Ahead from right turn lane

[supermono]

A route I use sometimes has a right turn and straight on lane at some lights. The phasing of the lights is such that both go green at the same time and the island is far enough away to complete a safe overtake from the right lane given the horsepower/reaction time advantage performing an emergency start.

Now after this junction (and before) is s/c A road usually infested with slowsters or trucks doing 40mph so this affords a safe opportunity to get past a few rather than / in addition to using the odd overtaking straights.

If one should make use of this as I did recently since I was in a hurry, aside from being a bit rude is it an offence?

[supermono]

Thanks, most useful. Not something I'd normally do but after following a slowster for miles and miles will consider it again. Naturally I was super aware of pedestrians or people jumping the other lights and of course if there was someone else as keen as me I may have to abort and turn right looking like a tit. I suppose being a biker makes it seem more doable.

However, now I know it's something I can legally use in my arsenel to drive in a manner likely to get me home earlier.

[supermono]

505diff said:

'given the horsepower/reaction time advantage performing an emergency start' can someone fill me in on this? A green signal means proceed with caution, if the right turn signal has an green arrow that's the direction your expected go in, if it does not have arrow you may be able to go straight on, what does it say in your Audi's handbook?

Haha I can't comment on your question but can educate you about the contraction of you are: It's you're not your; "you're expected" is correct, "your expected" is wrong.

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

It could be considered careless/inconsiderate without an accident.
It would be a serious fault & therefore failure on a driving test too.

Excellent, not illegal then. Thanks!

[supermono]

Derek Smith said:

If there is a vehicle in the nearside lane, I'd suggest careless every time. So in other words, not an offence to fail to comply with the arrow but given that the person on the nearside expected you to turn right, then careless. If hey had to moderate their direction or speed in any way, then great corroboration, but not necessary.

Further, on the OPs' own statement, he attempts to beat another car to a pinch lane by using rapid acceleration from traffic lights. I'd be happy to nod that through as careless. If there is an impact or an accident, then possibly dangerous depending on circs.

Would you be able to convince a magistrate a well thought out and executed operation that caused no problem to anyone was "careless" without lying? Do you have other examples of creating an offence where the law inconveniently doesn't provide one?

With respect it's a bit poor really, unless I've misunderstood your first sentence.

[supermono]

as regards the considerations, I did this having been behind a queue of cars that I'd been so far unable to overtake. The queue was being held up by someone failing to maintain a reasonable speed so it seemed likely they'd amble away a few seconds after the lights changed. In fact when they did I took off and was comfortable in front and in the correct lane in plenty of time and as far as I could tell this slowster hadn't even noticed.

I did it once before after being stuck for miled behind an HGV who was attempting the world record queue, he was honking and flashing for the few moments he was still visible on account of me reducing his haul by one car.

So yes, it goes without saying the move is considered and not in any way reckless or careless (apart from von's new speak/police speak bdisation of the plain English word to squeeze a mean spirited vexatious prosecution, reducing the respect the public has for police by another click)

Edited by supermono on Friday 16th January 19:01

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

Not my speak, it's the CPS charging standard (which I didn't write) & exactly what some of those you share the road with (probablyincluding the HGV driver) want to see people stopped/reported for.

Indeed, vexatious is exactly the right word. Prosecution for absolutely no good reason. Also I don't believe any of this stuff is coming from the general public, I speak with the general public all the time and we're all sick of the back door creation of the police state. Redefining careless to apply to careful but imaginitave driving for example. Show me one survey where joe public asked for this. As regards the meathead trucker, what possible grounds other than stupidity would he have a problem with being safely overtaken like this? And if the CPS are going along with it then more fool them.

Particularly with so many actual problems going unaddressed.

[supermono]

allergictocheese said:

For s3 Inconsiderate it must be proven that another was inconvenienced by the driving. It doesn't automatically follow that the behaviour here would meet that test.

I think if you were considered under s3 Careless you'd possibly have a harder time defending the behaviour (issues with HC adherence, would be a DSA fail, no guarantee that driver alongside would appreciate what you're doing and know to avoid conflict etc.).

A common sense test is; would you do it in full view of marked up Police car?

I'll be honest, that test has become rather hard to pass when you consider the overreaction of comical proportions those TV cops are guilty of. Pretty much every aspect of normal driving -- safe but fun -- is deliberately misinterpreted and cited as death defying these days. Very sad state of affairs when one considers that 25 years ago it was a comfort when you saw an officer of the law

This whole redefinition of careless to apply to careful is a perfect example.

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

It isn't a redefinition of careless, it's the Road Traffic Act 1988 (27 years ago).

I guess the change is the mindset of the policeman seeking to apply it to careful driving