Letter from the police

[ScoobyChris]

pavarotti1980 said:

I think his reference is RTA not HC

You could be correct. Maybe there’s a law stating you must only overtake when it’s necessary

Chris

[Debaser]

Nibbles_bits said:

Debaser said:

Is the issue that he crossed the short solid line at the start of his overtake, not that he conducted an overtake that some deem unnecessary?

Crossing a solid white line is it's own offence.

Isn't the "solid white line" in the clip just the approved type road marking for that particular part of that particular area i.e it's not a solid white line.?

I can't work out why it's DWDCA, but following the discussion here it seems to be either the solid line, or that someone deemed the overtake to be unnecessary.

I'm happy to learn, so would love to know for certain why it's DWDCA.

[standards]

pavarotti1980 said:

Well his comment (which you missed) did say done 30 years so its fair to draw inferences from that. Maybe you don't think RPU are drivers.....

Are you a cop or civvy in the Met?

I’d place a bet on which

[Forester1965]

"Necessary" doesn't refer to the necessity to overtake. It refers to the necessity to enter the hatched area if you choose to overtake. It means "If you choose to overtake, only enter the hatched area if necessary".

If the opposite were true, you could be sat behind, for example, a cyclist travelling at <10mph and stuck because to pass safely would require use of the hatched area and the overtake isn't 'necessary'. Yet if the lines were solid with no hatched area, you could pass without breaching the HC at all.

[pavarotti1980]

standards said:

I’d place a bet on which

Well you can't draw inferences

[Random_Person]

pavarotti1980 said:

Well his comment (which you missed) did say done 30 years so its fair to draw inferences from that. Maybe you don't think RPU are drivers.....

Are you a cop or civvy in the Met?

No it really is your observation.

It was me that posted 30 years and retirement.

[Actual]

So the police do act when dangerous driving is reported with video evidence? This happens often to me at various places on the A5 between Shrewsbury and Wrexham so the next time this happens to me I will report it.

I realise that this was not the OP and the OP did not overtake in such a risky manner.

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

No it really is your observation.

It was me that posted 30 years and retirement.

Not this?....

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

[Nibbles_bits]

pavarotti1980 said:

That was in relation to a previous post suggesting that the civvy issuing the letter had no experience

My letter and subsequent emails came from a retired Officer, suggesting that they have plenty of experience.

My bad, poorly structured.

[pavarotti1980]

Nibbles_bits said:

That was in relation to a previous post suggesting that the civvy issuing the letter had no experience

My letter and subsequent emails came from a retired Officer, suggesting that they have plenty of experience.

My bad, poorly structured.

Its more a consequence of poor quoting function on here

[Solocle]

Actual said:

So the police do act when dangerous driving is reported with video evidence? This happens often to me at various places on the A5 between Shrewsbury and Wrexham so the next time this happens to me I will report it.

I realise that this was not the OP and the OP did not overtake in such a risky manner.

The A5 is semi-designed for that.

The road engineering vouge is to do WS2 layouts like that rather than the older S3 suicide lane, as it's thought to make overtakes safer.

aturnick54 said:

Rather curious as to what the general etiquette and rules are around these roads where they're plenty wide enough for 3 cars side by side, such as the below example.



Should you expect traffic to keep left in both directions so that you can overtake in the middle? Just feels a bit strange overtaking and straddling the central line with oncoming cars.

Would be interesting to see what an insurer would think should there be a head-on collision while a vehicle is overtaking.

Previous A5 discussion

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

Nibbles_bits said:

So that stretch of road isn't a safe place to overtake.....

The hatched/chevron area looked perfectly safe. Plenty of visibility. But after the end of the hatched/chevron area it would have been too close to the bend.

[Fermit]

Nibbles_bits said:

Fermit said:

That BMW overtake is in no way DWDC, it's clearly sighted, and no opposite direction traffic.

Again, was it necessary to overtake at that point?

No, but please feel free to point out to me at what point it is DWDC, or anyone was in the remotest bit in danger. Yesterday on the A616 I committed a similar overtake, someone dawdling, broken lined ghost island crossed. It was safe, it got me past Aunt Daisy, and no humans, babies or fluffy cats were in any danger whatsoever. Would I be pissed off to be snitched on and receive 6 points, damn right I would be. It's crap like this which contributes to confidence in the police being at an all time low.

Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38

Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38

[Random_Person]

It's 3 points not 6. And everyone is assuming the outcomes on the video are reliable. I would suggest not, as the detail output to meet public campaigns as well as satisfy local objectives will be sanitised, edited and portrayed in a way designed to achieve a set outcome.

Nobody knows the details. That could be a police vehicle staged and filmed to convey a message.

There is no DWDCA there in my opinion. Just a cheeky cross of the filter lane, something you wouldn't do on a test but nothing outrageous either.

[Fermit]

Random_Person said:

It's 3 points not 6

I could be wrong, but I'm sure pre-clip wording stated 6 points? Mind, that could be the DCW inflating their ego, wanting to be the saviour of the roads.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

It's 3 points not 6. And everyone is assuming the outcomes on the video are reliable. I would suggest not, as the detail output to meet public campaigns as well as satisfy local objectives will be sanitised, edited and portrayed in a way designed to achieve a set outcome.

Nobody knows the details. That could be a police vehicle staged and filmed to convey a message.

There is no DWDCA there in my opinion. Just a cheeky cross of the filter lane, something you wouldn't do on a test but nothing outrageous either.

But in the opinion of those in possession of all the facts.....

[Nibbles_bits]

Fermit said:

No, but please feel free to point out to me at what point it is DWDC, or anyone was in the remotest bit in danger. Yesterday on the A616 I committed a similar overtake, someone dawdling, broken lined ghost island crossed. It was safe, it got me past Aunt Daisy, and no humans, babies or fluffy cats were in any danger whatsoever. Would I be pissed off to be snitched on and receive 6 points, damn right I would be. It's crap like this which contributes to confidence in the police being at an all time low.

Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38

Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38

The DWDC might be entering the hatched area unnecessarily.

[Debaser]

Can anyone say for certain why it was DWDCA?

[Alickadoo]

standards said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Well his comment (which you missed) did say done 30 years so its fair to draw inferences from that. Maybe you don't think RPU are drivers.....

Are you a cop or civvy in the Met?

I’d place a bet on which

All cops are civilians.

We enjoy a civilian police service.

[Bigends]

Alickadoo said:

standards said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Well his comment (which you missed) did say done 30 years so its fair to draw inferences from that. Maybe you don't think RPU are drivers.....

Are you a cop or civvy in the Met?

I’d place a bet on which

All cops are civilians.

We enjoy a civilian police service.

Within the Police, youre either an officer or Police staff AKA Civvies