How to block the motorway without really trying
Discussion
Vaux said:
Yung Man said:
The highway code states in rule 163
"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
And the next bit says:"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
".....If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left."
But it also says that you shouldn't move to a lane to the left to pass, which is what he did.
vonhosen said:
CommanderJameson said:
Yung Man said:
Strangely Brown said:
Yung Man said:
What can you do when a driver decides he can't be bothered using his mirrors and the only option (IMO) is to break the law and do a undertake?.
Exactly what law do you think you've broken by passing on the left?"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
I know you might say "Its not a rule (law)" but would you take the chance if plod was 2 cars back of you?.
I wouldn't.
If you were in L1, and said plod was 2 cars back, would you move from the quicker L1 to the slower L2 in order to avoid passing vehicles to your right?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 6th October 13:45
Allowing other drivers to get on with their drive, particularly if they're travelling faster than you, is courteous, surely?
If you can move into lanes 2/3 as appropriate, to allow traffic to move easily out of slip roads, then you should - but you shouldn't PRESUME to do it! In heavy traffic, you'll just P*ss off other drivers who are travelling in those lanes - and how does moving out into other traffic help any more than just allowing someone on the slip road out, so long as they're doing a sensible speed?
Not convinced on the undertaking stuff. It has been something that I've HAD to resort to, on occasion, but it's not something that makes me happy to do. I will only do this when flashing my lights and indicating right to the driver ahead has been ignored more than once. Or when they're clearly being complete idiots and there's nothing in lanes 1 & 2 inside them.
If you can move into lanes 2/3 as appropriate, to allow traffic to move easily out of slip roads, then you should - but you shouldn't PRESUME to do it! In heavy traffic, you'll just P*ss off other drivers who are travelling in those lanes - and how does moving out into other traffic help any more than just allowing someone on the slip road out, so long as they're doing a sensible speed?
Not convinced on the undertaking stuff. It has been something that I've HAD to resort to, on occasion, but it's not something that makes me happy to do. I will only do this when flashing my lights and indicating right to the driver ahead has been ignored more than once. Or when they're clearly being complete idiots and there's nothing in lanes 1 & 2 inside them.
m12_nathan said:
vonhosen said:
CommanderJameson said:
Yung Man said:
Strangely Brown said:
Yung Man said:
What can you do when a driver decides he can't be bothered using his mirrors and the only option (IMO) is to break the law and do a undertake?.
Exactly what law do you think you've broken by passing on the left?"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
I know you might say "Its not a rule (law)" but would you take the chance if plod was 2 cars back of you?.
I wouldn't.
If you were in L1, and said plod was 2 cars back, would you move from the quicker L1 to the slower L2 in order to avoid passing vehicles to your right?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 6th October 13:45
vonhosen said:
Vaux said:
Yung Man said:
The highway code states in rule 163
"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
And the next bit says:"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
".....If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left."
But it also says that you shouldn't move to a lane to the left to pass, which is what he did.
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Vaux said:
Yung Man said:
The highway code states in rule 163
"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
And the next bit says:"move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in".
"Move back to the left" means you must have overtaken on the right.
And again rule 163,
"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
".....If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left."
But it also says that you shouldn't move to a lane to the left to pass, which is what he did.
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
And we both know that it says shouldn't as opposed to MUST NOT. Since it is not a specific offence would you report someone for doing as the OP did and if so, what for?
If I consider it appropriate Sec 3 RTA.If the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly safely, and only after the MLOC (or L3OC) has been given ample time to pay attention and move out of the way, what is there about passing on the left that could warrant report?
Unless the person doing it commits a different "offence", namely a Sec 3 RTA, there is nothing illegal about passing on the left.
Is that correct?
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
And we both know that it says shouldn't as opposed to MUST NOT. Since it is not a specific offence would you report someone for doing as the OP did and if so, what for?
If I consider it appropriate Sec 3 RTA.If the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly safely, and only after the MLOC (or L3OC) has been given ample time to pay attention and move out of the way, what is there about passing on the left that could warrant report?
Unless the person doing it commits a different "offence", namely a Sec 3 RTA, there is nothing illegal about passing on the left.
Is that correct?
You can see CPS charging practice here.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.htm...
Undertaking is to be discouraged.
Sec 38 RTA 1988 said:
38(7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 6th October 22:56
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
And we both know that it says shouldn't as opposed to MUST NOT. Since it is not a specific offence would you report someone for doing as the OP did and if so, what for?
If I consider it appropriate Sec 3 RTA.If the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly safely, and only after the MLOC (or L3OC) has been given ample time to pay attention and move out of the way, what is there about passing on the left that could warrant report?
Unless the person doing it commits a different "offence", namely a Sec 3 RTA, there is nothing illegal about passing on the left.
Is that correct?
You can see CPS charging practice here.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.htm...
Undertaking is to be discouraged.
Sec 38 RTA 1988 said:
38(7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
ETA: There is no such thing as "undertaking" unless it is the context of either the management of funerals as a profession or a formal pledge or promise to do something. When you pass another vehicle you are said to "overtake" it, regardless of which side you do it on.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Saturday 6th October 23:06
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
And we both know that it says shouldn't as opposed to MUST NOT. Since it is not a specific offence would you report someone for doing as the OP did and if so, what for?
If I consider it appropriate Sec 3 RTA.If the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly safely, and only after the MLOC (or L3OC) has been given ample time to pay attention and move out of the way, what is there about passing on the left that could warrant report?
Unless the person doing it commits a different "offence", namely a Sec 3 RTA, there is nothing illegal about passing on the left.
Is that correct?
You can see CPS charging practice here.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.htm...
Undertaking is to be discouraged.
Sec 38 RTA 1988 said:
38(7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
You passing on the nearside is a riskier action, than simply holding someone up for a while.
As a general rule of thumb, if someone is unnecessarily holding people up, I'll speak to them, but if in the meantime someone takes it upon themselves to go on the undertake I'm likely to speak to them. Neither should have been doing what they were doing, but the undertake is the riskier of the two.
Of course this is in simplistic terms, because each course of action will be dependant on how I view all the circumstances at the time.
Well no surprise in your answer eh? I might have guessed that you'd prefer to talk to the person who commits no specific offence and carries out a perfectly safe manoeuvre rather than the person that creates an actual offence in creating the situation.
I guess you'd be talking to me then because if L3 was blocked and the driver was clearly either totally oblivious to the people behind him or was doing it on purpose then I would pass him. If you decided to stop me and not him then I would be fighting it as far as I possibly could.
There is nothing "risky" in overtaking (not undertaking) on the left if it is done with full regard for the possible actions of the driver being passed and is carried out swiftly and competently.
ETA: and as I think we have established now, it is not illegal.
I guess you'd be talking to me then because if L3 was blocked and the driver was clearly either totally oblivious to the people behind him or was doing it on purpose then I would pass him. If you decided to stop me and not him then I would be fighting it as far as I possibly could.
There is nothing "risky" in overtaking (not undertaking) on the left if it is done with full regard for the possible actions of the driver being passed and is carried out swiftly and competently.
ETA: and as I think we have established now, it is not illegal.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Saturday 6th October 23:24
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Strangely Brown said:
And we both know that it says shouldn't as opposed to MUST NOT. Since it is not a specific offence would you report someone for doing as the OP did and if so, what for?
If I consider it appropriate Sec 3 RTA.If the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly safely, and only after the MLOC (or L3OC) has been given ample time to pay attention and move out of the way, what is there about passing on the left that could warrant report?
Unless the person doing it commits a different "offence", namely a Sec 3 RTA, there is nothing illegal about passing on the left.
Is that correct?
You can see CPS charging practice here.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.htm...
Undertaking is to be discouraged.
Sec 38 RTA 1988 said:
38(7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
You passing on the nearside is a riskier action, than simply holding someone up for a while.
As a general rule of thumb, if someone is unnecessarily holding people up, I'll speak to them, but if in the meantime someone takes it upon themselves to go on the undertake I'm likely to speak to them. Neither should have been doing what they were doing, but the undertake is the riskier of the two.
Of course this is in simplistic terms, because each course of action will be dependant on how I view all the circumstances at the time.
I guess you'd be talking to me then because if L3 was blocked and the driver was clearly either totally oblivious to the people behind him or was doing it on purpose then I would pass him. If you decided to stop me and not him then I would be fighting it as far as I possibly could.
There is nothing "risky" in overtaking (not undertaking) on the left if it is done with full regard for the possible actions of the driver being passed and is carried out swiftly and competently.
Their offence is no more a specific offence than yours.
Leave me to deal with the lane hogger & I will. Distract me from that by doing something that I view as falling below the standards expected of a careful competent driver ( riskier than their actions) & that's the way it goes. You don't even by law have to have a nearside mirror on your car.
People can go as far as they like in attempting to defend it. I don't mind.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 6th October 23:45
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=53.541068&lon=-2.418199&z=14.9&r=0&src=msl
This section of the M61 gets congested every morning. lane 2 and 3 nearly or completely stationary queueing to join the M60 anticlockwise. Lane 1 does not as it filters off firstly for the A666 then about 1/4 mile further on the A580. The traffic quite regularly attains speeds of nearly 70 mph in lane 1 while 2 and 3 are stationary. This can tail back to the previous junction (4 left of image in link). Both the police and HATO's use lane one along with all the other traffic and have been known to use lane 1 to jump the queue by driving along lane 1 then crossing the chevroned area to rejoin the M60 queue further on. Not exactly setting a good example.
My point is, however, approaching the area roughly in the centre of the linked image there is a crossover point, lanes 2 and 3 start to slow down but lane 1 accelerates. People approaching this area, those that use it on a regular basis, seem to make allowances for others, leave sensible gaps etc etc and road behaviour in general improves dramatically. It would appear that some people do actually pay attention to the road conditions. BUT... there will always be the dim one that sees this as a chance to jump the queue and drive lane 1 until just before the exit for the A666 at which point he brakes and indicates right, coming to a complete standstill until some kindly soul takes pity on his stupidity and lets him in. These are the people who cause the accidents on this stretch of road. This happened last week, the driver of the offending car looked most shocked when the BiB pulled up along side after having to take to the hard shoulder to avoid a collision with the car in front.
It all sounds a little one sided when its put down in print, you really need to have been there and seen it to appreciate just how it all happened but seeing that driver escorted out of the way and on to the hard shoulder for a ticking off was priceless. I travel this way to work every morning and normally travel time to work is about 50minutes. When the kids are on school holidays this drops to about 15 minutes as the queues never happen in the first place.
Sorry for going on a bit.
This section of the M61 gets congested every morning. lane 2 and 3 nearly or completely stationary queueing to join the M60 anticlockwise. Lane 1 does not as it filters off firstly for the A666 then about 1/4 mile further on the A580. The traffic quite regularly attains speeds of nearly 70 mph in lane 1 while 2 and 3 are stationary. This can tail back to the previous junction (4 left of image in link). Both the police and HATO's use lane one along with all the other traffic and have been known to use lane 1 to jump the queue by driving along lane 1 then crossing the chevroned area to rejoin the M60 queue further on. Not exactly setting a good example.
My point is, however, approaching the area roughly in the centre of the linked image there is a crossover point, lanes 2 and 3 start to slow down but lane 1 accelerates. People approaching this area, those that use it on a regular basis, seem to make allowances for others, leave sensible gaps etc etc and road behaviour in general improves dramatically. It would appear that some people do actually pay attention to the road conditions. BUT... there will always be the dim one that sees this as a chance to jump the queue and drive lane 1 until just before the exit for the A666 at which point he brakes and indicates right, coming to a complete standstill until some kindly soul takes pity on his stupidity and lets him in. These are the people who cause the accidents on this stretch of road. This happened last week, the driver of the offending car looked most shocked when the BiB pulled up along side after having to take to the hard shoulder to avoid a collision with the car in front.
It all sounds a little one sided when its put down in print, you really need to have been there and seen it to appreciate just how it all happened but seeing that driver escorted out of the way and on to the hard shoulder for a ticking off was priceless. I travel this way to work every morning and normally travel time to work is about 50minutes. When the kids are on school holidays this drops to about 15 minutes as the queues never happen in the first place.
Sorry for going on a bit.
Overtaking on the left should be allowed on all 3 lane motorways [as a test] to verify if it really is as risky as is made out.
This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. [unlike at present]
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. [The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong]
This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. [unlike at present]
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. [The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong]
Brother Mycroft said:
Overtaking on the left should be allowed on all 3 lane motorways (as a test) to verify if it really is as risky as is made out.
This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. (unlike at present)
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. (The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong)
Once you allow (& therefore encourage as the norm) undertaking, that's it for lane discipline, as a side effect it goes out of the window completely because there is no basis for keeping left.This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. (unlike at present)
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. (The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong)
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th October 13:19
vonhosen said:
Once you allow (& therefore encourage as the norm) undertaking
What is it with people and this word "undertaking". It doesn't exist in the context that you are using it! Whether you pass on the left or on the right, when you pass a slower moving vehicle you "overtake" it.When travelling in a one way street and you pass a vehicle on the left do you "undertake" it then? No, you "overtake" it quite legally and properly (with no more risk whether it has a nearside mirror or not Von). Could we please stop bastardising the language and using words out of context when we already have a perfectly good word that describes the action being carried out.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 7th October 14:23
Strangely Brown said:
vonhosen said:
Once you allow (& therefore encourage as the norm) undertaking
What is it with people and this word "undertaking". It doesn't exist in the context that you are using it! Whether you pass on the left or on the right, when you pass a slower moving vehicle you "overtake" it.When travelling in a one way street and you pass a vehicle on the left do you "undertake" it then? No, you "overtake" it quite legally and properly (with no more risk whether it has a nearside mirror or not Von). Could we please stop bastardising the language and using words out of context when we already have a perfectly good word that describes the action being carried out.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 7th October 14:23
vonhosen said:
Brother Mycroft said:
Overtaking on the left should be allowed on all 3 lane motorways (as a test) to verify if it really is as risky as is made out.
This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. (unlike at present)
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. (The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong)
Once you allow (& therefore encourage as the norm) undertaking, that's it for lane discipline, as a side effect it goes out of the window completely because there is no basis for keeping left.This would have a few benefits.
1/. We would all be aware of the regular practice of doing so. (unlike at present)
2/. It would leave the likes of Mr. Vonhosen to pull up the hopeless and crass lane hogger rather than in his words distracting him from a far more road important problem.
3/. It would provide a good guide as to whether the practice is as stated as dangerous as made out. (The problem with that is the police have set quite a store in saying the practice is bad and would not like to be proven wrong)
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th October 13:19
The vast majority sit in the outside lane for ages before pulling back in or sit forming an ever longer snake in that lane.
Allowing things to happen only on the M-way system is not that difficult to have as part of the 'M-way difference'.
Keeping to the left is not stopped by overtaking on the left, far from it, with the knowledge that you can be most people will get over to the left as early as they can to avoid the additional hassle of looking around them more or if they drive conscientiously [as most people do] then such a measure wil actually firce them to have a slightly higher awareness of their surroundings.
There is no excuse, there should be a pilot scheme on all M'ways.
It would also be an 'advance' in driving to do this...
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Monday 8th October 08:49
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff