Police stopping motorist on a clearway

[Chris Lawrence]

A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).

Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

[Stuart]

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

I think the smart move would be to stop right away unless it was clearly
dangerous to do so.

Cops have no sense of humour remember .

Stuart

[Bystander]

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

If the officer is in uniform and on duty you cannot be criticised for
obeying his order to stop.

[Chris Lawrence]

Post by Bystander

Post by Chris Lawrence
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

If the officer is in uniform and on duty you cannot be criticised for
obeying his order to stop.

Thanks Bystandar and those who posted sensible replies. The clearway in
question contains various bends and a couple of hill brows, so this was
a question relating to judgement of safety rather than just trying piss
off the police, which some people might enjoy but not me.

[italian job]

Post by Bystander

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

If the officer is in uniform and on duty you cannot be criticised for
obeying his order to stop.

But we must not let such begaviour which even a monkey could be trained
to do overide or blind us to the greater benefit of intelligent decision
making.

[Humbug]

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said italian job
<***@this.is.the.self.preservation.society.ta.da>, "I always
pay it extra."

Post by italian job

Post by Bystander

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

If the officer is in uniform and on duty you cannot be criticised for
obeying his order to stop.

But we must not let such begaviour which even a monkey could be trained
to do overide or blind us to the greater benefit of intelligent decision
making.

I think I've mentioned this incident in here before ...

A very young looking uniformed policeman signalled me to stop on the
zig-zag lines of a Pelican crossing in Wembley High Road. I continued
to the end of the lines, so he had to walk some distance to explain
why he had stopped me. The reason he gave was that I had caused an
obstruction by making a U-turn.

I had indeed made a U-turn downroad of the pelican crossing, having
waited until the lights had changed to red before doing so, and then
waited at the lights until they changed to green. There was no other
traffic on the road.

I pointed out to the officer who had stopped me that there were no
signs prohibiting U-turns, that I had waited for the lights to change
before performing the manouvre in order to *avoid* causing an
obstruction, and that if I *had* stopped where he told me to, I
*would* have been causing an obstruction.

The older policeman standing a little distance away was obviously very
amused by the situation, and I would imagine that he had a word with
his young charge after I'd driven away, continuing to carry out my
lawful business.

Then again, it makes the figures look better if they can charge you
for a traffic offence as well as whatever else it is they've stopped
you for ...

Bah!

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Colin Bignell

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

The Orders I looked at specified only a police constable in uniform and a
traffic warden.. They did not extend the power to stop to other persons.

Colin Bignell

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

The Orders I looked at specified only a police constable in uniform and a
traffic warden.. They did not extend the power to stop to other persons.

They were extended last year.

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

The Orders I looked at specified only a police constable in uniform and a
traffic warden.. They did not extend the power to stop to other persons.

They were extended last year.

Please give some authority for this.

The main fact is that someone in plain clothes is not entitled to stop
anyone in a car... he might just be a random hitchhiker. And nor is a
driver required to stop. Although these days he might just be shot.

Axel

[Alex Heney]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

The Orders I looked at specified only a police constable in uniform and a
traffic warden.. They did not extend the power to stop to other persons.

They were extended last year.

Please give some authority for this.
The main fact is that someone in plain clothes is not entitled to stop
anyone in a car... he might just be a random hitchhiker. And nor is a
driver required to stop. Although these days he might just be shot.

Correct. Who said anything about "plain clothes"?

The powers have been extended, but I believe still only to various
other classes of person when in uniform.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web.
Any
thoughts?

The controls in Clearway Orders do not apply to anything done with the
permission of or at the direction of a police constable in uniform or a
traffic warden.

Or anyone else authorised by the chief constable to stop vehicles.

The Orders I looked at specified only a police constable in uniform and a
traffic warden.. They did not extend the power to stop to other persons.

They were extended last year.

Please give some authority for this.
The main fact is that someone in plain clothes is not entitled to stop
anyone in a car... he might just be a random hitchhiker. And nor is a
driver required to stop. Although these days he might just be shot.

This was discussed here some months ago. Somone posted a reference to the
relevant legislation (don't have it to hand). The authority to stop motor
vehicles can now be allocated to anybody by the chief constable.

The discussion was in relation to members of some vehicle safety agency or
other stopping lorries for safety checks. The point was that the 'uniform'
consisted solely of a yellow overjacket, which is a health and safety
requirement for anybody working at the roadside.

The conclusion of the collective was that it was a very bad idea for
precisely the reasons that you state, but nevertheless, if you do not stop,
you are liable to be summonsed for 'failing to stop when ordered to do so by
a person authorised by the Chief Constable to carry out such a stop' (Exact
words on summons may vary).

[Graham Murray]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
The conclusion of the collective was that it was a very bad idea for
precisely the reasons that you state, but nevertheless, if you do not stop,
you are liable to be summonsed for 'failing to stop when ordered to do so by
a person authorised by the Chief Constable to carry out such a stop' (Exact
words on summons may vary).

Would it be a defence that you were unaware that the person
'indicating' for you to stop was authorised by the Chief Constable?
Ignorance of the law is not a defence (you know that the law allows
Chief Constables to authorise persons) but AFAIK ignorance of the
facts (ie that the particular person was thus authorised) is a valid
defence.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Graham Murray

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
The conclusion of the collective was that it was a very bad idea for
precisely the reasons that you state, but nevertheless, if you do not stop,
you are liable to be summonsed for 'failing to stop when ordered to do so by
a person authorised by the Chief Constable to carry out such a stop' (Exact
words on summons may vary).

Would it be a defence that you were unaware that the person
'indicating' for you to stop was authorised by the Chief Constable?
Ignorance of the law is not a defence (you know that the law allows
Chief Constables to authorise persons) but AFAIK ignorance of the
facts (ie that the particular person was thus authorised) is a valid
defence.

This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Bystander]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

Nah. It's too new at the moment. It's bound to come up eventually as the
Government ploughs ahead with its plans to give quasi-judcial powers to
every Tom Dick and Harry, right down to the dog warden.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:33:53 +0100, "Bystander"

Post by Bystander

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

Nah. It's too new at the moment. It's bound to come up eventually as the
Government ploughs ahead with its plans to give quasi-judcial powers to
every Tom Dick and Harry, right down to the dog warden.

That was done years ago when people who knew nothing and had never
done anything worthwhile were made magistrates. Dog warden would be a
promotion for most of them.
pete

--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Bystander]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Bystander

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

Nah. It's too new at the moment. It's bound to come up eventually as the
Government ploughs ahead with its plans to give quasi-judcial powers to
every Tom Dick and Harry, right down to the dog warden.

That was done years ago when people who knew nothing and had never
done anything worthwhile were made magistrates. Dog warden would be a
promotion for most of them.

I presume you are referring to 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act was
passed?

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 22:10:12 +0100, "Bystander"

Post by Bystander

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Bystander

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

Nah. It's too new at the moment. It's bound to come up eventually as the
Government ploughs ahead with its plans to give quasi-judcial powers to
every Tom Dick and Harry, right down to the dog warden.

That was done years ago when people who knew nothing and had never
done anything worthwhile were made magistrates. Dog warden would be a
promotion for most of them.

I presume you are referring to 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act was
passed?

My post was made 2134 if indeed it is me you are replying to.
pete

--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Bystander]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Bystander
I presume you are referring to 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act was
passed?

My post was made 2134 if indeed it is me you are replying to.
pete

If you mean what I think you mean you should get your watch looked at.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:13:06 +0100, "Bystander"

Post by Bystander

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Bystander
I presume you are referring to 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act was
passed?

My post was made 2134 if indeed it is me you are replying to.
pete

If you mean what I think you mean you should get your watch looked at.

I think not. That is the time shown on my newsreader and my watch
confirms my computer clock is accurate.
pete

--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:13:06 +0100, "Bystander"

Post by Bystander

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Bystander
I presume you are referring to 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act was
passed?

My post was made 2134 if indeed it is me you are replying to.
pete

If you mean what I think you mean you should get your watch looked at.

I think not. That is the time shown on my newsreader and my watch
confirms my computer clock is accurate.
pete

The time of your post was 01:17. That makes your watch over 2 hours slow.

[m***@privacy.neat]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:33:53 +0100, "Bystander"

Post by Bystander

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
This might be one for Bystander, if someone has tried this one on in his
court yet. I couldn't possibly comment.

Nah. It's too new at the moment. It's bound to come up eventually as the
Government ploughs ahead with its plans to give quasi-judcial powers to
every Tom Dick and Harry, right down to the dog warden.

That was done years ago when people who knew nothing and had never
done anything worthwhile were made magistrates. Dog warden would be a
promotion for most of them.
pete

Is that what you think you are when you go and supervise the doggers?

[Clueless2]

Post by Chris Lawrence
if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

So this is what you will really do even if the police is trying to stop you
proceeding further for safety reasons? (e.g. a serious road accident ahead).

[Chris Lawrence]

Post by Clueless2

Post by Chris Lawrence
if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

So this is what you will really do even if the police is trying to stop you
proceeding further for safety reasons? (e.g. a serious road accident ahead).

Yes, I may proceed if I judge it to be unsafe to stop the very moment
that the police indicated to pull over. The clearway in question
contains some bends and a couple of points where there is a hill brow.
I certainly would not stop just over the brow of a hill on a road where
there is a 60mph limit and an expectation that cars will not be stopped,
because that's exactly how some drivers WILL be treating it.

So my question is pondering the difference between driving to a safe
point and stopping (which potentially may be after the end of the
clearway) but possibly incurring the charge of failing to stop for the
police, or obeying the police and ending up in a hazardous position on
the road. I feel that the clearway directive plus any concerns about
safety should be enough to explain the failure to stop after the event,
and just wondered what others thought, and more interestingly what the
letter of the law might say.

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:13:52 +0100, Chris Lawrence

Post by Chris Lawrence

Post by Clueless2

Post by Chris Lawrence
if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

So this is what you will really do even if the police is trying to stop you
proceeding further for safety reasons? (e.g. a serious road accident ahead).

Yes, I may proceed if I judge it to be unsafe to stop the very moment
that the police indicated to pull over. The clearway in question
contains some bends and a couple of points where there is a hill brow.
I certainly would not stop just over the brow of a hill on a road where
there is a 60mph limit and an expectation that cars will not be stopped,
because that's exactly how some drivers WILL be treating it.
So my question is pondering the difference between driving to a safe
point and stopping (which potentially may be after the end of the
clearway) but possibly incurring the charge of failing to stop for the
police, or obeying the police and ending up in a hazardous position on
the road. I feel that the clearway directive plus any concerns about
safety should be enough to explain the failure to stop after the event,
and just wondered what others thought, and more interestingly what the
letter of the law might say.

Well the situation should not arise.

Traffic police have been involved in clearing up after enough nasty
accidents that they *don't* want to cause another, so they are
unlikely to stop you until you reach somewhere they judge to be safe,
unless there is some factor making it even less safe for you to
continue.

[Chris Lawrence]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by Chris Lawrence
So my question is pondering the difference between driving to a safe
point and stopping (which potentially may be after the end of the
clearway) but possibly incurring the charge of failing to stop for the
police, or obeying the police and ending up in a hazardous position on
the road. I feel that the clearway directive plus any concerns about
safety should be enough to explain the failure to stop after the event,
and just wondered what others thought, and more interestingly what the
letter of the law might say.

Well the situation should not arise.

Whether it should arise or not, the other night it did arise and I drove
past it, so I'm simply interested in people's views on it. I'd be
especially interested to hear from any current or ex-traffic police who
read the group (I think there are a couple). My gut feeling is that the
police would be suspicious of someone failing to stop immediately and
would not be sympathetic to any saftey concerns raised further down the
road as they would see this is a) being a smart arse or b) challenging
their knowledge. I'd like to think that this is perhaps an unfair view
of the police.

Post by Alex Heney
Traffic police have been involved in clearing up after enough nasty
accidents that they *don't* want to cause another, so they are
unlikely to stop you until you reach somewhere they judge to be safe,
unless there is some factor making it even less safe for you to
continue.

Don't worry, regardless of the police, *I* don't want to be involved in
an accident and would drive on if I felt it was unsafe to stop. My
questions are relating to how this would be viewed by TPTB in the event
that it *did* happen.

[Humbug]

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Chris Lawrence

Post by Chris Lawrence

Post by Alex Heney

Post by Chris Lawrence
So my question is pondering the difference between driving to a safe
point and stopping (which potentially may be after the end of the
clearway) but possibly incurring the charge of failing to stop for the
police, or obeying the police and ending up in a hazardous position on
the road. I feel that the clearway directive plus any concerns about
safety should be enough to explain the failure to stop after the event,
and just wondered what others thought, and more interestingly what the
letter of the law might say.

Well the situation should not arise.

Whether it should arise or not, the other night it did arise and I drove
past it, so I'm simply interested in people's views on it. I'd be
especially interested to hear from any current or ex-traffic police who
read the group (I think there are a couple). My gut feeling is that the
police would be suspicious of someone failing to stop immediately and
would not be sympathetic to any saftey concerns raised further down the
road as they would see this is a) being a smart arse or b) challenging
their knowledge. I'd like to think that this is perhaps an unfair view
of the police.

Post by Alex Heney
Traffic police have been involved in clearing up after enough nasty
accidents that they *don't* want to cause another, so they are
unlikely to stop you until you reach somewhere they judge to be safe,
unless there is some factor making it even less safe for you to
continue.

Don't worry, regardless of the police, *I* don't want to be involved in
an accident and would drive on if I felt it was unsafe to stop. My
questions are relating to how this would be viewed by TPTB in the event
that it *did* happen.

You mention that the car had been stopped by the Police.

Was the Police car behind the stopped car, with its blue lights
flashing?

[italian job]

Post by Clueless2

Post by Chris Lawrence
if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

So this is what you will really do even if the police is trying to stop
you proceeding further for safety reasons? (e.g. a serious road accident
ahead).

It's your fault if you crash into anything in front of you.

Having said that I would not put myself in a position where someone whom
is driving foolishly might easily hit me, just beyond the brow of hill
for example. I wouldn't stop just there police or no police.

[italian job]

Post by Clueless2

Post by Chris Lawrence
if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).

So this is what you will really do even if the police is trying to stop
you proceeding further for safety reasons? (e.g. a serious road accident
ahead).

It's your fault if you crash into anything in front of you.

Having said that I would not put myself in a position where someone whom
is driving foolishly might easily hit me, just beyond the brow of hill
for example. I wouldn't stop just there police or no police.

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 3 May 2006 23:38:58 +0100, Chris Lawrence

Post by Chris Lawrence
A few nights ago I drove past a car which had been stopped by the
police. The road was a national speed limit single carriageway and
marked as a clearway (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign062.htm).
Presumably the police had good reason for stopping the car on that
section of the road, but this got me wondering - if the police indicated
that I should pull over while I was on a clearway, I wouldn't know
whether to stop there and then (and thus comply with the police but
violate the clearway) or continue to the end of the clearway and stop at
the first safe, legal and convenient position (thus complying with the
various road legislations but potentially at risk for failing to stop
for the police).
It seems a no-win position to be in. A search of the highway code does
not give any clues, nor can I find anything about this on the Web. Any
thoughts?

Police orders override most traffic signs, particularly those relating
to stopping or parking.

[Jethro]

Interesting question. A few years ago, I was flashed by a police car on
the Great West Road (A4) in Brentford, in rush hour. Rather than stop
in the left hand lane, and block traffic, I drove on about 200 meters
and turned into a side road, where I drove another 50 meters before
stopping. When the officer came to the window he asked why I hadn't
stopped immediately. Being a cocky 19 year old I said that I didn't
consider it a safe place to stop, and felt it better to get off the
main road. When he then said that I didn't have to go so far into the
road, I answered that I didn't know where he learnt to drive, but I had
been taught not to park near junctions (in hindsight I should have said
"think of the children"). The prompted a scowl, and a laugh from his
Seargant ...

On a more serious note, (IANAL though) whilst there is a law which
obliges you to obey a police instruction, I wouldn't mind betting that
they would refute liabilty if you had an accident as a result.

[Humbug]

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said "Jethro"

Post by Jethro
Interesting question. A few years ago, I was flashed by a police car on
the Great West Road (A4) in Brentford, in rush hour. Rather than stop
in the left hand lane, and block traffic, I drove on about 200 meters
and turned into a side road, where I drove another 50 meters before
stopping. When the officer came to the window he asked why I hadn't
stopped immediately. Being a cocky 19 year old I said that I didn't
consider it a safe place to stop, and felt it better to get off the
main road. When he then said that I didn't have to go so far into the
road, I answered that I didn't know where he learnt to drive, but I had
been taught not to park near junctions (in hindsight I should have said
"think of the children"). The prompted a scowl, and a laugh from his
Seargant ...
On a more serious note, (IANAL though) whilst there is a law which
obliges you to obey a police instruction, I wouldn't mind betting that
they would refute liabilty if you had an accident as a result.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago
... except that on that occasion, it was the policeman who was a cocky
19yo.

Maybe it was the same laughing sergeant :-)