rtbiscuit Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 we actually have a very good legal system, on eof the best in the world, but its how its used or interpreted that lets the side down. i have sighed several times reading this, as lots are showing their ignorance, at least 2 people have reffered to the police as pigs. i think using that term really shows someones lack of education, and if they talk like that on here, i can olny guess how polite they are to the police. i agree that maybe the wrong people are being targeted and that the mindless majority should be the focus of driving awareness. but i don't understand why so many are getting worried abou this, if you don't drive like a tit in the first place they aren't going to be gunning for you. the things your talking about are all things they can already do you for. only difference now is they can do it quicker. as for middle lane hoggers, i use a technique called buzzing, it may not be appropriate, and can only be done on 3 lanes or more, but i'll move from the left and travel across all the lanes, but i make sure i go past the hoggers lane right behind them with my indicator on, and then when past i buzz back past them into the left hand lane leaving not a lot of space between us as i pass i usually find it wakes them up and demonstrates the point, and 9 out of 10 pull back over after. i find most people seem to think the left hand lane is infected or something with ebola, as no one uses it. i hate driving on 2 lane roads as i refuse to undertake as its illegal. regardless of whos causing the obstruction, if you undertake its you at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 i find most people seem to think the left hand lane is infected or something with ebola, as no one uses it. i hate driving on 2 lane roads as i refuse to undertake as its illegal. regardless of whos causing the obstruction, if you undertake its you at fault. generally speaking in scotland the 2 lane motorways are fine, very few hoggers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacW Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. /nod Although you'd have trouble arguing your case if lane 3 was available in this example. If the inside lane is clear and all outside lanes are full of slow morons then you're well within your rights to overtake on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. /nod Although you'd have trouble arguing your case if lane 3 was available in this example. If the inside lane is clear and all outside lanes are full of slow morons then you're well within your rights to overtake on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 They are saying it is legal. Whether it is right or wrong by the Highway Code is another matter I guess? In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. /nod Although you'd have trouble arguing your case if lane 3 was available in this example. If the inside lane is clear and all outside lanes are full of slow morons then you're well within your rights to overtake on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 just came across this! sitting in lane 3 when there is an empty lane two next to you preventing drivers who want to travel faster than you has also been held to be 'driving without insurance' - as most policies specifically prohibit 'pace-setting'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacW Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 just came across this! sitting in lane 3 when there is an empty lane two next to you preventing drivers who want to travel faster than you has also been held to be 'driving without insurance' - as most policies specifically prohibit 'pace-setting'. That would be a fun one to bring up in court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 I'm not being bloody minded but who is saying it is legal? I thought the Highway Code naturally implied law? They are saying it is legal. Whether it is right or wrong by the Highway Code is another matter I guess? In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. /nod Although you'd have trouble arguing your case if lane 3 was available in this example. If the inside lane is clear and all outside lanes are full of slow morons then you're well within your rights to overtake on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Chris and Mac are saying its legal. Its my understanding that the Highway Code is not law, although it can be cited in a case as an example - ie it can be used to deem someone as driving dangerously if they undertake, however the undertake itself is not illegal. I'm not being bloody minded but who is saying it is legal? I thought the Highway Code naturally implied law? They are saying it is legal. Whether it is right or wrong by the Highway Code is another matter I guess? In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. It is my understanding that if a person is using the incorrect lane (middle for example), and you do not exceed the limit, it is perfectly legal to undertake. /nod Although you'd have trouble arguing your case if lane 3 was available in this example. If the inside lane is clear and all outside lanes are full of slow morons then you're well within your rights to overtake on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 All the above discussion is exactly the reason why police shouldn't be able to issue fines there ad then. Imagine a police officer having to digest all this information and have it to hand for when issuing someone a fine. There would be no way of them doing it accurately. I'm afraid the law should be left to the lawyer and QC's to decipher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMe Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 we actually have a very good legal system, on eof the best in the world, but its how its used or interpreted that lets the side down. i have sighed several times reading this, as lots are showing their ignorance, at least 2 people have reffered to the police as pigs. i think using that term really shows someones lack of education, and if they talk like that on here, i can olny guess how polite they are to the police. i agree that maybe the wrong people are being targeted and that the mindless majority should be the focus of driving awareness. but i don't understand why so many are getting worried abou this, if you don't drive like a tit in the first place they aren't going to be gunning for you. the things your talking about are all things they can already do you for. only difference now is they can do it quicker. as for middle lane hoggers, i use a technique called buzzing, it may not be appropriate, and can only be done on 3 lanes or more, but i'll move from the left and travel across all the lanes, but i make sure i go past the hoggers lane right behind them with my indicator on, and then when past i buzz back past them into the left hand lane leaving not a lot of space between us as i pass i usually find it wakes them up and demonstrates the point, and 9 out of 10 pull back over after. i find most people seem to think the left hand lane is infected or something with ebola, as no one uses it. i hate driving on 2 lane roads as i refuse to undertake as its illegal. regardless of whos causing the obstruction, if you undertake its you at fault. Just to clarify, when I say "pigs" or "piggy man" or "evil copper scum" or "police ****stubble" I say it tongue-in-cheek. Even I am not stupid enough to talk rudely to one of them lot, I know where it'll end up. Yeah, I admit I haven't had many experiences with many police officers but when I have they have been rude, arrogant and seemingly uncooperative without reason to be so. I don't tar everyone with the same brush, and I know a few police people, I know they're not all the same, but it is the small few who abuse their power who will abuse this new law. Please don't question my education when I share my views just because you disagree with them, that's not very fair. I could question your education on the same basis of being ignorant to the state of affairs, and what actually happens in the reality of our excellent laws being enforced by seemingly anybody who simply asks to be a police officer of the law in this country. I'm not really worried about this law from a personal perspective, because I know *I drive far better* (*read "I pay attention") than most out there, it's just the way these things get by and nobody has a say in yet. Where does it end? Question authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Please don't question my education when I share my views just because you disagree with them, that's not very fair. Question authority. thats a fair point i should have possibly phrased it better; maybe that using those words makes someone look less knowledgable than they actually are. its very difficult to judge someones tone or humour through written text, as there is no tongue in cheek smilie, i'm sure if we'd been discussing this in the pub over a pint it wouldn't have been an issue. I know that we have several bobbies on here, and although i'm sure they ar emore than capable of dealing with it at work, its maybe not what you expect on here. i must admit the few stops i've had with the police have always been fairly positive, even when i got my 3 points 7 years ago. i seem to have dealt with the good ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletMagnet Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I bet this is what they wish they could end up with, glad it hasn't gone this far yet tho.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMe Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Please don't question my education when I share my views just because you disagree with them, that's not very fair. Question authority. maybe that using those words makes someone look less knowledgable than they actually are. What? Hang on here a minute. Although I'm not expecting an uprising of millions of 350z owners to storm parliment after reading those few words, I do kind of think they are valid. If you just sit there accepting everything without question then you, my friend, are the uneducated one. Benjamin Franklin hey, what did he know? Why would using the words 'question authority' make someone "look less knowledgable"? Less knowledgable about what, exactly? If people didn't question authority then the world you and I live in would be far different than it is today, and if more people were to question authority rather than rolling over and going back to sleep it may well be an even better place than it is today. Just because someone of authority tells you something doesn't mean it's right or that you should accept it as golden. You seen all that stuff in Lybia recently? That was the Lybians questioning authority. It would be easy to sit here at our computers saying they aren't very knowledgable wouldn't it? We'd be wrong, of course. To summarise, I don't think, to the average person at least, someone would seem less educated or knowledgable about anything whatsoever by mearly writing two words on a car forum. Unless those two words were "I dunno", then and only then could you make an assumption the person is not knowledgable in that particular area. (That last bit was tongue in cheek, FYI). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMe Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 ^Me in a couple years time ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 You're going to love me............... So, if the Highway Code is not the law where is the definitive "written down I want to see it" thing? Please understand that this is not aimed at you because of what you have said, it just seems to me that for something quite important to all of us there's a hell of a lot of confusion surrounding it and it would be good to have a definitive source. Chris and Mac are saying its legal. Its my understanding that the Highway Code is not law, although it can be cited in a case as an example - ie it can be used to deem someone as driving dangerously if they undertake, however the undertake itself is not illegal. I'm not being bloody minded but who is saying it is legal? I thought the Highway Code naturally implied law? They are saying it is legal. Whether it is right or wrong by the Highway Code is another matter I guess? In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 pretty bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. But that itself is followed by 268, which has this within it: "In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I think as has been stated before its the purposeful lane change that makes the difference in that kind of situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacW Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 In the motorway section for overtaking the Highway Code says this though:- Overtaking 267 Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. But that itself is followed by 268, which has this within it: "In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right." Indeed. There's no legal definition of "congested", it could be one car causing congestion by being in the wrong lane. The fact that the Highway Code states you should only overtake on the right does not make it illegal to overtake on the left, just not desirable. As long as you are not breaking any laws (speeding etc) then passing traffic while driving in the inside lane is not inherently illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Please don't question my education when I share my views just because you disagree with them, that's not very fair. Question authority. maybe that using those words makes someone look less knowledgable than they actually are. What? Hang on here a minute. Although I'm not expecting an uprising of millions of 350z owners to storm parliment after reading those few words, I do kind of think they are valid. If you just sit there accepting everything without question then you, my friend, are the uneducated one. wo there peggy sue step away from the soap box we have a copy and paste error!!!! i being the ham fisted turnip that i am didnt notice that when i quoted and edited for discussion your last post that i hadn't removed everything i meant too. The leaving of the phrase "question authority" should not have been in there. i have no issue with questioning authority i did like your V style speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter10 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Police issue tickets like this anyway, it's up to the person if they want to pay it or contest it in court, it has always been the same. The whole thing about these £100 on the spot fines doesn't infringe on a person's right to take it to court if they wish and have a magistrate decide. The way I look at it is that I (and everyone else here as tax payers) pay for people who go to court. A court session costs a lot, CPS lawyers, legal aid lawyers, magistrates, court staff, interpreters etc. The amount people get fined for "legal expenses/court fees" if found guilty is probably less than 1/10th of the actual cost. Police officers can already issue a variety of on the spot fines, from public order offences, road traffic offences and various other offences. There's nothing new being introduced in regards to making officers on the spot judges. If someone is pulled over now for driving with a bald tyre, they will be given an "on the spot" fixed penalty of £60 and 3 points. The person then has the right to contest the fine and go to court or pay the fine and have their license endorsed with 3 points. At no point have I read anywhere that the person is given a fine "on the spot" and never have the choice to contest it. The main argument seems to be that it'll reduce police bureaucracy and therefore more people will be given a fixed penalty. But the police will still have to gather evidence, as the person will have the right to challenge it in court." - From the article At the end of the day, it is the idiots who drive like utter morons who cause damage to us decent drivers cars and raise the insurance premiums of everyone else. I've heard quite a few people on the radio go on about "police will target people who rely on their car for their jobs." Well in my opinion, if you reply on your driving license for your living, you should be driving even more carefully. I look at things from the other side of the fence as I have for to often seen the direct results of dangerous driving and had to deal with it in some capacity. What I think would be interesting would be to increase the speed limit on a motorway to 80-85mph, then if people decide to go over it have a pretty much zero tolerance approach to it to stop the "unofficial" speed limit going up to 90. People can't have cake and eat it too... On a side note, I think all new drivers should also have to pass a motorway driving test also. Quentin Wilson was on the news today and he summed it up quite well, in the UK we don't learn to drive, we learn to pass a test. I passed my driving test in 5 days doing a "crash course" and whilst I was glad to pass, now I look back I think how on earth did they let me out on the roads? Also, the highway code isn't the be all and end all, the road traffic act is where you need to look for offences & legalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Police officers can already issue a variety of on the spot fines, from public order offences, road traffic offences and various other offences. There's nothing new being introduced in regards to making officers on the spot judges. If someone is pulled over now for driving with a bald tyre, they will be given an "on the spot" fixed penalty of £60 and 3 points. The person then has the right to contest the fine and go to court or pay the fine and have their license endorsed with 3 points. At no point have I read anywhere that the person is given a fine "on the spot" and never have the choice to contest it. That's similar to how they do it in The States, mate of mine had a collision at an Intersection, Police arrived, weighed the situation up then cited him and issued him with a fine which he had to pay right away. Saves loads of paperwork I guess . As far as undertaking goes, well, it's allowed in The States, one of the reasons (there are others) why the death rate is 3x the rate here. IMHO, lane discipline is extremely important, It's been a few years since I drove on a really busy Motorway like The M25 but from what I remember it was nothing like driving on The Interstate in Denver with cars, trucks, buses switching lanes randomly, I don't think I've ever been so for such a period of time while driving. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK350Z Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 You're going to love me............... So, if the Highway Code is not the law where is the definitive "written down I want to see it" thing? Please understand that this is not aimed at you because of what you have said, it just seems to me that for something quite important to all of us there's a hell of a lot of confusion surrounding it and it would be good to have a definitive source. The Highway Code is what is known as a "Guidance publication". It is not in itself an act of parliment (i.e. law - The Road Traffic Act), but compliance with it will ensure you keep within the law. If you ended up in court, you would be charged under the Road Traffic Act 1991. But examples of your digression from the highway code could be used in evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.