Pulled for undertaking in mySccob...
27 November 2002, 04:55 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey – didn’t expect quite as much interest as this.
For clarification – Cagney was on a motorbike and he has no evidence I was speeding. I approached the roundabout in the right hand lane to turn right (really there is no other way to go). It was only after the roundabout (when I exited in on the right hand lane that) that I pull in the left to get by the traffic. Also about 400m down the road there is a roundabout where I turned left (not sure about the people left in the right).
Fingers crossed his inspector won’t see it the same way. I have a nasty feeling he will though – this policeman had to be one of the most arrogant, miserable people I have ever met in my life. May his wife has run off with his brother.
There was also a second motorcycle policeman on an unmarked bike (never seen one of those before) who pulled over White van man. He was doing 58 apparently in the 40 but got a ticking off and went on his business. Talk about consistency.
Cheers for the posts though - keep them coming!
For clarification – Cagney was on a motorbike and he has no evidence I was speeding. I approached the roundabout in the right hand lane to turn right (really there is no other way to go). It was only after the roundabout (when I exited in on the right hand lane that) that I pull in the left to get by the traffic. Also about 400m down the road there is a roundabout where I turned left (not sure about the people left in the right).
Fingers crossed his inspector won’t see it the same way. I have a nasty feeling he will though – this policeman had to be one of the most arrogant, miserable people I have ever met in my life. May his wife has run off with his brother.
There was also a second motorcycle policeman on an unmarked bike (never seen one of those before) who pulled over White van man. He was doing 58 apparently in the 40 but got a ticking off and went on his business. Talk about consistency.
Cheers for the posts though - keep them coming!
27 November 2002, 05:03 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronan.
I think it would improve driving standards by making drivers more aware.
Imagine if the speed limit was raised to 90 say. Old drivers and frigid women (sorry that slipped out....) would no longer have the right to say "I am driving at 70mph and as you don't have to the right to go faster, I don't have to move over".
As frigid women (doh!) and pensioners won't want to drive faster than 69.999mph they will ahve to expect faster drivers will loom up and have the right to pass!
Neil.
I think it would improve driving standards by making drivers more aware.
Imagine if the speed limit was raised to 90 say. Old drivers and frigid women (sorry that slipped out....) would no longer have the right to say "I am driving at 70mph and as you don't have to the right to go faster, I don't have to move over".
As frigid women (doh!) and pensioners won't want to drive faster than 69.999mph they will ahve to expect faster drivers will loom up and have the right to pass!
Neil.
27 November 2002, 05:08 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wickford, Essex - GamerTag - lCE
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in this day and age undertaking is an essential maneuvure.
They simply HAVE to teach people what the right hand lane is for. I usually undertake people every day because they do not move over when they should. I get really frustrated because they actually think they are ok to block everyone and go the same speed as people in the left hand lane!
Whoever said increase the speed limit to 90 is a genius!
They simply HAVE to teach people what the right hand lane is for. I usually undertake people every day because they do not move over when they should. I get really frustrated because they actually think they are ok to block everyone and go the same speed as people in the left hand lane!
Whoever said increase the speed limit to 90 is a genius!
27 November 2002, 05:18 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go to court if you have to,the copper wont have made detailed notes on the incident and by the time it goes to court his sketchy outline of what happened will be in your favour.
Dont bend over and accept it they operate on the opinion you will plead guilty by post but HE will have to go to court in however many months and try to explain your DWDCAA and more importantly explain why it was so bad.
The CPS will look at all court appearances before you attend and decide wether they have a more than an average chance of winning,if not it will be dropped politely by the police force in question.
Dont bend over and accept it they operate on the opinion you will plead guilty by post but HE will have to go to court in however many months and try to explain your DWDCAA and more importantly explain why it was so bad.
The CPS will look at all court appearances before you attend and decide wether they have a more than an average chance of winning,if not it will be dropped politely by the police force in question.
27 November 2002, 05:24 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantom.
I see you are in Wickford in Essex. I deduce therefore that you use the A127 on a regular basis. Would I be correct in thinking that this is why you have to undertake regularly?
Neil.
I see you are in Wickford in Essex. I deduce therefore that you use the A127 on a regular basis. Would I be correct in thinking that this is why you have to undertake regularly?
Neil.
27 November 2002, 06:18 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if you were turning left at the next roundabout you have every right to pull into that lane - the only question is your speed and "how" you pulled over. If ihe didnt clock your speed and there was no-one behind then I cant see it ever getting even close to a court.
I have a series of 4 dual carriagway roundabouts about 400yds apart near me. I have to do 2 on the way to work and turn right @ the 2nd - no real choice but to stay in right hand lane. Lots of people pull into the left lane to go through quicker - exactly as I do if I'm going past work for some reason.
This bit of road has always been on my route no matter where I've lived and I've been doing it for 12 years now. Whilst 17 in a mini I could get through them quicker than many a rep-mobile simply by judging the traffic gaps better.
Seems harsh to me
Deano
I have a series of 4 dual carriagway roundabouts about 400yds apart near me. I have to do 2 on the way to work and turn right @ the 2nd - no real choice but to stay in right hand lane. Lots of people pull into the left lane to go through quicker - exactly as I do if I'm going past work for some reason.
This bit of road has always been on my route no matter where I've lived and I've been doing it for 12 years now. Whilst 17 in a mini I could get through them quicker than many a rep-mobile simply by judging the traffic gaps better.
Seems harsh to me
Deano
27 November 2002, 07:06 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the police just seam to do thing to suit them selfs , ..
there was a bit in todays local paper about the police , one of there drivers has been let off scott free after a crash in which an old man was killed , he was NOT on an emergency call and was travelling at 80mph (60 mph limit )his passanger a sargent was a witness for the speed .not only that the car was fitted with ilegal head lamps , they were 73pc brighter than listed for the car and did not carry an E mark ........ so what chance do we have if they can get away that , they can get any thing to stick if they really want
there was a bit in todays local paper about the police , one of there drivers has been let off scott free after a crash in which an old man was killed , he was NOT on an emergency call and was travelling at 80mph (60 mph limit )his passanger a sargent was a witness for the speed .not only that the car was fitted with ilegal head lamps , they were 73pc brighter than listed for the car and did not carry an E mark ........ so what chance do we have if they can get away that , they can get any thing to stick if they really want
27 November 2002, 07:21 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Try reading my post earlier in the thread 
- how would you react to getting 3 points / Ł60 for 36 in a 30?
Don't tar all police with the same brush, please.
[Edited by BuRR - 11/27/2002 7:23:51 PM]
- how would you react to getting 3 points / Ł60 for 36 in a 30?Don't tar all police with the same brush, please.
[Edited by BuRR - 11/27/2002 7:23:51 PM]
27 November 2002, 07:44 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds harsh to me as well.
Whilst he could probably technically get you charged for this, a decent brief as someone said would probably manage to get enought doubt as to exactly what did happen that you would get off or get a few points only. The DWDCAA isn't a nice charge from an insurance point of view.
Strictly speaking upon exiting the roundabout you should have immediately that you realised it was safe to do so moved to the normal driving (i.e. left lane).
Your point would be to argue that this is exactly what you did, it is isn't it? (i.e. if you followed them 100 yards before moving over you didn't obey the correct rules).
The fact that there was 3 cars in the outside who specifically didn't obey the rules of the road did not impact your driving, you simply drove as the laws told you to do.
I often use the left lane on the dual carriageway to travel upto 70mph when people in the ovetaking lane are doing less than 70.
I simply move over, slowly catch the car infront then gradually increase my speed. No harsh acceleration that could be deemed as undertaking. Surprising the number of people who watch you edge past then move over and follow.
robski
Whilst he could probably technically get you charged for this, a decent brief as someone said would probably manage to get enought doubt as to exactly what did happen that you would get off or get a few points only. The DWDCAA isn't a nice charge from an insurance point of view.
Strictly speaking upon exiting the roundabout you should have immediately that you realised it was safe to do so moved to the normal driving (i.e. left lane).
Your point would be to argue that this is exactly what you did, it is isn't it? (i.e. if you followed them 100 yards before moving over you didn't obey the correct rules).
The fact that there was 3 cars in the outside who specifically didn't obey the rules of the road did not impact your driving, you simply drove as the laws told you to do.
I often use the left lane on the dual carriageway to travel upto 70mph when people in the ovetaking lane are doing less than 70.
I simply move over, slowly catch the car infront then gradually increase my speed. No harsh acceleration that could be deemed as undertaking. Surprising the number of people who watch you edge past then move over and follow.
robski
27 November 2002, 10:49 PM
#44
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was only after the roundabout (when I exited in on the right hand lane that) that I pull in the left...Also about 400m down the road there is a roundabout where I turned left
I don't have this undertaking problem, at least not on the motorway. I seem to have my own lane on the left hand side (occassionaly shared with the odd lorry) - what's more, they seem to have also given me a big gap (another whole lane!) before the rest of the traffic goes past, all packed together in a most dangerous looking manner.
I'm still wondering why I get this privilege
28 November 2002, 12:18 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, pulling up the handbrake at 140mph with your eyes closed on ice and a thermonuclear device on the passenger seat is (possibly) the most dangerous manouver you can perform on UK roads.
Or Joyriding.
Or Carrying a loaded AK47.
Undertaking is something that happens that, I agree, IS against the law, and CAN be dangerous because people are not expectng it.
I am not condoning it, but then it sounds like this was not underatking except in the most miserly interpretation of the law.
It certainly is not "the most dangerous manouver" Given the choice with a gun against my head between undertaking and running a red light at 40mph, I know which I would choose: the least dangerous.
Drama Queen posts!
edited to add: get a brief. they may just tell you to take the rap. But at least then you will know.
[Edited by Turbo_Steve - 11/28/2002 12:20:32 AM]
[Edited by Turbo_Steve - 11/28/2002 12:23:28 AM]
Or Joyriding.
Or Carrying a loaded AK47.
Undertaking is something that happens that, I agree, IS against the law, and CAN be dangerous because people are not expectng it.
I am not condoning it, but then it sounds like this was not underatking except in the most miserly interpretation of the law.
It certainly is not "the most dangerous manouver" Given the choice with a gun against my head between undertaking and running a red light at 40mph, I know which I would choose: the least dangerous.
Drama Queen posts!
edited to add: get a brief. they may just tell you to take the rap. But at least then you will know.
[Edited by Turbo_Steve - 11/28/2002 12:20:32 AM]
[Edited by Turbo_Steve - 11/28/2002 12:23:28 AM]
28 November 2002, 08:41 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving into lane for next roundabout vs driving @ 90 in fog with 3m to the car in front
Well I agree the are both dangerous but I'd have to go for the second having a slight edge in being "more" dangerous . As the "most" dangerous I'm with the thermonuclear device - though if it were next to a bottle of nerver agent thet might up the ante a little 
Deano
Well I agree the are both dangerous but I'd have to go for the second having a slight edge in being "more" dangerous
. As the "most" dangerous I'm with the thermonuclear device - though if it were next to a bottle of nerver agent thet might up the ante a little Deano
28 November 2002, 09:00 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My daily commute involves me using the M25, M40 and A40.
(All sympathy welcome)
Most of the time you will find me in the left hand lane because it is far freer flowing and an all-together less aggressive environment.
I try not to weave, watch the road ahead and only change lane when I can see a clear advantage without disrupting the flow of traffic.
So technically I spend most of my time breaking the law.
It's a risk that's worth taking.
On the assumption that I'm not putting anyone in danger it's a simple equation....
Time saves over size of fine.
My time’s worth more than Ł60 and three points.
Inside lane here I come.
(All sympathy welcome)
Most of the time you will find me in the left hand lane because it is far freer flowing and an all-together less aggressive environment.
I try not to weave, watch the road ahead and only change lane when I can see a clear advantage without disrupting the flow of traffic.
So technically I spend most of my time breaking the law.
It's a risk that's worth taking.
On the assumption that I'm not putting anyone in danger it's a simple equation....
Time saves over size of fine.
My time’s worth more than Ł60 and three points.
Inside lane here I come.
28 November 2002, 09:01 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: http://www.facebook.com
Posts: 15,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon that Posh WAS paying attention. Let me explain.
The manoevre that was performed needed knowledge of the road and also forward planning. I don't see as how it was dangerous or aggressive.
If more people drove and planned ahead adjusting to the road conditions, then the road network would probably flow better. People who are indecisive and disregard BASIC road rules are DWDCAA i.e changing lanes without indicating, commiting to pulling out onto a round about and then stopping half way out, etc
Let's face it, he was pulled cos he had a scoob
Mikey
Not normally fussed but today I am 
The manoevre that was performed needed knowledge of the road and also forward planning. I don't see as how it was dangerous or aggressive.
If more people drove and planned ahead adjusting to the road conditions, then the road network would probably flow better. People who are indecisive and disregard BASIC road rules are DWDCAA i.e changing lanes without indicating, commiting to pulling out onto a round about and then stopping half way out, etc
Let's face it, he was pulled cos he had a scoob
Mikey
Not normally fussed but today I am
28 November 2002, 10:17 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
If the British weren't such lazy gets, and actually had the skills to look over their left shoulder as well as right, then undertaking would NOT be dangerous.
This thing about "people dont expect to be undertaken" - rubbish, dont know about anyone else, but I always look over my left shoulder when pulling back into the left lane, just in case someone has snook in behind me.
Laws need to be changed - 100mph limit on motorways, and undertaking allowed. Would solve a lot of problems IMHO.
This thing about "people dont expect to be undertaken" - rubbish, dont know about anyone else, but I always look over my left shoulder when pulling back into the left lane, just in case someone has snook in behind me.
Laws need to be changed - 100mph limit on motorways, and undertaking allowed. Would solve a lot of problems IMHO.
28 November 2002, 10:26 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You simply HAVE to look over your shoulder when pulling in to the left especially when moving from lane 3 to 2, as so often you find someone moving from 1 to 2 right into the space you are aiming at.
Come on guys, this is basic lane changing skill and the absolute minimum amount of attention required when negotiating any road.
I'm with DreamWeaver on this one, and I have to say that I'm at a loss to understand Morman D Bates and Famouscoops' comments.
Neil.
Come on guys, this is basic lane changing skill and the absolute minimum amount of attention required when negotiating any road.
I'm with DreamWeaver on this one, and I have to say that I'm at a loss to understand Morman D Bates and Famouscoops' comments.
Neil.
28 November 2002, 10:44 AM
#53
there are 2 slightly differents arguments here - firstly, is undertaking braking the law? Technically yes, it is, according to the highway code (or at least, my understanding of the HC)
Secondly, is it wrong and/or dangerous? Well, it is potentially very dangerous as the car being undertaken could move back in without looking. But in that case, who is the worst offender - surely the pillock who pulls back in without checking its clear.
I dont make a habit of undertaking but will admit that I have done it on occasion when it has been obvious that the person sat in the outer lane has no intention of moving over. I have done it in the knowledge that I could be prosecuted for it. The law is the law.
Steve
Secondly, is it wrong and/or dangerous? Well, it is potentially very dangerous as the car being undertaken could move back in without looking. But in that case, who is the worst offender - surely the pillock who pulls back in without checking its clear.
I dont make a habit of undertaking but will admit that I have done it on occasion when it has been obvious that the person sat in the outer lane has no intention of moving over. I have done it in the knowledge that I could be prosecuted for it. The law is the law.
Steve
28 November 2002, 11:09 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, my final word.
I think what we are saying is that undertaking is technically allowed by law and the 3 examples I gave earlier of when that is allowed are in the highway code (I know they are, I've checked).
What we are saying is that the Police don't like or condone the habit of lane swapping to execute an "undertaking" manouver as the overtaking lanes are designated as the outside one (or 2 or 3 depending on how many lanes the road has) and is based on the assumption that you are passing a motorist who has correctly moved back to the left having finished his own overtaking manouver.
The problem then is that the Police find it easier to punish the minority of drivers who execute an undertake as opposed to pulling/re-educating the thousands of idiots who definitely do flout the law by lane hogging.
Now don't get me wrong, aggressive lane hopping is not the right thing either, an undertake can and should be executed as smoothly as an overtake.
My view is simple: I'm not going to let one arrogant motorist dictate the usage of 2/3 lanes to me when I pay equally as much tax as him to use the road system. It's rude and should be stamped out.
Neil.
I think what we are saying is that undertaking is technically allowed by law and the 3 examples I gave earlier of when that is allowed are in the highway code (I know they are, I've checked).
What we are saying is that the Police don't like or condone the habit of lane swapping to execute an "undertaking" manouver as the overtaking lanes are designated as the outside one (or 2 or 3 depending on how many lanes the road has) and is based on the assumption that you are passing a motorist who has correctly moved back to the left having finished his own overtaking manouver.
The problem then is that the Police find it easier to punish the minority of drivers who execute an undertake as opposed to pulling/re-educating the thousands of idiots who definitely do flout the law by lane hogging.
Now don't get me wrong, aggressive lane hopping is not the right thing either, an undertake can and should be executed as smoothly as an overtake.
My view is simple: I'm not going to let one arrogant motorist dictate the usage of 2/3 lanes to me when I pay equally as much tax as him to use the road system. It's rude and should be stamped out.
Neil.
28 November 2002, 12:48 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police driving intructor who used to do the SIDC course at essex police hq told us that if you could continue you journey in the inside lane for a reasonable time (ie that you didn't pull back out into the outer lane immediately) that you could argue that it was not 'undertaking'.
<rant mode on>
If people had some lane discipline it would not be necessary and what is better someone blowing a gasket and about to cause an accident in frustration because they can't legally go around the moron doing less than the limit in the outside lane or safely driving around them. Why do people always assume that laws are sensible and created by some sort of higher being. So called undertaking works perfectly well in many other countries and is not intrinsically unsafe at all as long as people are careful there is no problem whatsoever and it helps minimise road rage. These days you are in a queue of some sort most of the time so that could certainly be used as a defence.
The more people are targetted by petty application of the law the more people are going to say sod it and drive without insurance, tax or a licence leaving us all worse off if they have an accident. This sort of rubbish is why people in general have little respect for the police these days. They do it to themselves and sadly it only takes a few officious types like this to tar them all with the same brush.
<rant mode off>
<rant mode on>
If people had some lane discipline it would not be necessary and what is better someone blowing a gasket and about to cause an accident in frustration because they can't legally go around the moron doing less than the limit in the outside lane or safely driving around them. Why do people always assume that laws are sensible and created by some sort of higher being. So called undertaking works perfectly well in many other countries and is not intrinsically unsafe at all as long as people are careful there is no problem whatsoever and it helps minimise road rage. These days you are in a queue of some sort most of the time so that could certainly be used as a defence.
The more people are targetted by petty application of the law the more people are going to say sod it and drive without insurance, tax or a licence leaving us all worse off if they have an accident. This sort of rubbish is why people in general have little respect for the police these days. They do it to themselves and sadly it only takes a few officious types like this to tar them all with the same brush.
<rant mode off>
28 November 2002, 12:49 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police driving intructor who used to do the SIDC course at essex police hq told us that if you could continue you journey in the inside lane for a reasonable time (ie that you didn't pull back out into the outer lane immediately) that you could argue that it was not 'undertaking'.
<rant mode on>
If people had some lane discipline it would not be necessary and what is better someone blowing a gasket and about to cause an accident in frustration because they can't legally go around the moron doing less than the limit in the outside lane or safely driving around them. Why do people always assume that laws are sensible and created by some sort of higher being. So called undertaking works perfectly well in many other countries and is not intrinsically unsafe at all as long as people are careful there is no problem whatsoever and it helps minimise road rage. These days you are in a queue of some sort most of the time so that could certainly be used as a defence.
The more people are targetted by petty application of the law the more people are going to say sod it and drive without insurance, tax or a licence leaving us all worse off if they have an accident. This sort of rubbish is why people in general have little respect for the police these days. They do it to themselves and sadly it only takes a few officious types like this to tar them all with the same brush.
<rant mode off>
<rant mode on>
If people had some lane discipline it would not be necessary and what is better someone blowing a gasket and about to cause an accident in frustration because they can't legally go around the moron doing less than the limit in the outside lane or safely driving around them. Why do people always assume that laws are sensible and created by some sort of higher being. So called undertaking works perfectly well in many other countries and is not intrinsically unsafe at all as long as people are careful there is no problem whatsoever and it helps minimise road rage. These days you are in a queue of some sort most of the time so that could certainly be used as a defence.
The more people are targetted by petty application of the law the more people are going to say sod it and drive without insurance, tax or a licence leaving us all worse off if they have an accident. This sort of rubbish is why people in general have little respect for the police these days. They do it to themselves and sadly it only takes a few officious types like this to tar them all with the same brush.
<rant mode off>
28 November 2002, 01:15 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That rant was so good it needed to be posted twice
It's all about situation awareness. On the motorway, I'm regularly checking my mirrors so that I know what's around me, and what's coming up behind. I have undertaken in the past, and will probably do so in the future. They are either because it's an empty motorway and one car is doing 65 in the middle lane. If I'm already in lane 1, I stay there.
Another instance last week. I was in lane 1 approaching a 4x4 in lane 2. There was a lorry ahead in lane 1, but it was at least 1 minute away. Another car was passing in lane 3, so I continued in lane 1 passed the 4x4 and then moved to lane 2 to overtake the lorry. At no time did I accelerate to pass the cars. I just continued at the same speed. Anytime I do this (very rare) I'm always ready for the other car to manoeuvre (with or without indicating). Maybe this is the distinction?
(queue the "holier than thou" brigade).
It's all about situation awareness. On the motorway, I'm regularly checking my mirrors so that I know what's around me, and what's coming up behind. I have undertaken in the past, and will probably do so in the future. They are either because it's an empty motorway and one car is doing 65 in the middle lane. If I'm already in lane 1, I stay there.
Another instance last week. I was in lane 1 approaching a 4x4 in lane 2. There was a lorry ahead in lane 1, but it was at least 1 minute away. Another car was passing in lane 3, so I continued in lane 1 passed the 4x4 and then moved to lane 2 to overtake the lorry. At no time did I accelerate to pass the cars. I just continued at the same speed. Anytime I do this (very rare) I'm always ready for the other car to manoeuvre (with or without indicating). Maybe this is the distinction?
(queue the "holier than thou" brigade).
28 November 2002, 01:46 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't understand this BBS sometimes! 
A guy admits he undertook 3 (three) cars in one go and hardly gets flamed for it at all, yet I talk of a friendly jaunt down a long striaght, empty dualled road with another Subaru and get 7 pages of hell
Since we are so concerned with 'what ifs' on this site lets take a look at both situations. For me to have harmed an innocent motorist I would have had to have suffered a blow or similar. My car would then have had to find a way to jump/destroy two crash barriers and go into the other lane and hit the oncoming traffic. Possible..yes....likely..NO!
Our undertaker friend accelerated on the inside past 3 cars and I'd imagine from his post he accelerated pretty hard. Love it or hate it most people don't check their left mirror before moving back into the left lane and a lot don't indicate either. What if one of the cars had done this (maybe with a small child on board) it could have had some pretty dire consequences and is far more likely to have happened than anything with me and my silver MY00 buddy.
BTW, my interpretation of the highway code is that this form of undertaking is illegal. I can understand why it was done and I really hate lane hogs but undertaking 3 cars in one swoop is pretty hot-headed!
ZZZZZZZZZZIP
A guy admits he undertook 3 (three) cars in one go and hardly gets flamed for it at all, yet I talk of a friendly jaunt down a long striaght, empty dualled road with another Subaru and get 7 pages of hell
Since we are so concerned with 'what ifs' on this site lets take a look at both situations. For me to have harmed an innocent motorist I would have had to have suffered a blow or similar. My car would then have had to find a way to jump/destroy two crash barriers and go into the other lane and hit the oncoming traffic. Possible..yes....likely..NO!
Our undertaker friend accelerated on the inside past 3 cars and I'd imagine from his post he accelerated pretty hard. Love it or hate it most people don't check their left mirror before moving back into the left lane and a lot don't indicate either. What if one of the cars had done this (maybe with a small child on board) it could have had some pretty dire consequences and is far more likely to have happened than anything with me and my silver MY00 buddy.
BTW, my interpretation of the highway code is that this form of undertaking is illegal. I can understand why it was done and I really hate lane hogs but undertaking 3 cars in one swoop is pretty hot-headed!
ZZZZZZZZZZIP
28 November 2002, 02:46 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just say that you thought they were moving so slowly you mistakenly thought they were slowing down to turn right...and so carried straight on in reasonable manner in the clear lane - nothing wrong with that.
Think the policeman will have no leg to stand on if he claims you were speeding - that is a different charge with different requirements - if he estimates that is only his view - although I guess the magistrates will still listen to him...
The inspector has the final decision - suggest that you talk with him nicely - he will speak with the officers and then make a decision for you...he has the power to stop the charge... if he goes with them you will have your day in court - suggest duty solicitor as a good option and dress up in a nice suit and look serious.
Think the policeman will have no leg to stand on if he claims you were speeding - that is a different charge with different requirements - if he estimates that is only his view - although I guess the magistrates will still listen to him...
The inspector has the final decision - suggest that you talk with him nicely - he will speak with the officers and then make a decision for you...he has the power to stop the charge... if he goes with them you will have your day in court - suggest duty solicitor as a good option and dress up in a nice suit and look serious.