Surprised to be undertaken

[5star]

http://goo.gl/maps/EjfZ7

On an IAM test, what is expected if
a) Approaching a significantly slower vehicle, e.g. Tractor doing 20 mph
b) Approaching a slightly slower vehicle, e.g. car doing 45mph? (Assume that apart from the road markings, an overtake would be safe).

Also, reversed up a few screens and these markings are pretty funky:
https://goo.gl/maps/3kALp

I've not seen intermittent solids like that before. Is that even in the HC?

[MGF]

...

You are applying your made-up test.

...You can undertake within convention, the highway code & on the driving test in certain circumstances. You can read about them in the highway code.

No I'm not, I'm applying the wording both competent & careful, you appear to be ignoring half of it. The question is what defines competence & care in the notional driver?

I genuinely struggle to understand why you put so much effort into trying to convince people of something you clearly do not understand.

The legislation is self evident. The law is found in the legislation and the decided cases. You cannot understand the legislation unless you read the case law.

Your question has been answered in the courts repeatedly over the last 80 years. The offence is not new. The definition is not new.

It is primarily a question of fact. The law requires the fact finder to consider all the circumstances of the particular case. No case is identical. A decision in one case does not set a precedent for another.

The fact finder must also consider facts that were in the knowledge of the accused or ought to have been in the knowledge of the accused.

The fact finder may rely on the HC as evidence but cannot convict simply on a breach of a rule or rules.

There is no requirement for the fact finder to consider convention or the driving test. Indeed, convicting on the basis of non-compliance with either or both will probably be an error of law.

The law doesn't tell us what carelessness means. The fact finders have to work it out for themselves. The law puts the standard of care as reasonable care.

The law doesn't tell us what competence means. The fact finders have to work it out for themselves. The law puts the standard of competence at the standard of an experienced driver. Not a novice.

All of this talk of 'convention' and 'driving test' is pointless because the fact finder is not being asked to test the driving against those standards.

To conclude.

I am not contending anything. I am simply explaining the law. If you wish to contend that the law should be different you need to put that to the High Court or above. Not ADUK. We can't do anything about it here.

[akirk]

and refering to further back above - just because something might fail a test does not make it illegal outside the test. the driving test is not a 100% match of day to day driving - it is a constructed test, designed to find ways of artifically measuring something which is not always black and white - it is reasonable therefore to see it as testing to a certain level of decision making - which does not exclude a finer level of decision making being used outside the test - in fact we would hope in AD terms that drivers would do exactly that...

Alasdair

As I said, not just the HC, not just the driving test, not any single source. It's looking at a number of sources together on what is expected on our roads from a competent '&' careful driver. Of course the final arbiter is a court who will look at each case on it's merits when applying the competent & careful test.

For the reasons I've outlined I'd avoid doing it rather than chance a court appearance for myself & at the same time I have no problem with people being reported for a Sec 3 on the basis of the circumstances given either.

The national standards mentioned don't just form the basis of the driving test.
According to the DVSA it will be used by
 trainers
 individuals
 employers
 Sector Skills Councils
 standards setting bodies
 regulatory authorities
 awarding bodies
 education and training providers
 producers of learning materials

All fair points but still - if not forbidden in law / HC then there are times when it is permitted.

As much as the driver would need to show that what they did was safe etc. - in fact the default position is that police / prosecutor / court would need to show that it was not, and simply to say that the HC says you shouldn't do something is not sufficient in itself...

I would agree that if there are a number of reasons, then it would make sense to proseute someone, but this debate seems to be two slightly non-opposing views arguing against each other... looking at the first A38 example above, asuming all else is fine I would have no issue overtaking within those hatched lines, I don't know the history of that road, but is it possibly an old 3-lane road into which hatching has been added to encourage it to be primarily used as a two lane road? It is technically legal to drive straight down that hatching and overtake lots of people... However, where we might be in agreement is that while it is technically legal, that doesn't mean it would be safe, and a lack of safety might be sufficient to prosecute - for example, if the norm is that the other drivers on that stretch are not expecting an overtake (and even mistakenly believe it to be illegal) you might get an adverse reaction - causing an issue...

therefore at a technical / conceptual level I would have no problem in overtaking...
at a reality level, I would also consider my assessment of the other drivers / how they might react / how they are driving / and no doubt a host of other things! - that may well mean that I would not overtake!

Alasdair

[Stephen]

I don't know if any of you remember when the hatched areas were first introduced,you had to drive into the right turn position at an angle without driving into the hatched area to do it.

This caused no amount of problems,especially at busy junctions cars sticking out at an angle and others waiting behind,each other causing problems for cars continuing straight ahead.

The result of this caused them to change their minds and allow cars turning right to drive into the hatched area on approach allowing them to stack up behind each other still in the hatched area.

By allowing this to happen it has allowed drivers to enter it to overtake on the approach if safe,but as we know area's of hatches do not get swept and hold all sorts of crap, which can get kicked up and cause damage to your car.

I have got a complaint from one such driver who has carried out such a manoeuvre by overtaking a on the approach to the hatched area and has cracked his windscreen,the problem that I have got to sort out with no independent witnesses to corroborate what happened.

Has an offence been committed under the RTA or an offence under the criminal damage act,my point is if the car would not have overtaken the car which was travelling at the speed limit for the road, then this would not have happened .
Now the other road with the hatched area running along it,I would say that this looks like a wide three laned section of road ,allowing only one side to overtake and the other with double whites on it.
It appears that the council for whatever reason have decided to try and make it two lanes and put the hatched area in to try and discourage overtaking on it,my opinion on it would be the same as right turn hatched areas,a decision to overtake would have to be made on the circumstances at the time.
If it goes wrong then that's were the finger pointing begins,and the justification as to why they did what they did.
I am all for making progress but their has to be restraint after all we should never sacrifice safety for progress.
Stephen

[vonhosen]

As I said, not just the HC, not just the driving test, not any single source. It's looking at a number of sources together on what is expected on our roads from a competent '&' careful driver. Of course the final arbiter is a court who will look at each case on it's merits when applying the competent & careful test.

For the reasons I've outlined I'd avoid doing it rather than chance a court appearance for myself & at the same time I have no problem with people being reported for a Sec 3 on the basis of the circumstances given either.

The national standards mentioned don't just form the basis of the driving test.
According to the DVSA it will be used by
 trainers
 individuals
 employers
 Sector Skills Councils
 standards setting bodies
 regulatory authorities
 awarding bodies
 education and training providers
 producers of learning materials

All fair points but still - if not forbidden in law / HC then there are times when it is permitted.

I've said there are, each case must be dealt with on it's own facts
But I set out one set of circumstances as an example of what I believed amounted to careless.

As much as the driver would need to show that what they did was safe etc. - in fact the default position is that police / prosecutor / court would need to show that it was not, and simply to say that the HC says you shouldn't do something is not sufficient in itself...

The test isn't whether it's safe, the dangerous test only comes in for dangerous driving which must both fall 'far below' the standard of competent & careful as well as danger being present. This test is whether the driving fell below the standard expected (not far below it) of a competent & careful driver, no requirement to prove danger.

[martine]

...Now the other road with the hatched area running along it,I would say that this looks like a wide three laned section of road ,allowing only one side to overtake and the other with double whites on it.
It appears that the council for whatever reason have decided to try and make it two lanes and put the hatched area in to try and discourage overtaking on it,my opinion on it would be the same as right turn hatched areas,a decision to overtake would have to be made on the circumstances at the time.
If it goes wrong then that's were the finger pointing begins,and the justification as to why they did what they did.
I am all for making progress but their has to be restraint after all we should never sacrifice safety for progress.
Stephen

So would you use it to overtake a slow vehicle?

I don't understand why the council have done this (relatively recently). If they really didn't want overtaking then why not make it bounded by a solid white line?

[vonhosen]

I genuinely struggle to understand why you put so much effort into trying to convince people of something you clearly do not understand.

The legislation is self evident. The law is found in the legislation and the decided cases. You cannot understand the legislation unless you read the case law.

Your question has been answered in the courts repeatedly over the last 80 years. The offence is not new. The definition is not new.

It is primarily a question of fact. The law requires the fact finder to consider all the circumstances of the particular case. No case is identical. A decision in one case does not set a precedent for another.

The fact finder must also consider facts that were in the knowledge of the accused or ought to have been in the knowledge of the accused.

The fact finder may rely on the HC as evidence but cannot convict simply on a breach of a rule or rules.

There is no requirement for the fact finder to consider convention or the driving test. Indeed, convicting on the basis of non-compliance with either or both will probably be an error of law.

The law doesn't tell us what carelessness means. The fact finders have to work it out for themselves. The law puts the standard of care as reasonable care.

The law doesn't tell us what competence means. The fact finders have to work it out for themselves. The law puts the standard of competence at the standard of an experienced driver. Not a novice.

All of this talk of 'convention' and 'driving test' is pointless because the fact finder is not being asked to test the driving against those standards.

To conclude.

I am not contending anything. I am simply explaining the law. If you wish to contend that the law should be different you need to put that to the High Court or above. Not ADUK. We can't do anything about it here.

Yes the law doesn't tell us what competent is, yes the law doesn't tell us what careful is, yes the fact finder has to work that out for themselves.
The case law does not tell them where they must/must not look for that.
The RTA tells them they may rely on the HC, but that a breach is not of itself an offence (I haven't said it is, I've said it's not).
I haven't said it's the standard of a novice, the published national standards for safe & responsible driving aren't restricted to the novice or the basic test of competence.
Yes each case must be judged on it's own circumstances (which I've also said).

I've outlined why I would not do the example & risk being before a court.
I'm fine with others making different choices & I'm fine seeing them reported for a court decide on their individual case circumstances.

[vonhosen]

...Now the other road with the hatched area running along it,I would say that this looks like a wide three laned section of road ,allowing only one side to overtake and the other with double whites on it.
It appears that the council for whatever reason have decided to try and make it two lanes and put the hatched area in to try and discourage overtaking on it,my opinion on it would be the same as right turn hatched areas,a decision to overtake would have to be made on the circumstances at the time.
If it goes wrong then that's were the finger pointing begins,and the justification as to why they did what they did.
I am all for making progress but their has to be restraint after all we should never sacrifice safety for progress.
Stephen

So would you use it to overtake a slow vehicle?

I don't understand why the council have done this (relatively recently). If they really didn't want overtaking then why not make it bounded by a solid white line?

They can't put solids both sides of it.

[akirk]

As much as the driver would need to show that what they did was safe etc. - in fact the default position is that police / prosecutor / court would need to show that it was not, and simply to say that the HC says you shouldn't do something is not sufficient in itself...

The test isn't whether it's safe, the dangerous test only comes in for dangerous driving which must both fall 'far below' the standard of competent & careful as well as danger being present. This test is whether the driving fell below the standard expected (not far below it) of a competent & careful driver, no requirement to prove danger.

Apologies - lazy use of language on my part - I suspect we are saying much the same, if the driving fell below the standard expected then a prosecution would be reasonable...

I suspect that on most occasions where the envelope is being pushed, the risk levels are also being pushed - but as we are in agreement that at a theoretical level there are occasions when it could be fine - and in reality many examples where it would not be - then for me that seems to be agreement

Alasdair

[TripleS]

Wow, just wow!

It's all very well having rules, it's necessary indeed, but the more rules we have and the more they are applied and enforced strictly and authoritatively, as some seem to advocate, the less we are promoting the development of thinking drivers, drivers who can be relied upon to make good safe judgements, especially in situations not covered by the rules; and let's face it there are times when there isn't a rule to prescribe how we should deal with the particular situation facing us.

My sad conclusion from what I've read this last couple of pages leads me to conclude that I'm not a competent driver at all. Quite frankly, after all the years I've spent trying to be a good driver, I think that undervalues me somewhat, but that appears to be the situation, and it does nothing to aid the motivation to improve. Why bother?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

They can't put solids both sides of it.

Why not?

[jcochrane]

They can't put solids both sides of it.

Why not?

If I understand correctly that would mean right turning traffic could not enter onto the hatching using it to protect and separate them from other traffic.

[vonhosen]

They can't put solids both sides of it.

Why not?

Have a look at the TSRGD & what is/is not available.

[martine]

They can't put solids both sides of it.

Why not?

If I understand correctly that would mean right turning traffic could not enter onto the hatching using it to protect and separate them from other traffic.

There is no right turn here. In any case it's one of the exceptions for crossing a solid white line.

[martine]

They can't put solids both sides of it.

Why not?

Have a look at the TSRGD & what is/is not available.

Can't be bothered to trawl through it but there must be more to this...I'm sure I've seen hashed areas bounded by solid white lines.