Outside lane with inside lane empty, when is it acceptable?

[Darth Paul]

My question really relates to this scenario. You come off a roundabout in outside lane to pass a slower moving vehicle, however you will soon want to turn right so will require the outside lane to do so. After passing said slower moving vehicle inside lane is now empty. So how close does the right turn have to be to stay in the outside lane?

[7db]

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

[robwales]

7db said:

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

Brings to mind:
Can you legally pass a car on the left that is slowing down to turn right off a dual carriageway?

[jaf01uk]

robwales said:

7db said:

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

Brings to mind:
Can you legally pass a car on the left that is slowing down to turn right off a dual carriageway?

Yes you can legally pass if it is indicating right, and if you live in Aberdeen they get into the right lane about a mile and a half in advance (Auchmill Rd) for the turn and will not move! Sorry local rant!
Gary

[7db]

robwales said:

7db said:

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

Brings to mind:
Can you legally pass a car on the left that is slowing down to turn right off a dual carriageway?

Given that you can legally pass a car that isn't slowing down in the RH lane, I think that special case should be easy to answer.

[jaf01uk]

7db said:

robwales said:

7db said:

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

Brings to mind:
Can you legally pass a car on the left that is slowing down to turn right off a dual carriageway?

Given that you can legally pass a car that isn't slowing down in the RH lane, I think that special case should be easy to answer.

Bear in mind that the thing that makes it legal is the "indicating to turn right" part,
Gary

[Hooli]

stay out as long as you like if there is no one gaining behind is my view. yes its not ideal lane disapline but if its not causing any problem its not worth worrying about.

[CommanderJameson]

I have been known to stay out even when there's a car in the inside lane doing the same speed as me, but a few metres up the road.

Why?

Spray.

[7db]

jaf01uk said:

7db said:

robwales said:

7db said:

Close enough so that you could indicate right if someone came up behind you that you would inconvenience by staying in the RH lane and let them pass on the left.

If there's noone coming up behind you then as far as you like.

Brings to mind:
Can you legally pass a car on the left that is slowing down to turn right off a dual carriageway?

Given that you can legally pass a car that isn't slowing down in the RH lane, I think that special case should be easy to answer.

Bear in mind that the thing that makes it legal is the "indicating to turn right" part,
Gary

No it doesn't.

You can pass a car which is turning right but not indicating right.
But then you can also pass a car which is going straight on but indicating right.
And you can pass a car which is going straight on but dawdling in lane two and not indicating, when conditions are congested.

And I don't know of a law which specifically says that you can't pass another vehicle on the left, indicating turning, congested or otherwise. These are all bound up in S3, which is a matter of opinion.

[jaf01uk]

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to when you speak about "all bound up in S3" but Highway Code states the vehicle on the right needs to be signalling or if traffic is in queues

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314 

Gary

[vonhosen]

jaf01uk said:

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to when you speak about "all bound up in S3" but Highway Code states the vehicle on the right needs to be signalling or if traffic is in queues

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314 

Gary

I think what he is getting at is that the highway code isn't law itself. It refers to bits of law with it's MUST NOTs, but it's SHOULD NOTs (or anything that isn't a must not) are advice.
Where you differ from it greatly though may be evidence towards a Sec 3 RTA (without due care/inconsiderate driving).

[jaf01uk]

Cool, I was aware of the Must Nots and Should Nots but I didn't know what the S3 was
Gary

[James Heath]

I personally think the legality of "undertaking" in this country is in need of revision. If there's someone sat in lane 2 and I want to go faster, I'll obviously pass on the inside. I don't see the problem with this, look at USA it's not an issue over there

[vonhosen]

James Heath said:

I personally think the legality of "undertaking" in this country is in need of revision. If there's someone sat in lane 2 and I want to go faster, I'll obviously pass on the inside. I don't see the problem with this, look at USA it's not an issue over there

Once you allow passing on either side then lane discipline as an ideal is completely gone. Cars that wish to travel faster will then be weaving in & out from lane to lane & that does create greater risk. It is not even law that you require a n/s mirror on a lot of vehicles in the UK.

[jaf01uk]

Right, I was fairly sure that I didn't have a problem with this before but now I do? Von your saying quite rightly that "must nots" are points of law and that is what I've always agreed with, taking that passing on the left is a "should not" surely then that is legal or it too would be a "must not" with the usual exemptions? ie. If i'm doing 65 in lane 1 and someone else is doing 60 in lane 2 it is acceptable to just carry on my merry way? Is it therefore the change of lane to the left to do it that in the eyes of the law this becomes "undertaking"?
Gary

[vonhosen]

jaf01uk said:

Right, I was fairly sure that I didn't have a problem with this before but now I do? Von your saying quite rightly that "must nots" are points of law and that is what I've always agreed with, taking that passing on the left is a "should not" surely then that is legal or it too would be a "must not" with the usual exemptions? ie. If i'm doing 65 in lane 1 and someone else is doing 60 in lane 2 it is acceptable to just carry on my merry way? Is it therefore the change of lane to the left to do it that in the eyes of the law this becomes "undertaking"?
Gary

It is not an offence in statute itself, but it may be evidence towards a without due care.
A without due care being the standard of driving displayed fell below that expected of a reasonable, prudent & competent driver.

[RSTurboPaul]

I'm confused!

I thought undertaking was a 3 point offence?

[Don]

RSTurboPaul said:

I'm confused!

I thought undertaking was a 3 point offence?

Nope.

Vonhosen above describes it 100% exactly.

IMO there is nothing wrong with passing on the left when

• the right hand lane has someone turning right
• the right hand lane is queuing more slowly than the left
• a total numpty is just sitting there for mile after mile and doesn't give a st even though the left lane is empty and there is nothing in front

That last one might find one contrary to the Highway Code, though...

Undertaking by weaving about amongst the lanes and pulling in front of cars queuing in the right hand lane who hapepn to have left a decent braking gap (like the two knobbers yesterday) isn't on.

[Rusty Moskvitch]

We have a phenomenon on the Avon Ring Road (around Bristol) where numpties drive for mile on end in the right hand lane and will not move over when caught up by a faster moving vehicle. A 'blink' of the headlights makes no difference to them and long flashes or horn blowing clearly annoys them. So you then 'undertake' them respectfully and some of them don't even like that. I think they all should be sent off to Siberia for re-education!
In answer to the original question, I feel you should move to the left lane as soon as it is safe to do so and about 100 or 150 yards before your right turn you should signal right and move to the right hand lane - when the lane is clear. Obviously you should be planning your right turn long before that and watching your mirror for faster traffic coming up on the right. If there is faster traffic on the right you need to plan your signal and move right to safely slot in behind or between the faster vehicles. At all times you should be aware of the traffic situation around you, regardless of whether you are planning a turn or not. It is usually the inattentive drivers who are unaware of developing situations that get caught out and involved in accidents.

I meant to add: a signal before a manouver is essential - a good rule is four 'blinks' of the indicator and watch your mirrors to ensure the other drivers have seen it. Indicating at the same time as you turn is absolutely pointless.

Edited by Rusty Moskvitch on Thursday 27th March 15:46

[Distant]

As a general rule I would not be in the outside lane for taking a right turn at a roundabout (or any junction) until I'd passed the first directional sign for the appraching junction. That way anyone approaching from the rear that may be unfamiliar with the road, should be able to tell I was going for the turn at the junction, not just hogging the lane.

Of course if there's no one behind, do it as late or as early as you want.