I was returning home on Wednesday night on the A1(M) southbound in North Yorkshire.
I had been to Newcastle Airport. The time was around 23:30hrs.
There are roadworks on this section of road, the typical 2 restricted lanes with a 50mph speed limit. The works extend for about 12 miles.
So, I am being a good boy having set the cruise control to 53, which I had checked on the northbound journey as being a TomTom GPS 49mph.
Now I have set the scene, I'll tell you what happened.
I noticed in the rear view mirrors a lot of flashing blue lights in the distance. They were catching me!
Of course I was in lane 1 (of 2), and what was now apparent was a convoy of about 12 police Transit vans ( I didn't count them! ) steadily going past at around 65-70 mph. Great - they can break the 50-limit because the so-called safety rules in place do not apply to them. Fair enough.
At the end of the works, the road opened up to 3 lanes, NSL applies, and of course the convoy was a mile or so ahead by now.
It was still travelling at around 65-70mph. By the time I caught up, none of the bunch now being held up by the convoy could get past! Lane 1 was empty, the main 'train' was in lane 2 of 3, and 'tail end Charlie' of the convoy was in lane 3.
Well, we were all stuffed :-(
Couldn't get past in lane 3, and dare not undertake in lane 1.
I had to put up with this until the Ferrybridge junction of A1 and M62. I peeled off eastbound, while the convoy ploughed their furrow out of sight and down the A1, by now with a whole bunch of frustrated car drivers bottled (or should that be kettled) up behind.
I reckon we travelled around 35 miles like this.
I am not impressed with this behaviour. IMO DISGRACEFUL! :-(
I look forward to the comments from the Forum.
|
As described, the behaviour constituted official aggressive mimsing, and was as you say disgraceful.
I was so relieved when you didn't complain about the convoy blasting past the sleeping roadworks at a proper speed that I had to applaud. Chapeau!
|
Obviously the poster is not a resident of London.
The convoy would be officers from the North being sent to London under Mutual Aid Scheme re The Riots.
As such exempt speed limits AND
There is a need to arrive ALL TOGETHER without being split up so offside lane and if travelling at speed limit who are they holding up ?
Stop moaning....
dvd
|
|
It is not illegal to "undertake" so long as you do not change lanes to do so SFAIK. If the convoy was doing 65 to 70 there was little scope for legal overtaking. That said this sort of rolling roadblock technique is unnecessary. You do not mention if the vans were maintaining spacing appropriate to their speed - my guess is that they probably weren't.
|
Meldrew's right that the HC does permit passing on the left in some cases, but not all and arguably not in this one, since the rule refers to congested conditions where all the lanes are in use. On the other hand you could argue that the convoy itself was making the road congested.
I think the HC wording has got more permissive recently - it used to refer only to slow-moving traffic queues - and I've got bolder about staying in lane 1 to pass trundlers in lane 2. But I'm not sure I would risk a time-wasting conversation about the finer points in the OP's position. I've been trying to think of an operational reason for the police to travel like this, but without success; maybe one of our Force insiders can help.
|
>> I've been trying to think of
>> an operational reason for the police to travel like this, but without success;
>>
Transporting a number of high security prisoners?
Was the OP seriously inconvenienced? I think not.
|
>> Couldn't get past in lane 3, and dare not undertake in lane 1.
You were already in Lane 1. There is no rule saying that you can't go faster in Lane 1, than the traffic in Lane 2 and Lane 3.
|
|
Wimp ! :-) I'd have gone past. It always makes me laugh that cars won't pass Police cars/vans but follow them obediently for mile after mile, even on dual carriageways.
|
|
Yeah, that happens a lot. It's almost as if people think that the police are some kind of mobile speed limit. However, in the OP's case, it seems that he didn't mind passing them, but thought that doing that in Lane 1 was some kind of contravention.
|
From the HC www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862
268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
Depends on your definition of 'overtake'?
|
|
I'd still have sneaked past...:-)
|
I occasionally see convoys of army Land Rovers trundling at 60ish in lane 2 when 1 is empty - although never with a blocker in lane 3 - so perhaps there's similar logic at work there.
I can see that if you want to keep a convoy together at a speed higher than the HGVs then travelling in lane 2 avoids getting split up while pulling out to pass trucks, but I still don't understand the need to block lane 3.
|
The Police convoy should have been in Lane 1/2. No discussion.
The OP is right.
I wrote on here not too long ago about this sort of thing on the M4, Police (Heddlu) vans trundling along the middle lane with an empty Lane 1 beside them.
We, I imagine, are all against CLOG and their behaviour, why excuse it for the Police? They should be setting the example.
|
Convoy driving is probably harder than it looks - I can fit there but the other 3 guys can't etc. Sticking to the outside lane seems fair enough considering that. Changing the speed of a train of vehicles would be a pain for similar reasons i reckon.
If i were driving in that convoy, I doubt i'd be concerned (other than normal traffic observation) about traffic passing on my inside.
For example, I think when the ambulances have to do the moving of critical brain injury's they do outside lane around 15mph with a police escort? (we still have an ambulance driver here i think?)
I think high speed convoy driving is more for war zones and high value cargo, is the idea of speed above prevailing traffic not more about drawing out any potential threats rather than expediency? Threats stand out because they have to travel faster too?
Doubt there'd be many threats to a bunch of officers on the A1 late at night! :-) Speed will make planning for the convoy maneuveres harder, better to pick an easier speed your convoy can stick to and leave it there.
I can empathise with the OP's frustration, but i'd treat it like a MLOC. One of the benefits of always returning to the left is when you happen upon MLOCs is you can pass (within the law) on the inside (you're not moving lane to undertake, your lane is travelling faster).
I would keep my eyes peeled on the off chance they radio'd for attention from a traffic car for me right enough but i think that's only natural really.
Last edited by: Skoda on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 11:51
|
I know of someone who was prosecuted for careless driving for undertaking on an otherwise empty motorway.
No, it wasn't me, but I have done it.
|
I do it pretty regularly - at least twice a week. I don't speed while doing it, I don't move in to do it and I never pull into the undertaken's braking distance.
Often the undertaken will find the accelerator and speed up which saves a lot of hassle - it's all one to me provided were getting to travel at a fair speed.
If I ever had to take and then failed the attitude test, then I've got a dash cam running anyway. Im sad enough to do commentary where needed for the cam. Even just reading the adjacent number plates as I move into a parking space in case I ever need to get in touch with them.
|
Two questions, Iffy:
1. How long ago did this prosecution happen? The HC's wording used to be a lot stricter.
2. Was it successful?
|
|
"Do not overtake on the left" seems pretty strict and clear to me. What did it used to say?
|
>> "Do not overtake on the left" seems pretty strict and clear to me. What did
>> it used to say?
It's probably better to reference the RTA rather than the HC for this (this is not a YOU MUST / RTA legal requirement).
Undertaking would start at "due care and attention".
"A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving."
So if you cause the MLOC to brake or have to change course (i interpret that as including if they go to move to the inside lane but you're then blocking them).
|
I would never overtake any vehicle with flashing blue lights whether it was on the left or the right, they are on an emergency mission.
Maybe it would have been clearer to other motorists if they had another tail ender blocking lane 1 as well.
Last edited by: Kithmo on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 14:56
|
>> "Do not overtake on the left" seems pretty strict and clear to me.
As soon as it adds an "except" it is neither clear or strict. The except allows non adherence under certain circumstances.
like PU I would have stuck cruise on at 75 mph and edged slowly past on the inside. If they didn't want me to do that they would have made it pretty clear during the attempt.
I guess they use lanes two and three so traffic joining the motorway does not break up the convoy, or indeed can actually join the motorway.
Calling a police operation manoeuvre a "disgrace" is a bit OTT IMHO
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 14:38
|
|
What possible reason could they have for driving side by side at the same speed Zero, taking up two lanes instead of one? When trucks or cars do it, we complain and say it's disgraceful.
|
One of the vans could have contained important or dangerous cargo (prisoners, tear gas, rubber bullets, arms, donuts for the boys, anything) You don't want anyone breaking into the convoy so you corral your wagons round it.
Plenty of reasons, Plus it was making a reasonable lick - 65-70, not like a 56mph lorry, so yes disgraceful is OTT.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 14:56
|
I am surprised if what Zero says didn't mean they also had cars in lane 1 which got out of the way when necessary.
But it does sound like something important was in the convoy somewhere.
|
Ok let me explain it,
You have 12 vans, split them into two lines of 6 in lanes two and three. Put your important cargo into vans 3 and 4 of your 6 in lane three. No-one is coming into the convoy from your right because the central reservation is there. No-one is going to break up your important cargo from the left because there are 6 vans on the inside.
You can travel as a protected block like this down a motorway without causing agro to people joining or leaving from slips on and off into lane one. You just roll past them.
Thats if it is a cargo protection run. Even if not its a great way of getting your 12 vans at destination in one lump.
Dont see the problem, If it was 30 mph yes, but 65-70? no issue.
|
Nothing much you can do about it unless risking the wrath of umpteen coppers.
Bit like getting stuck behind a supermarket truck doing the regulation 39mph once it's finally got there on a 2 way road, you either have to get by as best you can or..
If you can't get past and find the boredom too much to handle then pull off the road for a couple of minutes and let the moving road block get well ahead, the you can drive at your own pace instead and still arrive at the same time.
|
"As soon as it adds an "except" it is neither clear or strict. The except allows non adherence under certain circumstances. "
Where does it add an except?
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
|
>> "As soon as it adds an "except" it is neither clear or strict. The except
>> allows non adherence under certain circumstances. "
>>
>> Where does it add an except?
>>
>>
>> Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to
>> overtake.
INSERT EXCEPT HERE
>> *In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic
>> in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these
>> conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means
>> passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of
>> lanes to overtake.
* the police convoy provided your "congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds"
so me as "traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right.
is allowed to "keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right."
as long as I "Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 16:55
|
Ah I see you are adding your own words to the Highway Code.
I think it is difficult to argue that a motorway with traffic moving at 65 to 70 mph represents 'congested conditions' The statement clearly refers to queues of traffic in stop start conditions.
Overtaking on the left at speed is inherently dangerous because it is not expected by other road users.
|
No words of of mine were added. All words were from the rule.
However you seem to have added the words. "queues of traffic in stop start conditions"
Now you see what i mean about the "except" it opens things to interpretation.
|
you are adding the word 'except' Which does not appear in the code. The first line states quite clearly. "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake." There are no exceptions.
The remaining part of the rule refers to driving in congested conditions, which, I am sure is intended and most people would surely understand to be queues of traffic driving in stop start or slow moving conditions.
|
>> you are adding the word 'except' Which does not appear in the code. The first
>> line states quite clearly. "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane
>> on your left to overtake." There are no exceptions.
>>
Of course there you listed them just here in the remaining rule. you cant say there are no exceptions because you mention them here
>> The remaining part of the rule refers to driving in congested conditions, which, I am
>> sure is intended and most people would surely understand to be queues of traffic driving
>> in stop start or slow moving conditions.
and it does not mention stop start conditions. No where. At all. your "surely understand" is your interpretation. Not defined in the rule
|
|
I think my interpretation of congested conditions is what most people would understand by the term. What is yours? I doubt that many would interpret a motorway where traffic is moving at 65-70 mph as congested. Do you?
|
Congestion is simply demand exceeding available road space.
The demand for overtaking lanes has been exceeded in this case.
|
>> I doubt that many would interpret a motorway where traffic is moving at 65-70 mph as >> congested. Do you?
As it happens that is the case on the M25 in heavy periods yes. it has to be or it would jam up worse than it is, on the 4 lane parts.
But thats not the point. You said the rule was "pretty strict and clear to me" and now you are adding your interpretation to explain the non adherence under certain circumstances.
Which backs up my point that its not clear and strict.
We could also then debate if the rule should be abandoned, as it is a hinderance and unenforceable on busy fast urban motorways.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 18:48
|
|
Just do it....they were in a hurry, they wouldn't be stopping you.
|
My only surprise is the convoy didn't go faster. Which may have something to do with what they were conveying?
I'd have undertaken. I've overtaken police when I've been doing an indicated 80mph before now too. But don't debate that here.
|
|
I think we can safely assume they were carrying riot cops in those numbers. A number of PSUs on the way to or from a Mutual Aid trip.
|
|
protecting the donuts and redbull then
|
>> I think we can safely assume they were carrying riot cops in those numbers. A
>> number of PSUs on the way to or from a Mutual Aid trip.
>>
Not sure why they needed a blocker in lane 3, it's not like they needed to arrive within seconds of each other. They may have been carrying something more valuble, but if they weren't it seems odd they were blocking lane 3.
|
|
They were probably driving to a strange area and needed to stick together and not lose one of the 12, difficult for the first carrier to keep tabs on the tail end charlie in a convoy that big.
|
|
Not really each one keeps eyes on the vehicle behind plus they have radios to keep in touch.
|
|
Imagine if a mimser ended up between carrier 4 and 5, they could easily lose track of the the other vans and it would be a nightmare to link up again. This was a common sight during the miner's strike...
|
Well its pretty clear to me.
Whether you should be allowed to overtake on the left is an entirely different question. There is undoubtedly an argument for being allowed to do so and I believe it is legal in the US. What makes it so unsafe to do it here is that people do not expect to be overtaken on the left.
Many motorway drivers I suspect find it pretty stressful driving on motorways as it is. If the rules were changed cars overtaking them on both sides would be more than they could cope with. I suspect that a change in the rules would lead to more accidents.
If all drivers were experienced, alert and considerate in their driving it would make some sense. Since they are not I would leave the rule as is.
|
No one has suggested a convincing reason why the vehicles needed to block two lanes. Unless someone can, I will assume the drivers did it out of incompetence or just to be annoying, and continue to agree with the OP: it seems to have been disgraceful.
I am shocke to see Zero of all people saying 65-70 is all right on a motorway and people should just be patient. That is a classic mimser's argument. I can't stand these long wavering crocodiles of 'patient' wallies on A roads in the south east.
Patient be damned. They don't know or care what waddling speed they are doing. They are chewing the cud and drooling.
|
|
AC I believe the correct term is mouthbreathers ;)
|
>> I am shocke to see Zero of all people saying 65-70 is all right on
>> a motorway and people should just be patient. That is a classic mimser's argument. I
>> can't stand these long wavering crocodiles of 'patient' wallies on A roads in the south
>> east.
Get back in your box, at your age I am really not sure you should be driving at anything over 15mph with a man waving a red flag in front of you.
Need I remind you again of who gets undertaken at roundabouts? The young blade probably hurled some abuse at you as he shot through, and you are too ashamed to admit your mimsing moments.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 20:10
|
I think he said he would stick cruise on at 75mph and overtake on the nearside.
I suggested patience but I drool a lot.
|
|
Inclined to agree with RP on this one. If you see a police patrol car every other junction chances are thev've been sent to purge that stretch and woe betide you if you speed or do anything they can score Brownie points from. In the instance described they were clearly on another mission and they wouldn't have bothered if anyone had slipped quietly past on the inside. It's worth remembering that public servants, particularly those issued with uniforms have initiative trained out of them in the main or at least in the case of the ones who had any in the first place. The ones I've ever come into contact with were either genuinely royally thick or so cynical about the system as to find it preferable and convenient to pretend to be.
|
>> Inclined to agree with RP on this one.
Yes, he's often right. He posted a very flattering statement about me just now, but when I tried to agree with it I was confronted by the pink band.
I hope he hasn't been suppressed by my enemies. That would be a tragedy.
Œ:o}
|
|
I posted in a fit of pique and frustration and removed it myself !
|
|
Welcome to the P&F club, many fine members.
|
|
you should of pulled up close behind them in lane 3 then given them a squirt of high beam to get them to move over
|
>What makes it so unsafe to do it here is that people do not expect to be overtaken on the left.
I don't think that is true any longer. It's pretty much expected and accepted everywhere.
>Many motorway drivers I suspect find it pretty stressful driving on motorways as it is. If
>the rules were changed cars overtaking them on both sides would be more than they could
>cope with. I suspect that a change in the rules would lead to more accidents.
"more than they could cope with"?
Who is 'they'?
The "rules" have already changed and most drivers have adapted - the Highway Code just hasn't caught up yet.
|
|
I was, years ago. I undertook a car which was plodding along in the outside lane at 65mph - a careful use of words, as it turned out it was an unmarked plodmobile with two plain clothes officers inside who promptly reported me. Being only around 19-20 I was too frightened to argue the case that the charge of "driving without due care and attention" was paraphrased on the summons as "driving without due consideration for other road users". Obviously a couple of very righteous souls.
|
"For example, I think when the ambulances have to do the moving of critical brain injury's they do outside lane around 15mph with a police escort? (we still have an ambulance driver here i think?)"
Very rare to get a police escort around here. Through the Mersey tunnel we get one for some reason or other.... I've had one other in the last 12 months when taking a patient with machete to head in to A&E - the escort was mainly to clear junctions through a town centre. When we got to the open road I couldn't keep up in my 400k 04 plate dog of a Transit.
|
04 Plate transit? 7 year van for a ambulance,don't they get replaced every 5 years.
Where is the money going in the NHS.You are a frontline service you need the best.
|
It's an FKR - a Fully Kitted Reserve vehicle. However, there are regularly vehicles of this age being used as frontline. We have an 03 plate Renault knocking around as well.
Generally though, we have 08 and 09 plate Mercs and 10 plate Fiats. The Mercs are very unreliable. Our 04 plate Transits may be old, slow and rusty, but at least they work!
|
Well, that started some lively debate!
Thanks for the interesting opinions. There appear to be a few for and a few against my frustration :)
I think the main point of contention for me was that the convoy was not moving at (a true GPS) 70mph, nor indeed an indicated 70. I was tempted to set cruise at 70 and slowly pass in lane 1, but I don't want any points or to have to pay stealth taxes for being knowingly naughty!
Rather than reply to individual points, may I just say that GB's opening line sums it up for me ...
"Nothing much you can do about it unless risking the wrath of umpteen coppers."
I just would have liked to finish my journey at 70mph, and not have a contrived rolling road block in my way. If I had legged it through the 50mph Specs-monitored roadworks I would have kept in front of them anyway :-)
Perhaps the use of the word 'disgraceful' was a bit strong. But I hate the middle lane morons, whoever they are ;-)
Last edited by: Golf_Paul on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 21:54
|
|
Its a terrible shame you were a tad inconvenienced by a number of our boys and girls who were on their way to help deal with mass public disorder and what that entails. You are bleating like a spoilt child.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 12 Aug 11 at 23:31
|
FC,
You can't please all of the people all of the time...!
I'm sure there's something in the Bible about the spirit of the original post. I'll add it to my bucket list to read it possibly in the original Hebrew/Greek, it'll help pass the time.
|
West Yorkshires Chief Constable Norman Bettison has summed things up quite well.
" If the disorder continues you will see more running lines of Police Officers rapidly quelling disorder and clearing an area. I wager that more than one person will cry 'Police brutallity and overreaction. The question for society in general is whether you want the streets cleared or not"...."We don't need the Army, we don't need fancy new weapons, we just need to hear the unequivocal voice of our public".
And I suppose that includes someone bleating about a minor inconvenience like its the worst thing that happened in their lives - there again it might possibly be.
|
'I'm sure there's something in the Bible about the spirit of the original post. I'll add it to my bucket list to read it possibly in the original Hebrew/Greek, it'll help pass the time.'
When you've found it please point me in the right direction.
Now FC repeat 100 times "I must be more tolerent, I must be more tolerent..........."
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 13 Aug 11 at 00:02
|
Can I add a slightly different slant?
Assuming they were riot cops, they were heading to places where their mates had been getting attacked with all sorts of weapons.
Surely it makes sense for them to be in a group like that, who is to say there werent gangs who had hijacked a truck for instance and looking to pick them off on the mototway?
Safety in numbers!
|
This was Wednesday night. The 'mobster' stuff was over by then.
I appreciate that the police had to have reinforcements in various places. I recognise the task they had to perform, and all credit to them.
I just felt that the convoy creating a rolling road-block was unnecessary, as I have already stated.
|
I think your last sentence is a bit OTT.
I was able to work out the reason for the convoy. I described what was happening reasonably accurately, and in my opinion the blockage of lane 3 was unnecessary bearing in mind the road conditions and volume of other traffic.
Apologies for the bleating :)
|
Apologies accepted.
Having worked many many convoys you have to keep it together. Let someone past and someone will split the convoy. On a Motorway that can happen from either side. Once the convoy becomes fragmented it becomes more difficult to pull it back together. These convoys must arrive as one unit. There is also the possibility that their intended destination may change during the journey.
Dependant on the nature of the convoy there is the possibility that someone may deliberately try to split the convoy.
|
Thank you for the elaboration. It makes sense, of course, now the reasons have been stated.
|
|
You're welcome - education is the key :-)
|
|
And what if I had 'undertaken'? Care to offer a comment?
|
And if you'd undertaken then come across a slower moving vehicle would your next manouvre be to you to break into the convoy?? Who knows?
Create a sterile area and all is well.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 13 Aug 11 at 00:07
|
No - it would have been a clean pass (sterile area!)
:-)
|
|
FC, all bit excessive for the uk though. They have comms and sat navs should the task change on route, and I don't think the threat level is that high that you need total convoy integrity. The speed is a form of protection in itself. No it probably wasn't a major thing but it was bit OTT.
|
>> And if you'd undertaken then come across a slower moving vehicle would your next manoeuvre
>> be to you to break into the convoy??
Golf_Paul's might not be, but somebody else's would.
It's obvious to me why the convoy should keep together. Difficult to do without some blocking - even if they were to use the left lane(s), people would overtake at +2mph and either hold them up, or end up in mid-convoy.
Small price to pay I should say. Either settle down behind and let them clear your path, or stop for a coffee and get back on the road 10 minutes later and let them get down the road.
You have to pick your battles. One of my colleagues calls it an "absolute nightmare" if she spills her tea. Heaven forfend anything truly unpleasant should happen to her, she won't have the vocabulary for it.
|
Incidentally, there's a proliferation of red faces in this thread - somebody has taken the trouble to mark every post of Golf_Paul's, and of those who agree with him.
I assume whoever it is finds anything with which they disagree offensive. If I'm wrong no doubt I'll get one too.
It rather devalues the currency - I admit to having dispensed the odd one but I try to reserve them for proper nastiness (and very occasionally AC, but only because he likes to get them).
|
>> - somebody has taken the trouble to mark every post of Golf_Paul's ...
>>
It's not worth expressing an opinion in this Forum any more.
|
>> It's not worth expressing an opinion in this Forum any more.
I wouldn't take it to heart GP. Go along with the idea they're a little badge of honour :-)
Last night when I saw them on every post I figured it was a bug in the forum software.
|
I've had a couple myself over the years :)
Seriously, though, I have noticed quite a few recently on other people's posts, when I cannot see anything that could possible be offensive. I can't be bothered to go and dig any out now, but genuinely posts that contained nothing that could be offensive.
It makes me wonder if somebody is messing about or, probably more likely, whether some people are using the offensive button as a way to register a disapproval (in the absence of a disapproval button).
Personally I think that we should probably do away with the buttons (keep the "offensive" button, but don't show the result publicly).
They just seem to be the cause of stress for a few.
|
>>more likely, whether some people are using the offensive button as a way to register a disapproval (in the absence of a disapproval button).
Spot on ;-)
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=7418&m=164802
|
>> >>more likely, whether some people are using the offensive button as a way to register
>> a disapproval (in the absence of a disapproval button).
The introduction of a disapproval button would resolve a few problems in my opinion.
|
>> It's not worth expressing an opinion in this Forum any more.
Oh, I wouldn't say that GP. Anonymous non-specific heckles don't signify in these cases, except as an indication of a slightly non-conformist view.
Anyway has your view changed in the light of FC's and WP's explanations? Or do you still think they should somehow make way for faster traffic?
|
Look this is most straightforward.
The Old Bill from one part of the country are travelling on a mission to another part of the country...they are escorted by traffic colleagues (usually/often but not exclusively)and travel under blue light procedures, to facilitate their progress...and...ensure everything stays together as a cohesive unit, as FC has stated above.
They have the authority to do it and there is a need to do it, so it happens. Everyone else has to be patient and get on with it. What's the problem?
Undertaking it would have the last vehicle in the queue take action to prevent you from achieving it. If you kept on trying you'd end up 'in the book'.
I cannot work out why anyone would want to..particularly with what has been going on in the news....and particularly as it was virtually at the legal limit anyway.
We all know that 90mph is a default speed on our m/ways...but if a lone traffic car was doing 75mph...and did the whole lenght of a m/way..some would no doubt curse their bad luck...but would they be contemplating overtaking/undertaking?...I doubt it.
|
>> Look this is most straightforward.
>>
>> The Old Bill from one part of the country are travelling on a mission to
>> another part of the country.
>>
>> They have the authority to do it and there is a need to do it,
>> so it happens. Everyone else has to be patient and get on with it. What's
>> the problem?
>> ....and particularly as it was virtually at the legal limit anyway.
>>
Exactly.
To me, (and I am often one of the 90mph defaulters) this whole thread has been making a mountain out of a mole hill....
|
Paul,
I think that whoever did that was of the Facebook world, used to the "like" button, there is nothing remotely offensive about your post - the use of the word "Disgraceful" may have sparked up the "bleating" comment (a sort of quid pro quo thing) but don't worry. Don't worry about it....
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 13 Aug 11 at 14:57
|
>> Undertaking it would have the last vehicle in the queue take action to prevent you
>> from achieving it. If you kept on trying you'd end up 'in the book'.
Why would they care? Obviously if you blasted past in Lane 1 doing 90, I could understand. But if the convoy is doing 65-68 and the OP drifts past at around 70 (or maybe even a bit faster), would they really care?
Perhaps there is some issue I have missed here, perhaps that they would consider the OP some kind of threat. But I would expect that they have better things to do at that point than picking you up for slowly passing them in Lane 1.
If they really don't want anyone going past them, why don't they block the whole 3 lanes?
Just wondering.
|
|
I would guess that although that sort of convoy process is "good practice" possibly designed for moving about in the dark and or heavy traffic.
|
Haven't seen one for some time but would regularly see the old bill escorting armoured trucks, often Gp4, on the motorways.
The bill would be in front, behind, and usually beside the truck as it cruised down the outside lane at roughly 70.
Seeing as currency's now worth about as much as monopoly money maybe the escort costs more than the trucks worth.
|
>> Seeing as currency's now worth about as much as monopoly money maybe the escort costs
>> more than the trucks worth.
Oh i dunno, if the tanks full of derv its worth quite a bit!
|
>> Why would they care? Obviously if you blasted past in Lane 1 doing 90, I
>> could understand. But if the convoy is doing 65-68 and the OP drifts past at
>> around 70 (or maybe even a bit faster), would they really care?
>>
Yes.
As explained above, they don't want people getting mixed up in it...and as you are not supposed to undertake anyway...and British m/ways are crowded enough as it is..who is going to get the chance to do the whole convoy, whislt dribbling past 6mph faster?
|
|
A sensible and definitive answer. Thank you WP
|
|
I think that if I had come across this convoy I would hve thought more about the police in it and what they were going to be facing rather than me being held up for a short time.
|
I wouldn't. I would have wondered why the hell they were deliberately getting in the way.
No one has explained to my satisfaction yet either. Of course the fuzz are important and have stuff to do. But that isn't a reason for holding people up.
|
Another scenario AC.
Police convoy escorting high risk Cat A prisoner. Armed Officers aboard. Speed dictated by the HMP prison vehicle.
Do you consider you will get anywhere near as regards overtake or even undertake?
And would you consider that to be an interuption of your right to travel unhindered?
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 14 Aug 11 at 21:50
|
>> would you consider that to be an interuption of your right to travel unhindered?
I don't think of it as a 'right' Fullchat. More as a normal condition, mimsers apart.
I suppose I have been just a bit provocative in tone here. Helps to keep things entertaining surely?
But even in the case you mention, if there are armed officers aboard why would anyone mind the convoy being overtaken? One imagines the armed officers are there to deal with any rescue or disruption attempts, and that they will be quick to notice any potential makers of those attempts.
When there are rolling blockages on motorways there's damn all you can do about it anyway. Like others I treat the police with decent circumspection and assume they do what they do for good reason. But naturally I prefer Old Bill in press-on mode.
Most such rolling blocks are of course usually random collections of mimsers and incompetents, nothing to do with the police. It amazes me what heavy weather some people make of a lightly-trafficked motorway.
|
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in your last paragraph, middle lane hoggers and all that.
You have to remember that Cat A prisoners are often the 'big hitters'. Some have the money and connections to arrange escape and are not concerned how that could be engineered.
A recent example of this which did not have a Police escort for reasons best known to themselves.
tinyurl.com/3rkjymh
What constitutes a threat? Best look inocuuous to create the biggest surprise. Wouldn't take much to put a couple of the convoy vehicles out of the game. One artic could take out a three car convoy - no sweat. So, as I've mentioned before, a sterile area is created to allow time for a tactical response.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 14 Aug 11 at 22:59
|
"I reckon we travelled around 35 miles like this"
35 miles at 65 mph would have taken 32 minutes.
If you had been able to cover the same distance at 80 mph it would have taken 26 minutes.
You must be a very important person indeed to notice the loss of those vital 6 minutes from your life. Please let us know what you would have done with the time. Saved a life, discovered the unifying theory of the universe, written a symphony, made a million pounds on stock speculation?
You must be devastated. Is there no way you can recover 6 minutes somewhere else perhaps, to make good the loss?
:)
|
Thanks Dutchie, some lovely old trucks there and some interesting spread axle trailers too.
Pat
|
Glad you liked it Pat.
You being a ex trucker:)
|
|
Given the situation in the country at the time I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
|
Police Convoy - Disgrace? - Armel Coussine
