So you think its ok to undertake?
Discussion
The scene: this morning, M1, travelling southbound, in the roadworks north of J5. I'm in lane 3 (contraflow lane) following a people carrier. Speed limit is 50mph.
As lame 3 rejoins lanes 1 and 2 after the roadworks, I'm looking to 'make some progress' and hoping the vehicle in front moves over quickly. Technically its still 50mph limit for another couple of hundred yards so I wait patiently. I notice the car behind me is a bit close to put it mildly.
As we pass the national speed limit signs the people carrier in front begins to move back into lane 2. Simultaneously the car behind dives into lane 2 and accelerates hard. There is nearly a coming together as the undertaker has to stray into lane 1 slightly to make avoid the people carrier now moving into lane 2. Luckily the people carrier driver is checking his mirrors and smartly moves over. Too close for comfort that...
We travel a bit further down the motorway and I'm waiting for the people carrier to move over. I give the people carrier a flash to make him aware that I want to get by. A couple of hundred yards later he again begins to move into lane 2. By this point the person behind me has lost patience and dived past in lane 2 accelerating hard. The people carrier has to abort another lane change. Thank god he's paying attention.
As the second undertaker zooms past I notice a third vehicle approaching quickly. I just know its going to happen a third time and sure enough, the people carrier has to abort a third lane change and the undertaker has to brake hard not to clip his rear corner.
When the people carrier eventually moved over I looked inside and the poor bloke looked really flustered. The only minor error he made was not moving over more quickly. But it was the impatience and stupidity of the other three drivers that resulted in
a) him having such difficulty in moving over to lane 2 (which would have freed lane 3 for us)
b) causing three dangerous situations (two very near misses) in only a couple of miles.
A perfect illustration of why you should never undertake. It was scary to watch...
As lame 3 rejoins lanes 1 and 2 after the roadworks, I'm looking to 'make some progress' and hoping the vehicle in front moves over quickly. Technically its still 50mph limit for another couple of hundred yards so I wait patiently. I notice the car behind me is a bit close to put it mildly.
As we pass the national speed limit signs the people carrier in front begins to move back into lane 2. Simultaneously the car behind dives into lane 2 and accelerates hard. There is nearly a coming together as the undertaker has to stray into lane 1 slightly to make avoid the people carrier now moving into lane 2. Luckily the people carrier driver is checking his mirrors and smartly moves over. Too close for comfort that...
We travel a bit further down the motorway and I'm waiting for the people carrier to move over. I give the people carrier a flash to make him aware that I want to get by. A couple of hundred yards later he again begins to move into lane 2. By this point the person behind me has lost patience and dived past in lane 2 accelerating hard. The people carrier has to abort another lane change. Thank god he's paying attention.
As the second undertaker zooms past I notice a third vehicle approaching quickly. I just know its going to happen a third time and sure enough, the people carrier has to abort a third lane change and the undertaker has to brake hard not to clip his rear corner.
When the people carrier eventually moved over I looked inside and the poor bloke looked really flustered. The only minor error he made was not moving over more quickly. But it was the impatience and stupidity of the other three drivers that resulted in
a) him having such difficulty in moving over to lane 2 (which would have freed lane 3 for us)
b) causing three dangerous situations (two very near misses) in only a couple of miles.
A perfect illustration of why you should never undertake. It was scary to watch...
Is it just me - or should the people carrier driver have turned on his left indicator and "drifted". In the described scenario, the people carrier seems to have been exposed by drivers who cannot reconcile MLH and the limitations imposed by roadworks. If in doubt, hang back (as per authour)......... better to be 5 minutes late than many years early with your maker!
In the defence of the "fools" in this scenario....
I was taught (IAM/ROSPA) to accelerate to posted limited and that is was okay to enter at the posted speed limit Naturally, the reverse should apply when lower posted limit is displayed! However, only a minority of road users would know or be taught this methodology.
I seem to forming the opinion that far too many drivers treat our motorways as "normal roads" i.e accelerate/lane change/brake/ etc without appreciating the massive speed differentials and the consequences. I could go on all day about SLM (slip lane morons) and their inability to merge but force a gap in L1 of motorways or the idiots that cannot drive at a steady speed or those that cannot read the road ahead even on the clearest of days or............
In the defence of the "fools" in this scenario....
I was taught (IAM/ROSPA) to accelerate to posted limited and that is was okay to enter at the posted speed limit Naturally, the reverse should apply when lower posted limit is displayed! However, only a minority of road users would know or be taught this methodology.
I seem to forming the opinion that far too many drivers treat our motorways as "normal roads" i.e accelerate/lane change/brake/ etc without appreciating the massive speed differentials and the consequences. I could go on all day about SLM (slip lane morons) and their inability to merge but force a gap in L1 of motorways or the idiots that cannot drive at a steady speed or those that cannot read the road ahead even on the clearest of days or............
T5R+ said:
I was taught (IAM/ROSPA) to accelerate to posted limited and that is was okay to enter at the posted speed limit
If you mean that you were taught to accelerate up to NSL while you were within a lower limit, I find it hard to believe that either the IAM or RoSPA taught you that.You make an interesting observation - anyone else taught this?
Plus anyone expected (IAM motorcycle) to make swift progress in NSL even if above the conventional limit. Funnily enough this was not encouraged when in the car.
DJ AS - sorry we are drifting off topic a little.
Plus anyone expected (IAM motorcycle) to make swift progress in NSL even if above the conventional limit. Funnily enough this was not encouraged when in the car.
DJ AS - sorry we are drifting off topic a little.
Edited by T5R+ on Saturday 3rd November 14:27
T5R+ said:
You make an interesting observation - anyone else taught this?
Plus anyone expected (IAM motorcycle) to make swift progress in NSL even if above the conventional limit. Funnily enough this was not encouraged when in the car.
DJ AS - sorry we are drifting off topic a little.
Whilst not a member of the IAM I am quite confident that their position may well be make progress to a reduction in speed limit, but not to exceed the limit on the approach to it.Plus anyone expected (IAM motorcycle) to make swift progress in NSL even if above the conventional limit. Funnily enough this was not encouraged when in the car.
DJ AS - sorry we are drifting off topic a little.
Edited by T5R+ on Saturday 3rd November 14:27
The governing body won't be advocating exceeding NSL limits, whether it be on two or four wheels.
I'm an IAM Observer and my philosophy when approaching a speed limit lower than than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on is to decelerate with a view to achieving the new lower limit just before I enter the lower limit area.
However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
Lesson for the day, when you are coming to end of the coned area indicate left with 100 yards to go, this way people behind know what you intend to do.
Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
Yung Man said:
Lesson for the day, when you are coming to end of the coned area indicate left with 100 yards to go, this way people behind know what you intend to do.
Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
I think what you're saying (hope I haven't misunderstood!) basically boils down to 'indicate in plenty of time' which, of course, applies to all circumstances.Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
In the particular example of my original post, I'm fairly certain that on each occasion the people carrier did indicate before moving over. The fact that my vehicle was between the people carrier and each undertaker meant that they probably did not see his signal until they had committed to the 'undertake'.
The people carrier could've moved over as soon as lane 3 merged with lanes 1 & 2 as it was safe to do so. Thats about the only criticism I could make of his driving. It was the impatience of the people behind us who turned a 30 second wait for him to move over into three dangerous situations.
DJ_AS said:
Yung Man said:
Lesson for the day, when you are coming to end of the coned area indicate left with 100 yards to go, this way people behind know what you intend to do.
Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
I think what you're saying (hope I haven't misunderstood!) basically boils down to 'indicate in plenty of time' which, of course, applies to all circumstances.Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
In the particular example of my original post, I'm fairly certain that on each occasion the people carrier did indicate before moving over. The fact that my vehicle was between the people carrier and each undertaker meant that they probably did not see his signal until they had committed to the 'undertake'.
The people carrier could've moved over as soon as lane 3 merged with lanes 1 & 2 as it was safe to do so. Thats about the only criticism I could make of his driving. It was the impatience of the people behind us who turned a 30 second wait for him to move over into three dangerous situations.
I hope you gave him the evil eye along with a little shake of the head as you passed.
No criticism of your driving was intended.
Yung Man said:
DJ_AS said:
Yung Man said:
Lesson for the day, when you are coming to end of the coned area indicate left with 100 yards to go, this way people behind know what you intend to do.
Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
I think what you're saying (hope I haven't misunderstood!) basically boils down to 'indicate in plenty of time' which, of course, applies to all circumstances.Does anybody bother to do this?. (indicate with 100 yards to go not indicate at the end of the cones)
No, except me, this is because nobody gives a stuff about them behind, I don't think I'v ever seen anybody indicate with 100 yards to go.
In the particular example of my original post, I'm fairly certain that on each occasion the people carrier did indicate before moving over. The fact that my vehicle was between the people carrier and each undertaker meant that they probably did not see his signal until they had committed to the 'undertake'.
The people carrier could've moved over as soon as lane 3 merged with lanes 1 & 2 as it was safe to do so. Thats about the only criticism I could make of his driving. It was the impatience of the people behind us who turned a 30 second wait for him to move over into three dangerous situations.
I hope you gave him the evil eye along with a little shake of the head as you passed.
No criticism of your driving was intended.
I think its pretty harsh to say he deserved to 'get himself into bother' though. Yes, he could've and should've moved over more quickly - but its not like we were stuck behind him for miles. From the first moment he could've moved over to the first undertake was probably just 30 seconds. The people carrier clearly intended (and tried to) get out of lane 3.
It was the undertakers who caused the bother and it was they who deserved the evil eye and shake of the head.
Thirty seconds is a long time at speed.
After waiting thirty seconds in which the people carrier driver could've moved over but didn't, the other drivers may have predicted he had no intention of doing so, and therefore undertook.
What would you have done if he didn't move over?
How long do you think they should have waited before undertaking?
Would your answer be different if he had waited another thirty seconds before moving over?
I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely interested as a somewhat regular undertaker.
After waiting thirty seconds in which the people carrier driver could've moved over but didn't, the other drivers may have predicted he had no intention of doing so, and therefore undertook.
What would you have done if he didn't move over?
How long do you think they should have waited before undertaking?
Would your answer be different if he had waited another thirty seconds before moving over?
I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely interested as a somewhat regular undertaker.
Swoxy said:
Thirty seconds is a long time at speed.
After waiting thirty seconds in which the people carrier driver could've moved over but didn't, the other drivers may have predicted he had no intention of doing so, and therefore undertook.
They were wrong in their assessment, him moving to the left is to be expected & their wrong assessment brought them into conflict.After waiting thirty seconds in which the people carrier driver could've moved over but didn't, the other drivers may have predicted he had no intention of doing so, and therefore undertook.
Something I've wondered about is that undertaking is now so commonplace I'm sure there's an increasing number of drivers who think that since so many drivers do it, it's not only normal but must be legal (or at least, not illegal). It's one thing when someone undertakes, fully aware of the risk they're taking and ready to react if the vehicle ahead pulls across in front of them, but I fear that some people now undertake believing they have right of way and they're ready to get very upset if the vehicle ahead pulls across. I wonder if there are any stats that identify undertaking as a cause of accidents.
It's all part of the growing frustration that comes with more crowded roads, leading to those who lack confidence/awareness (or are just bloody minded) sticking resolutely to their chosen lane, often because they're afraid of getting trapped in lane 1. Meanwhile, those who are impatient and frustrated take to undertaking.
The solution? Apart from less traffic (difficult) I'd like to see a controlled trial of legal undertaking on multi lane roads. The only other alternatives I can see are a combination of driver training (we wish) and better enforcement of driving standards by marked police cars. Otherwise, undertaking will continue to increase and become increasingly "normal".
It's all part of the growing frustration that comes with more crowded roads, leading to those who lack confidence/awareness (or are just bloody minded) sticking resolutely to their chosen lane, often because they're afraid of getting trapped in lane 1. Meanwhile, those who are impatient and frustrated take to undertaking.
The solution? Apart from less traffic (difficult) I'd like to see a controlled trial of legal undertaking on multi lane roads. The only other alternatives I can see are a combination of driver training (we wish) and better enforcement of driving standards by marked police cars. Otherwise, undertaking will continue to increase and become increasingly "normal".
As we are on the Advanced Driver forum, is there another approach to this situation to have achieved a safer outcome for all concerned and specifically the OP...
One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
BertBert said:
As we are on the Advanced Driver forum, is there another approach to this situation to have achieved a safer outcome for all concerned and specifically the OP...
One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
Sounds good in theory but don't forget 8 times out of 10 the guy in front will move over quickly making you look impatient by going left first.One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
BertBert said:
As we are on the Advanced Driver forum, is there another approach to this situation to have achieved a safer outcome for all concerned and specifically the OP...
One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
I agree with the fact that it may have helped if I had moved in L2 and indeed would have done so had I been stuck behind the people carrier for a period of time.One of the things that the OP said was about his contribution...his position may have concealed the LH indicator of the people carrier. The OP also had a tailgater, so would a safer course of action have been to help the weaker driver. If the OP had moved over to L2, he could have created a safe buffer for the people carrier to pull into.
The tailgater behind would have accelerated up behind the people carrier adding pressure to move over and the tailgate would be in front of the OP.
All in all a much better outcome to remove oneself from a dangerous situation and potentially reduce the danger.
Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. However, I do take that kind of action. If I am stuck behind a driver who will not move over and there is a car coming up behind me that looks like they really want to get by, I move over. Lets the guy behind get on with the monstering (which I wont do) and makes the guy in front think I am going to undertake. Often gets the job done. Car moves over, faster car goes through and I move out and follow.
Bert
I did not do so on this ocassion because I hoped the driver had the sense to move into L2. Which he did try to do.
Maybe I could've anticipated the actions of the following driver better and is something I will consider in the future.
Then there is passing on the left when the queue of traffic in the right hand lane is moving more slowly than the queue of traffic in the left hand lane. There is undertaking. Then there is weaving about in traffic passing on either side and driving dangerously.
I have no problem passing on the left. The Highway Code says you can do it.
Whilst the Highway Code advises that you should not do it "undertaking" is not specifically illegal - unless things have changed recently (VH - this is correct - no?). To be honest I don't have a problem with it if done very, very carefully at low differential speeds with due care and observation and an escape route. You do get some utter numpties with "right-lane-itis". We get it all the time on our local ring road. Drivers get into the right hand lane to turn right at the next roundabout just after the previous one...and then tootle along denying a queue of cars the chance to pass. Them? I pass on the left. Carefully.
The last one - which I believe the OP encountered - is dangerous driving.
I have no problem passing on the left. The Highway Code says you can do it.
Whilst the Highway Code advises that you should not do it "undertaking" is not specifically illegal - unless things have changed recently (VH - this is correct - no?). To be honest I don't have a problem with it if done very, very carefully at low differential speeds with due care and observation and an escape route. You do get some utter numpties with "right-lane-itis". We get it all the time on our local ring road. Drivers get into the right hand lane to turn right at the next roundabout just after the previous one...and then tootle along denying a queue of cars the chance to pass. Them? I pass on the left. Carefully.
The last one - which I believe the OP encountered - is dangerous driving.
Weathereye said:
I'm an IAM Observer and my philosophy when approaching a speed limit lower than than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on is to decelerate with a view to achieving the new lower limit just before I enter the lower limit area.
However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
I'm an observer also, and 100% agree.However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
TonyHetherington said:
Weathereye said:
I'm an IAM Observer and my philosophy when approaching a speed limit lower than than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on is to decelerate with a view to achieving the new lower limit just before I enter the lower limit area.
However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
I'm an observer also, and 100% agree.However, when approaching a speed limit higher than that which currently applies to the section of road I'm on then I only accelerate up to the new higher limit after I enter the higher limit area.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff