Is using a dedicated lane leaving a motorway undertaking?
Discussion
omegac said:
Anyone know for sure, just settling an argument here, my take is they're broken, so the traffic in the main carriageway can still cross it up to the point it becomes solid, so it would be undertaking.
My arguement would be there are already exemptions for traffic to pass on the left (undertaking) and this would fall into one of those exemptionsB'stard Child said:
My arguement would be there are already exemptions for traffic to pass on the left (undertaking) and this would fall into one of those exemptions
Exemptions as in queuing traffic? If you mean queuing, surely if Lane 1 is doing 60, going past them nearside at 70 in the dedicated lane isn't within the spirit of the "exemption"Edited by omegac on Monday 4th July 17:32
I remember reading here (and sorry, I can't recall by who or when), that once it becomes two distinct lanes, then it becomes a case of "passing on the left" rather than undertaking.
Like has been mentioned though, it's a dangerous place to think about doing that, as cars are liable to be pulling into the left-land lane right up to the bullhorn/junction.
Like has been mentioned though, it's a dangerous place to think about doing that, as cars are liable to be pulling into the left-land lane right up to the bullhorn/junction.
Thanks erdnase, but then this seems to say it is ok, but doesn't stipulate any speeds that would be deemed acceptable, my emphasis:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...
268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...
268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
There are no exemptions to the rule against undertaking, because there is no rule against undertaking. Quite simply, there's no law against doing it.
What there is, in the Highway Code, is advice not to undertake and failure to abide by that advice might (depending on all the circumstances) amount to careless, or even dangerous, driving. If you take advantage of one of the "exemptions" where the Code says it's acceptable then it can still be careless or dangerous driving if you do it in a careless or dangerous way again, depending on circumstances).
Despite some threads on here regarding road policing, the Law still expects drivers to exercise common sense - including the common sense required to predict other peoples less sensible actions. So hammering down an exit lane at 70mph in the full knowledge that one of the 50mph cars in lane 1 might decide to pull over without warning would be perfectly legal but not very bright. If an accident happened then the Law may well decide that not very bright act amounted to carelessness.
What there is, in the Highway Code, is advice not to undertake and failure to abide by that advice might (depending on all the circumstances) amount to careless, or even dangerous, driving. If you take advantage of one of the "exemptions" where the Code says it's acceptable then it can still be careless or dangerous driving if you do it in a careless or dangerous way again, depending on circumstances).
Despite some threads on here regarding road policing, the Law still expects drivers to exercise common sense - including the common sense required to predict other peoples less sensible actions. So hammering down an exit lane at 70mph in the full knowledge that one of the 50mph cars in lane 1 might decide to pull over without warning would be perfectly legal but not very bright. If an accident happened then the Law may well decide that not very bright act amounted to carelessness.
Real world example:
I use one particular junction like this every day I come home from work. (M62 junction 9).
The junction before it there is a small motorway police head quarters, so quite alot of the time there are patrol cars going up and down.
After watching multiple police cars do it, I have done it sometimes behind them and sometimes with them following me, and I have never been pulled (guess whats gonna happen tomorrow!).
I use one particular junction like this every day I come home from work. (M62 junction 9).
The junction before it there is a small motorway police head quarters, so quite alot of the time there are patrol cars going up and down.
After watching multiple police cars do it, I have done it sometimes behind them and sometimes with them following me, and I have never been pulled (guess whats gonna happen tomorrow!).
This is one of those old fashioned 'common sense' rules where the answer becomes 'it depends'. To put it another way it is less to do with legality than making a decision on how safe the manoeuver is.
I can see Omegac is trying to settle an argument on the subject. It does make wonder if this a another side effect of speed cameras. Cameras reinforce the notion that it is possible to have a definitive polarised rule to cover any given road situation when quite clearly this is not always the case.
I can see Omegac is trying to settle an argument on the subject. It does make wonder if this a another side effect of speed cameras. Cameras reinforce the notion that it is possible to have a definitive polarised rule to cover any given road situation when quite clearly this is not always the case.
Toltec said:
This is one of those old fashioned 'common sense' rules where the answer becomes 'it depends'. To put it another way it is less to do with legality than making a decision on how safe the manoeuver is.
I can see Omegac is trying to settle an argument on the subject. It does make wonder if this a another side effect of speed cameras. Cameras reinforce the notion that it is possible to have a definitive polarised rule to cover any given road situation when quite clearly this is not always the case.
Absolutely agree! (is that a first on PH??? :P ) I can see Omegac is trying to settle an argument on the subject. It does make wonder if this a another side effect of speed cameras. Cameras reinforce the notion that it is possible to have a definitive polarised rule to cover any given road situation when quite clearly this is not always the case.
In this case, far as the OP's question is concerned, I'd suggest that it's less likely to be seen as "undertaking" in the sense people generally mean it if it's a separate lane but it's still a manoeuvre that needs extra care and could easily be considered a contributing factor in any resulting accident.
Variomatic said:
There are no exemptions to the rule against undertaking, because there is no rule against undertaking. Quite simply, there's no law against doing it.
What there is, in the Highway Code, is advice not to undertake and failure to abide by that advice might (depending on all the circumstances) amount to careless, or even dangerous, driving. If you take advantage of one of the "exemptions" where the Code says it's acceptable then it can still be careless or dangerous driving if you do it in a careless or dangerous way again, depending on circumstances).
What there is, in the Highway Code, is advice not to undertake and failure to abide by that advice might (depending on all the circumstances) amount to careless, or even dangerous, driving. If you take advantage of one of the "exemptions" where the Code says it's acceptable then it can still be careless or dangerous driving if you do it in a careless or dangerous way again, depending on circumstances).
It's worth repeating this (ad nauseum if necessary), even though it still doesn't seem to sink in with some people.
I will join in taking issue with the use of the word "undertaking". As others have said, it's "passing (or overtaking) on the left". However, "undertaking" may be required if the manoeuvre results in death.
Streaky
There is no LAW that states 'undertaking' is illegal
There is 'advice' in the highway code that suggests that it should not be done
As others have already stated, getting in the correct exit lane early is good safe advice HOWEVER, that does not mean that getting into that lane at a later stage is wrong providing it is planned and safe
There is 'advice' in the highway code that suggests that it should not be done
As others have already stated, getting in the correct exit lane early is good safe advice HOWEVER, that does not mean that getting into that lane at a later stage is wrong providing it is planned and safe
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff