RESOLVIWOLF Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Following on from eth discussion teh other day, i actually got stopped yesterady on eth M25 by the full on Volvo estate traffic posse, but not for wearing a helmet or anything (the real reason i got stoped is another story :-O ) Basically, they spent half an hour going over teh car checking all lights, wheel bearings, looking underneath the car etc.. you name it. So if anything was illegal they would have soon let me know in no uncertain terms. The car had No windscreen and no aeroscreen, just a centre rearview mirror and no side mirrors. Also, I was wearing a helmet. I received a producer for insurance and also another ticket to say that i had to take the car to an MOT place and get it stamped to prove that I have had a drivers side wing mirror fitted. Also, I must sort the wheel bearings out (seems like after all that time a copper of all people finally correctly diagnosed my steering shaking problem :-) ). Just thought id let you know. BTW: clever dick missed the Catalytic converter by a mile :-) :-) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul22uk Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 so what is the reason for you being stoped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Mad Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 they sound like the kind of chaps that give the force a bad name. unless it was undertaking at 120mph that made them stop you of course.. tongue.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeps Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 If they spent half an hour of their valuable time giving the car a going over then you must have done something that really got up their noses. Deeps smile.gif Deep down you know it makes sense.idea.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RESOLVIWOLF Posted July 3, 2002 Author Share Posted July 3, 2002 sorry, the thread was not about why i got stopped (i have a reputation to maintain you know)... rather, teh legality of screens/mirrors & helmets. They were actually quite pleasant police but i didn't agree with them when they said that people in the fast lane don't have to move into the middle lane when its clear if they don't want to. If I was doing triple the nat limit and the middle/slow lane was clear I would still pull into it from the outside lane as i'm not overtaking anymore and the outside is for overtaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Smith Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 The middle lane is for overtaking as well! Not that all those buggers who sit there all day know or care; not moving over when you're sitting behind them pulling the Caterham on a trailer. So you got pulled for overtaking on the inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lali Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 I thought you had to have 2 rear view mirrors to pass the Mot, i dont think there is anything about the combination, I have an aeroscreen and 2 side mirrors and I passed the MOT. But I did fail one years ago when someone stole the drivers door mirror of my Beetle and I only had the central interior rear view mirror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Boy Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 You have to have an offside (drivers) mirror and one other. You don't need a central mirror, many Caterham have only two side mirroe, to say nothing of (rear vis) Vans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Er wot exactly does a copper know about wheelbearings ? If he had a vehicle inspector with him maybe, but I bet he doesn't know the difference between taper and non taper bearings anyway or what type are fitted to the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simos Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Ah well, he was carrying said wheel in the boot of the volvo so had correctly deduced the bearing had failed. He stopped the first car missing a wheel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Man Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Simos, you are kidding right?! First Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RESOLVIWOLF Posted July 3, 2002 Author Share Posted July 3, 2002 i used to live in epsom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simos Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 No ! Serious, the offense Jackal is so ashamed of is littering the highway ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Oops Somehow I think that if this costs only a few points it will be cheap at half the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Man Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Well bu**er me (figuratively of course!). Jackal - I feel that you should share the experience with all of us (a) because it will be cathartic and help avoid post-traumatic stress disorder, (b) maybe to help us avoid a similar incident, and © because we're nosy bastards! First Man. PS: What could have prompted you to leave delightful Epsom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red SLR Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 See this is the problem you have on the m-way, the m-way police will know all of the rules and regs inside out so they will instantly see that you did not have a mirror on the drivers side, however a pana driver is more likley to not a) know b)know how to fill a HORT/1 in... c) give a shi* The CAT is not a legal requirement at the roadside by the way... The only reason you should be in lane 2 or 3 is to overtake, if the road ahead is clear then lane 1 is where you should be. X777CAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Crickmore Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Thanks Occifer Scott. wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 The CAT is not a legal requirement at the roadside by the way... Er.....it is if you get stopped by the emmissions police (and in London, they do have swoops). If your emissions are outside what they should be for the car/year, then you can expect to have to get a new MOT within 7 days, and produce it at the local nick, along with licence, insurance....... I'm sure more stringent penalties exist too........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangers quotNquot Mas1697456953 Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 "lane 1 is where you should be." What driving in the spilt derv, diesel engine oil and lorry tracks? Andy Marks andy@metrol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nifty Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 .....when they said that people in the fast lane don't have to move into the middle lane when its clear if they don't want to. It is my understanding that it is not actually illegal to undertake but it is bad practice under the highway code and this may be used as evidence in a prosecution. However, it is also deemed bad practice to stay in a lane if there is a faster vehicle approaching from behind and the lane to the left is clear to manoeuvre into, as written in the highway code!! So where are the bobbies quoting from?? Nifty Why has that come up in big font, I never typed it like that? Edited by - Nifty on 3 Jul 2002 20:29:32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nifty Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Having checked in my copy of the Highway Code [published 2001 – purchased when researching the regs. for towing in France (obviously something Mike C didn’t do!!)] Backcover: “A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not in itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (…….) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings. Road Traffic Act 1988” (Something we all knew I'm sure) Introduction: “Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOTid=red> . In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.” Pg30 Dual Carriageways “116 On a two-lane carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. If you use it for overtaking move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so. 117 On a three-lane dual carriageway, you may use the middle lane or the right-hand lane to overtake but return to the middle and then the left-hand lane when it is safe.” NO red markings or laws highlighted.id=red> Pg36 Overtaking – “139 Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should .. .. only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so” (7th bullet point) NO red markings or laws highlighted.id=red> Pg 37 section 141 lists the MUST NOTSid=red> according to RTA 1998 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10, ZPPPCR reg 24. No mention of overtaking on the left. Pg 38 “144 Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass”….etc Very long winded (looks like one of Nick Woods’ replies!) but I hate people who sit in a lane when the one to the left is clear (and appropriate) to move into mad.gif It would also appear that both parties would be equally “wrong” if you are 'forced' to undertake. You could also argue as to whether you should have been pulled for the 'offence'. Okay Aves, rip me to shreds. Nifty “He was indicating right Officer” Edited by - Nifty on 3 Jul 2002 21:15:53 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Sewell Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 If I remember correctly, there are certain specified occasions when overtaking on the left is legal: When is a queue of traffic On a one-way system If the overtakee is indicating that they wish to turn right As such, on dual carriageways, it would only be legal when traffic is queuing (slow moving) or acting as a one-way system (everyone moving roughly the same speed but momentarily lane 1 is moving faster and you are already in that lane (not lane hopping!). I am happy to be contradicted on this. Low tech luddite - xflow and proud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Day Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 If it was for littering get yourself a copy of "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthry. Might make you feel better. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonwolff Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 I'm no expert so I'll probably be shot down straight away, but sadly I believe that to be prosecuted for driving without reasonable consideration to other road users, someone has to have been inconvenienced - e.g. someone having been held up by your refusal to pull over. Once that's happened, I would have thought that breaking the highway code is enough to show that your driving fell below a reasonable standard. You'd hope that having to lift even the tiniest bit to avoid either passing on the left or going into the back of them would count as an inconvenience. You'd also hope that if they haven't spotted you within a reasonable time and pulled over, they'd be guilty of driving without due care and attention. It seems that if they don't cause an accident the police simply aren't bothered - probably too difficult and too much hassle to try to prosecute. I have been told that you are obliged to show people consideration even if, for example, they want to pass you at above the speed limit. Obviously moot since people are prosecuted for speeding but apparently never for lane hogging, but it'd be interesting to know. As would where the blame would tend to fall if you're forced to pass on the left and they suddenly decide to pull over without looking - like Nifty says, in theory both parties have contributed, but my cynical side says they'd only go after the person passing on the left. I have to admit to doing it occasionally as a last resort, but generally only if I can put a clear lane in between us to give me time to react. Jonathan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjwb Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Old words of wisdom: 'If you cause another driver to change speed OR direction, you are doing something wrong'. Having driven in countries where a) there is no correct way and b) where undertaking is allowed; there didn't appear to be a problem. Steve B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now