - which is a stationery vehicle
http://p.playserver1.com/ProductImages/2/9/0/4/5/5/9/9554092_300x300_1.jpg
;)
So to clarify, any vehicle with a pen or pencil in is a stationary vehicle? Great, I'll carry on.... ;)
Littlepeahead
07-10-13, 10:43 AM
Yes so if the policaman stops you ask if you can borrow a pen....
yorkie_chris
07-10-13, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't under any circumstance admit to knowing me, they would definitely find something on you then.
Incidentally, if they pull out and follow you in order to give you the tug, and you're feeling particularly brave, ask them under what authority they did so, especially if they are single crewed. There is no exception in law for a police car to cross a solid white line either, the only one they can try and use is the "following direction by a constable in uniform" which is a bit awkward if they are on their own...... Of course your case is helped considerably if they reply "It was necessary to pass the stationery vehicles.....":D
Love it :)
stationary is a loose term. if on a mobile for instance i would expect to be in neutral and the handbrake on. if in a cue of traffic safe to say you can be in gear unless at the front of the cue.
Well not really, stationary is stationary.
I've passed coppers over SWLs before. The best way is if you can be careful to be inside the lines while you do it but it wouldn't bother me if I had to go over them a touch.
If there is oncoming traffic then so much the better as a tug is less likely.
What might be harder is arguing that slow moving traffic is close enough to stationary. Not like I'm going to sit behind them all at 12mph, just do your best not to get caught.
Red Herring
07-10-13, 12:53 PM
stationary is a loose term. if on a mobile for instance i would expect to be in neutral and the handbrake on. if in a cue of traffic safe to say you can be in gear unless at the front of the cue.
Without sidetracking to much I'd be careful with that one. There is a huge difference between "stationary" and "driving". Mobile phone legislation refers to using a hand held device whilst driving and "the driver". Just because you are stationary in traffic you don't cease to be the driver or driving, so it is still technically an offence to use one under those circumstances. In reality common sense does prevail, but don't rely on it.
ClunkintheUK
07-10-13, 01:09 PM
I don't agree that not nicking people texting on their phone stationary in traffic is "common sense" (other then being picky about what you mean by common sense). I have seen it several times where someone is in the middle of a queue texting and don't notice the car ahead of them move off. They suddenly look up, see that they were meant to have moved 10 seconds ago and suddenly move off without any knowledge of what is around them, often not exactly in a straight line. This is very dangerous particularly in London traffic. And is one of the reasons why the legislation was introduced.
Red Herring
07-10-13, 01:48 PM
Can't argue with that, but I wonder what your view would be if next time the M1, M25 or whatever had a 10 mile tailback the police spent their time giving tickets to all the poor souls stuck in the middle rather than clearing the problem at the front?
my wording looks wrong and that's why i put a full stop in. they were to be read as 2 separate sentences.
in this day and age there is no need to even have a mobile out of your pocket while driving in a car.
it might be because i have no friends that i don't feel the need to constantly be on a phone and even when i do get calls texts i just ignore them till i'm ready to answer them. call me an old fashioned fogey.
Spank86
07-10-13, 02:37 PM
in this day and age there is no need to even have a mobile out of your pocket while driving in a car..
Which day and age was there a need?:confused:
ClunkintheUK
07-10-13, 03:08 PM
In that instance RH, I would expect your engine to be turned off before you get your phone out. or at the very least, as Bibio said, to be in neutral with the handbrake on.
If it is a moving tail back or stop start, then my view does not change.
I can see your point if it is starting to flow and everybody is texting, the officers have a choice of continuing the gridlock by tugging everyone and letting it slide. I still think they should be nicked for it, but it is the lesser of two evils to get the traffic moving.
I don't agree that not nicking people texting on their phone stationary in traffic is "common sense" (other then being picky about what you mean by common sense). I have seen it several times where someone is in the middle of a queue texting and don't notice the car ahead of them move off. They suddenly look up, see that they were meant to have moved 10 seconds ago and suddenly move off without any knowledge of what is around them, often not exactly in a straight line. This is very dangerous particularly in London traffic. And is one of the reasons why the legislation was introduced.
Just witnessed that on the way home at a cross road. Guy in the right hand lane at the from wasn't paying attention light was green for a bit and he floored it and nearly went straight in to the already moving traffic going the opposite direction straight on.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.