undertaking on motorway |
undertaking on motorway |
Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 18:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 135 Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Member No.: 81,991 |
Yesterday I was driving along the M1, in the first lane there were vehicles in lanes 2/3/4. Iam doing 70mph am i allowed to under take these vehicles.
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 18:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:06
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 9 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,665 |
The answer to which is in post #51 above. Precisely. But that itself has been misinterpreted to mean that the Highway Code is “for all intents and purposes” the law, despite clearly stating the opposite. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations I described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" may, in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985), be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings? A simple yes or no will suffice. Richard Yes, it may. As I already stated in post #52. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations you described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" shall not of itself render you liable to criminal proceedings of any kind? A simple yes or no will suffice. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:08
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
The answer to which is in post #51 above. Precisely. But that itself has been misinterpreted to mean that the Highway Code is “for all intents and purposes” the law, despite clearly stating the opposite. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations I described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" may, in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985), be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings? A simple yes or no will suffice. Richard If you read the HC again you will find that it is written in English, and so the word "undertake" never appears. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:15
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 9 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,665 |
If you read the HC again you will find that it is written in English, and so the word "undertake" never appears. Surely we all know what it means though. Unless it’s causing anyone any confusion I think we can carry on using ‘undertake’ and ‘overtake on the left’ interchangeably. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:18
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
This is fascinating... no, really...
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:30
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 25 Aug 2020 Member No.: 109,525 |
The answer to which is in post #51 above. Precisely. But that itself has been misinterpreted to mean that the Highway Code is “for all intents and purposes” the law, despite clearly stating the opposite. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations I described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" may, in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985), be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings? A simple yes or no will suffice. Richard Yes, it may. As I already stated in post #52. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations you described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" shall not of itself render you liable to criminal proceedings of any kind? A simple yes or no will suffice. The answer, of course, is yes. You might well not be prosecuted even if you are observed which is exactly as I said in my original post. Someone actually gave us an example of where this happened and even though the Police Officer gave an angry wave, they were not prosecuted so it seems a rather unnecessary question. Richard The answer to which is in post #51 above. Precisely. But that itself has been misinterpreted to mean that the Highway Code is “for all intents and purposes” the law, despite clearly stating the opposite. Do you accept that if you "undertake" other than in the two situations I described many posts ago and which are described in the Highway Code, and you are observed doing so by an officer of the law, the fact that you did so "undertake" may, in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985), be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings? A simple yes or no will suffice. Richard If you read the HC again you will find that it is written in English, and so the word "undertake" never appears. Errrrr ...... how many times in this thread do you think I might have stated that the word "undertake" does not appear in the Highway Code? That could be why there is a convention in the English language to enclose such words in inverted commas? Richard This is fascinating... no, really... I would use the word "laboured" rather than "fascinating" .... but different strokes for different folks, I guess. Richard |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:34
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 9 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,665 |
This is fascinating... no, really... Par for the course on a forum dedicated to a detailed obsession with legal minutiae, surely? How can we spice it up to keep you interested? The answer, of course, is yes. You might well not be prosecuted even if you are observed which is exactly as I said in my original post. Someone actually gave us an example of where this happened and even though the Police Officer gave an angry wave, they were not prosecuted so it seems a rather unnecessary question. And I'd already answered your question in post #52, yet you still asked me again. Given that earlier in this discussion you were of the inflexible opinion that you "will get pulled" if you undertook (sorry, overtook on the left) a police car, we are at least making progress if you accept that it is not that clear cut. This post has been edited by Spandex: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:35 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:51
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 25 Aug 2020 Member No.: 109,525 |
This is fascinating... no, really... Par for the course on a forum dedicated to a detailed obsession with legal minutiae, surely? How can we spice it up to keep you interested? The answer, of course, is yes. You might well not be prosecuted even if you are observed which is exactly as I said in my original post. Someone actually gave us an example of where this happened and even though the Police Officer gave an angry wave, they were not prosecuted so it seems a rather unnecessary question. And I'd already answered your question in post #52, yet you still asked me again. Given that earlier in this discussion you were of the inflexible opinion that you "will get pulled" if you undertook (sorry, overtook on the left) a police car, we are at least making progress if you accept that it is not that clear cut. Errrr .... nope. "If you overtake a Police car on the left then, unless the Police are engaged on another shout, it is virtually inevitable that you will be pulled over." is what I actually said in my opening statement. Any subsequent contractions of that statement are, ipso facto, contractions and should not be taken in isolation. Richard |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 14:56
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
This is fascinating... no, really... Par for the course on a forum dedicated to a detailed obsession with legal minutiae, surely? How can we spice it up to keep you interested? It doesn’t seem like the debate is being taken any further forwards, each side simply seems to be repeating itself. I suppose you could spice it up by duelling...? First blood or to the death, either is fine. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 15:08
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 9 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,665 |
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 16:28
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 25 Aug 2020 Member No.: 109,525 |
I suppose you could spice it up by duelling...? First blood or to the death, either is fine. Well, Amarok did say we're allowed to kill people. Now I'm starting to think he was dropping a hint. To the death it is... I mentioned being a witness to a fair number of accidents over the years. Several of those have included fatalities although none of those were in the UK. However, being a witness to an RTI can be a dangerous calling, and this thread had given me cause to think about such an occasion many years ago. I witnessed an accident between two cars in South Yorkshire just as I was walking out of the pub door and went over to the scene. The innocent driver was an middle-aged chap with his wife and kids in the car. I walked over and said that if he gave me a pen and paper he could have my name and address as a witness. As usual, no-one else came forward although there were quite a few people milling about in the car park by then. At that point the driver of the other car walked over to me and asked why I was offering to be witness to the other driver and not him. He was much younger, about the same age as me, probably mid-20's and quite a cocky little chap. I replied that I was offering to be a witness to the driver who was the innocent party and that, although he was welcome to take my details as well, it wasn't going to help him. He then got very close up to me and asked me who the hell I thought I was and what right did I have to act as judge and jury. I was a bit surprised as I'm 6ft 3in and extremely unused to anyone talking to me like that. I replied that, from my knowledge of the Highway Code, I believed that I was in the perfect position to make such a judgement but would be quite happy to wait until the Police arrived, if he so wished, to see what their opinion might be. A couple of his mates then got out of the car and came over and the whole thing was looking a bit menacing. However, the guilty driver had not realised that I'd been in the pub with three of my mates and they were just standing in the crowd in the car park laughing. I called them over and said to the guilty driver something like "is there anything else you'd like to ask" and he turned around, told his mates to get in the car, and sped off. Some weeks later I was asked to give a statement to the Police but I never did find out whether the chap was prosecuted for leaving the scene of an accident, or similar, although no-one was injured so probably not. I have given given my details at every accident I have seen over the last 50 years, with two notable exceptions, but it's clearly not a risk-free enterprise. Richard |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 18:02
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
PeterGUK said he was being prosecuted for DDCA for passing on the inside on a motorway, after being seen by a cop, IIRC.
I wonder if they proceeded? |
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 22:53
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 - 08:23
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,074 Joined: 17 Nov 2015 Member No.: 80,686 |
........... I suppose you could spice it up by duelling...? First blood or to the death, either is fine. If a poll is being opened, Roman Candles at 20 paces please. I was more here:................. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:25 |