Not just hogging the middle lane

Ratboy

The people that seem to disagree with the new ruling, not law, as these offenses were always illegal, the problem was getting a prosecution, seem to be the people that are the ignorant people on the road. That cut in, park on yellow lines, cut you up, etc..

It seems an easier way to raise money for the Police, and they will do projects to specificly look for this mainly for publicity.

The problem comes in what evidence is able to be collected, because human nature states deny everything.

And also how Police decide - if they are in a bad mood - just on the beat from a fatal, would they be more harsh? It's then a judgement call, and an opinion.

I know 2 people that have entered a traffic light junction, to turn right, oncoming traffic has stopped them from turning, then turned when the red light comes on, due to blocking the junction, and been pulled by the Police. 1 got a fine.

facade

Ratboy wrote: »

I know 2 people that have entered a traffic light junction, to turn right, oncoming traffic has stopped them from turning, then turned when the red light comes on, due to blocking the junction, and been pulled by the Police. 1 got a fine.

If they were the leading vehicle turning right, fully over the stopline (not just the wheels) and only prevented from moving by oncoming traffic they should not have been pulled (unless there were some other circumstance, such as no right turn allowed)

What was your friend fined for?

Guest101

Altarf wrote: »

The "required evidence" for all these offences is merely the police officer telling the court "I saw them do x". Since there is zero chance of the magistrates not believing the police, your only hope of getting off is if the police officer fails to turn up in court.

That's just not true. You should read up on the burden of proof and the fact that a single officer is rarely used as evidence, without independant back up, cctv, etc.

Guest101

neilmcl wrote: »

Actually it is true, no new offences have been created.

I didnt say they had, if you bothered to read my post

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

But the rules of evidence haven't changed have they?

Keep living your life in blissful ignorance.

What blissful ignorance? I'm very well versed on the law thanks.

No the rules of evidence have not changed, the procedures are the same. The point is the police did not bother to enforce these laws, now that this is a 'mission statement', they will attempt to enforce these offences. However this means there is a lot more procedure to follow, which if they fail to do so, casts doubt on the credibility of their evidence.

For example a front mounted police camera should be calibrated at the start of every shift. If this didnt happen, the judge would have to rule the evidence inadmissable as it is corrupted. Simple mistakes.

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

What blissful ignorance? I'm very well versed on the law thanks.

No the rules of evidence have not changed, the procedures are the same. The point is the police did not bother to enforce these laws, now that this is a 'mission statement', they will attempt to enforce these offences. However this means there is a lot more procedure to follow, which if they fail to do so, casts doubt on the credibility of their evidence.

For example a front mounted police camera should be calibrated at the start of every shift. If this didnt happen, the judge would have to rule the evidence inadmissable as it is corrupted. Simple mistakes.

The camera doesn't need to be calibrated.


Speed detection equipment haptic two week operating period and can be used at any time during that time so forget what you heard down the pub.

Guest101

jase1 wrote: »

Which of the offences is not driving without due care and attention?

How do you tailgate without due care and attention, that's deliberate and should be classes as dangerous

doningtonphil

Re the 'overtaking then barging in' bullet point.

If course this is probably most evident as an issue where say lane 2 of a dual carriageway is closed due to roadworks. There are plenty of people who would form an orderly queue in lane 1 well before the roadworks who would get upset at someone 'making efficient use of the road space' and using lane 2 right up to the cones then trying to squeeze in.


Both drivers would have a valid argument for their actions. What opinions do people have as to the rights and wrongs in this scenario?

alastairq

Strider590 wrote: »

What do you mean?
Ain't disagreeing, i'm just curious because it links back to my post about SARPs.

SARPS?


In my context, I have noted over the years, a large number of drivers/riders who seem confused between what they see, as reality, ie correct practice....and what the reality of the Law is.

I suspect your view concerns those out there who are determined to impose their own views on a certain driving practice, on everybody around them?

Regarding the 'wheelspin' examples quoted?

Surely this must be taken in the context of '-social behaviour', rather than an inadvertent loss of traction?


And.....as such, there are regulations already covering such behaviour/ {IE, a warning, followed by confiscation of the vehicle?}

There is a mistaken belief that fines go into the Police coffers?

Certainly not in my county, anyway!

There is also a mistaken belief that the Police prosecute individuals?

Again, not so....all the Police do is report the offence, provide necessary evidence, etc.

When an Officer issues a FPN, for example, that Officer, having gathered sufficient evidence to warrant the issue of that FPN, is simply placing the person concerned into the Justice system.


The next part of the process is simple....the person receiving the FPN can follow several, chosen courses of action.

These courses of action have been well documented on here....but..the choice remains with that individual.

If, the person concerned simply complies with eh FPN, and pays up..it is irrelevant what their views are on the circumstances surrounding the issue of the FPN...the acceptance, and payment of the fine is their admission they committed the offence.

simples.

If the person feels aggrieved enough, but doubts they can cast sufficient doubt that an offence occurred, then the offence was committed...otherwise, respond by taking the charge through the system...and have a day in Court? It is at this point that person needs to separate Lawful fact from urban myth?

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

The camera doesn't need to be calibrated.


Speed detection equipment haptic two week operating period and can be used at any time during that time so forget what you heard down the pub.

It's what i heard from my friend who is a serving officer in the met, now this conversation was afew years ago, and if the procedure has changed since then, fair enough. But at that point for use in prosecution it must've been calibrated at the start of every shift.

Do you have a link?