[Closed] Even Worse Than Middle Lane Drivers

Not all of them:

Selective quoting. The rest reads,

"These examples are merely indicative of what [b]can[/b] amount to careless driving. In addition, prosecutors should note that some of these examples also fall within the examples of dangerous driving."

... which is what I've been saying all along. You'd have to be in the realms of Driving Without Due Care (or worse depending what else you were up to), which (as the rest of the document explains) is objective and dependent on conditions and the 'bigger picture'.

find me an authoritative source that supports it being perfectly legal

As sbob succinctly suggests, find me an authoritative source that supports breathing being perfectly legal.

scaredypants - Member

read my post below it.

I have, and it doesn't reference a law that states that passing on the left is illegal.

CPS clearly deems overtaking on the in side as careless driving, which is "at least slightly illegal"

The CPS don't decide what's illegal.

Passing on the left by itself would never make a DWDCA charge stick, neither would eating at the wheel.
There would have to be contributory evidence.

It's like when people think that driving over 100mph is an instant ban and considered dangerous.
It isn't.
I know of two cases where a driver was caught at about 140mph (70 limit motorway) and charges of dangerous and careless driving didn't stick.

a) why was it possible for you to be undertaken if you're in the correct lane, and

find me an authoritative source that supports breathing being perfectly legal.

Undertaking can meet the definition of careless or even dangerous driving, both of which are offences. I've found you a nice [b]authoritative source[/b] saying so. It [b]can't therefore be "perfectly legal"[/b]. I'd like to see any precedent for a clear undertaking manoeuvre by a member of the public as described by you above leading to failure to convict as a driving offence when taken to court. That's an example of what I'd consider an [b]authoritative source supporting your assertion[/b]. Course, you could just bluster on about breathing again, I suppose.

I imagine that we'd all agree that the subjective nature of the definitions and the structure of the legal system is what gets people off when they've clearly driven like shite, even if they've killed people as a result.

Granted it's also subjective but, IMO, anyone who undertakes is a cock

Difficult to comment on the TV programme without having seen it, but when the narrator was heard to say 'undertaking', is he referring to carrying on in the near side lane passing a vehicle on the left, or changing lanes - whether one manoeuvre or some Sega Rally type weaving - specifically to pass on the left? I suspect this would have a significant bearing on how the driving was viewed and dealt with by the 'Interceptors', who IIRC are traffic cops.

Given the basis of British law being that everything is legal unless specifically illegal (if you need that explaining further we'll have to give more breathing examples), I'd suggest the onus is on you to provide details of a case in which somebody got prosecuted simply for overtaking on the left with no additional circumstances (ie not swerving between lanes). My assertion being that such a case has never made it to court, hence your demand is impossible.

Good luck with that...

You're seriously claiming that you'd almost certainly be involved in a collision if someone was to change lanes without looking whilst you were alongside them?

I think you and I are imagining the situation differently. If I'm alongside a car I am not staring at the driver. And if he suddenly turns the wheel his car will respond far more quickly than I ever could even if I was staring at him. Plus where am I going to go? There may not be any room to my left.

I'd like to see any precedent for a clear undertaking manoeuvre by a member of the public as described by you above leading to failure to convict as a driving offence when taken to court.

I'd like to see any precedent for a clear undertaking manoeuvre by a member of the public as described by me above, in isolation with no other supporting circumstances (eg, other evidence of aggressive or careless behaviour), leading to conviction as a driving offence when taken to court.

Obfuscation on that scale

It was nothing of the sort, indeed it was quite the opposite.
You seemed to be struggling with the concept that the default status of an action is one of legality, hence the blindingly obvious example given.

best left for the sort of ****ty lawyers who represent unsafe motorists

Ooh! A poorly disguised ad hom!
That will dictate the tone of this reply.

Undertaking can meet the definition of careless

Yes it can.
It also can not be.
Walking with your fingers in your ears whilst singing "La la la, I can't hear you" can be illegal.
It also can not be.

I've found you a nice authoritative source

I'm nice and authoritative, but I am not the law, and neither is your source.

That's an example of what I'd consider an authoritative source supporting your assertion.

What you currently consider is of no relevence.
What you should consider as a source supporting your assertion that undertaking is breaking the law would be a link to the relevent law.

Anything else is just [i]bluster[/i].

Granted it's also subjective

If you'd have posted that admission that you were incorrect at the start of your post, and then not bothered with the [i]bluster[/i], I could have saved myself a reply.

As perhaps a better example,

If I assert that there's no law against, I don't know, walking your dog, you ask me if I can cite an example of where someone has been taken to court for dog-walking and they've failed to secure a conviction, and I can't find an example, does that prove it's illegal?

Another annoying driving trait that seems to be on the up is other drivers cutting corners off even though you are coming the other way.

And another bugging trait is cars coming from the opposite direction and upon encountering a parked car on thier side of the road instantly cross on to the other side and drive straight at you or make a very tight squeeze for both drivers, rather than wait for a second or two.

And use of indicators seem to be on the decline.

And nobody seems knows what the "I intend to slow down and stop" hand signal means anymore. Every time I try to indicate to stop so I can pull/reverse into my drive some Wally parks behind. slowly works it out then drives by giving you the look, mouthing obscenities etc.

C_Nuts

As before..on a scale of things you can do wrong in a car not being in the right lane doesn't register in the top ten, which is probably why there's no specific law and no one evers gets prosecuted. If it vexes you sufficiently to post on a cycling forum perhaps operating a car is not something you should be doing.

If it vexes you sufficiently to post on a cycling forum perhaps operating a car is not something you should be doing.

Thanks Ian, but not sure I should be taking advise on my driving ability from someone who posts on a cycling forum about 'Strictly' 😉

Anyway back to the point in hand. Yes there are many other offences. People can speed, people can use their phones in the car - all of these are against the law. You could argue though that often speeding is a conscious choice made by an otherwise competent and fully aware driver. Answering a phone call, whilst certainly a distraction, does not mean that the driver is fundamentally unskilled or ignorant.

But - people who have so little awareness that they are not even sure which lane to be in, or are completely oblivious to a car directly behind them trying to pass - well that's a whole new level of danger in my book.

not sure I should be taking advise on my driving

What about spelling?

Dangerous and careless driving are subjective definitions and make reference to waffly crap like "competent and careful", almost designed to fail to convict when heard by a jury. Chances are that several of them will be below average in terms of competence and caution so the reference point is variable between cases and potentially very low if you're looking for unanimous verdicts. I'd hope that magistrates might be better at this aspect but, since there are no definitions, it's still easy to see how cases slip the net (esp in the presence of a ****ty lawyer 😉 ).

AFAIK there is no defined behaviour that would automatically fit either offence - see sbob telling us that driving at 140 can similarly be wriggled (though at least one of those was a police officer who made a specific defence based on that, I think).

Clearly the CPS doesn't define the law but it is at least supposed to be competent to identify prosecutable cases, and it lists undertaking as an option. It's an authoritative (distinct from definitive) source IMO.

I know of no way of finding a precedent regarding undertaking, and sure as hell CBA looking. Given that truly awful driving can be condoned by the legal system, I have no problem imagining that nobody has ever even been charged (with DD or CD) for "mere" undertaking. That doesn't make it lawful or appropriate and nor does it excuse it.

I thought the mods took a dim view of pointless arguing?
The police high speed pursuit motorbiker who did my advanced test told me not to do it when I told him I would have most likely undertaken had I been on my own.

I have no problem imagining that nobody has ever even been charged (with DD or CD) for "mere" undertaking. That doesn't make it lawful or appropriate and nor does it excuse it.

um, well given there is no specific offence, actually yes it does make it lawful.

(though at least one of those was a police officer who made a specific defence based on that, I think)

Both punters, in the cases that I was thinking of.

One was a chap in an NSX heading Southbound on the M11, I think.
Called an expert witness to state that his driving was not dangerous.
It wasn't.
Other was a chap Northbound on the M11. Similar circumstances though I won't go into details...

Obviously both still got done for speeding, which is an absolute offence.

That doesn't make it lawful

Nope, it's the lack of a law forbidding it that does. 🙂

I'd say it makes it untested, which I'd contend is not the same thing.

There's a law forbidding dangerous or careless driving - we're speculating as to whether undertaking falls within either of those (or any other offence)

I'd say it makes it untested, which I'd contend is not the same thing.

In the same way that it is untested whether breathing is legal?

There's a law forbidding dangerous or careless driving - we're speculating as to whether undertaking falls within either of those

If nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for simply undertaking under those laws, then no speculation required.

I thought the mods took a dim view of pointless arguing?

With reference to the rugby thread, I'd have thought that given you've still got an active account you'd perhaps not want us to tighten up that rule?

In the same way that it is untested whether breathing is legal?

obfuscation, however, and reductio ad absurdum are absolutely legal (in at least 2 senses)

If you can find the arguing you can do as you please.

I'd say it makes it untested, which I'd contend is not the same thing.

In, what, a hundred years of motoring, it's an untested case? Yet it's still unlawful?

Seriously?

I don't know if it's [i]actually[/i] untested cougar - though certainly neither you nor I seem to have found a precedent so far

I doubt Cougar is looking for a precedent, given you told him how unlikely it was, and it's you who needs one to support your case. I think we have to assume there isn't one until you prove otherwise.

scaredypants - Member

I'd say it makes it untested

I'd say it makes it grasping at straws!

An untested law is a law that hasn't been put into practice in court.

In this situation there is no law to be untested.

I wonder if many have accepted fixed penalty notices? Can you get a fpn for careless driving?

I'm not looking for a precedent, but that's largely because I don't care sufficiently to do so. (-:

neither you nor I seem to have found a precedent so far

I've found a precedent.
No one in the history of time has ever been found guilty of an offence purely because they passed on the left.

There is your precedent.

Ohh I know the answer to that one - if the driving I saw on Saturday is anything to go by - swerving in and out of traffic (in slow moving roadworks with a reduced speed limit) cutting up everyone in his way, inside lane, outside whatever. I fully expected to see a police car following but nope - just some idiot with a deathwish.

Ah, well we're at a standstill then aren't we ?

As I see it, I'm the only person to have offered any kind of definition of the "legality" or appropriateness of undertaking. CPS, [url= http://www.iam.org.uk/component/content/article?id=20341 ]IAM[/url] and highway code will do for me, especially in the absence of anything other than semantics as an opposing argument.

sbob, I don't believe you've looked properly

An untested law is a law that hasn't been put into practice in court.

You do understand the way the law works in this country, scaredy? There is statute law, which is what parliament decides, and then there is case law which is based on previous decisions in the courts. We are all agreed that there is no statute law against overtaking on the left. If there has never been a precedent of a driver being prosecuted for careless driving purely due to that, then no case law either. Anything for which no statute or case law exists is assumed to be legal until proven otherwise.

In case you want to suggest that doing something the HC says you "should not" is de facto careless driving, then I refer you to the comments of the judge in the recent Southampton case of the minibus driver running hitting a cyclist with his mirror - he instructed the jury to disregard the highway code "should".

As I see it, I'm the only person to have offered any kind of definition of the "legality" or appropriateness of undertaking. CPS, IAM and highway code will do for me, especially in the absence of anything other than semantics as an opposing argument.

Wrong. It's just that you're ignoring our correct definition.

[quote=scaredypants]Clearly the CPS doesn't define the law

...I presume you'd accept the same applies to IAM, and I've just covered the HC above.

I don't think it is semantics to point out how the law works in this country.

sbob, I don't believe you've looked properly

And I don't believe you know what you're talking about.
What do you want to do, put it to a vote? 😕

undertook 50+ cars on the M25 last night. 4 lanes, outside 3 doing 50-60 ish, and nothing in the 'slow' lane, so I did 70.

Went on for miles!

sbob, I don't believe you've looked properly

prove it

Googling this there seems to be no specific offence of 'undertaking' - however 'undertaking' is against the rules of the highway code. If you get caught 'undertaking' then the police could consider that you were either driving carelessly or driving dangerously, both of which are a driving offence. The definitions of these are:

The definition of 'careless driving' is this:
". . . when the accused's driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case"

Dangerous driving' is as follows:
"A person drives dangerously when:
The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
AND
It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous"

So 'undertaking' although not a defined offence, could easily see you falling foul of one of the above two catagories, particularly if your general standard of driving prior/during/after the undertake was poor.

It seems that the more likely scenario though if pulled over for 'undertaking' would be a stern talking to or a caution, since proving a case of careless or dangerous driving would often be more difficult (unlike an offence like speeding where proof is easy).

Hope that clears it up?

Aren't dangerous and careless driving on the statute ?

All that's unclear is whether "pure" undertaking qualifies as such.

I'd like to think that, since we're all supposed to "know" it on sitting out test of minimum competence, the HC is illustrative of the behaviour that a competent and careful driver might exhibit and was appalled that the judge said that.

Regardless, I prefer to interpret the CPS's nomination of undertaking (without any listed "aggravating" behaviour) as at least potential grounds for careless driving

thisisnotaspoon - Member

undertook

[i]Passed on the left[/i], Mr Spoon, [i]passed on the left[/i].

😉

Regardless, I prefer to interpret the CPS's nomination of undertaking (without any listed "aggravating" behaviour) as at least potential grounds for careless driving

Interpret all you like, but only presenting an example case will actually prove you correct...

...I presume you'd accept the same applies to IAM, and I've just covered the HC above.

I don't think it is semantics to point out how the law works in this country.

Googling this there seems to be no specific offence of 'undertaking' - however 'undertaking' is against the rules of the highway code.

Just covered that one from a legal standpoint - see judges instruction to jury.

was appalled that the judge said that.

Likewise, but said it he did, and given it doesn't appear to have been reported on and the judge hasn't been censured you have to assume there is nothing uncommon about that. We therefore have a legal judgement on HC "should" constituting careless driving right there.

I prefer to interpret the CPS's nomination of undertaking (without any listed "aggravating" behaviour) as at least potential grounds for careless driving

I note your preference to potentially consider it, however note that what might make it come under that is the manner of overtaking on the left rather than any other "aggravating" behaviour, so would hardly expect further clarification (particularly bearing in mind that is only CPS guidance, which the CPS actually routinely ignores).

Passed on the left, Mr Spoon, passed on the left.