Ahead from right turn lane

[SK425]

vonhosen said:

SK425 said:

The simple fact of being overtaken can not be described as a disadvantage when you are not in a race.

I've already said it's not about overtaking.

Jesus! Overtaking is what we're talking about! What thread are you in? This one is about the use of a right turn lane to effect a straight-on overtake, and, latterly, about whether the CPS is right to lend support to those who approach their driving with a competitive attitude that leads them to see being overtaken as being put at a disadvantage.

Where's the facepalm emoticon when you need it!

[vonhosen]

SK425 said:

vonhosen said:

SK425 said:

The simple fact of being overtaken can not be described as a disadvantage when you are not in a race.

I've already said it's not about overtaking.

Jesus! Overtaking is what we're talking about! What thread are you in? This one is about the use of a right turn lane to effect a straight-on overtake, and, latterly, about whether the CPS is right to lend support to those who approach their driving with a competitive attitude that leads them to see being overtaken as being put at a disadvantage.

Where's the facepalm emoticon when you need it!

I'm talking about people's driving falling short of the standards expected, them not doing what they should be doing.

[Moonhawk]

Zod said:

I look for any advantage I can find within the rules, but I don't disobey the arrows, although some junctions don't have them until very late, making them difficult to spot in traffic.

I do hate this. If you have an artic in the lane - it can be impossible to see the arrows until you are on top of them.

IMO - any lane markings should be supplemented with signage (like that below) well in advance of the junction.

[Countdown]

SK425 said:

The rule in question is the rule against inconsiderate driving. What you've said is a circular argument which fails to address the issue that no advantage is conferred (in the sense of a corresponding disadvantage existing that might constitute the inconvenience necessary for an offence of inconsiderate driving to have been committed) by simply overtaking like this, except in the mind of someone who has brought the wrong attitude to their driving.

Of course, it's not just the overtaken who might have that attitude problem, the overtaker might too. If they do, that's a bad thing, but you can't conclude that they do just because they are overtaking. Do you think the CPS supposes that the only reason someone might seek to pass a slower vehicle is because they think they are in a race?

Quite often the people in L1 accelerate reasonably promptly. Or 2 (or more) people try to carry out the ""Overtake from Right Turn Only" lane manoeuvre. This results in people having to force their way back into L1.

It's cockish behaviour in the extreme.

[SK425]

Countdown said:

Quite often the people in L1 accelerate reasonably promptly. Or 2 (or more) people try to carry out the ""Overtake from Right Turn Only" lane manoeuvre. This results in people having to force their way back into L1.

It's cockish behaviour in the extreme.

If you can't be confident the vehicle is going to accelerate slowly (you can be pretty confident of that if it's a lorry, for example) then the overtake's probably not on. If you're not first in lane 2 then the overtake's probably not on either.

Going for it when it's not on and/or forcing your way back in is cockish, I agree, although that's independent of any arrows on the road - it would be just as cockish if there were no arrows.