using hazard lights when approaching an accident

computershack

hothothot wrote: »

I have also passed a police drivers course and read Roadcraft.

You obviously never learned anything...

computershack

hothothot wrote: »

I adapted by successful evading the threat.......just like a professional driver would

WRONG. AS A PROFESSIONAL DRIVER FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES I would've seen the flashing lights up ahead, increased the distance from the vehicles in front and been ready for them to brake.

Why? Because I've seen them doing exactly what you said thousands of times before.

Oh, and had you been on the test for your Roadcraft course and acted as you did, you'd have FAILED.

computershack

hothothot wrote: »

!!!!ing ludicrous!!!??!!??!

no wonder the roads are death traps, too many wannabe-sheriffs slowing everyone down - in my army training it was approved method in times of bad weather that you have to accelerate as fast as possible I highly recommend some people here get themselves on an intensive driving course.

I'm sorry, did you claim to have done Roadcraft? Strangely, when I did my driving course at ASMT Leconfield in 1993, I don't remember them saying anything of the sort. And as I did it in November, mostly in 6 inches of snow, I think they'd have mentioned it. I seem to remember them saying exactly the opposite, especially on the off-road training course at Alamein Barracks.

The only person needing to go on a driving course appears to be you.

*edit* Just pinged my mate on MSN. He's a driving instructor at the Defence Driving School (formerly ASMT Leconfield). He said that if you drove like that, you'd be RTU'd before the end of the first week.

computershack

hothothot wrote: »

thats only for passing the very low level driving test, performed at primitive level of speed. Once you have had intensive training you are taught that the front is the most important place as whoever hits into you from behind is automatically guilty.

WRONG. Brake hard in front of a lorry for no reasonable reason and cause it to rear-end you and you'll be convicted of dangerous driving.

But thinking about what you've posted above, its strange you should claim that when the whole point of your original post was that they were at fault for not thinking of those behind them. So are you now saying that they were right and you were actually wrong because they shouldn't have cared what was going on behind them and its automatically your fault if you hit them?

mollycat

Oh what a tangled web we weave!!!

hothothot_3

Yes im getting muddled up in my lies, oh well it turned out to be entertaining. By the way no such incident ever existed except in my mind

Watch out for me on the M5 - happy new year and safe driving......my plates...


T R O L L 1

derrick

hothothot wrote: »

the Highway Code is not legally enforceable rules anyway.

You need to read it, especially the introduction;-

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.



.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

hothothot_3

derrick wrote: »

You need to read it, especially the introduction;-

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Yes, but what this discussion was about was use of hazard lights - which is a 'recommendation' on how they should be used, but as I correctly said - not legally enforceable.

Rule of thumb is that anything not listed specifically in the Road Traffic Act, or Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations, is a recommendation and not something you can be prosecuted for choosing not to do.

derrick

hothothot wrote: »

Yes, but what this discussion was about was use of hazard lights - which is a 'recommendation' on how they should be used, but as I correctly said - not legally enforceable.

Rule of thumb is that anything not listed specifically in the Road Traffic Act, or Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations, is a recommendation and not something you can be prosecuted for choosing not to do.

I agree the thread is about hazard lights, but as in most threads extras get put in, and you stating,-

hothothot wrote: »

the Highway Code is not legally enforceable rules anyway.

Is wrong and needed correcting, the wording from the HC,(via the link in my post), is;-
"the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

And that offence is a CRIMINAL offence;-
"if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence."


And rule 116 qualifies the use of hazard warning lights by the use of the words "MUST NOT" and the relevant abbreviation to the LAW.
116

Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.

[Law RVLR reg 27]


The rule,(LAW), on hazard warning lights is NOT a 'recommendation' on how they should be used" but an absolute on how they should be used.

hothothot_3

You are correct that the hazard warning lights are legislated, and thefore constitute a criminal offence if they are used improperly. Specifically;

No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type specified in an item in column 2 of the Table below is used in a manner specified in that item in column 3.


Hazard warning signal device

• Used other than-
  • (i) to warn persons using the road of a temporary obstruction when the vehicle is at rest; or
  
  
  • (ii) on a motorway or unrestricted dual-carriageway, to warn following drivers of a need to slow down due to a temporary obstruction ahead; or
  
  
  • (iii) in the case of a bus, to summon assistance for the driver or any person acting as a conductor or inspector on the vehicle.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_4.htm#(Tiii)27restrictionuselampotherthanthosewhichregulation24refer

If you check condition (II), it ONLY gives permission to use hazard lights for a temporary obstruction AHEAD. As the accident was on the other side of the dual carriageway, the drivers who both used their hazards did so in contravention of the law, and as you have kindly assisted in finding the legislation - proves my point even clearer that they were in the wrong to do so. I thought they had merely breached the Highway Code, in fact you have helped establish a modified point of view that they have in fact committed a criminal offence, which is more serious than I previously thought.