Anti-Social Driving/Tailgating fines

tripled

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Yes there is, the law is dangerous driving.

Your logic appears to be that as the highway code states a driver should not undertake, it can be prosecuted as dangerous driving. If that is the case, surely not moving to the left when the road ahead is clear is also dangerous driving?

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/lane-discipline-264-to-266

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Wrong: https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Or dangerous driving, which is the more serious offence.

Wouldn't stick (or even make it to court).

The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines dangerous driving as:

For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

sub sect 2 which that refers to deals with driving a vehicle in dangerous condition, so isn't relevant for this discussion.

Given the number of people who do undertake, and the number who clearly consider it ok in some circumstances, there's no way that a "safe" undertake in the situation that Lum described could meet the second part of that definition because it obviously isn't obvious to a large number of otherwise competent drivers that it's dangerous .

In order for the offence to be complete, the driving concerned must meet both parts of the definition. CPS charging guidelines for motoring offences makes that clear:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a29

Strider590

Overtaking on the left......

I did this morning, dual carriageway, cars in front (hogging the RH lane) had braked down from 70 to 50 for a static speed camera, so when we got to next camera a few hundred yards around the next bend, I moved into the LH lane and sailed past them through the speed camera at 70mph whilst they once again stamped on the brakes to go through at 50.
In those circumstances, the bib ain't gonna say sh*t......

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

What a ridiculous idea.

Do you seriously think that any driver could react quick enough when they have to wait to be warned by another driver via CB radio, and then hit the brakes? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I didn't say what they should do, merely an observation of what seems to happen. Surely you've seen HGVs driving basically nose to tail in a huge line on the motorway!

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It's not a 'tricky one' at all. If someone pulls into the safety zone in front of you, then you should adjust your speed to increase the gap again. If you don't then you will be committing an offence. However the person who pulled in front of you will also be committing an offence by making you change speed.

Except that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was talking about the situation where you are overtaking somebody, perhaps fairly slowly so as to stay within the speed limit, meanwhile you have picked up a tailgater who is driving up your backside and perhaps weaving from side to side in lane and generally being a !!!!!. Do you:

a) Remain in lane until you are 2 seconds in front of the car to your left, then move over, thus exposing yourself to the danger of the tailgater for longer, or

b) Move over sooner, possibly annoying the person you just overtook by putting yourself in their stopping distance, but reducing the danger by having the car behind you now be one that is being driven sensibly and will soon be more than two seconds behind anyway.

Strictly speaking a) is the correct and legal choice, but b) is the safer option, hence my comment about it being a tricky one.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Why not test the police on this one then, and see what happens :rotfl:

The last time I had a discussion about this with a traffic copper (I was doing a job at a police site at the time) he told me about a recent case he'd lost at court. He'd pulled someone over for doing exactly what I describe, and was told that this was in no way dangerous and next time he should have pulled the MLM for driving without due care and attention.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

I didn't say what they should do, merely an observation of what seems to happen. Surely you've seen HGVs driving basically nose to tail in a huge line on the motorway!

Well I can tell you for a fact that what you suggested wouldn't work.

There are bad HGV drivers, just the same as there are bad car drivers. Although a disproportionately high number of RTCs involving HGVs involve foreign truck drivers, who may come from countries where driving standards aren't the same as ours.

Lum wrote: »

Except that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was talking about the situation where you are overtaking somebody, perhaps fairly slowly so as to stay within the speed limit, meanwhile you have picked up a tailgater who is driving up your backside and perhaps weaving from side to side in lane and generally being a !!!!!. Do you:

a) Remain in lane until you are 2 seconds in front of the car to your left, then move over, thus exposing yourself to the danger of the tailgater for longer, or

b) Move over sooner, possibly annoying the person you just overtook by putting yourself in their stopping distance, but reducing the danger by having the car behind you now be one that is being driven sensibly and will soon be more than two seconds behind anyway.

Strictly speaking a) is the correct and legal choice, but b) is the safer option, hence my comment about it being a tricky one.

As you say a) is the correct legal choice. But it is also the only choice. If you go from option b) then you become the one who is driving dangerously... two wrongs don't make a right.

Lum wrote: »

The last time I had a discussion about this with a traffic copper (I was doing a job at a police site at the time) he told me about a recent case he'd lost at court. He'd pulled someone over for doing exactly what I describe, and was told that this was in no way dangerous and next time he should have pulled the MLM for driving without due care and attention.

Each case is different, and dangerous driving would be the most serious. So the police officer needs to consider what charge they would stand the best chance of getting a conviction on. Obviously the officer you spoke to got it wrong, and the bad driver got away with it.

Jamie_Carter

Strider590 wrote: »

Overtaking on the left......

I did this morning, dual carriageway, cars in front (hogging the RH lane) had braked down from 70 to 50 for a static speed camera, so when we got to next camera a few hundred yards around the next bend, I moved into the LH lane and sailed past them through the speed camera at 70mph whilst they once again stamped on the brakes to go through at 50.
In those circumstances, the bib ain't gonna say sh*t......

Is this a wind up?

With any luck you will get a speeding ticket.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Wouldn't stick (or even make it to court).

The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines dangerous driving as:

sub sect 2 which that refers to deals with driving a vehicle in dangerous condition, so isn't relevant for this discussion.

Given the number of people who do undertake, and the number who clearly consider it ok in some circumstances, there's no way that a "safe" undertake in the situation that Lum described could meet the second part of that definition because it obviously isn't obvious to a large number of otherwise competent drivers that it's dangerous .

In order for the offence to be complete, the driving concerned must meet both parts of the definition. CPS charging guidelines for motoring offences makes that clear:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a29

So they would be charged with a lesser charge. Each case is different.

Jamie_Carter

tripled wrote: »

Your logic appears to be that as the highway code states a driver should not undertake, it can be prosecuted as dangerous driving. If that is the case, surely not moving to the left when the road ahead is clear is also dangerous driving?

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/lane-discipline-264-to-266

No, that would most likely be driving without due care and attention to other road users.

paddedjohn

What bugs me is when drivers get annoyed when 3 lanes become 2 and try blocking the 3rd lane hundreds of yards away from the end.

roddydogs

Lets look at say the M25 if everyone stuck to the rules-the inside lane will be "Chocka" so their will be no room to "Pull over" anyway, the second lane will be doing 70, & the outside Lane(s) will be empty cause you cant do more than 70.
Great Idea. By the way my speedo is accurate before some pedant posts "you may think your doing 70 but only doing 65.