Long Tail backs and Solid centre white line.

[jetjock]

I seem to recall that it was OK to pass crawling vehicles travelling at under 7mph. Don't know where I read that, can't remember, possibly incorrect.

Yeap that’s sounds about right . I’m sure I’ve read that too

 

[stever1]

Yeap that’s sounds about right . I’m sure I’ve read that too

See rule 129 ( IIRC ) of the hwc. Filtering past stationary traffic isn’t one of those times.

 

[jetjock]

See rule 129 ( IIRC ) of the hwc. Filtering past stationary traffic isn’t one of those times.

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.

 

[littleade]

Yeap that’s sounds about right . I’m sure I’ve read that too

It's 10 mph and only in the circumstances quoted below

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.

 

[EPG_19]

Then get found guilty, big fine. Prosecution costs. Victim surcharge and points on licence.
Perhaps someone with your outlook on life would challenge it, but most grown ups would shrug shoulders and take it on the chin.
I’m not certain, but I think it’s an absolute offence ( if that’s the correct term) so there’s no defence if they have evidence.

You wouldnt get found guilty.

Absolute offence means they have to show the act rather than intent or fault.
Nothing to do with defence or guilt

Keep up. No wonder you submitted, jesus I bet youre a proper cuck

 

[stever1]

You wouldnt get found guilty.

Absolute offence means they have to show the act rather than intent or fault.
Nothing to do with defence or guilt

Keep up. No wonder you submitted, jesus I bet youre a proper cuck

As the evidence was an unmarked police bike with video evidence. Couldn’t really argue could I. It’s good to know sunlun still produces village idiots

 

[EPG_19]

As the evidence was an unmarked police bike with video evidence. Couldn’t really argue could I. It’s good to know sunlun still produces village idiots

Did it show you passing a stationary vehicle or multiples and was the road clear? If so there is no offence, are you struggling. Just because the copper thinks its an offence, doesnt mean it is.

I suspect the vehicles weren't stationary hence your term of filtering rather than passing. Or you're weak, or both.

 

[littleade]

Did it show you passing a stationary vehicle or multiples and was the road clear? If so there is no offence, are you struggling. Just because the copper thinks its an offence, doesnt mean it is.

I suspect the vehicles weren't stationary hence your term of filtering rather than passing. Or you're weak, or both.

A barrister advising the IAM says different. See the document in post #140.

One question either completely overlooked, or debated at length is – what is a stationary vehicle? The
obvious answer is ‘one that is stationary’, that seems simple doesn’t it, as we all know that if a vehicle
is moving then it cannot be stationary.
Where this question comes up repeatedly is from motorcyclists as they approach a section of solid
white line where traffic is temporarily held up, for example at roadworks or a level crossing. As the
motorcycle is slim then it can simply cross the white line and filter to the front or another gap using
the ‘stationary vehicle’ exemption. As a car driver this would never cross your mind to go across the
solid line and filter to the front of the queue – imagine the resultant road rage incident! It is interesting
to note – the exemption in Rule 129 is to pass ‘a stationary vehicle’ – so did the legislators mean ‘a’
i.e. ‘just one’ not multiple when they wrote it?
In these circumstances opinion comes down very firmly in two ways. Either it is legal, or it is not legal,
and you commit an offence. Let us explore this a little bit further, and for this I am grateful for clear
legal guidance from a Barrister who states:
‘A ‘stationary vehicle’ does not have a statutory definition. Mostly because we all know what it means.
However, there is law about what a stationary vehicle is not. That is where we learn the parameters of
what a stationary vehicle is:
In the case of Pinner v Everett (1977) 64 Cr App R 160 Lord Upjohn said (in respect of whether P was a
"person driving or attempting to drive" at the time he was required to provide a roadside breath test)
"It is not necessary that the vehicle should be in motion. A person is obviously driving although he may
be in an almost interminable traffic block or waiting at a level crossing or at traffic lights or if he merely
fills up with petrol; nor can it make any difference if in a traffic block he switches the engine off to
prevent it overheating or to save petrol."
Therefore, a stationary vehicle is not a vehicle actively queuing in traffic. If you cross or straddle a solid
white line to overtake these vehicles that might be stopped but are not stationary for the purposes of
the legislation, the driver or rider commits a road traffic offence. (Offence Code: RT88760 which carries
a fine of £100 and three penalty points).’

 

[stever1]

A barrister advising the IAM says different. See the document in post #140.

One question either completely overlooked, or debated at length is – what is a stationary vehicle? The
obvious answer is ‘one that is stationary’, that seems simple doesn’t it, as we all know that if a vehicle
is moving then it cannot be stationary.
Where this question comes up repeatedly is from motorcyclists as they approach a section of solid
white line where traffic is temporarily held up, for example at roadworks or a level crossing. As the
motorcycle is slim then it can simply cross the white line and filter to the front or another gap using
the ‘stationary vehicle’ exemption. As a car driver this would never cross your mind to go across the
solid line and filter to the front of the queue – imagine the resultant road rage incident! It is interesting
to note – the exemption in Rule 129 is to pass ‘a stationary vehicle’ – so did the legislators mean ‘a’
i.e. ‘just one’ not multiple when they wrote it?
In these circumstances opinion comes down very firmly in two ways. Either it is legal, or it is not legal,
and you commit an offence. Let us explore this a little bit further, and for this I am grateful for clear
legal guidance from a Barrister who states:
‘A ‘stationary vehicle’ does not have a statutory definition. Mostly because we all know what it means.
However, there is law about what a stationary vehicle is not. That is where we learn the parameters of
what a stationary vehicle is:
In the case of Pinner v Everett (1977) 64 Cr App R 160 Lord Upjohn said (in respect of whether P was a
"person driving or attempting to drive" at the time he was required to provide a roadside breath test)
"It is not necessary that the vehicle should be in motion. A person is obviously driving although he may
be in an almost interminable traffic block or waiting at a level crossing or at traffic lights or if he merely
fills up with petrol; nor can it make any difference if in a traffic block he switches the engine off to
prevent it overheating or to save petrol."
Therefore, a stationary vehicle is not a vehicle actively queuing in traffic. If you cross or straddle a solid
white line to overtake these vehicles that might be stopped but are not stationary for the purposes of
the legislation, the driver or rider commits a road traffic offence. (Offence Code: RT88760 which carries
a fine of £100 and three penalty points).’

I didn’t like to explain the difference between a stationary vehicle and a stopped one. It’ll explode the brain of certain folk on here.

 

[EPG_19]

A barrister advising the IAM says different. See the document in post #140.

One question either completely overlooked, or debated at length is – what is a stationary vehicle? The
obvious answer is ‘one that is stationary’, that seems simple doesn’t it, as we all know that if a vehicle
is moving then it cannot be stationary.
Where this question comes up repeatedly is from motorcyclists as they approach a section of solid
white line where traffic is temporarily held up, for example at roadworks or a level crossing. As the
motorcycle is slim then it can simply cross the white line and filter to the front or another gap using
the ‘stationary vehicle’ exemption. As a car driver this would never cross your mind to go across the
solid line and filter to the front of the queue – imagine the resultant road rage incident! It is interesting
to note – the exemption in Rule 129 is to pass ‘a stationary vehicle’ – so did the legislators mean ‘a’
i.e. ‘just one’ not multiple when they wrote it?
In these circumstances opinion comes down very firmly in two ways. Either it is legal, or it is not legal,
and you commit an offence. Let us explore this a little bit further, and for this I am grateful for clear
legal guidance from a Barrister who states:
‘A ‘stationary vehicle’ does not have a statutory definition. Mostly because we all know what it means.
However, there is law about what a stationary vehicle is not. That is where we learn the parameters of
what a stationary vehicle is:
In the case of Pinner v Everett (1977) 64 Cr App R 160 Lord Upjohn said (in respect of whether P was a
"person driving or attempting to drive" at the time he was required to provide a roadside breath test)
"It is not necessary that the vehicle should be in motion. A person is obviously driving although he may
be in an almost interminable traffic block or waiting at a level crossing or at traffic lights or if he merely
fills up with petrol; nor can it make any difference if in a traffic block he switches the engine off to
prevent it overheating or to save petrol."
Therefore, a stationary vehicle is not a vehicle actively queuing in traffic. If you cross or straddle a solid
white line to overtake these vehicles that might be stopped but are not stationary for the purposes of
the legislation, the driver or rider commits a road traffic offence. (Offence Code: RT88760 which carries
a fine of £100 and three penalty points).’

Which is his view and not the courts.

Infact the law is quite clear, if there is no reference to the definition in the act, then the English definition is applied.

The case law around attempting to drive and the points to prove at court have changed significantly and just sitting in the car is not enough. That's why the offence is attempting to drive and not driving (even though its stationary).
He also fails to mention the other part of the law mentions stationary in traffic when referring to the mobile phone law. So stationary is mentioned while driving and stuck in traffic.

I would get better advice, that those who happen to be friends of bearded high vis Nigel

 

[EPG_19]

I didn’t like to explain the difference between a stationary vehicle and a stopped one. It’ll explode the brain of certain folk on here.

From Nick Freeman by email this morning. Good to have contacts. He asks what the specialism of the barrister advising IAM?

Stationary is Stationary in the normal definition of the word.
Driving is defined as motion and control of a motor vehicle.

Boom pop that in your pipe fuckers. I suppose if you could have afforded him, he would have defended you.

 

[stever1]

From Nick Freeman by email this morning. Good to have contacts. He asks what the specialism of the barrister advising IAM?

Stationary is Stationary in the normal definition of the word.
Driving is defined as motion and control of a motor vehicle.

Boom pop that in your pipe fuckers. I suppose if you could have afforded him, he would have defended you.

You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel if you’re using mr loophole.

You’re passing parked traffic.
You’re overtaking stationary traffic in a queue.
2 totally different things.
However, You obviously know better than everyone else so I bow down to your superior knowledge.
I now understand why so many have you on ignore. You’re VERY special"…………needs

 

[EPG_19]

You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel if you’re using mr loophole.

You’re passing parked traffic.
You’re overtaking stationary traffic in a queue.
2 totally different things.
However, You obviously know better than everyone else so I bow down to your superior knowledge.
I now understand why so many have you on ignore. You’re VERY special"…………needs

The law says stationary. So you agree finaly they are stationary.

The echo chamber is strong if you like it there with other timid souls

 

[littleade]

Which is his view and not the courts.

Infact the law is quite clear, if there is no reference to the definition in the act, then the English definition is applied.

The case law around attempting to drive and the points to prove at court have changed significantly and just sitting in the car is not enough. That's why the offence is attempting to drive and not driving (even though its stationary).
He also fails to mention the other part of the law mentions stationary in traffic when referring to the mobile phone law. So stationary is mentioned while driving and stuck in traffic.

I would get better advice, that those who happen to be friends of bearded high vis Nigel

It is his view, backed up by the case law he has quoted in my post. Do you have anything in case law that says different from a later date?

 

[EPG_19]

It is his view, backed up by the case law he has quoted in my post. Do you have anything in case law that says different from a later date?

Its been superseded by actual law so no case law needed as the road traffic act 1988 was inacted after the case law. Recently the change to mobile phone law further clarifies this and a specialist legal professional not someone who rides for Bristol IAM who does not specialise in RTA cases.

He actually uses the case law to show the offence of driving rather than parked and not driving, the actual case law states that you can be driving even when your vehicle is stationary, so it backs up my point you can drive and be on the road, and be stationary.
ha ha the clown cant even quote it properly let alone interpret it correctly ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh how amazing I feel after reading it correctly ha ha ha barrister ha ha ha ha ha