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

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

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"?

Undertaking is NOT illegal

No matter how many times you repeat it- the act of undertakking is not illegal

I have asked you repeatedly to point to a single law that makes the act of undertaking (nothing else) illegal

Undertaking that causes inconvenience to other road users may be illegal, but undertaking per se is NOT illegal.

If I am wrong, then please enlighten me by showing me any piece of legislation that makes simple undertaking illegal

spen666

richardast wrote:

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.

Really- you'd better inform the English courts about your new law- its not one known to English law previously

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.

Your last point shows you clearly have limited concept of how English law works.

You are permitted as a citizen to do whatever you want unless the law makes it illegal- not the other way round.

The police powers come into effect to prevent crime or where they suspect a crime has taken place

spen666

richardast wrote:

...
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.

You may car to look at the case of Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash [1986] RTR 41

richardast

spen666 wrote:

richardast wrote:

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.

Really- you'd better inform the English courts about your new law- its not one known to English law previously

Seriously? Sections 163 and 164 Road Traffic Act 1988.
You aren't really a lawyer at all, are you?

richardast

spen666 wrote:

richardast wrote:

...
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.

You may car to look at the case of Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash [1986] RTR 41

Which basically questions the proportionality of random breath tests on drivers.
Relevant to this?

NorwegianBlue

spen666 wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

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"?

Undertaking is NOT illegal

No matter how many times you repeat it- the act of undertakking is not illegal

I have asked you repeatedly to point to a single law that makes the act of undertaking (nothing else) illegal

Undertaking that causes inconvenience to other road users may be illegal, but undertaking per se is NOT illegal.

If I am wrong, then please enlighten me by showing me any piece of legislation that makes simple undertaking illegal

You didn't read my post did you? At least if you did you seem to be responding no to what I wrote, but something that you imagine I wrote.