Safe Speed Forums

Go HERE ... for the clip on Sky

IF this is ALL the evidence that got this chap into serious hot water, ... as they report ....
I know of no reason why overtaking 8 cars, or being on the 'wrong' side of the road for 8 seconds (or more, actually), (as the narrator), is in any way 'wrong', it is certainly NOT in the HC as being wrong, let alone dangerous.

However see what you think ?

Is this ALL the tape - is there more that we are not party to ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Well, there's one bit on there where he wedges himself back in the queue causing the guy behind him to brake, that alone is worth the stop.

Agreed, he causes cars to brake more than once. Also there is an overtake where he couldn't possibly have seen if it was clear to go. The road looks like an and whilst we can't see his speed due to the recorder needing calibration, his maximum is 50mph on that road, it doesn't seem too outrageous to think that he exceeded 80mph, more than 30mph over the limit.
However to answer the question, as far as I am aware you can overtake as many cars as you like in one go as long as it is safe to do so. Looking at the clip though, he doesn't look like there was any escape route should anything have come towards him, largely because a lot of cars are tailgating, not his fault but he should have better planned the manoeuvre.

You are correct that the HC doesnt say you cant overtake a number of vehs at once but it has to be done safely. You have to consider (in this case) the minds and actions of 8 other people who may not be expecting anyone to overtake them or who may be planning an overtake themselves, also you have to think about the number of people who tailgate and as you could see on this clip, quite a few which leaves fewer gaps to pull in to. The problem here is visibility, not just of the road ahead and the vehs ahead but side roads, field entrances, farm entrances, cyclists, moped riders and pedestrians or broken down vehs , all which would have an effect on the behavior of a queue of traffic but you might not see. Also the nature of the road comes into play, I know it well and there are deceptive dips and gentle curves on this route that you may see clearly when nothing is in front but you might not see oncomming when like in this clip, there is a lot of traffic.

We didnt see it all but to label this as worst case filmed by cop I find funny. They must hardly ever use cameras at all There are two types of van driver as far as Im concerned, Typically hazardous and exceptional. Im sure you all see few exceptional van drivers

The most disturbing thing about this is the resulting penalty, then compare it to trivial penalties issued in cases where dangerous driving has led to a crash. And finally , what about the cop following???? If van driver was the worst case and so dangerous why then was a cop following his path with even less visibility? Is not the cop just as bad or are we to accept that traffic cops are soooo good that they have xray vision and capabilities of super heros even when cops in general have a very high crash rate??????
Peoples perceptions are focused on the van driver but do 2 wrongs make a right? How can we assume the cop is safe doing exactly the same as the "worst" case filmed by a cop, but with LESS visibility?

I know that road quite well, I was brought up in Bridlington and my parents still live there, it is pretty usual to get a stream of traffic moving along that straight at 40 - 45 mph usually in clumps of 3-4 vehicles. In places it is possible to overtake a dozen at a time quite safely in the right vehicle, I do it as a series of passes between gaps in the traffic i.e 3 -4 overtakes but not actually having to pull back to the left between them. Parts of that road are probably good for 80+ mph safely and many of the bends are sighted for 60+ mph, this does mean that overtaking into or around most of the corners is a definite no no as there can be very fast oncoming traffic, the same applies to the sections with dips as HerbieJ mentions below. The chaps overtake in the first half of the clip was probably OK but the later ones looked very dodgy to me especially in a van that size.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I'd say there must be more to the story. Overtaking multiple cars, assuming required visibility is available, is often the only safe way to pass, as you can't be sure to get back in easily having started the manoever. Some members of the said queues, upon realisation that another car is 'pushing in' seem quite keen to increase risk by closing up any gap they have allowed to develop, this bizzare lemming like behaviour seems to be on the increase. I try to wait for visibility, and pass the lot in one go for that reason. This sometimes requires good acceleration, or in lower powered vehicles, a carefully timed roll-on from some distance back.

If the queue is very long and gaps are not present it's still possible to get through by tackling the queue gradually, leaving plenty of time to negotiate a return to the LHS of the road each time. Can be frustrating, but also keeping differential speed down is necessary with dawdling long queues of traffic. In the clip, the overtakes on bends seemed a tad beyond prudent to me, but he may have had the required visibility. Either way, no reason for the very heavy punishment handed down in my view.

Some of the drivers in the queues (not all) shown in the clip probably drive 1000's of miles a year far too close the the car in front. I'd like to see that behaviour tackled by the Police.

That would be a genuine contribution to safety, both for the reduction in rear-enders and the safe progress of faster traffic!

Any view from the BiB on this issue? If you have 200 miles of A road to cover, sitting at 45 mph behind a caravan in a snake of metal to me is not an option. I will always make my way through said queue.

_________________
Enjoying the twilight years of personal freedom in the UK (and my M3) :)

I ws going to mention in my original post that I though the cop did very well under the circumstance.

He kept well back, always seemed to have a place to go if something went wrong, and risked his life to catch a very dangerous idiot.

All credit to him IMO.

I have done a little digging on this one today, and as i suspected there IS more to the story.

First I will say that the whole clip is apparently about 30 minutes long and I expect to get a copy soon I will past it up for viewing ... or download.

He had been reported over a 3 day period and it included being reported by the chief constable of the area to whom he also overtook - apparently badly.

But having said that - I am not yet clear if any of those prior reports have had ANY weight in Court or not . Whilst I suspect not - the Chief may have submitted one which might well stand up ....

I do agree totally that much of the overtaking looks Ok, (from what we can see, and 'probable vision' that he can/cannot see), even after the bend apex his vision I suspect was OK. I totally agree that the end jump back in, in front of the van is careless driving at the very least, terrible.

The other area is that people overtake differently when being followed too and very little of this has even been mentioned BUT we will know more when we can see the entire Police video.

However a reporter, told me today, that the reason for the flashing of lights, at the very end of this clip, is due to the fact that there are cops up ahead waiting to catch the chap ! ....

The police calibration is not functional and so the camera was only being used for video evidence only.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Quite, it does say in the text that the officer was on a bike, so he did have considerable overtaking advantages.

I must admit, it didn't enter my mind for a nano second that he was on anything BUT a bike.

If he was in a car that would've been very suicidal!

That to me is like saying that somebody punching the hell out of somebody else for no good reason looked OK whilst he wasn't swinging his fists....

Anyone know where we can see the clip in question (Sky have removed it)?

If he had to "wedge" himself back into the queue (as you say, clip seems to have been removed)


Then the "queueing" traffic is Wayyy too close to one another!

at 50 MPH (say) even a 1 second gap is around 20 metres more than enough for a van to pull over without panicking a following driver unless he is either asleep or deiliberatly trying to block the vans manouver. (In which case he is FAR more guilty of dangerous driving than the van driver)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

It occurs to me that he deserves to be collared simply for not noticing the police bike...

Well quite.

But that makes it right does it?

I can't quite believe the actions of this guy are being defended, or that idiotic people driving too close to each other at high speed somehow justifies even more idiotic behaviour.

I don't think anyone is defending him, I think you'll find that we are simply discussing what caused this to be headlined as the worst case of dangerous driving.

Perhaps he does have somewhere to go when hes alongside two vehs in the event of ....But knowing this route myself I dont see any real justification for keeping up with the van at all to the extent this officer did, but no matter how good you think the officer, the reality is that throughout this clip the cop had his visibility restricted far more than that of the van driver. Maybe the van driver deserves all he gets, I personally enjoy seeing van drivers get it but based on the clip alone the 'worst' heading is OTT and based on what the cop did in this clip alone......not needed to achieve his goal of nicking van man

???

You obviously think that the quote that you posted prooves me wrong, when in fact dusty is simply pointing out a fact that is related. How does saying that the traffic was too close translate to "The van driver was right to carve up the traffic".

I think one of the problems in viewing a clip and commenting is the human nature to speculate/asume/predict etc etc. I try very hard to comment on what I see in relationship to the topic, I fear there is a little too much guess work going on in this thread.