Long Tail backs and Solid centre white line.

[SBD]

I do struggle with lawyers defining “stationary” as something other than “not moving”.

Whilst I would not like to be the defendant (and drive/ride accordingly) it seems to me that a dictionary definition would be understood by the man on the Clapham omnibus. Bycoincidence, the first definition that came up on Google was this

not moving or not intended to be moved.
"a car collided with a stationary vehicle"

Does the legal definition therefore cast doubt on the culpability of the driver of the car that collided with the (not legally, but for all practical purposes) stationary vehicle?

Does the occupant of said vehicle bear some responsibility for the accident?

The law is, in this case, and in my opinion, an arse.

 

[stever1]

I saw this today on our local IAM group's WhatsApp group

Interesting read

 

[Morety]

It's a very lawyer-esque article, full of legalese opining by slippery layers. I think it more unhelpful than helpful as I would have expected a calmer and more structured approach. Another example of trying to shut down debate without reasonable argument?

They could simply have cut the waffle and opining and simply said “if it is, or appears to be unsafe or unsound, don’t do it”. The example given being that of would you consider it if there was a police vehicle behind you also being relevant.

Perception of others comes into advanced driving, law aside for a moment. Another example might be straightening corners v’s offsiding, perception of others and what might be viewed as reasonable in law or not as the case may be (ie off siding likely to get you into hot water).

Whilst I still think that the conclusion of “don’t do it if in any doubt” is sensible and the right approach, explanation need only be highlighted by guidance (eg Highway Code) when explaining “the rules” surely? Getting into case law to argue what “a stationary vehicle” means isn’t as helpful as the suggestion of viewing it in a purely etymological sense (ie if a vehicle appears to be stationary, then it IS stationary) as that strikes me as the reasonable approach. Again, not debating the instruction given there, merely a little bemused at the way the IAM decided to deliver it. What seems reasonable and logical is the instruction based on “if in doubt, don’t do it” as we’re hopefully not intending promoting what may have to be tested in court in order to defend our actions. Common sense comes into play.

 

[stever1]

It's a very lawyer-esque article, full of legalese opining by slippery layers. I think it more unhelpful than helpful as I would have expected a calmer and more structured approach. Another example of trying to shut down debate without reasonable argument?

They could simply have cut the waffle and opining and simply said “if it is, or appears to be unsafe or unsound, don’t do it”. The example given being that of would you consider it if there was a police vehicle behind you also being relevant.

Perception of others comes into advanced driving, law aside for a moment. Another example might be straightening corners v’s offsiding, perception of others and what might be viewed as reasonable in law or not as the case may be (ie off siding likely to get you into hot water).

Whilst I still think that the conclusion of “don’t do it if in any doubt” is sensible and the right approach, explanation need only be highlighted by guidance (eg Highway Code) when explaining “the rules” surely? Getting into case law to argue what “a stationary vehicle” means isn’t as helpful as the suggestion of viewing it in a purely etymological sense (ie if a vehicle appears to be stationary, then it IS stationary) as that strikes me as the reasonable approach. Again, not debating the instruction given there, merely a little bemused at the way the IAM decided to deliver it. What seems reasonable and logical is the instruction based on “if in doubt, don’t do it” as we’re hopefully not intending promoting what may have to be tested in court in order to defend our actions. Common sense comes into play.

Generally agree, BUT i used to say "if you're asking the question then DONT"
This was just as relevant when teaching response driving as it is when teaching "normal" drivers.
What i didn't say, but often thought, was if the person didn't know such basic stuff then they shouldn't be on the road anyway.

 

[Morety]

Generally agree, BUT i used to say "if you're asking the question then DONT"
This was just as relevant when teaching response driving as it is when teaching "normal" drivers.
What i didn't say, but often thought, was if the person didn't know such basic stuff then they shouldn't be on the road anyway.

Indeed...agree with all of that. From ROSPA/IAM response, it's more guidance/instruction to observers as their insurance cover has strict conditions on what is delivered as guidance, so it's more about towing the party line. I'm fine with that, just not in the way debate seems to be frequently shut down. We're after developing riders to be "thinking riders" and this doesn't sit well with ultimatums as in "thou shalt/shalt not". The guidance in law is clear enough for any experienced rider to make reasoned judgements, if not always black and white.

 

[stever1]

Indeed...agree with all of that. From ROSPA/IAM response, it's more guidance/instruction to observers as their insurance cover has strict conditions on what is delivered as guidance, so it's more about towing the party line. I'm fine with that, just not in the way debate seems to be frequently shut down. We're after developing riders to be "thinking riders" and this doesn't sit well with ultimatums as in "thou shalt/shalt not". The guidance in law is clear enough for any experienced rider to make reasoned judgements, if not always black and white.

Yes. But many riders/drivers out there that want to interpret the law in their own point of view. Not ‘by the book’ so to speak.
So perhaps we ought to be reinforcing more of the basic riding skills rather than trying to improve someone who lacks the basics anyway.
A case in point . I was tasked to re train a person who had already done this particular course.
He’d been sent back as he had been stopped by the police escort on blue light runs, on a couple of occasions and given ‘words of advice’.
I had him for a week, all I kept getting was ‘I think’ when on occasions it even went against the law.
He didn’t pass this time.

 

[Morety]

Yes, I agree.

 

[dommiek]

In this situation maybe, we should use some good old fashioned common sense and be asking ourselves some Q's....

Are we going to endanger ourselves or any other road users or pedestrians?
Will we confuse anyone?
Will our actions p!ss anybody off, giving motorcyclists a bad reputation?
Are we blatantly breaking the law?

If the answer to the above is No, then if safe to do so, Go for it!

 

[stever1]

In this situation maybe, we should use some good old fashioned common sense and be asking ourselves some Q's....

Are we going to endanger ourselves or any other road users or pedestrians?
Will we confuse anyone?
Will our actions p!ss anybody off, giving motorcyclists a bad reputation?
Are we blatantly breaking the law?

If the answer to the above is No, then if safe to do so, Go for it!

The only problem with that is folk put individual perceptions of the law in place when thinking about such things.
Not always factually correct.

 

[Morety]

Yes, that is the whole point behind the ROSPA/IAM edict for N/O's; they're attempting to clarify what the legal position is and not what personal interpretation might be. There's enough information available online to define clearly enough what the legal position is, and in a nutshell, all they're saying is that if in any doubt, don't do it, as doubt may indicate a person is unsure of the legality. The perception of others and safety angles are all clear enough and shouldn't need to be explained.

 

[Billy Law]

Appreciate I've picked up on this a bit late, but thought I'd chuck in my 2 penneth.

A car in a queue is not a stationery vehicle in the eyes of the highway code, a stationery vehicle is parked with no occupants. Iirc

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

Not that I'm saying you're definitely wrong, but the I don't recall the HC giving a definition of a Stationary Vehicle, but it does say in Rule 123:-

"Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine....."

By implication that tells me that a car can be stationary, with someone in it and the engine running. Therefore crossing a solid white line to pass traffic stationary and in a queue is legal.

Make of it what you all will.

 

[Morety]

I'd caveat that with the police may take a different view if someone sat with the engine going and the queue moving intermittently, where the person in the car uses dashcam evidence because they take umbrage, and pass it to the police. Plenty have been prosecuted on clear evidence of dashcam footage these days. Just another thing worth bearing in mind when weighing up the potential risks.

 

[Billy Law]

I'd caveat that with the police may take a different view if someone sat with the engine going and the queue moving intermittently, where the person in the car uses dashcam evidence because they take umbrage, and pass it to the police. Plenty have been prosecuted on clear evidence of dashcam footage these days. Just another thing worth bearing in mind when weighing up the potential risks.

Speaking as a retired police Traffic Officer police should not take a different view.

For info double white lines are classed as a sign and fall under Reg 26 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. In Reg 26 (6)b it states:-

(6) Nothing in paragraph (2)(b) [vehicle must keep the solid line on the right or offside] shall be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so

(b)in order to pass a stationary vehicle;

No definition of "stationary" and therefore nothing about a car with a driver and engine running not being "stationary".

I'd be prepared to take the dictionary definition and Highway Code Rule 123 as part of any defence.

At the end of the day everyone has to make their own decision.

 

[Morety]

Your last sentence is pragmatically the one people will likely follow. Bearing in mind that the grey area may be "if it is safe and necessary..." as that is the bit which seems open to interpretation.

"...if safe" again, whilst it shouldn't need further explanation as on the face of it, it seems obvious to a blind man, some will argue that "safe" means clear. There are circumstances (eg where approaching a bend) where it may be clear to the line of sight but should something appear coming the other way and you have nowhere to pull in, causing that vehicle to alter course, that is not safe. Ditto, even if the line of sight is clear for some distance, unless you have planned the move so that you can pull in to a gap if necessary, that might be considered "unsafe". A gap ten cars up may not be there when you arrive, should you need to pull in, so all of these things need careful planning and consideration. You take your chances and imho would have to be able to demonstrate a) "necessary" and b) "safe".

 

[GSian]

Highway Code rule 123 clearly states that a vehicle can be stationary when in traffic.


Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.

Surely this means that you could pass a stationary vehicle if it's stopped in traffic as per:

Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearer to you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more


stationary
/ˈsteɪʃən(ə)ri/
adjective
adjective: stationary

1. not moving or not intended to be moved.
   "a car collided with a stationary vehicle"
   
   Similar:
   motionless, parked, halted, stopped, immobilised, immobile, unmoving, still, static, stock-still, at a standstill, at rest, not moving, like a statue, rooted to the spot, unstirring, frozen, inactive, inert, lifeless, inanimate
   
   Opposite:
   moving
   
   

 

[LOLGEOFF]

Does it count for Keep Left bollards?

 

[GSian]

Does it count for Keep Left bollards?

No, Keep Left bollards must always be passed on the left.

 

[Guru Gora]

Jeez, are we still getting a hard on over this …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LOLGEOFF]

No, Keep Left bollards must always be passed on the left.

What about a stationary vehicle blocking the way?

 

[GSian]

What about a stationary vehicle blocking the way?

Exactly, but there's no exclusions to it. I'm sure if it happened you just do it to get around. But it would be classed as illegal by the book.