Surprised to be undertaken

[vonhosen]

What sort of thing are you thinking about (in these sort of terms) that would result in a recorded fault in a driving test but you don't think would amount to a Sec 3 offence?

Speeding.

You appear to be confusing a general standard of driving one might expect from a driver who is competent with a standard of care that one might expect from a driver who is competent.

The test is one of due care not due compliance.

Speeding can be a Sec 3.
But the speeding offence is preferred because it helps in removing any legal argument over whether it amounted to a Sec 3 by providing a hard clear line in the sand making it a black/white issue.
The offence provides administrative ease over sec 3.

The Sec 3 wording though is the standard expected of a competent & careful driver, not a competently careful driver.

Speeding wouldn't necessarily result in a 'worthy' fault on test either. It's a question of degrees.
The faults on a DL25 are for 'use of speed' or 'appropriate speed'. There isn't a specific speeding fault box. You don't fail a driving test or get a driving fault for exceeding the limit. You can actually exceed it on a lot of occasions by small amounts & not even end up with a recorded fault, but what you can't do is exceed it by margins that provide emphatic evidence that you are showing neither the care or attention required.

[GJD]

What sort of thing are you thinking about (in these sort of terms) that would result in a recorded fault in a driving test but you don't think would amount to a Sec 3 offence?

I don't know. I was just wondering how strongly "would be a fault in a driving test" should imply "would be below the competent and careful standard required by law". At first glance, a strong correlation might not sound particularly uncontroversial, but on further thought it seems to me less clear cut, as a strong correlation has the effect of putting unilateral power to decide what is and is not a crime in a body that I'm not sure should have such power (and quite possibly wouldn't want it). I'm not sure it should have that power for two reasons: firstly, that doesn't quite seem the right way for a democracy to create crimes, and secondly "should this person be refused a full driving licence?" and "should this person be a criminal?" are not the same question.

If anything I find a lot of marking in the DVSA test to be more lenient than the potential application in respect of Sec 3 RTA (or other legislation).

The example in this thread is passing on the left and rule 268. I don't know which is stricter on that - the DVSA test (my apologies to that organisation for referring to them by their old name in my previous post) or the application of Section 3. Perhaps that is a case where DVSA is more lenient, but I don't think it would necessarily be untoward if it was the application of the law that was more lenient. Indeed, I can see a case for taking quite a strict line on rigid adherence to convention when testing novices for the grant of a full licence and I can see a case for taking a more permissive line when deciding whether to regard someone's driving as criminal, requiring at least a clear understanding of what the convention is, a reasoned basis for the decision to go against the convention and (to borrow your words from the first page) care when considering whether to execute and in the execution of the manoeuvre, but not necessarily requiring the same rigid adherence.

[vonhosen]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.


http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

[vonhosen]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.


http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

The article said:

"He passed the car in the middle lane, causing another motorist to brake, before pulling back into the third lane."

That doesn't sound like a "non event undertake" to me. It sounds more like he was an impatient bastard who dived through a closing gap causing another driver take avoiding action.

Other opinions are available.

Did you watch the video?

He did the undertake & was back in lane 3 accelerating away when the vehicle braked.

No argument he was impatient, but is it any more impatient than somebody who overtakes because someone in front is going slower than they'd like?

The difference was the side he did it on.

Did he not take care?
He certainly did a nearside shoulder check before changing lanes to pass & everybody appeared pretty steady. His time alongside was minimal.

Did it fall foul of convention, the highway code & what would be expected on a driving test?
Certainly.

[5star]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.


http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

The article implies the original outcome was lower fine and points (but they don't say what).

The final outcome of high fine and points is likely due to him rejecting the original points and fine and wanting to go to court, and then not bothering to turn up at court.

He was speeding in heavy traffic, so it wasn't just a careful undertake to deal with a lane hogger. I'm a motorcyclist but fail to see any sympathy with this. Even the way he turned into the petrol station after acknowledging the Police seemed a bit dodgy!

Unfortunately, I doubt the points and fine will cause him to change his riding habits, other than to perhaps look out for Police more. I would like to have seen the court issue training rather than a fine, as it is his attitude that needs to change.

[vonhosen]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.


http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

The original outcome seems to be fine and points.

The final outcome of high fine and points is likely due to him rejecting the original points and fine and wanting to go to court, and then not bothering to turn up at court.

So a Sec 3.

Original outcome & final outcome?
He wasn't sentenced twice was he?
Reads like he refused a FPN, so it went to court & he was convicted in his absence & sentenced.

He was speeding in heavy traffic, so it wasn't just a careful undertake to deal with a lane hogger. I'm a motorcyclist but fail to see any sympathy with this. Even the way he turned into the petrol station after acknowledging the Police seemed a bit dodgy!

Unfortunately, I doubt the points and fine will cause him to change his riding habits, other than to perhaps look out for Police more. I would like to have seen the court issue training rather than a fine, as it is his attitude that needs to change.

I'm a motorcyclist, I don't have any sympathy for him.
The exit looked worse than the undertake.

The speeding is an easy one to go for, but they didn't. It was all about the undertake manoeuvre in the report & charge.

Forced training isn't conducive to a change in attitude, you have to be ready & willing to change.

[MGF]

Speeding can be a Sec 3.

Not on its own it can't. It would need to be inappropriate in the circumstances. If it were the criminal law would be imposing a higher standard than the civil law.

The Sec 3 wording though is the standard expected of a competent & careful driver, not a competently careful driver.

The case law differs from your interpretation. You either misunderstand or are scaremongering. I haven't seen any change in the way a court approaches the question since the introduction of the statutory definition.

... You don't fail a driving test or get a driving fault for exceeding the limit. You can actually exceed it on a lot of occasions by small amounts & not even end up with a recorded fault, but what you can't do is exceed it by margins that provide emphatic evidence that you are showing neither the care or attention required.

If you fail the test for speeding other than by a small margin then you do fail the driving test for exceeding the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit by a large margin is not necessarily careless driving.

[5star]

The speeding is an easy one to go for, but they didn't. It was all about the undertake manoeuvre in the report & charge.

The middle car driver braked when he/she didn't need to (albeit with very slow reaction times), and I would suggest the panic braking indicates he/she had a scare as a result of the biker's sudden and unforeseen action.

Riding a bike in a manner that scares a typical road user, in front of a Police officer, is asking for trouble. This is less about the undertaking, and more about the way he did the undertake.

If he has waited, perhaps undertaken where nobody would have been scared, he might have got off with just a stern talking to, or perhaps even ignored altogether.

It isn't just what you do, but the style in which you do it.

[vonhosen]

The speeding is an easy one to go for, but they didn't. It was all about the undertake manoeuvre in the report & charge.

The middle car driver braked when he/she didn't need to (albeit with very slow reaction times), and I would suggest the panic braking indicates he/she had a scare as a result of the biker's sudden and unforeseen action.

Riding a bike in a manner that scares a typical road user, in front of a Police officer, is asking for trouble. This is less about the undertaking, and more about the way he did the undertake.

If he has waited, perhaps undertaken where nobody would have been so shocked, he might have got off with just a stern talking to, or perhaps even ignored altogether.

It isn't just what you do, but the style in which you do it.

That was hardly a panic brake, he'd gone & there was no discernible speed loss.

Why a stern talking to if there isn't anything wrong with undertaking as some are contesting?

There's no argument from me though, I'd regard his riding as falling below the standards expected, even though the undertake was a bit of a non event.

[MGF]

Did he not take care?

I don't think so. Not due care in the circumstances.

[vonhosen]

Did he not take care?

I don't think so. Not due care in the circumstances.

What do you think was careless (other than missing the Police car tracking him)?
What did he fail to consider or account for in the manoeuvre?

[MGF]

Why a stern talking to if there isn't anything wrong with undertaking as some are contesting?

I haven't read anything above that suggests this. You are simply being informed of the current state of the law and that is that not all undertaking is necessarily careless driving. Notwithstanding , you appear to be arguing that all undertaking is careless driving.

[vonhosen]

Why a stern talking to if there isn't anything wrong with undertaking as some are contesting?

I haven't read anything above that suggests this. You are simply being informed of the current state of the law and that is that not all undertaking is necessarily careless driving. Notwithstanding , you appear to be arguing that all undertaking is careless driving.

No not all undertaking, just as not all speeding.
Just that which has fallen below the standards of competence & care expected in relation to them.

[MGF]

Did he not take care?

I don't think so. Not due care in the circumstances.

What do you think was careless (other than missing the Police car tracking him)?
What did he fail to consider or account for in the manoeuvre?

Too close to the car in lane 3 before moving into lane 2 then too close to the cars behind and in front in lane 2 then too close to the car in lane 3 on his return to lane 3. Nowhere near enough space between himself and other vehicles to account for sudden changes in position or direction by the other vehicles.

[MGF]

...

No not all undertaking, just as not all speeding.
Just that which has fallen below the standards of competence & care expected in relation to them.

All of your posts relate to compliance with the HC, the driving test and convention. Can you give an example of undertaking that doesn't comply with the HC but you don't consider to be careless?