Tailgating.

[GJD]

If nothing else, this thread has perhaps shown the futility of the new 'tailgating' law. A populist measure that in practice is nigh-on impossible to police. Unless the lawyers manage to come up with a definition of 'tailgating' that is objective, rather than subjective...

The new tailgating law isn't new and it isn't a tailgating law. But apart from that... .

It is subjective and it was subjective before the recent change in the way it can be enforced.

[GJD]

Other than speeding (and driving without license/insurance), aren't most driving offences subjective? ie one persons "making good progress" is anothers "driving without due care" etc?

I think quite a lot of driving offences are not subjective - speeding and insurance like you mention. Also: tax, MOT, alcohol, mobile phones, seat belts, tyre tread depth, wrong kind of vehicle on a motorway, driving unlicensed, traffic lights, signs and road markings (e.g. no entry solid double white line) - I'm sure there are others.

Careless driving is subjective, but all the different sorts of behaviours that might constitute the offence are all just one offence. There are other subjective offences but I'm not sure whether they outnumber objective ones.

[Horse]

And that subjective view is what I was effectively asking about on the 'following/tailgating' time limit. Would a magistrate or juror be able to discern any difference?

[GJD]

How does the driver ahead know when you're tailgating (and so to be concerned) or in 'close contact' looking for an overtaking opportunity?

While I take the point that continuously following very close is different, I don't see how the driver ahead can know that. Or rather, I don't see how I can know that I am complying with Roadcraft's advice: "Be careful not to intimidate the other driver or appear aggressive by following too closely". I can certainly ensure my actions are not motivated by aggression or a desire to intimidate, and I can aim not to do anything that I think *I* might perceive as intimidating or aggressive if I were the driver ahead, but as I'm not a mind-reader I don't understand how I'm supposed to second-guess the extent to which the driver ahead might misinterpret my actions as intimidation or aggression.

[fungus]

And that subjective view is what I was effectively asking about on the 'following/tailgating' time limit. Would a magistrate or juror be able to discern any difference?

Possibly no. If the following distances used by the majority of the driving public is anything to go by, many magistrates and jurors would think that what we regard as tailgating to be normal safe driving.

[Horse]

And that subjective view is what I was effectively asking about on the 'following/tailgating' time limit. Would a magistrate or juror be able to discern any difference?

Possibly no. If the following distances used by the majority of the driving public is anything to go by, many magistrates and jurors would think that what we regard as tailgating to be normal safe driving.

Although in a court case it might be likely that the H Code advice would be used for guidance.

[michael769]

They do not need to know the difference. All they need is to assess if there is evidence of a standard of driving that falls below that of a competant and careful driver.

What we choose to call it has no relevance in law.

[waremark]

If nothing else, this thread has perhaps shown the futility of the new 'tailgating' law. A populist measure that in practice is nigh-on impossible to police. Unless the lawyers manage to come up with a definition of 'tailgating' that is objective, rather than subjective...

Is there a new tailgating law? I think that is a popularist description of a new process for enforcement of Driving without Due Care. Anyone know what has actually changed?

[michael769]

Anyone know what has actually changed?

The offences of careless driving And inconsiderate driving were added to the list of offences for which a fixed penalty can be issued.

The media reports of supposed new offences came from the original press release that provided a list of examples of the kind of thing that might trigger a fixed penalty offer.

In other words you thought right.

There is no tailgating offence on the statute book.

[Horse]

They do not need to know the difference. All they need is to assess if there is evidence of a standard of driving that falls below that of a competant and careful driver.

Not a question for you, specifically, but anyone:

How would/could distinctions be drawn, at 'L pass' / IAM test / Masters levels - Vs "standard of driving that falls below that of a competent and careful driver"?

[GJD]

How would/could distinctions be drawn, at 'L pass' / IAM test / Masters levels - Vs "standard of driving that falls below that of a competent and careful driver"?

Are there any distinctions? I'm no expect on what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is in legal terms, but I'm sure we've seen cases where, for example, an emergency services driver has not been able to argue that their further training means that the measure of 'competent and careful" applied to them should be different. Whatever the standard is, as I understand it it's the same standard for all of us regardless of training and experience. If something is below the standard for one driver, it is below the standard for every driver.

Or is that not what you were asking?

[WhoseGeneration]

Not a question for you, specifically, but anyone:
standard of driving that falls below that of a competent and careful driver

I'll have a go, I suspect, from the State's and most of the population's point of view, a driver who doesn't exceed any speed limit and who doesn't have any collisions with another.

[michael769]

There is no distinction in law between the standard expected of a learner and an experienced driver. The standard is applied to the manner of driving evidenced without regard to the status or condition of the driver.

Holding an AD qualification does not modify things in any we, we would still be judged against the minimum standard.

I'll have a go, I suspect, from the State's and most of the population's point of view, a driver who doesn't exceed any speed limit and who doesn't have any collisions with another.

The standard is applied to the manner of driving not the attitude and approach of the driver.

The starting point for a minimum standard is that set out by the DSA in the statutory test of competence to drive that all drivers have to pass, which itself is informed by The Highway Code. At trial it is for the prosecution and defense to present evidence to assist the court in understanding what the standard is (as much as it is relevant to the circumstances of the case) and how that standard was or was not met.

Ultimately the requirement to prove a case such that the court is sure of guilt should ensure that borderline subjective cases do not pass the bar for prosecution.

[TR4ffic]

I expect the standard of driving that falls below that of a competent and careful driver, as far as the masses of the general public is concerned, is a very low standard indeed - and dropping...

Where such a decision is required by a set of 12 jurors in a court, unless they are overly self-righteous and convict a driver for falling below a standard that they themselves fail to attain, it is difficult to see (or guess) where that standard level is.

As an AD, can you see a scenario where you end up on the wrong side of a decision because those ‘judging’ you fail to see (understand) what you were doing/attempting to do… Where you effectively end up being penalised for having a driving standard higher than that of the general populous.!?

[Graham Wright]

Has anyone else noticed and been bothered by the illustrations on p 206 of the new Roadcraft? They seem to me to show an overtaking position about half a car's length behind the target - to me that looks a very vulnerable position, how long do you have to react if the target brakes? The words used about the overtaking position seem generally sensible, including: 'As you move closer to the vehicle in front the driver is likely to realise tha you want to overtake. Be careful not to intimidate the other driver or to appear aggressive by following too closely. This is dangerous and counter-productive. Following too closely may cause the other driver to speed up, making it more difficult to overtake."

"As you move closer to the vehicle in front the driver is likely to realise tha you want to overtake".
There is something wrong here.
The implication is that you are blocking a lane where all the good words tell us to return to the nearside after overtaking. If you intend to overtake a further vehicle but you are travelling more slowly than a vehicle approaching behind and there is sufficient room between the vehicle you have overtaken and the next, then, yes. If however, there is clear road ahead, there should be no need for a following vehicle to "indicate" he wishes to overtake you and thus "request" you to move over.

However, I'm a newbie and what do I know?!
Incidentally the spell checker picks up "travelling" but seems to miss "seperate" (the classic!).