cycling in the right hand lane in two lane,one way traffic

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

OK so I'll just pop out onto the M1 (it's only a couple of miles away) and try it shall I? And when I'm stopped and charged I'll just tell them it's OK because you said it's not illegal.

Ho hum.

Charged with what?

There is no offence of undertaking. You find an offence of undertaking in English Law & I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Clearly you know better than the Police National Legal Database, and all Criminal Textbooks and my 3 decades of practicing criminal law

Obviously the Courts are all wrong when they have held that there is no offence of undertaking per se

beverick

spen666 wrote:

[..........
Obviously the Courts are all wrong when they have held that there is no offence of undertaking per se

Doesn't it depend on where you bury the body.

Seriously, convictions for overtaking to the right would probably most likley be brought under careless driving/cycling.

Bob

spen666

beverick wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[..........
Obviously the Courts are all wrong when they have held that there is no offence of undertaking per se

Doesn't it depend on where you bury the body.

Seriously, convictions for overtaking to the right would probably most likley be brought under careless driving/cycling.

Bob

It is not careless driving/cycling to undertakie per se- it only becomes careless driving if you then swerve back out causing inconvenience to motorist you have passed

NorwegianBlue

Let me give you an example from last year. A colleague of mine was driving along in lane two passing some slow lorries late one night, he came upon a car cruising along in lane three barely any faster than the lorries. So laddo slowed and hoped idiot boy would pull over into lane two and let him pass. After a short while it became clear that that he was oblivious so our hero accelerated and gradually passed the moron. At which point the car behind him lights up all blue and flashy and pulled him over.

The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60.

Are you saying the plod was acting illegally?

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Let me give you an example from last year. A colleague of mine was driving along in lane two passing some slow lorries late one night, he came upon a car cruising along in lane three barely any faster than the lorries. So laddo slowed and hoped idiot boy would pull over into lane two and let him pass. After a short while it became clear that that he was oblivious so our hero accelerated and gradually passed the moron. At which point the car behind him lights up all blue and flashy and pulled him over.

The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60.

Are you saying the plod was acting illegally?

So what was the alleged offence?
DC70 is not an offence

DC70 may relateto a classification.

However as I am not at my home PC I do not have the offence codes

What is the alleged offence?

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Let me give you an example from last year. A colleague of mine was driving along in lane two passing some slow lorries late one night, he came upon a car cruising along in lane three barely any faster than the lorries. So laddo slowed and hoped idiot boy would pull over into lane two and let him pass. After a short while it became clear that that he was oblivious so our hero accelerated and gradually passed the moron. At which point the car behind him lights up all blue and flashy and pulled him over.

The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60.

Are you saying the plod was acting illegally?

BTW you seem to have little understanding of what police acting illegally is

If police have reasonable grounds for believing an offence has occurred they can correctly stop someone and issue a fixed penalty ticket or arrange a summons to be issued. The fact the offence was not made out does not mean the police have acted illegally. To suggest oherwise is to suggest that everytime someone is acquitted of an offence thepolice have acted illegally - that is plainly not the case.

Furthermore whatever your mate did or did not do- you are asking peopleto make a judgeent on if something is legal or not on thebasis of the offenders description only - ie only oneside of the story.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Let me give you an example from last year. A colleague of mine was driving along in lane two passing some slow lorries late one night, he came upon a car cruising along in lane three barely any faster than the lorries. So laddo slowed and hoped idiot boy would pull over into lane two and let him pass. After a short while it became clear that that he was oblivious so our hero accelerated and gradually passed the moron. At which point the car behind him lights up all blue and flashy and pulled him over.

The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60.

Are you saying the plod was acting illegally?

firstly police at road side could not charge driver- charging is done at police station.

If you are referring to a fixed penalty ticket, then what is the offence alleged ( and admitte by driver if he paid the £60 fine)?

The DVLA do not record the offence code of DC70 on their website- whoops.

Indeed the DVLA dono record any offence codes starting DC

There is CD70 Causing death by careless driving then failing to supply a specimen for analysis - that is a little bit more than you descibe your mate doing

There is DR70 Failing to provide specimen for breath test - again a bit different

TS70 Undefined failure to comply with a traffic direction sign - again different t what you describe

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

OK so I'll just pop out onto the M1 (it's only a couple of miles away) and try it shall I? And when I'm stopped and charged I'll just tell them it's OK because you said it's not illegal.

Ho hum.

Charged with what?

There is no offence of undertaking. You find an offence of undertaking in English Law & I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Clearly you know better than the Police National Legal Database, and all Criminal Textbooks and my 3 decades of practicing criminal law

Obviously the Courts are all wrong when they have held that there is no offence of undertaking per se

With the exception of the situations highlighted previously, I can assure you that you WILL be pulled over if a policeman spots you undertaking on a motorway or a dual carriageway.

I hope that this isn't the same approach that you actually take to general legal adivce, Spen.

From what little I know about a small area of law, the act of parliament that consititues "the law" typically refers to a set of rules that some authority has the power to change without going back to parliament. So the act might say that you must obey road signs, but not what those signs might be permitted to say. Hell, what do I know I don't have 3 decades of practicing criminal law to draw upon. (Is this necessarily criminal law, by the way?)

You know full well that "no rule against undertaking per se" is entirely consistent with all of the statements and scenarios put forward by the people you are arguing against.

Can we be safe to assume that you are being pedantic and deliberately obtuse?

NorwegianBlue

As I said "The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60."

I obviously didn't recall correctly, the code recorded on his licence could have been different, it was a good few months ago. I think the offence was actually a "driving without due care and attention". I can't ask him because any dribing he's doing at the moment, he's doing it in the middle east. It wasn't a fixed penalty, it actually went to the magistrate's court.

I don't think for a minute that the police in this case were acting illegally, that was merely a question for Spen. He suggested, in his pedantic and thoroughly irritating way, that I would not be charged with anything were I to pop out onto the M1 and practice a little undertaking. If he is right then the police and indeed magistrates in this case must have been acting illegally. Which I don't believe that they were.

Nick argued that he was driving very carefully, and waited until he was sure the other driver was not going to pull over before undertaking very carefully. The police and magistrates took the view that overtaking on the left in free flowing traffic is always "driving without due care and attention", or whatever the offence recorded was.

always_tyred

NorwegianBlue wrote:

As I said "The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60."

I obviously didn't recall correctly, the code recorded on his licence could have been different, it was a good few months ago. I think the offence was actually a "driving without due care and attention". I can't ask him because any dribing he's doing at the moment, he's doing it in the middle east. It wasn't a fixed penalty, it actually went to the magistrate's court.

I don't think for a minute that the police in this case were acting illegally, that was merely a question for Spen. He suggested, in his pedantic and thoroughly irritating way, that I would not be charged with anything were I to pop out onto the M1 and practice a little undertaking. If he is right then the police and indeed magistrates in this case must have been acting illegally. Which I don't believe that they were.

Nick argued that he was driving very carefully, and waited until he was sure the other driver was not going to pull over before undertaking very carefully. The police and magistrates took the view that overtaking on the left in free flowing traffic is always "driving without due care and attention", or whatever the offence recorded was.

And there you have it.

Mr Loophole is, I think, safe from Spen.

richardast

spen666 wrote:

Clearly you know better than the Police National Legal Database, and all Criminal Textbooks and my 3 decades of practicing criminal law.

Anyway, after 3 decades practicing law, surely you would be a judge by now if you were any good.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

As I said "The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60."

I obviously didn't recall correctly, the code recorded on his licence could have been different, it was a good few months ago. I think the offence was actually a "driving without due care and attention". I can't ask him because any dribing he's doing at the moment, he's doing it in the middle east. It wasn't a fixed penalty, it actually went to the magistrate's court.

I don't think for a minute that the police in this case were acting illegally, that was merely a question for Spen. He suggested, in his pedantic and thoroughly irritating way, that I would not be charged with anything were I to pop out onto the M1 and practice a little undertaking. If he is right then the police and indeed magistrates in this case must have been acting illegally. Which I don't believe that they were.

Nick argued that he was driving very carefully, and waited until he was sure the other driver was not going to pull over before undertaking very carefully. The police and magistrates took the view that overtaking on the left in free flowing traffic is always "driving without due care and attention", or whatever the offence recorded was.

if by pedantic you meaorrectly stating what the law is then I am pedantic

if you mean showing your post up as nonsense even down to alleging driving codes for offences that don't exist - then yes again I am pedantic

if knowing that there is no offence of undertaking and that undertaking per se is not a criminal offence then once again I am pedantic

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

As I said "The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60."

I obviously didn't recall correctly, the code recorded on his licence could have been different, it was a good few months ago. I think the offence was actually a "driving without due care and attention". I can't ask him because any dribing he's doing at the moment, he's doing it in the middle east. It wasn't a fixed penalty, it actually went to the magistrate's court.

I don't think for a minute that the police in this case were acting illegally, that was merely a question for Spen. He suggested, in his pedantic and thoroughly irritating way, that I would not be charged with anything were I to pop out onto the M1 and practice a little undertaking. If he is right then the police and indeed magistrates in this case must have been acting illegally. Which I don't believe that they were.

Nick argued that he was driving very carefully, and waited until he was sure the other driver was not going to pull over before undertaking very carefully. The police and magistrates took the view that overtaking on the left in free flowing traffic is always "driving without due care and attention", or whatever the offence recorded was.

And there you have it.

Mr Loophole is, I think, safe from Spen.

if you belive the bloke from the pub telling you a story relating to offences which don't exist about his mate who was driving impeccably rather than a lawyer with over 3 decades experience defending criminal cases, then carry on

I know the law, I also know what the police national legal database

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

As I said "The end result IIRC was a charge of a DC70 and a fine of £60."

I obviously didn't recall correctly, the code recorded on his licence could have been different, it was a good few months ago. I think the offence was actually a "driving without due care and attention". I can't ask him because any dribing he's doing at the moment, he's doing it in the middle east. It wasn't a fixed penalty, it actually went to the magistrate's court.

I don't think for a minute that the police in this case were acting illegally, that was merely a question for Spen. He suggested, in his pedantic and thoroughly irritating way, that I would not be charged with anything were I to pop out onto the M1 and practice a little undertaking. If he is right then the police and indeed magistrates in this case must have been acting illegally. Which I don't believe that they were.

Nick argued that he was driving very carefully, and waited until he was sure the other driver was not going to pull over before undertaking very carefully. The police and magistrates took the view that overtaking on the left in free flowing traffic is always "driving without due care and attention", or whatever the offence recorded was.

And there you have it.

Mr Loophole is, I think, safe from Spen.

if you belive the bloke from the pub telling you a story relating to offences which don't exist about his mate who was driving impeccably rather than a lawyer with over 3 decades experience defending criminal cases, then carry on

I know the law, I also know what the police national legal database says.

ypou may ask what was driving without due care and attention in the description given by our man in the pub. I think you may just find you have not been told the full story and that his mate swerved back out infront of the police car after undertaking and it was the latter manouvere that got his a conviction. Which is exactly what the PNLD says on the subject

NorwegianBlue

It wasn't some bloke in the pub. It was somebody I know quite well who would gain nothing by lying. If you read the tale more carefully you would note that it wasn't the car that he overtook that nicked him but a car that was following him.

Now some have suggested that as the car was following him it may have just been looking for an excuse to nick him for some reason. Another suggestion that has been made was that the lane hog was actually a fellow police officer and they were running a trap. Frankly I can't see what they would gain from doing that, unless they had targets to meet. Now I'm not entirely enamoured of traffic plod having been nicked back in the eighties by a very underhand tactic*, but I don't believe that plod in this case would have been pulling such a stunt, it was late at night and pretty quiet.



* I was following an SD1 who accelerated up to about 100+ mph, he pulled away from me as I accelerated up to about 85mph, suddenly a "POLICE - STOP" sign illuminated in his back window and he slowed. Interestingly enough by the time it came to court Mr Plod's story changed to a more traditional pursuit from the rear. Funny that.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

It wasn't some bloke in the pub. It was somebody I know quite well who would gain nothing by lying. If you read the tale more carefully you would note that it wasn't the car that he overtook that nicked him but a car that was following him.

Now some have suggested that as the car was following him it may have just been looking for an excuse to nick him for some reason. Another suggestion that has been made was that the lane hog was actually a fellow police officer and they were running a trap. Frankly I can't see what they would gain from doing that, unless they had targets to meet. Now I'm not entirely enamoured of traffic plod having been nicked back in the eighties by a very underhand tactic*, but I don't believe that plod in this case would have been pulling such a stunt, it was late at night and pretty quiet.



* I was following an SD1 who accelerated up to about 100+ mph, he pulled away from me as I accelerated up to about 85mph, suddenly a "POLICE - STOP" sign illuminated in his back window and he slowed. Interestingly enough by the time it came to court Mr Plod's story changed to a more traditional pursuit from the rear. Funny that.

You who have your facts so accurate that you are

a) only quoting from the criminal's version of events - what was the police version?

b) You refer to somoene getting a DC70 as a charge - there is no such charge in English Law

c) You refer to someone getting a DC70 as a charge- even being generous and assuming you are now referring to the offence coding on the drivers licence ( which only arrives after conviction./ guilty plea) - there is no offence code of DC70

Not very accurate so far is your version.

Now as I have asked before where is it in English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence?

I am prepared to pay £1000 to the charity of your choice if you can show me in current English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence

always_tyred

Jesus, no one is contending that there aren't circumstances where undertaking is perfectly permissable. Indeed, the great majority of statements are consistent with the default position in law being that undertaking is legal. However, the contention against which you appear to be arguing is that in the majority of on road situations, it is acceptable to undertake.

So, ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO UNDERTAKE PER SE. There now, I've gone and conceded a point that no one seems to be arguing? Darn. Are you possibly able to concede that there are circumstances in which it is an offence to undertake? Note that this is not the offence of "undertaking per se" but an offence committed while undertaking?

I do hope I don't meet you on the motorway. I shall certainly check my blind spot with added dilligence.

NorwegianBlue

spen666 wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

It wasn't some bloke in the pub. It was somebody I know quite well who would gain nothing by lying. If you read the tale more carefully you would note that it wasn't the car that he overtook that nicked him but a car that was following him.

Now some have suggested that as the car was following him it may have just been looking for an excuse to nick him for some reason. Another suggestion that has been made was that the lane hog was actually a fellow police officer and they were running a trap. Frankly I can't see what they would gain from doing that, unless they had targets to meet. Now I'm not entirely enamoured of traffic plod having been nicked back in the eighties by a very underhand tactic*, but I don't believe that plod in this case would have been pulling such a stunt, it was late at night and pretty quiet.



* I was following an SD1 who accelerated up to about 100+ mph, he pulled away from me as I accelerated up to about 85mph, suddenly a "POLICE - STOP" sign illuminated in his back window and he slowed. Interestingly enough by the time it came to court Mr Plod's story changed to a more traditional pursuit from the rear. Funny that.

You who have your facts so accurate that you are

a) only quoting from the criminal's version of events - what was the police version?

b) You refer to somoene getting a DC70 as a charge - there is no such charge in English Law

c) You refer to someone getting a DC70 as a charge- even being generous and assuming you are now referring to the offence coding on the drivers licence ( which only arrives after conviction./ guilty plea) - there is no offence code of DC70

Not very accurate so far is your version.

Now as I have asked before where is it in English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence?

I am prepared to pay £1000 to the charity of your choice if you can show me in current English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence

I have already stated that I clearly made a mistake with the offence code. Did you not read that bit?

The police version of events was that he overtook on the left and was thus driving without due care and attention.

I never stated that there was a specific offence of overtaking on the left. I stated that in most circumstances (i.e. more then half) it is illegal. As a practitioner in law I would have thought that you would have sufficient nouse to understand the difference between the following two sentences:

"There is a specific entry in the road traffic act which outlaws overtaking on the left."

and

"Overtaking on the left is illegal in most circumstances"

However I wouldn't have thought you'd let that get in the way of a good argument.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

It wasn't some bloke in the pub. It was somebody I know quite well who would gain nothing by lying. If you read the tale more carefully you would note that it wasn't the car that he overtook that nicked him but a car that was following him.

Now some have suggested that as the car was following him it may have just been looking for an excuse to nick him for some reason. Another suggestion that has been made was that the lane hog was actually a fellow police officer and they were running a trap. Frankly I can't see what they would gain from doing that, unless they had targets to meet. Now I'm not entirely enamoured of traffic plod having been nicked back in the eighties by a very underhand tactic*, but I don't believe that plod in this case would have been pulling such a stunt, it was late at night and pretty quiet.



* I was following an SD1 who accelerated up to about 100+ mph, he pulled away from me as I accelerated up to about 85mph, suddenly a "POLICE - STOP" sign illuminated in his back window and he slowed. Interestingly enough by the time it came to court Mr Plod's story changed to a more traditional pursuit from the rear. Funny that.

You who have your facts so accurate that you are

a) only quoting from the criminal's version of events - what was the police version?

b) You refer to somoene getting a DC70 as a charge - there is no such charge in English Law

c) You refer to someone getting a DC70 as a charge- even being generous and assuming you are now referring to the offence coding on the drivers licence ( which only arrives after conviction./ guilty plea) - there is no offence code of DC70

Not very accurate so far is your version.

Now as I have asked before where is it in English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence?

I am prepared to pay £1000 to the charity of your choice if you can show me in current English Law that undertaking per se is a criminal offence

I have already stated that I clearly made a mistake with the offence code. Did you not read that bit?

The police version of events was that he overtook on the left and was thus driving without due care and attention.

I never stated that there was a specific offence of overtaking on the left. I stated that in most circumstances (i.e. more then half) it is illegal. As a practitioner in law I would have thought that you would have sufficient nouse to understand the difference between the following two sentences:

"There is a specific entry in the road traffic act which outlaws overtaking on the left."

and

"Overtaking on the left is illegal in most circumstances"

However I wouldn't have thought you'd let that get in the way of a good argument.

Overtaking on the left if NOT ( and I repeat again) NOT a criminal offence in the UK per se

You expect readers to believe the police version of events in the court case consists of<<he overtook on the left and was thus driving without due care and attention.>> and nothing more. That is simply not credible.

You are being selective in your recounting of this story.

As I have asked, can you point to any English legislation that makes undertaking an offence per se?

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[..........
Obviously the Courts are all wrong when they have held that there is no offence of undertaking per se

Doesn't it depend on where you bury the body.

Seriously, convictions for overtaking to the left would probably most likley be brought under careless driving/cycling.

Bob

It is not careless driving/cycling to undertakie per se- it only becomes careless driving if you then swerve back out causing inconvenience to motorist you have passed

The joint police/CPS charging standards cites various examples which can be interpreted as careless driving and overtaking to the left is one of them. It's referred to severally including in the Road Death Investigation Manual.

Isn't it also the case that the usual benchmark of 'inconveniencing another roaduser' is whether or not you have caused THEM to change course, direction or speed and not necessarily done so yourself.

Bob

Peasoup

Hear, hear to "Always Tyred"

No more...

beverick

Peasoup wrote:

Hear, hear to "Always Tyred"

No more...

You don't know Spen that well do you......

Bob

Peasoup

not...

gonna...

get...

sucked...

in.......

CyclingBantam

My thoughts on the thread/issue,

Common sense alone highlights the fact that P.C. Plum will be likely to pull someone over if they are undertaking if there is no obvious need for the manouver be it illegal or not.

Spen seemingly wants to get into an argument about anything possible.

I may have mis-understood Spens comments but he/she seems to be in the legal profession so would seemingly know the law however, not sure that many in the positions spen insinuates to be in spend so long arguing minor points on internet forums. Do your clients not mind that their £100 per hour is supporting your hobby?

Adding the words Per se to everything is both irritating and a ready made get out clause.

Why are we arguing about a legal technicality on a cycling forum or did I accidentaly click on www.I'malegalpedant.com?
:P

spen666

BenBlyth wrote:

My thoughts on the thread/issue,

Common sense alone highlights the fact that P.C. Plum will be likely to pull someone over if they are undertaking if there is no obvious need for the manouver be it illegal or not.

If PC Plum does this, then he is acting illegally and will rapidly find himself being sued.

The police can't simply stop you because there was no obvious need to do an act.[ That may give rise to a suspicion another offence has taken place- but that is a different issue]

Spen seemingly wants to get into an argument about anything possible.

I may have mis-understood Spens comments but he/she seems to be in the legal profession so would seemingly know the law however, not sure that many in the positions spen insinuates to be in spend so long arguing minor points on internet forums. Do your clients not mind that their £100 per hour is supporting your hobby?

Adding the words Per se to everything is both irritating and a ready made get out clause.

Why are we arguing about a legal technicality on a cycling forum or did I accidentaly click on www.I'malegalpedant.com?
:P

the words per se are there for a reason as they clarify exactly what I am saying - ie that undertaking per se ( ie by itself) is not an offence. Undertaking and swerving infront of vehicle you have undertaken may be careless driving ( in one of its limbs) but its the swerving back out or the other manouvere that causes the offence to occur

richardast

spen666 wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

My thoughts on the thread/issue,

Common sense alone highlights the fact that P.C. Plum will be likely to pull someone over if they are undertaking if there is no obvious need for the manouver be it illegal or not.

If PC Plum does this, then he is acting illegally and will rapidly find himself being sued.

The police can't simply stop you because there was no obvious need to do an act.[ That may give rise to a suspicion another offence has taken place- but that is a different issue

The Highway Code says you shouldn't overtake on the left. That doesn't make it law, but it could be one bit of evidence towards careless driving and is certainly an indication of poor driving.
If a police officer wants to stop a car to talk to the driver about their poor driving then of course it's lawful. Police can stop any vehicle for any lawful purpose. That lawful purpose, as you would know with your decades of experience, is not defined in statute.

As the other fella said, common sense generally rules.

spen666

richardast wrote:

...The Highway Code says you shouldn't overtake on the left. That doesn't make it law, but it could be one bit of evidence towards careless driving and is certainly an indication of poor driving.
If a police officer wants to stop a car to talk to the driver about their poor driving then of course it's lawful. Police can stop any vehicle for any lawful purpose. That lawful purpose, as you would know with your decades of experience, is not defined in statute.

As the other fella said, common sense generally rules.

I think you are using a circular argument here

richardast

Not really. You stated that the police officer would be acting illegally in that circumstance.
I said that you were wrong and pointed out why.
The police can stop a car just to ask the driver his name if they want to. They don't even have to suspect that an offence has been committed.
The only reason they need is a lawful purpose and that has never deen defined.

Is "I think you are using a circular argument here", lawyer speak for, "OK, you got me, I hang my head in embarrassment"?

I suspect not.

Perhaps I should demand that you the show the class where, in English law, it is written that it is illegal for a police officer to stop a car for an unnecessary undertaking manouvre.

JavaBob

It is not illegal per se to stick a screwdriver in someone's eye. But no doubt the Police will find something to pin on you (pun intended) e.g. murder. However there are no doubt circumstances in which a doctor or soldier could overtake in a left hand lane. Such as queuing traffic or traffic turning left on a one-way street due to the aforementioned screwdriver.

HTH

NorwegianBlue

beverick wrote:

The joint police/CPS charging standards cites various examples which can be interpreted as careless driving and overtaking to the left is one of them. It's referred to severally including in the Road Death Investigation Manual.

Therein lies the point I was trying to make, although perhaps not clearly enough for a pedant like Spen (actually I don't think he is a pedant, just beligerent). The point I was trying to make was that undertaking in most circumstances is, in practice, illegal. The police certainly seem to consider undertaking in free flowing traffic to be an example of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. The courts, at least the magistrates courts, seem to agree.

Just one more time: I NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC OFFENCE OF OVERTAKING ON THE LEFT. You seem to be arguing with something that nobody actually said.

Spen, you seem to take delight in trying to show that you are more intellegent than others, however in most cases this doesn't seem to work. It may work as far as you are concerned, but from the content of this thread and others it seems that most people find your behaviour annoying and somewhat bemusing.

In my opinion there is little difference in attitude being beligerent on an internet forum and picking fights outside a nightclub. What, really, is the difference in attitude between "I'm cleverer than you" and "I'm harder than you"?