Carrying documents whilst driving.

[glojo]

It's news to me that unmarked traffic cars have all these extra aerials and I would not rely on it as being fact. They also have some very lean, mean unmarked Yamaha motor bikes.

In the whole of Cornwall there are just 18 traffic vehicles. I wonder how many of these are on the road at any one time? For one person to be harrassed by a traffic officer is interesting and the odds must be extremely low. I would suspect there may well be two sides to any coin

John

 

[fyonn]

From my point of view.. If a Police man tells me something he has to be right, and I think its wrong, when I argue the point I seem to get in trouble!

I agree. I appreciate that individual coppers can't know the entire body of UK law, but I do expect a traffic officer to have an exceedingly good understanding of what is, and is not legal when driving.

I purposely drove over the middle of a mini-roundabout when marked Police panda car was behind me, I knew he was there I was trying to prove a point to my ol'man.. in my driving test my instructor said, it's not an offence to drive over a mini-roundabout.. just the flat ones that are painted on the road..

hmm.. according to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338

188

Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.

This says to me that driving across a mini-roundabout is illegal. am I incorrect? I'm noting use of the word "MUST", rather than "Should".

I just happened to my DSA book in the glove box, popped it out and showed him.. told not to be cheeky.. and then warned and told to get on my way!!

but that I do disagree with. If a policeman finds that he is not correct about the law (everyone makes mistakes), then he should be professional and take it gracefully. The response you relate is childish and I would be.. disappointed if I were to get such a response had I been accused of a crime by an officer and I was in the right.

Dave

 

[Dieselman]

hmm.. according to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338

This says to me that driving across a mini-roundabout is illegal. am I incorrect? I'm noting use of the word "MUST", rather than "Should".

I believe you are correct. I was told that the markings must be treated the same as a built roundabout and must be driven round.
In effect it is the same as a solid white line, traffic must pass to the left.

 

[flango]

I believe you are correct. I was told that the markings must be treated the same as a built roundabout and must be driven round.
In effect it is the same as a solid white line, traffic must pass to the left.

Not true, I teach advanced, defensive and evasive driving. If we are talking about mini roundabous that are just painted on the surface of the road then the following applies and is quite legal (see roadcraft or ask one of the traffic officers on here) If the roundabout is "open" i.e no other traffic is present at the entry exit points to the roundabout then it is quite legal to take the safest line through the roundabout, even if this means straightlining straight across the painted markings, it is also quite legal to pass to the right of the mini RB centre if the road you are taking is straight on and clear, also you should never indicate off a mini roundabout. Below is a comment from an ADI who teaches the advanced method as part of his standard driving technique, whilst I think that the technique is only appropriate to advanced drivers it does prove the manouvre is not illegal as this is what the police and advanced drivers are taught to do, but it does highlight a conflict between the Highway code and DSA guidelines

Hi Philip

I am a driving instructor and have always taught my pupils to drive across the centre markings at mini-roundabouts, taking the smoothest line to the required exit, if the markings are simply painted on the road (not raised up). Always bearing in mind that the centre markings could be slippery when wet.
I was looking through the Highway Code the other day and noticed (rule 164)that all vehicles MUST pass round the central markings unless they are physically incapable of doing so.

I work in the Hendon area (Police driver training) and they are taught to drive straight over - even going the 'wrong' side of badly placed markings.

Whilst legal it does appear to be in conflict with the HWC

Best wishes
Mick Wright ADI

 

[MBManInKen]

Not true, I teach advanced, defensive and evasive driving.

All irrelevant opinion, I'm afraid. There is only one authoritative source, which is the law(*). In this case there are two main legal instruments that apply: the Road Traffic Act 1988 and a piece of secondary legislation called the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.

Under section 36 of the RTA it is illegal not to obey traffic signs and markings. This then applies to mini roundabouts, making it illegal to just go straight across them, apart from where the law allows for it (such as long vehicles - see quote below).

If the roundabout is "open" i.e no other traffic is present at the entry exit points to the roundabout then it is quite legal to take the safest line through the roundabout, even if this means straightlining straight across the painted markings

As per the above, it is not legal to ignore the painted markings unless the vehicle is too large or it is not possible to do so:

(b) a vehicle proceeding through the junction must keep to the left of the white circle at the centre of the marking shown in diagram 1003.4, unless the size of the vehicle or the layout of the junction makes it impracticable to do so

Amongst the signs and markings applicable here are 611.1 (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311333.gif) and the above mentioned 1003.4:

So whatever an ADI says or any police car is seen doing, the law is pretty clear IMHO. That of course does not mean that it does not actually happen all of the time.

I have some sympathy for arguments in favour of going across them in some circumstances, but less sympathy for ADIs or police instructors who don't actually know the law...

(*) Note that the highway code is not a legal instrument and thus, when in doubt, only the law can provide the answer.

 

[fyonn]

(*) Note that the highway code is not a legal instrument and thus, when in doubt, only the law can provide the answer.

while I agree that the highway code is not the law a) it's much easier to find things in it and b) it should reflect the law should it not? ie it should say broadly the same things and not contradict the law.

in this case, looking at what I quoted from it earlier, it appears to.

dave

PS. this was not supposed to be a defensive post, merely an indication that I've tried to look various things up in various acts etc in the past and it's often very difficult to find a definitive answer as there's so many bits to check, and the law you're looking at could have been wholly, or partly superseded by more recent primary, or secondary legislation. it's one of my issues with UK law in that it's not easy to work out quite what is legal and what is not. hell, even the cops get it wrong and they have the powers to detain us if they think we have broken the law.

 

[glojo]

I'm with Guido for the following reasons

By definition a round...... about is just that it is a round obstruction which is sometimes a physical barrier and at others a painted circle.

When we teach advanced standards of either driving or riding we should always set the example,we should always be 100% and not delve into grey areas where we get a situation whereby someone will say, "The instructor told me it was okay!" I can see the benefits of driving straight across a painted circle, and it seems daft go slow right down and navigate around this painted blob when there is no other traffic in the vicinity, but if there are other road users in attendance, then the roundabout is there for a purpose. Teach the correct methods and let others develop bad habits.

If we are driving from A to B then do we want to be stopped, hassled, or annoyed by plod? If we don't mind this aggravation and enjoy shooting the breeze with the boys\girls in blue then go ahead and goad them, but please, please do not complain when we get stopped for making minor incursions.

Onto my soap box
How many drivers, riders fail to look both left and right when passing through a traffic light that is showing green?

Treat a roundabout as a roundabout and give way to traffic approaching from the right.

If the highway is completely free of all traffic then why not straighten out a roundabout or drive across a painted blob????

Just remember though we are then developing bad habits and how many members have sympathised with the poster who had the wing of their car damaged by someone who lacked basic lane discipline when negotiating a roundabout? Bad habits are bad habits and we will get caught out. To see a vehicle slowly pulling into our lane and NOT take avoiding action might prove costly; for a motor cyclist it could be fatal.

As my old colour sergeant (he got promoted) used to say, "The day we pass our test, is the day we develop bad habits.

On another thread we debated 'eye contact' and once again I was in the minority.

I have just been out in the back garden sat in my wheel chair. My wife was stood to my immediate right and just four metres away. I asked her to tell me when I was making eye contact with her............ It was a farce. It is totally impossible for anyone to know what another person is looking at; impossible and when driving a motor vehicle, extremely dangerous to assume. I was looking at a patio door which was just to the left of my wife and yet she was convinced I was looking at her and that was just FOUR metres away. This patio door could have been a young 'dolly person' An interesting object, dog, cat etc, but an assumption was made by one person that they had made eye contact. When we are travelling in excess of 30mph in a 1 tonne or more vehicle, then assumptions can be fatal, we should make assumptions solely on what we can see and not on what we think we have seen.

Phewwww
Rant over
Regards
John the olde grump

 

[oldcro]

John, you seem to by missing the point about the famous "eye contact" thing.

"Eye contact" is I agree a misleading name for what is meant to occur. As far as I have been taught it means you (the rider) can see the other drivers eye (or face). This does NOT mean, or is intended to mean you have been seen by the other driver. What it does is teach you to ride in a position where you are in a position to be visible to the other driver and not hidden in a blind spot i.e. that area between what is invisible between the interior mirror and wing mirror. Being visible does not mean you have been seen, it just means you could be seen as opposed to riding in the blind spot where the most diligent driver would not see you. A rider should never assume he/she has been seen by the other driver as you so correctly mentioned.

Regards from a maybe older and grumpier John.

 

[glojo]

John, you seem to by missing the point about the famous "eye contact" thing.

"Eye contact" is I agree a misleading name for what is meant to occur. As far as I have been taught it means you (the rider) can see the other drivers eye (or face). This does NOT mean, or is intended to mean you have been seen by the other driver. What it does is teach you to ride in a position where you are in a position to be visible to the other driver and not hidden in a blind spot i.e. that area between what is invisible between the interior mirror and wing mirror. Being visible does not mean you have been seen, it just means you could be seen as opposed to riding in the blind spot where the most diligent driver would not see you. A rider should never assume he/she has been seen by the other driver as you so correctly mentioned.

Regards from a maybe older and grumpier John.

Thanks for clarifying and as i thought, it is all in the detail. I have no issue with seeing the driver, my only issue has been and always will be in making an assumption based on what we believe that person has seen.

When replying to all the posts regarding this issue I have always emphasised the dangers of assumption regarding this so called eye contact.

I much prefer any rider\driver to make assumption on the presence or what they can see. Has the vehicle commenced braking? Can you see brake lights? Is the vehicle stationary? The checks are endless and once again the written word is not good enough to describe what are the rights and wrongs. I simply cringed at the wording 'Eye contact'

regards
John
#

 

[MBManInKen]

John the olde grump

Regards from a maybe older and grumpier John.

Oi, you two! I'm the grumpy one!

 

[st4]

I'm with Guido for the following reasons

I can see the benefits of driving straight across a painted circle, and it seems daft go slow right down and navigate around this painted blob when there is no other traffic in the vicinity, but if there are other road users in attendance, then the roundabout is there for a purpose. Teach the correct methods and let others develop bad habits.


Treat a roundabout as a roundabout and give way to traffic approaching from the right.

If the highway is completely free of all traffic then why not straighten out a roundabout or drive across a painted blob????

This exact thing was in our IAM group. It was put that if there is no other car around then you should cut the lanes, white markings for a smoother line, otherwise its normal procedure.

In an IAM test if you explain in the commentary what your doing, i.e. cutting the lane, white markings whatever, and why your doing it (no traffic about, smoother line) it should win you points, not count against you.

 

[flango]

Whilst I agree with MBmaninken in his earlier post about the observation and obeying traffic signs according to RTA 1988 Section 36, this only applies when the road has other traffic on in in which case a mini roundabout should be treated as as a full blown roundabout and normal rules apply, however if you dig into the RTA 1988 and it's subsequent ammendments and schedules you will find and article that says "when the road is clear and free of any traffic the road user may make full use of the road or carriageway" This includes taking the smoother line through a mini roundabout, straightening out bends by crossing the dotted white line etc, The HWC & DSA say you should always keep to the left except when overtaking (another untrue statement). There are numerous advanced driving techniques that many people perceive to be illegal but in fact are not, If they were then the IAM, RoSPA and Police Instructors would not teach them and why would the DSA put them in their driving guidelines? So rather than irrelevant opinion I think it is a matter of interpretation of the RTA 1988 and its many subsequent, ammendments, schedules and secondary and tertiary legislation.

I will still continue to teach taking the safest and smoothest line on a clear road.

 

[oldcro]

Oi, you two! I'm the grumpy one!

Sorry MBManInKent I was not trying to muscle in on your exalted position position within the club. Your grumpyness is a standard I can only aspire to.

 

[glojo]

Sorry MBManInKent I was not trying to muscle in on your exalted position position within the club. Your grumpyness is a standard I can only aspire to.

Ditto the above

Regards
John the olde grump Jnr

 

[MBManInKen]

however if you dig into the RTA 1988 and it's subsequent ammendments and schedules you will find and article that says "when the road is clear and free of any traffic the road user may make full use of the road or carriageway"

Really? Chapter and verse please. Otherwise I'll have to just relegate it to the urban myth category...

 

[MBManInKen]

Sorry MBManInKent I was not trying to muscle in on your exalted position position within the club. Your grumpyness is a standard I can only aspire to.

Ditto the above

That's enough, you two! I'll get the nurse to bring your sleeping tablets...

 

[flango]

Really? Chapter and verse please. Otherwise I'll have to just relegate it to the urban myth category...

I was at a law society dinner last night and put the mini roundabout question to a well respected motoring lawyer and a senior traffic cop, both instantly said the same and as leemc2008 correctly pointed out in his post if the road is clear then it is NOT illegal to take the safest and shortest line through the mini roundabout and section 36 of RTA does not apply. The cop actually pointed out that there are many painted mini islands which are not signed with the mandatory blue circle with white arrows on entry and are just dots in the road with give way lines at the entry to them hence there is no actual legal requirement to keep to the left of the circle. Low dome mini roundabouts are a different matter and should be treated as full roundabouts and shortcutting these is illegal in any circumstance but these are usually well posted.

I will post the relevant act that negates section 36 for this when my partner gets back on Monday as she is the traffic law expert not me but confirms that what is in the post above is correct and that the CPS would never bring to court a case of this nature unless it could be proved other road users were present and the road was not clear.

 

[glojo]

motoring lawyer and a senior traffic cop, both instantly said the same and as leemc2008 correctly pointed out in his post if the road is clear then it is NOT illegal to take the safest and shortest line through the mini roundabout and section 36 of RTA does not apply. The cop actually pointed out that there are many painted mini islands which are not signed on entry and are just dots in the road with give way lines at the entry to them .

Nothing wrong with what they are saying except.................................

If the person cutting the roundabout clouts someone, then the person that thinks it clever to try and beat the law abiding road user will come unstuck.

In my experience these mini roundabouts are usually placed to improve road safety, but the road users that disregard them are sometimes the self same people it was designed to slow down??

I have NO issues with road users driving straight across a painted mini roundabout when ALL access points are clear, but that is NOT what I am discussing. When other road users are present then those obstacles should be complied to and the user that disregards the IS breaking the law, be it either of ther two Section 3 offences or failing to comply.

I also accept you are suggesting a similart point of view

Regards
John

 

[flango]

Nothing wrong with what they are saying except.................................

If the person cutting the roundabout clouts someone, then the person that thinks it clever to try and beat the law abiding road user will come unstuck.

In my experience these mini roundabouts are usually placed to improve road safety, but the road users that disregard them are sometimes the self same people it was designed to slow down??

I have NO issues with road users driving straight across a painted mini roundabout when ALL access points are clear, but that is NOT what I am discussing. When other road users are present then those obstacles should be complied to and the user that disregards the IS breaking the law, be it either of ther two Section 3 offences or failing to comply.

I also accept you are suggesting a similart point of view

Regards
John

Totally agree with you John if the road is occupied with other traffic then roundabout rules should be obeyed even on mini roundabouts.

If the person cutting the roundabout clouts someone, then the person that thinks it clever to try and beat the law abiding road user will come unstuck

If the person cutting the roundabout clouts somone then they would immediately be at fault as the entry exit points would not be clear and the road would be classed as occupied and section 36 RTA would apply as well as a few other motoring offences.

As I teach in the advanced driving these smoothest line techniques are legal but you have to be very sure the road ahead is completely clear before committing to them as if you do get it wrong you are immediately at fault and open to prosecution under the full extent of the law.

As an advanced driving instructor I would be stupid to advocate anything other than to follow the correct roundabout procedure on occupied roads, my point is that on unoccupied roads the rules are not the same and advanced techniques can be used to ensure safer driving.

The RTA is the definitive law but it has so many secondary and tertiary laws and revisions that it is impossible for anyone other than a very experienced motoring lawyer to understand, and even the CPS get it wrong thats why people such as Nick Freeman the lawyer are able to exploit the loopholes in it in court to the benefit of his very wealthy clients.

 

[MBManInKen]

The RTA is the definitive law but it has so many secondary and tertiary laws and revisions that it is impossible for anyone other than a very experienced motoring lawyer to understand

That would be the case if these were overlapping legal instruments, but they are mostly complementing pieces of legislation. The RTA is primary legislation, most of the rest are statutory instruments. Secondary legislation cannot override or undo primary legislation.

Also, complexity <> ambiguity.