Excessive driver courtesy nearly causes accident

[Anthony Campbell]

Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a
car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was obscured
by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by and
braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without waiting to see if
there was anyone on the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the
woman a split-second previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I
jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't like to
think what would have happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes
had been less effective.

In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still pondering what I would
have done if I'd been the driver. Instinctively I would have done the
same as he, but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
known what was happening and might not be able to stop. Situations like
this are really a dilemma.

AC
--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

[Mark Tranchant]

Anthony Campbell wrote:

> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
> opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
> a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
> island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
> children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
> obscured by the overtaking car.

Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
was obscured.

> The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply;

....as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of excessive
courtesy...

> she set off briskly without waiting to see if there was anyone on the
> left of the car.

....as most people would...

> Fortunately I'd glimpsed the woman a split-second previously, and
> realizing why the car was slowing I jammed on my brakes and just
> managed to stop as well. I don't like to think what would have
> happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes had been less
> effective.

> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
> nearly caused an accident indirectly.

No, you nearly caused the accident directly.

> I'm still pondering what I would have done if I'd been the driver.
> Instinctively I would have done the same as he, but I'd also have
> realized that the cyclist might not have known what was happening and
> might not be able to stop. Situations like this are really a dilemma.

Yes. In his position, I would not have tried to overtake you just before
a zebra crossing. With only 15yds to go, the pedestrian must have been
visible and a potential hazard before he started the overtaking manoeuvre?

I know this comes across as sounding holier-than-thou, but I'm stating
facts. I'm not suggesting I'd never get caught out in a similar situation.

On the subject of excess courtesy, I hate it when motorists forego their
legal right-of-way to kindly let me through - especially at roundabouts.

--
Mark.

[Clive George]

"Anthony Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
> opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a
> car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
> island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
> children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was obscured
> by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by and
> braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without waiting to see if
> there was anyone on the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the
> woman a split-second previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I
> jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't like to
> think what would have happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes
> had been less effective.
>
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
> nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still pondering what I would
> have done if I'd been the driver. Instinctively I would have done the
> same as he, but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
> known what was happening and might not be able to stop. Situations like
> this are really a dilemma.

The hint is in your words 'braked quite sharply' - if the driver wanted to
do this, he's made a poor decision. Especially if he's just overtaken
somebody - unless necessary to avoid an accident, stopping in front of
somebody you just passed is extremely poor behaviour.

(actually sounds like the car driver shouldn't have overtaken in the first
place if your 15 yards is correct).

What would have happened depends on a couple more things - how wide the road
is and your relative positions. Options include Hit the back of the car - I
discovered a shoulder is a good way to do this on vans, not had to find out
for cars. Overtake the car (preferred solution) such that you let the
pedestrian across but get to glare at the driver. Taking the mirror with you
could be seen as yobby, but maybe the lesser of two evils.

In answer to your dilemma, had you been the driver, you would have seen the
cyclist and pedestrian, and planned your driving such that nobody had to
brake sharply. Holding back behind the cyclist and not letting the
pedestrian across are both valid options in this situation. Forcing the
cyclist to give way is not a valid option.

cheers,
clive

[Clive George]

"Mark Tranchant" > wrote in message
...
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> > Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
> > opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
> > a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
> > island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
> > children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
> > obscured by the overtaking car.
>
> Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
> was obscured.
>
> > The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply;
>
> ...as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of excessive
> courtesy...

<snip rest of post>

Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said 'not a zebra
crossing'?

cheers,
clive

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:

> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
>> opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
>> a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
>> island (*but not a zebra crossing*), where a woman with a pram and 2
>> children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
>> obscured by the overtaking car.
>
> Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
> was obscured.
>

Mark, there was no zebra crossing. See *.....*
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Mark Tranchant]

Clive George wrote:

> "Mark Tranchant" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
>>>opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
>>>a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
>>>island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
>>>children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
>>>obscured by the overtaking car.
>>
>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
>>was obscured.
>>
>>
>>>The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply;
>>
>>...as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of excessive
>>courtesy...
>
>
> <snip rest of post>
>
> Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said 'not a zebra
> crossing'?

Er... I might be persuaded to... (blushes).

Scan reading text blooks has blighted me for years.

--
Mark.

[Mark Tranchant]

Clive George wrote:

> "Mark Tranchant" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
>>>opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
>>>a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
>>>island (but not a zebra crossing) <snip>

>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
>>was obscured.

> Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said 'not a zebra
> crossing'?

Ahem. Er...I might, yes. I may even cancel the original post so I didn't
look like a brainless prat. Let's hope no-one quotes it including my
name...er...d'oh.

--
Mark.

[Mark Tranchant]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
>>>opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
>>>a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
>>>island (*but not a zebra crossing*), where a woman with a pram and 2
>>>children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
>>>obscured by the overtaking car.
>>
>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a zebra crossing
>>was obscured.

> Mark, there was no zebra crossing. See *.....*

But...but...I would have been right if there *were* a zebra crossing!!!

Idiotic post cancelled.

--
Mark.

[Mark McN]

Reply to Clive George
> Overtake the car (preferred solution) such that you let the
> pedestrian across but get to glare at the driver.
>

A year or two ago I was on a roundabout following a car, which stopped
suddenly as it was leaving the roundabout to let a pedestrian cross at
a traffic island. I couldn't be sure of stopping safely (therefore I
was travelling too fast, I suppose), so I overtook the car, nodded to
the ped (who I knew slightly), wagged a finger at the driver as I went
past, and carried on. Fifty yards later the car overtook me and gave
me the horn - another of those "I don't understand why you did what
you've just done, so you must be wrong" moments.


--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

[elyob]

"Mark McN" > wrote in
message ...
> Fifty yards later the car overtook me and gave
> me the horn

Ooh err missus, nice model was it :)

[davek]

Mark McN:
> Fifty yards later the car overtook me and gave
> me the horn

Attractive driver? Or do you want to rephrase that? ;-)

d.

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Campbell wrote:
> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
> opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a
> car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
> island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
> children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was obscured
> by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by and
> braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without waiting to see if
> there was anyone on the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the
> woman a split-second previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I
> jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't like to
> think what would have happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes
> had been less effective.
>

That all happened in 1.5 seconds!?

Tony

(15yds = 1 sec @ 30mph, 1.5s @ 20mph)

[Mark McN]

Reply to davek
> the car overtook me and gave
> > me the horn
>
> Attractive driver? Or do you want to rephrase that? ;-)
>

If you think I'm going to rise to that - [No!!!...must...resist...]

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:13:34 +0100, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>The hint is in your words 'braked quite sharply' - if the driver wanted to
>do this, he's made a poor decision. Especially if he's just overtaken
>somebody - unless necessary to avoid an accident, stopping in front of
>somebody you just passed is extremely poor behaviour.

It seems to me that the driver, having overtaken Anthony, had
immediately forgotten (aka couldn't give a stuff) about him. Driver's
fault, from what I read. Also, peds shouldn't walk into the road just
because someone else gave them permission. (The same applies to other
road users, of course.)

James

[Anthony Campbell]

On 2004-06-04, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
>> opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a
>> car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
>> island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
>> children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was obscured
>> by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by and
>> braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without waiting to see if
>> there was anyone on the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the
>> woman a split-second previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I
>> jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't like to
>> think what would have happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes
>> had been less effective.
>>
>
> That all happened in 1.5 seconds!?
>
> Tony
>
> (15yds = 1 sec @ 30mph, 1.5s @ 20mph)
>
>

Thanks to everyone for comments. The option to collide with the car,
which has been suggested, wasn't available because it was on my right.
One thing I'm not sure about is whether the pedestrian was waiting for
some time on the island or had just arrived there, having advanced
rapidly from the far side of the road. In the latter case the driver
probably had little choice, since if he's anything like me he's
frequently found women advancing aggressively across the road pushing a
pram in front of them on the assumption that this gives them automatic
priority. I suspect that this may have been the case but I can't be sure
because, as I said previously, my vision was largely blocked by the car.

I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one, unless it
is that pedestrians should take more care when waved on by courteous
drivers if they can't see the near side of the road. But they seldom do,
of course.

Anthony



--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one, unless it
> is that pedestrians should take more care when waved on by courteous
> drivers if they can't see the near side of the road. But they seldom do,
> of course.
>

Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:

19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before
you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery.
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the
crossing. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is
clear before crossing. *Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a
driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has
stopped*

20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the
island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road - it is
a separate crossing.

Tony

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:20:42 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one, unless it
>> is that pedestrians should take more care when waved on by courteous
>> drivers if they can't see the near side of the road. But they seldom do,
>> of course.
>>
>
> Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:
>
> 19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before
> you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery.
> Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the
> crossing. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is
> clear before crossing. *Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a
> driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has
> stopped*
>
> 20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the
> island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road - it is
> a separate crossing.
>
> Tony

The only thing he said about zebra crossings is that there weren't any.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having
you here." -Stephen Bishop
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Iain Cullen]

Anthony Campbell wrote:

snipped
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
> nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still pondering what I would
> have done if I'd been the driver. Instinctively I would have done the
> same as he, but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
> known what was happening and might not be able to stop. Situations like
> this are really a dilemma.
>
> AC

Unless the traffic was so heavy that a safe gap for the ped to finish
crossing was unlikely to appear the driver should not have braked.The
roads work best where everybody follows clear rules and can understand
what everyone else is likely to do. The same reason cyclists should
cycle as vehicles.
If the driver was going brake and allow the ped to cross he should
have ensured it was safe to do so.
Of course had you hit the ped then you would have been at fault to
some degree for an unsafe overtake as you should (as you did) look for
the reason why the car slowed and take (as you did) the appropriate
action.
Iain

[Tony Raven]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:20:42 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one, unless it
>>> is that pedestrians should take more care when waved on by courteous
>>> drivers if they can't see the near side of the road. But they seldom do,
>>> of course.
>>>
>>
>> Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:
>>
>> 19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop
>> before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is
>> slippery. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has
>> moved onto the crossing. Wait until traffic has stopped from both
>> directions or the road is clear before crossing. *Keep looking both ways,
>> and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to
>> overtake a vehicle that has stopped*
>>
>> 20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the
>> island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road -
>> it is a separate crossing.
>>
>> Tony
>
> The only thing he said about zebra crossings is that there weren't any.


I know but one can assume that the same or greater care should be taken when
crossing a normal road

Tony

[DavidR]

> Anthony Campbell wrote:

> > Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration, but the
> > opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when
> > a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an
> > island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2
> > children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of her was
> > obscured by the overtaking car.

> > The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply;

Seems a bit odd.

You were overtaken close to a traffic island. You must have noticed you were
approaching it. OK, the driver was wrong to forgot about you once ahead, but
you had made preparations to be overtaken in a narrow gap hadn't you?

[Tim Woodall]

On 4 Jun 2004 09:52:13 GMT,
Anthony Campbell > wrote:
<snip>
> by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by and
> braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without waiting to see if
<snip>
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
> nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still pondering what I would
<snip>

No The driver wasn't doing "a Good Thing". IIRC there was a case
where a woman stopped to drop her kids off at school, a kid waiting
to cross thought she was stopping to let them cross and was killed by
a following car/car coming the other way. The woman who stopped was
prosecuted. (This will have been 15ish years ago in the West Midlands -
I remember reading of it in the local paper - but then I though the
prosecution was for manslaughter although I suspect the case would be
better known if that were the case)

(I'm assuming that in your case the car hadn't stopped because he had to
- i.e. the person hadn't already started to cross)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

[Andy Hewitt]

Anthony Campbell > wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one, unless it
> is that pedestrians should take more care when waved on by courteous
> drivers if they can't see the near side of the road. But they seldom do,
> of course.

This is exactly the reason why it's actually stupid for a driver to do
this. They can actually be held responsible for an incident if they
directed someone else.

Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous, they were
probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I would guess on causing an
obstruction, and hesitation. Possibly even driving without due care and
attention, as they had not considered their action might have caused an
accident behind them.

Of course it's up to all parties involved to avoid an incident,
regardless of who is in the right.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

[Anthony Campbell]

On 2004-06-04, Iain Cullen > wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> snipped
>> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in practice he
>> nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still pondering what I would
>> have done if I'd been the driver. Instinctively I would have done the
>> same as he, but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
>> known what was happening and might not be able to stop. Situations like
>> this are really a dilemma.
>>
>> AC
>
> Unless the traffic was so heavy that a safe gap for the ped to finish
> crossing was unlikely to appear the driver should not have braked.The
> roads work best where everybody follows clear rules and can understand
> what everyone else is likely to do. The same reason cyclists should
> cycle as vehicles.
> If the driver was going brake and allow the ped to cross he should
> have ensured it was safe to do so.
> Of course had you hit the ped then you would have been at fault to
> some degree for an unsafe overtake as you should (as you did) look for
> the reason why the car slowed and take (as you did) the appropriate
> action.
> Iain

I agree with the above. In general, I always take it as a sign of a
possible hazard when a car near me slows for no apparent reason: there
may be a pedestrian, the car may be going to turn left across my path,
etc.

I also agree that drivers should not stop for pedestrians on a major
road when there is no zebra crossing, unless there is no possibility of
someone behind running into them AND there is no vehicle in another lane
who might run into the pedestrians. The first of these requirements was
satisfied (no following cars) but the second wasn't, because I was there
- but of course we all know that drivers often fail to "see" cyclists or
considerably underestimate their speed.

It is possible that the driver thought that the woman was having
difficulty controlling her children or was about to step off regardless,
and therefore felt he had little choice. He might have thought that even
if I did run into the group the damage would be less than if he did,
which is probably true - though I doubt if he would have had the time to
calculate all this.

To reinterate for the benefit of everyone who has missed it: there was
NO zebra crossing. The road is fairly wide at that point and there is
room for a car and a bike even at the site of the island, but in fact we
would not have arrived there simultaneously if the driver had not
stopped.

For anyone who lives in N. London, this is Chase Side between Southgate
and Cockfosters.

Anthony

--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
(Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-

>Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous, they were
>probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I would guess on causing an
>obstruction, and hesitation.

So, which part of the law describes the offence of hesitation?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen opined the following...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
> (Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-
>
> >Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous, they were
> >probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I would guess on causing an
> >obstruction, and hesitation.
>
> So, which part of the law describes the offence of hesitation?

I remember being told that in your driving test, they'll pick up on
hesitation, but never that it was an offence. And with regard to
obstruction, pretty much every time a vehicle is taken on the road, it
causes an obstruction. I think that to be charge with that as an
offence, you'd probably have to abandon the vehicle and block the road.

Jon

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Jon Senior wrote:

>> So, which part of the law describes the offence of hesitation?

> I remember being told that in your driving test, they'll pick up on
> hesitation, but never that it was an offence.

Mainly because they want to exclude those who are not sufficiently confident
that they can make reasonable progress.

> And with regard to
> obstruction, pretty much every time a vehicle is taken on the road, it
> causes an obstruction. I think that to be charge with that as an
> offence, you'd probably have to abandon the vehicle and block the
> road.

I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so close to me as to
make a driveway inaccessible. Although I was parked legally, clear of the
drive itself, and was there first, we both got done. Plod said that there
was no hope of getting off the charge as any stationary vehicle can be
ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-all used for things like thoughless
but notionally legal parking. Plod may have been lying, of course.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[Jon Senior]

Just zis Guy, you know? opined the
following...
> I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so close to me as to
> make a driveway inaccessible. Although I was parked legally, clear of the
> drive itself, and was there first, we both got done. Plod said that there
> was no hope of getting off the charge as any stationary vehicle can be
> ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-all used for things like thoughless
> but notionally legal parking. Plod may have been lying, of course.

Entirely possible.

In Germany (I have been not-very-reliably informed) there is a genuine
catch-all offence for driving. Essentially, it is illegal to drive and
drivers are allowed to do so under sufference. This way you are
guaranteed to be guilty of some traffic offence and they can hold you
while they work out what it is!

Jon

[Andy Hewitt]

David Hansen > wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
> (Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-
>
> >Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous, they were
> >probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I would guess on causing an
> >obstruction, and hesitation.
>
> So, which part of the law describes the offence of hesitation?

Please note the word 'probably', and the phrase 'I would guess'.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? opined the
> following...
>> I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so close to me
>> as to
>> make a driveway inaccessible. Although I was parked legally, clear
>> of the
>> drive itself, and was there first, we both got done. Plod said that
>> there was no hope of getting off the charge as any stationary vehicle
>> can be ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-all used for things
>> like thoughless
>> but notionally legal parking. Plod may have been lying, of course.
>
> Entirely possible.
>
> In Germany (I have been not-very-reliably informed) there is a genuine
> catch-all offence for driving. Essentially, it is illegal to drive and
> drivers are allowed to do so under sufference. This way you are
> guaranteed to be guilty of some traffic offence and they can hold you
> while they work out what it is!

Allegedly in English case-law there is a case in which a line of
argument was advanced that it wasn't legal to drive a car on the road
and the Judge said, in effect, that he agreed the argument had merit
but he wasn't going to make a ruling on it because of the chaos it
would cause. But this may be an urban myth.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?