We'll what could be worse? I'll tell you what's worse, drivers who consistently stick to the outside lane on a dual carriageway when it's almost completely quiet and are seemingly unaware of whats around them and that we drive on the left here.
Seems to be getting more and more common all the time? Only solution to pass them I've found is to slow down to their speed, pull from the inside to the outside lane, go up behind them (not too close though, give them a little time and if they don't then get the idea, give them a quick flash of the head lights. If they still don't realise what day of the week it is after a couple of flashes, then the only option left is to undertake?
Sometimes this results in an aggressive flash of the lights, hand gesture or a dirty look from them!
Argggggggghhhhhhhh FFS, can't these people be educated?
Depends on road and conditions. Do a lot of driving at night for work and speeds are invariably a little higher. Stick to the outside lane to provide a buffer in case some fool decides to pull out without looking or reverse into the carriageway.
I don't let it bother me. I just go for whatever gap is available these days, whichever lane you leave me is fine. Can't be arsed getting stressed about it.
People Who Use Capital Letters For Every Word Are Far Worse Offenders.
😉
I've noticed it getting frequently worse,
We'll all be driving like they do in Italy soon enough.
Where's that thread about Oxygen thieves..?
Driving like they do in Italy may be a good thing. Insurance could be cheaper because no point getting small dents fixed.
I just pass on the left. Never known anyone get done for that, and I don't reckon it in itself amounts to careless driving (although I am neither a Sheriff nor a traffic cop). In contrast, the middle/offside lane hog is almost certainly contravening S3 RTA 1988!
Why not just get past them and forget about it?
I'm mean I agree people shouldn't do it, but it's not the worst thing that you'll see drivers do everyday, speeding, talking on phones, texting, parking on pavements, generally being dickwads etc the list could go on all worse than failing to move left as quickly as they should.
Oh, and I love driving on the continent - their standards and expectations are so low that they don't get at all stressed when you cock it up. A toot of the horn at worst. Not like a lot of British drivers who love to try and teach other drivers a lesson whenever the opportunity to be a self righteous bell end presents itself!
Drive up behind. Keep a safe distance. Give lane hog a chance to move to the left. If he or she doesn't, simply pull to the left and overtake (EDIT: or undertake...whichever we're calling it) quickly and smoothly. Do not make eye contact. Do not make masturbatory gestures. Do not do a big WTF gesture inc once in front. Do not get stressed about it. We're all trying to get someplace in one piece. Smile. Breathe. Sing a song. 🙂
Not like a lot of British drivers who love to try and teach other drivers a lesson whenever the opportunity to be a self righteous bell end presents itself!
We are British, we are insignificant and this is our birthright !
The nearest I've ever come to a heart attack was when some dick undertook me then pulled in in front of me, forcing me to brake. I'm ashamed to admit that I saw red; put my headlights on full and sat on the horn with my heart racing with anger. He must have sensed I was quite unhappy because he suddenly dived off a slip road without warning. My chest was painful for a few hours afterwards.
Why not just get past them and forget about?
Because here in the UK we keep left unless overtaking for a very good reason, yet this problem seems to be getting more and more common, plus the only way I can get past them is to break the law myself by undertaking. I'd rather not have to do this but sometimes it's the only option remaining if you are to make progress.
Fair enough if it's quiet, drive in the outside lane if you must, but use your rear view mirrors at the same time. Then, when you see someone coming up at you from behind, pull over to the left lane in good time so that you don't impede their progress. It's pro-active driving, good awareness and common courtesy surely!
some dick undertook me then pulled in in front of me, forcing me to brake.
Out of interest,
a) why was it possible for you to be undertaken if you're in the correct lane, and
b) how does someone in front of you, travelling faster than you, cause you to brake?
the only way I can get past them is to break the law myself by undertaking
Which law have you broken?
It's perfectly legal to pass on the left to overtake slower-moving traffic. You "should not" weave in and out of traffic, and obviously if you're speeding in order to overtake then you're breaking the law, but in order to be prosecuted for undertaking you'd have to be in driving without due care / dangerous driving territory.
Not like a lot of British drivers who love to try and teach other drivers a lesson whenever the opportunity to be a self righteous bell end presents itself!
So true. Guilty of it myself at times. Pathetic really.
The problem with passing on the left is that might be the moment they finally realise they should've pulled in and, being dopey sorts, do it without looking.
I prefer to pull in behind them and flash a few times.
Got a link?It's perfectly legal to pass on the left to overtake slower-moving traffic
drivers who consistently stick to the outside lane on a dual carriageway when it's almost completely quiet
I actually find this worse at "rush hour" times with office folk in particular, making a beeline for the outside lane to sit there quite oblivious that the inside lane is clear.
They're just dicks if you ask me and best avoided, they cant be reasoned with, they think they're doing nothing wrong and they know best. Leave them to it.
The problem with passing on the left is that might be the moment they finally realise they should've pulled in and, being dopey sorts, do it without looking.
They rarely teleport six feet sideways. Even if they do (which IME is very rare as they're usually away with the fairies), you've plenty of time to avoid them.
I prefer to pull in behind them and flash a few times.
... which is the correct thing to do, you're alerting them to your presence. I'd favour a single blip, as "a few times" can easily be misinterpreted as aggressive behaviour. I've had people leap hard on the middle pedal in reaction to a quick flash of lights; these days I'll only ever do it from a reasonable distance and if they've not moved by the time I catch them up I figure they're never going to and negotiate them accordingly.
You're right molgrips, and it's definitely something to be wary of - watch them for a short while first perhaps - but when they're that daft, who's to say they won't just swerve right without looking (less likely I appreciate - but a div is a div at the end of the day!)
I actually find this worse at "rush hour" times with office folk in particular
Far as I can tell, a lot of that appears to be "getting in lane" because they're turning right in a mile's time.
The problem with passing on the left is that might be the moment they finally realise they should've pulled in and, being dopey sorts, do it without looking.
I sometimes wonder this too, but figure if they haven't noticed someone behind for a mile or so and haven't moved over of their own accord anyway beforehand, they're unlikely to do it any time soon.
I prefer to pull in behind them and flash a few times.
I realise that it's technically ok to do this as you're only "alerting the other driver to your presence" but I worry that it'll be taken as an aggressive gesture and they'll go from being dozy lane hogger to batshit mental in a jiffy. 🙂
It's a choice of course...I'm never sure which is safer tbh.
Nope, highway code says that you can do this "in dense traffic" when sometimes the traffic in your lane is all moving faster than the other lane, so you keep pace with your lane - it in no way allows you to undertake when your lane is empty and you just fancy going fasterIt's perfectly legal to pass on the left to overtake slower-moving traffic
Highway code says:
137
On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so.
163
Only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so.
Stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.
So there you go - apart from in the situations mentioned above, overtaking on the left does not seem to be legal.
Which law is it contravening, then? Where does it say you [b]MUST NOT[/b], which is the terminology THC uses for legal restrictions?
highway code says that you can do this "in dense traffic"
No it doesn't.
If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are
What defines a queue? One car? Two? If there's a handful of cars bimbling along in the third lane at 60mph, that's a "queue on the right moving more slowly" is it not?
OMG, you're right - it says congested, not dense. I'm so ashamedNo it doesn't.
268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
Yes, but you're not in a queue to its left, so you shouldthat's a "queue on the right moving more slowly" is it not?
not overtake on the left
Agent 007, I refer you to the part of my post you didn't quote for context on the part you did.
Look on the bright side this is only a problem in the UK and whilst your study shows it's getting worse the consequence is your "progress" was marginally slowed which is no big deal is it?
They rarely teleport six feet sideways. Even if they do (which IME is very rare as they're usually away with the fairies), you've plenty of time to avoid them.
I disagree. If I'm alongside someone I definitely do not want them veering into me. If it's anything other than a casual drift I'd count myself very lucky if I was able to avoid impact.
Yes, but you're not in a queue to its left, so you should
a) I [i]am [/i]traffic in the left-hand lane. So if there's nothing in front of me and yet I can keep up with the flow of traffic in my lane, I can only pass on the left if I'm following someone else? How's that work, what's the guy at the front doing?
b) "should" is the operative word there. Once again, which law am I breaking by overtaking on the left?
If you're carving in and out of traffic like an asshat then you can (and should) be pulled for some variant on 'reckless driving'. But there is no specific law against passing on the left, despite what the bottom half of the Internet might have you believe.
I disagree.
Feel free, your authority in matters of overtaking are well documented. (-:
If it's anything other than a casual drift I'd count myself very lucky if I was able to avoid impact.
Whereas I like to look in directions other than forwards whilst driving. 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?
If I'm passing someone, irrespective of which side I'm passing on, I'm keeping an eye on what they're doing just in case. As TGA says, by that logic there you run exactly the same risk when you overtake on the right as on the left. People can be erratic and random regardless of how "in the right" you happen to be.
I feel sorry for all the wagin drivers in the 50 average speed sections of the motorway (17 miles near Mansfield and that's just for starters - flippin extrudakerbers) when the middle lane's got jeezus-rightyus driving at bang on 50 (really about 46) but he don't go in now slow lane no. Which is hardest - shuffle over to that huuuge gap in your dumb-mobile for 20 seconds or let 40 tonnes of deadly chemicals undertake you or bare-minimum sit right up your hoop for 17 miles.
Morons.
Agent 007, I refer you to the part of my post you didn't quote for context on the part you did.
Look on the bright side this is only a problem in the UK and whilst your study shows it's getting worse the consequence is your "progress" was marginally slowed which is no big deal is it?
It's quite a big deal. Sticking to the right hand lane shows a fundamental lack of awareness, lack of courtesy, lack of observation and lack of knowledge of one of the very most basic of road rules here in the UK. If they're not aware of this then what else are they unaware of?
Dunno about breaking a law as I'm not a copper or a lawyer, all I'm doing is interpreting the HC for you - presumably you intended us to, since you linked to it.Once again, which [b][u]law am I breaking[/u][/b] by overtaking on the left?
We all know how hard it is to convict someone of even what seems obviously dangerous or careless driving but that doesn't make those folk who get off "perfectly legal" IMO. I bet you'd not try it on if a copper was in the line to your right.
Dunno about breaking a law as I'm not a copper or a lawyer, all I'm doing is interpreting the HC for you
Well it's quite simple then, as THC lists relevant laws under every bullet point, in nice bold type. So you don't need to be a lawyer or a policeman, you just need to be able to read what it says.
that doesn't make those folk who get off "perfectly legal" IMO
Well, it does, in that it's either legal or it isn't. I can't offhand think of anything that is deemed "slightly illegal" in law.
I bet you'd not try it on if a copper was in the line to your right.
I'd like to hope that your average motorway copper would have sufficient road sense that the situation would never present itself.
Once again, which law am I breaking by overtaking on the left?
Funnily enough, Police Interceptors is on Channel 5 right now in the background. The police have just pulled someone who blatantly undertook a truck on the motorway on the left. He was about to get some points for the offence until they found out he was already a banned driver, a far more serious offence.
He was about to get some points for the offence
Were they? What were they going to charge him with?
Was that his only misdemeanour or was he driving like a nobber to start with?
Were they? What were they going to charge him with?
I don't know - it was on in the background so I wasn't fully paying attention. I just heard 'undertaking' mentioned by the commentator as the reason he'd been pulled, which was when my ears pricked up and I looked at the telly.
There is no specific offence of passing on the left.
nickjb - MemberGot a link?
The law states what you are not allowed to do, there is no law for instance stating that it is perfectly legal to breathe.
Not all of them:THC lists relevant laws under every bullet point
[url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a29 ]There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:
overtaking on the inside[/url]
OK Cougar, you made the initial assertion; find me an authoritative source that supports it being perfectly legal
OK Cougar, you made the initial assertion; find me an authoritative source that supports it being perfectly legal
Read my above post.
All behaviour/actions are legal unless sanctioned by law, so the onus is not on Cougar to prove it is legal, as that is not possible.
read my post below it.
CPS clearly deems overtaking on the in side as careless driving, which is "at least slightly illegal"
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 - Memberread 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
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.
I know, let's stick to the driving for now, shall we ? Obfuscation on that scale is best left for the sort of ****ty lawyers who represent unsafe motorists.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?
Yeh, exactly - or no, if we're being serious (to be denied breathing would presumably be illegal - certainly has been every time somebody's done it deliberately so far)
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 - MemberI'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.
As it happens, I had one similar to this today. I'd been followed for a short while by a black Beemer, then had to stop for a while at some road works. When we started moving, something caught my eye in the mirror, and jackass behind was weaving from one side to the other, like he was trying to keep his tyres warm! The way he was sitting behind me, weaving out and back, right up my ass, it was clear he was looking for the first possible chance to get past, which he did, cutting sharp in front of the car in front of me, then swerving out past the truck and learner, just getting in in time before an oncoming car clipped him. Last I saw of him, he was in the right lane at a roundabout, and shot in front of a car that was just pulling away on the left, squeezing into a little gap, as there's a filter lane coming in from the left.
Stupid ****wit, and rather typical of Beemer drivers I see around, or at least the ones with 'trendy' hairstyles like this bloke.
Shame there were no unmarked police cars around when you really need one.
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
it's the situation that's untested (AFAIK); obviously the law is extant and has been tested. You know how murder is illegal but we still hold trials in each case to see if they agree that was what happened ?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.
