Driving standards

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, big jim said:

Well if nothing else I’ve started a lively debate! 

 

Pedantically, she started it!!

 

Mike.

[big jim]

25 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Pedantically, she started it!!

 

Mike.

That instantly made me think of the Fawlty towers ‘The Germans’ episode 

[62613]

On 28/05/2022 at 20:51, chris p bacon said:

 

When I first read your post I thought you must be a muppet, but I did read it again and sadly it was confirmed.

 

Parking on Zig Zags is Forbidden, no one (except Fire, Police & Ambulance) is allowed to for any reason. It's a really simple law to understand but unfortunately people like the offender and yourself don't think the law applies to them as it's 'Orwellian'

Is it not also an offence to overtake another vehicle within the area of the zig - zag lines?

 

[jcredfer]

Seems so.

 

Quote

THE HIGHWAY CODE

READ

 

CATEGORIES

Using the road (159 to 203)

General rules (159 to 161)

Overtaking (162 to 169)

Road junctions (170 to 183)

Roundabouts (184 to 190)

Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)

Reversing (200 to 203)

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)

191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by jcredfer

[johnd]

But then there are those that live by the mantra " i'll do what I want, when I want and how I want" and only go by the rules when it is to my advantage!

[chris p bacon]

11 hours ago, 62613 said:

Is it not also an offence to overtake another vehicle within the area of the zig - zag lines?

 

 

No it isn't.

 

Highway Code rule 191 states

 

Quote

191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

 

As the offender had parked and left the vehicle you would be allowed to pass the stationary vehicle giving due care to pedestrians that may be obscured by the stationary vehicle.

 

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html

 

[62613]

2 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

No it isn't.

 

Highway Code rule 191 states

 

 

As the offender had parked and left the vehicle you would be allowed to pass the stationary vehicle giving due care to pedestrians that may be obscured by the stationary vehicle.

 

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html

 

I was thinking more in general terms, rather than in this particular case

[chris p bacon]

10 hours ago, jcredfer said:

Seems so.

 

 

 

You've misinterpreted rule 191.

10 hours ago, jcredfer said:

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing

 moving is the word that matters

 

But it does state 

10 hours ago, jcredfer said:

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines.

 

Simple enough for the offender to understand.

[Reorte]

On 27/05/2022 at 23:34, Michael Hodgson said:

Don't hold your breath. 

 

I've never found the old bill at all helpful when people report what they consider minor offences (that is, breaches of laws that the constabulary generally can't be bothered to enforce themselves) and in my experience they seem to regard people who complain as interfering busybodies.  Each offence that they are forced  to record adds one to the crime figures, and unless they prosecute, it damages the clear-up rate, not at all what the Chief Constable wants.  And if they do take action, of course that's a load of extra paperwork they have to deal with

 

Overall result is that many of the public lack confidence in the force, who are bafffled when they don't get the response they want to appeals for witnesses etc. 

That's the impression I got but my mum once reported someone for dumping a bag of half-eaten chips out of the car, expecting them to show no interest whatsoever and brush her off the wasting their time, but they followed it up and gave the driver an earful (teenage girl, with a furious at her dad present apparently).

[PhilJ W]

My mum got a ticking off by a policeman for throwing an apple core out of a moving car. In fact it is an offence to throw anything out of a vehicle. Not littering but a danger to other road users, as many motorcyclists will tell you of the dangers of lit cigarette butts.

[raymw]

15 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

👏

 

The most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet this weekend. Well done, there's some fairly stiff competition out there.

In your opinion, of course.

Now it's getting like animal farm. 😀

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, raymw said:

Now it's getting like animal farm.

 

Yes; I may be mucking out this week.

[woodenhead]

It's an interesting conundrum - when to intervene and when not to intervene with illegal acts.

 

Generally the law is upheld because the majority are in support of it, expect others to do the same and will point out when wrongs are being committed.  Clearly running to the police everytime you see something would impact scarce resources, and with minor offences really the simplest solution is to point out to the person committing the offence that what they are doing is illegal - if they are part of the majority they will listen and act accordingly.  But if they are part of the minority (which will be on a scale from basic selfishness up to serial killer) then they will at the very least ignore what has been pointed out and continue, and then you have to decide whether to involve the police.

 

Are there some illegal acts that are less illegal than others, is there some sort of sliding scale?

• parking on zig zags
• speeding
• drink driving
• drug driving
• robbery
• arson
• assault
• murder

 

However, there are occasions where a larger number of people may rebel, for example I recall the Government in early lockdown suggesting people report others who were breaking lockdown rules.  Given the severity of the lockdown and the mental impact it was having on everybody, it was felt by many that being asked to report any trangressions was a little bit state sponsored spying and it did not sit comfortably.  Then, when we find those at the top of government were flouting the laws they had set it really has caused some long term implications about our relationship with the law.  When those in government see themselves as above the law, then it becomes easier for other people to justify their own flouting of laws, like for example parking on zig zags.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

like for example parking on zig zags.

 

In the case under discussion it seems to involve balloons for a party. Funny that.

[petethemole]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

My mum got a ticking off by a policeman for throwing an apple core out of a moving car. In fact it is an offence to throw anything out of a vehicle. Not littering but a danger to other road users, as many motorcyclists will tell you of the dangers of lit cigarette butts.

And cyclists.  The impact speed may be slower but the hot bits in the eye may at least cause a loss of attention.

[big jim]

I’ve had a reply from the police regard the zebra crossing woman, they are pursuing it further, I’ve got to give a written statement 

 

 

[PhilJ W]

[johnofwessex]

Given the potential risk to life and limb my question might be why dont we treat acting like a complete (insert profanity of choice) with a car in the same way we do Knife and Gun offences?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jcredfer]

4 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Given the potential risk to life and limb my question might be why don't we treat acting like a complete (insert profanity of choice) with a car in the same way we do Knife and Gun offences?

 

 

 

In the main, I think we do treat them in similar ways.  Just as there are, obvious demeanours, in full view on the roads, there are similar knife / gun offences, in various places around the country.  The concern for law-abiding citizens, is that there are clearly less police available to deal with them than there were and in far too many cases the perpetrators appear to get away with their actions.  It is quite clear to those who witness successive gov'ts [regardless of creed] ignoring the rise in the population, whilst reducing the police numbers, available to deal with the increase in equivalent numbers of crimes.  The, equally ignored, knock-on effect of less police to deal with the crimes, is a perception that criminals have less chance of being caught.

 

Hopefully, there will become a time when those in gov't will recognise the scale of the problem and make a huge fuss about how wonderful they are to take such massive and positive steps -  whilst, failing to mention that they, collectively are the cause.

 

 

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

 

In the main, I think we do treat them in similar ways.  Just as there are, obvious demeanours, in full view on the roads, there are similar knife / gun offences, in various places around the country.  The concern for law-abiding citizens, is that there are clearly less police available to deal with them than there were and in far too many cases the perpetrators appear to get away with their actions.  It is quite clear to those who witness successive gov'ts [regardless of creed] ignoring the rise in the population, whilst reducing the police numbers, available to deal with the increase in equivalent numbers of crimes.  The, equally ignored, knock-on effect of less police to deal with the crimes, is a perception that criminals have less chance of being caught.

 

Hopefully, there will become a time when those in gov't will recognise the scale of the problem and make a huge fuss about how wonderful they are to take such massive and positive steps -  whilst, failing to mention that they, collectively are the cause.

 

 

 

My obvious issue is both that traffic officers are not armed and the level of sentences is not at the level of firearms offences.

 

I suggest that if PC Iva Twitchyfinger is pointing his trusty Heckler & Koch at Wayne Carr who has just tried to outrun him on the Motorway, he might realise that he's been very very naughty and if he tries to drive at PC Twitchyfinger and his colleagues he will be dealing with St Peter, not the Beak

[SamThomas]

11 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

My obvious issue is both that traffic officers are not armed and the level of sentences is not at the level of firearms offences.

 

I suggest that if PC Iva Twitchyfinger is pointing his trusty Heckler & Koch at Wayne Carr who has just tried to outrun him on the Motorway, he might realise that he's been very very naughty and if he tries to drive at PC Twitchyfinger and his colleagues he will be dealing with St Peter, not the Beak

TrafPol are very thing on the ground (roads) thesedays (at least in my area). There are a number of ARU's though which I suppose are basically TrafPol with shooters.

[Flying Pig]

On 01/06/2022 at 02:10, PhilJ W said:

 

Finally someone who understands what the extra long hoses are for.

[Pete the Elaner]

I was on my way back from Watford the other day. When joining the M1 at J6, I caught someone doing 35 on the skip road. The slip was a long, twisty one, so I could understand them being a little careful. I hoped they would speed up once the slip road straightened just before it merged traffic onto the M1 itself.

In situations like this, I back right off to give them space. This also gives me space to accelerate hard to match the speed of traffic already on the main carriageway. Then a car driving at a normal speed caught me up, so I had to speed up myself.

I soon caught the car in front because it stayed at 35.

I am trying not to exaggerate here; They were definitely doing 35mph as they entered the M1's main carriageway.

They then straddled the dotted line between slip road & carriageway for what appeared to be as long as they could.

The M1 was relatively busy so I could not just pull out to pass.

 

I had never felt so helpless as cars & lorries passed me at at 55-60 & I was unable to match their speed. An entry speed of 35mph is dangerous & this is one situation when hard acceleration can sometimes be necessary.

[kevinlms]

21 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I was on my way back from Watford the other day. When joining the M1 at J6, I caught someone doing 35 on the skip road. The slip was a long, twisty one, so I could understand them being a little careful. I hoped they would speed up once the slip road straightened just before it merged traffic onto the M1 itself.

In situations like this, I back right off to give them space. This also gives me space to accelerate hard to match the speed of traffic already on the main carriageway. Then a car driving at a normal speed caught me up, so I had to speed up myself.

I soon caught the car in front because it stayed at 35.

I am trying not to exaggerate here; They were definitely doing 35mph as they entered the M1's main carriageway.

They then straddled the dotted line between slip road & carriageway for what appeared to be as long as they could.

The M1 was relatively busy so I could not just pull out to pass.

 

I had never felt so helpless as cars & lorries passed me at at 55-60 & I was unable to match their speed. An entry speed of 35mph is dangerous & this is one situation when hard acceleration can sometimes be necessary.

The worrying aspect is that they thought they were being nicely safe and careful!

 

At least they didn't enter the exit lane!

[boxbrownie]

8 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The worrying aspect is that they thought they were being nicely safe and careful!

 

At least they didn't enter the exit lane!

I had exactly the opposite last weekend when we were on an occasional long trip to see the grandkiddies, we tend to just stick to the first lane at 60 mph cruise in between the trucks, nice and relaxing and eco friendly, but whilst passing an exit slip an Audi Q3 came thundering up behind us at obviously over the limit, got close while we were passing the slip exit then flashed their lights and pulled off overtaking us on the slip road while we carried on on cruise in the first lane, we saw them get to the traffic lights at the top of the slip road where they had to brake hard as they were red!  The driver was an woman of 60 or so I’d guess, not a slick salesman in sight. 😆