Overtaking on zig-zags?

[jont]

The highway code bit was to just give an example of how complex it all is.
There will be technical breaches in all sorts of different situations.
I give up!
regards

So if you're giving up, what hope is there for Joe Public to understand the rules?

[daz6215]

Why dont we keep it simple, if you want to overtake on a dual carriageway/multilaned carriageway on a crossing then go ahead, but if you have missed the pedestrian in the potential blindspot and hit and kill them then be prepared for the consequences!

[gkj]

I was ticketed for this last year. One-way street, two lanes of crawling traffic, police car in lane 1, me in lane 2, approach to a light-controlled ped crossing. I passed the police, crawling, differential speed maybe 2mph, no-one on the crossing, light green. Police followed me and gave me a ticket. I didn't feel it was worth arguing as I felt that what I had done could well have been technically illegal. Police I have spoken to since have said either "that's not illegal" or "I would never give a ticket for that".

[playtent]

The highway code bit was to just give an example of how complex it all is.
There will be technical breaches in all sorts of different situations.
I give up!
regards

So if you're giving up, what hope is there for Joe Public to understand the rules?

None really!
That's why they have specialist barristers, who still have to research the case for many hours before they can mount a defence.
Police are jack of all trades, dealing with their bread and butter every day. They will have experience in what they deal with to the point that they deal with it.

Regards

[Gareth]

One-way street, two lanes of crawling traffic, police car in lane 1, me in lane 2, approach to a light-controlled ped crossing. I passed the police, crawling, differential speed maybe 2mph, no-one on the crossing, light green.

Was there a refuge between the two lanes? I wonder if that'd make a difference in law ...

[MGF]

..Because the courts have made that decision, but they have not ruled out prosecution completely, in certain circumstances! They were not discussing single carriageway roads, and I'm sure there is a lot of case law on that as well!

How can you be so sure that this is the case if you are unable to refer to the relevant case(s) or at least a source that refers to this interpretation?

Do Police Officers make decisions to initiate prosecutions based on things they have read on the internet about court decisions? There must be some sort of formal guidance available to Officers which they can use to decide how to proceed in these circumstances.

..As a vehicle crossing the line on a red light to move out the way for an ambulance is an offence. But it's not likely to be prosecuted for doing so, although causing a major pile up in the process will probably result in a different result. Each case is different and obviously will be judged on its individual circumstances.
The law is not black and white and never will be. The courts decide what will and will not constitute on offence, and guidance is given from case law as to what is and is not reasonable...

I believe you are conflating the extent of a breach to an offence with the presence of aggravating factors.

For example,

a) i 31mph in a 30mph limit = technical breach

ii 40mph in a 30mph linit = significant breach

b) i moving part of vehicle over 'stop' line on a red light = technical breach

ii crossing the junction on a red light = significant breach

c) i putting nose of vehicle in front of another on approach to pedestrian crossing as in gkj's example above = technical breach.

ii actually passing the vehicle at a speed one couldn't stop at the crossing if necessary = significant breach.

The actual danger created in each example is irrelevant to the extent of the breach. That is an aggravating factor.


What you appear to be saying is that the offence of not overtaking on the approach to a pedestrian crossing with more than one lane should only be prosecuted where there are aggravating circumstances regardless of whether or not the breach was merely technical or significant.

That makes what is intended to be an offence effectively not an offence but a substitute for prosecuting bad driving.

[7db]

I looked it up in Archbold. Which had nothing to say on the matter.

[playtent]

How can you be so sure that this is the case if you are unable to refer to the relevant case(s) or at least a source that refers to this interpretation?

I can't, this is my own interpretation from my own research. Can you be sure this is not the case?
The site I got the info from is: http://www.motorcycling-uk.com/

Do Police Officers make decisions to initiate prosecutions based on things they have read on the internet about court decisions? There must be some sort of formal guidance available to Officers which they can use to decide how to proceed in these circumstances.

Butterworths Traffic law is a loose leaf guide of 1300 pages updated every 3 months! CPS direct give guidance to officers generally on submission of an advice file and decide who is prosecuted at court. If its a ticket and the person receiving that ticket pays the fine then CPS never become involved unless the person decides to go to court.
Generally Police would not have access to Butterworths due to cost. I imagine CPS will, but their lawyers are not specialists. They deal with all that comes before them.
This is a complex issue that would require a specialist in traffic law to determine from research what the answer is.

Regards

[martine]

I was ticketed for this last year. One-way street, two lanes of crawling traffic, police car in lane 1, me in lane 2, approach to a light-controlled ped crossing. I passed the police, crawling, differential speed maybe 2mph, no-one on the crossing, light green. Police followed me and gave me a ticket. I didn't feel it was worth arguing as I felt that what I had done could well have been technically illegal. Police I have spoken to since have said either "that's not illegal" or "I would never give a ticket for that".

Hi Gordon and welcome!

That's really poor policing in my view...at the very most a word at the side of the road would have been more appropriate I'd have thought - if only to establish you understood why it's not a good idea if the speeds were higher (which I'm sure you do in your case).

[playtent]

I love dragging up old threads.
So was I right or wrong? No one seemed to chip in after I put the link where the info came from so I guess I must have being right, because I'm sure someone would have sure let me know if I was wrong?

[agradeian]

Greetings all,
I'm new to forums but am already finding it quite amazing how black and white topics like this one carry on so long especially amongst "advanced drivers".
Highway Code rule 191 with highlighted legislation says it all quite clearly.
If I understand it correctly, the alleged incident occurred during an advanced assessment, in which case the words shoot and foot come to mind !

[playtent]

Greetings all,
I'm new to forums but am already finding it quite amazing how black and white topics like this one carry on so long especially amongst "advanced drivers".
Highway Code rule 191 with highlighted legislation says it all quite clearly.
If I understand it correctly, the alleged incident occurred during an advanced assessment, in which case the words shoot and foot come to mind !

Welcome to the forum.
I don't know if you read the whole thread but its not as clear as you state or suggest the Highway code states.
If it was then Butterworths traffic law could dispense with its 1300 pages and just give a copy of the Highway code, all 156 pages of it!

[agradeian]

Thanks for your welcome,
Apologies if I have missed some of the discussions and yes I know that legal technicalities are complex in the extreme on occassions, which is probably why there are still far too many loopholes to escape through......
There are, and always will be, differences of opinion from people who feel they have been hard done by over a given offence and have not been dealt with proportionately, i.e. given a ticket when words of advice would have sufficed.
However on the matter of providing driver training or coaching, the advice would be in line with Highway Code and Roadcraft.

[playtent]

Thanks for your welcome,
Apologies if I have missed some of the discussions and yes I know that legal technicalities are complex in the extreme on occassions, which is probably why there are still far too many loopholes to escape through......
There are, and always will be, differences of opinion from people who feel they have been hard done by over a given offence and have not been dealt with proportionately, i.e. given a ticket when words of advice would have sufficed.
However on the matter of providing driver training or coaching, the advice would be in line with Highway Code and Roadcraft.

I agree, keep it simple for training.
The site I got an answer from states:

"There is also some confusion over the concept of a ‘technical’ infringement of the law, where legal precedent has stated that a road user shall not be guilty of an offence if it is technical and no other road user was endangered. However, to the best of my knowledge the technical defence is only valid in examples where there are two or more approach lanes and the driver in lane 1 arrives before the driver in lane 2, but the driver in lane 2 leaves before the driver in lane 1. This is classed as overtaking the lead vehicle, but is regarded as technical breech"

The issue was raised with regards to dual carriageways with a pedestrian crossing.

Regards

[agradeian]

As I say, technicalities,,, don't you just love 'em !!!