Posted By Steve Wood prosecution, fine, loss of licence.

Posted By Hilary Charlton The speed limit is an Absolute Duty, therefore, he will be prosecuted, fined and probably barred, not for driving too fast or unsafely but just for being a clever clogs - a risk assessment for the roads needs to be carried out by a competent person, although he may be an expert in health and safety, is he a civil engineer or a mechanical engineer, I doubt it, therefore, he cannot be judged 'competent' to make this decision. Hilary

Posted By Malcolm Hogarth What an odd (if interesting)question! Steve had the answer spot on. Fine, Endorsement, Points, disqualification as a 'totter', prosecution costs. Specifics depend on the circumstances,driving history, plea etc. For your fictional character to have to appear in Court he would be have been well in excess of the legal limit. In order not to be disqualified he may plead exceptional circumstances but this would be carfully considered by the Justices. With regard to the 'Risk Assessment'I doubt whether this would even be looked at when considering mitigation for commiting an absolute offence. I could go on and on and on. Regards

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Note that the 'special reasons' that a Bench can apply so as not to apply the otherwise mandatory disqualification have to be related to the person's circumstances alone, and not related to the actual offence. Why should anyone think that risk assessment might be a way out of this? An absolute requirement is what it says. Interpretation is only allowed by emergency services and then only under stipulated conditions - the problem for the ambulance driver is that he wasn't driving an ambulance for one of the defined purposes, Carrying an organ isn't at present regarded as lifesaving. With any luck he will get a Bench that gives an absolute discharge for what is surely a good example of a technical offence. Allan

Posted By Stuart Nagle Grahm. Merve is correct in describing risk assessment as subjective. I would suggest that the risk assessment done by the person in your story is subjective of him getting from A to B ASAP!! and that he not only considers himself expert in health and safety, but in fast driving too. Lets look at the facts. Are there laws about driving - Yes. Are there laws about Speed - Yes. Are there (shall we call them rules) rules of the road for drivers based on good driving and common sense - Yes (Highway Code - often referred to in court). Taking the above into consideration and assuming his is the ONLY car on the road, how can he reasonably state that it's OK to speed (break the law)? Let alone what else he may be suggesting!! I suggest two courses of action: 1) Provide him with a copy of the Highway Code, and 2) advise that breaking the speed limit is an offence as is driving recklessly and without due care and attention. As a footnote, it would appear that this person is signalling their intention to deliberately not observe the law. In such cases we would normally, for example, prevent them from carrying out the work. Perhaps you could make a case for preventing him from driving the (company?) car until he is prepared to do the task safely!! (i.e within the perameters of the law and normal road use etc).

Posted By John Webster Whilst speeding is an absolute offence, driving without due care and attention is not - and "risk assessment" can certainly provide a defence for the latter. It is commonly believed that "undertaking" ie passing on the nearside, is an offence unless traffic is moving in lanes. Not So, although it is against the advice of the Highway Code. According to an appeal reported in the Sunday Express some years ago (when it was still a broadsheet), a driver was convicted of driving without due care and attention when he had undertaken a car stubbornly stuck at 65 in the outside lane of the motorway. The conviction was quashed on appeal. His defence had been that he had taken time to assess the situation, and made the manoeuvre as safe as possible

Posted By Trevor Wraith Perhaps the answer is to have a government minister sitting in the rear seat?

Posted By Graham Clarke MIOSH, MIIRSM Hi Folks, Can I clarify some points, first of all this question was purely fictional and has no relation to me, (if you are listening Mr Plod). In fact I drive a ford mondeo diesel so speeding in not an option, (sorry ford). I asked the question to ascertain how diverse the law can be interpreted, within my deprtment we often discuss points of law and always find 20 different interpretations. Thanks to all that answered, its nice to see people taking time out of their busy lives to be bothered. Thanks.

Posted By Hilary Charlton Yes, I agree that I really get annoyed with the "I only speed when I have to" brigade - leave earlier is my answer then you won't have to. I try my best endeavours never to speed, I'm not saying I never have speeded, of course at some stage we all have, but this has been inadvertent and not a blatant disregard for the rules. However, what really, really annoys me is people who drive around with kids loose in the back of the car when THERE ARE SEATBELTS FITTED! I walk to work normally and I see these mothers with their two or three kids jumping around on the back seat and the seatbelts hanging loose. They seem to be working on the principle that they are only going half a mile so there's no risk - what are these people like? To risk the lives of their children by blatantly flouting the rules laid down for their safety - you wonder why they had kids in the first place!

Posted By Ken Lucas Speeding? yes it is and will always be an issue. To be honest I have found that when driving on the motorways it is to some extent unsafe travelling at the speed limit of 70mph, e.g. HGV vehicles, and the constant pulling out from the first and second lanes, especially when travelling up long inclines. Personally, the main issue I have currently is inconsiderate, impatience and dangerous driving, e.g. UNDERtaking. A couple of weeks ago I had to go to Guildford, all motorway, M69/M40/M25, the journey was obviously very frustrating for all at the time but impatience is no excuse to force gaps when it is unsafe to do so. I find it unbelievable watching vehicles undertake at speeds in excess of 85 mph, yes 85mph, and filling that safe gap you are maintaining between yourself and the car in front should you have to break in an emergency. On the specific journey previously mentioned I was actually undertaken more times than overtaken - on every occasion I was in a moving queue of traffic, mainly middle lane but surprisingly on two occasions when I was driving in the inside lane!!! Anybody else experience similar? Ken

Posted By Hilary Charlton I absolutely agree with all the things said, boy racers, undertaking, people who jump lanes in a "no lane movement" zone because they might get there a whole 10 seconds earlier but if you want a laugh I'll tell you what happened to me one day. I have absolutely no car pretensions whatsoever, neither does my husband. The car is a means of getting from A to B and that is about it, consequently, we drive cheap but reliable cars. I drive a Skoda, even when it was brand new it was hardly what you would call a "performance vehicle" and now it is 14 (and still going strong) it's a bit of a heap. Well, to cut a long story short, I had to go on a trip one day and I drove my Skoda up the motorway. Serious roadworks and everyone was directed to two lanes, fast or slow. Being in my non performance Skoda I took the slow lorry lane while all these high performance cars, boy racers and I think we can probably class the "undertakers" in this, zipped up the other lane (concrete bollards both sides) with looks of distain at us "slowies". About 2 miles up the road there was a slow down in the fast lane, which, as I sauntered past, turned into a queue, a few miles on the cars were steaming, people were getting out of their vehicles and looking around and the queue was completely stopped. I carried out pootling past in my "non performance" vehicle for some more miles until I saw the cause of the problem. A car had broken down in this lane (concrete bollards both sides) and they were having to lift it out of the queue with a crane. In front of this car there was no traffic whatsoever, behind this car was something like an 8-10 mile tailback. When the roadworks finished and we got back on to the main motorway there were loads of lorries and trucks, some caravans and a couple of slow, non-performance or old cars like mine, all the zippy fast cars and boy racers gently boiling over in the summer sun in this tailback. Sometimes, life is good.

Posted By Ian Mycroft Dave (Jeremy?) My point on undertaking was that impatient people will often pull into the inside to undertake when it is unsafe to be in that lane without compromising safety. For example, I (and I'm sure everyone on this forum is the same) will not return to the inside lane after overtaking, until I am sure the car I have overtaken has a safe stopping distance. Unfortunately, this means that people who have little regard for safety of others will have the opportunity to jump in and undertake. I don't consider that in these circumstances there is room in the inside lane, or that I would be in anyones way. Ian

Posted By Jerry Hill Whilst I fully agree with the last few 'postees' on this thread concerning centre lane 'hoggers' and undertaking, I think you'll find that undertaking as such isn't illegal. (very dangerous, but not illegal) If someone caused an accident by undertaking, they would be prosecuted for either dangerous driving or driving without due care, NOT undertaking. I, perhaps like many, will pull from the inside lane, to outside lane, and then back to inside lane to overtake centre lane drivers but it is a real pain in the proverbials, isn't it? My company has just initiated defensive driver training for all company car drivers and if you refuse to take it, you are threatened with losing your company car. Why don't more companies take a responsible view like this?

Posted By Rex Harrison Speaking from experience. I was caught overtaking at 105mph, and was prosecuted. I defended myself in court using a risk assessment type approach to limit my penalties, and I thought the court considered my statement fairly. I pleaded guilty to the offence, which as stated previously was absolute, so my only option was to reduce the penalty as much as I could. I argued that although I had done wrong, and had broken the law, and would fully accept any punishment issued by the court I was a competent driver and had overtaken in a safe manner. To reinforce this I described the weather conditions, the traffic volume, the condition and type of the road, and the condition of the vehicle I was driving and all of these were in my favour so to speak. I also stated that I had followed the vehicles for some miles where previous opportunities to overtake had not being taken by other drivers ahead of me in the cue, trying to demonstrate that I had anticipated their actions, that I had never made an accident claim in 13yrs on the road, and had never had any kind of fine or endorsement to my license. The only thing I hadnt considered was that I might have been overtaking an unmarked police car within the cue! I got a £150 fine £30 costs and 55 days disqualification. This meant that my license stayed clean so to speak and the offence was classed as an SP30 which insurance companies do not seem interested in - so my insurance premium was unaffected. Now I know some might say that my mitigation didn't help me but, ironically a friend of mine was caught the previous day on the same stretch of road in the same way and he got £200 fine £30 costs and 3 months so I would disagree. Previously I had pleaded guilty by post and had been informed that I didn't need to attend court, subsequently to be informed that I had missed the court date. This happened 3 times, and only when a police officer arrived at my door offering to let me stay in the cells for the night to encourage me to turn up for court, did I attend. The interesting thing for me was that I learnt how the courts worked - to some degree and that the different departments didn't seem to communicate with each other. I can't condone what I did but I'm sure I cant be alone. Obviously I'm a reformed character now. Regards Rex.

Posted By Ken Lucas Following on from examples of poor driving and bad driving techniques I thought you might want to view the item on the news just announced, an impending ban on the use of mobile phones whilst driving - personally I say hoorah for that, although again the question is why should legislation be required..... News item available such: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3015610.stm Ken

Posted By Eric Burt Good response John, only you make one ascertion - you say that the activities you mention are "equally distracting". Sorry but they aren't. Check out some data from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL.co.uk) and have a chat with Brake (Brake.org.uk). TRL state that using any mobile, hand-held or hands-free puts you at 11% higher risk of an accident than if you were driving at the drink drive limit. I agree that all those activities are distracting (remember the accident where the end of a drivers cigarette fell off and set fire to the seat) and are all loosely covered under the Construction and Use Regulations. As Health and Safety Practitioners we can only research the data, quantify the risk and advise proper control measures for our employers, however inconvenient or unpalatable they may be (and believe me - this is one way to get you scrubbed off the Chief Execs' Christmas Card list faster than a Tim Henman serve ). Eric

Posted By Jerry Hill I bet Graham never thought his 'poser' would lead this far away from the point. But as with most other threads, some great opinions and views. Aren't you glad we're ALL individuals. Neil...I have to agree with Bob. Undertaking isn't illegal. Rule 139 of the Highway Code clearly states, "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left". I would imagine this would be a reasonable defence against any impending prosecution, although a defence lawyer might struggle to prove that the 'queue' in the middle lane was moving at 60 mph when you 'undertook' it. Honestly, I'm not condoning this, but there is 'safe' undertaking and 'weaving'. Back to risk assessment really isn't it? If someone is doing 50 mph in the middle lane and I wish to pass on their left, I could do so without endangering other road users. If the person I was undertaking either intentionally (it happens) or accidentally begins to move into the lane I was in, I at least have the hard shoulder to 'bail myself out', or brake. The Charlie who uses all three lanes to weave in and out of traffic is a much greater risk than me.......Maybe it was Grahams expert from the first thread?

Posted By Ken Lucas What about when a burning stub of a cigarette lands in your lap from some *!@* in front of you. Well I don't care what Nick Ross says cos' I still have nightmares. Yes OK, I should have used the control measures available: keep windows shut and use the air con'. Ken