Probably been done before - police and getting in trouble Q

[TheBALDpuma]

This afternoon I came off a roundabout onto a 70mph dual carriageway and on my way to 70mph pass a few cars that are in L1. I am approaching a car that is ahead of me in L2, so I come off the throttle and drop down to their speed, about 50mph and probably get a little close due to my reluctance to brake, and just using the engine to slow my speed. After 10-15 seconds and the car hasn't sped up, or moved over, I drop into L1 and pick my speed up towards 70 to pass. Naughty, I know. As I do so the car attempts to match my speed, and starts sounding their horn. There is a car ahead of me in L1 (dong 70ish) so I don't give it beans to pass and let the L2 hog catch back up and pass, and I look aross to see who it was - and it's two women police officers shouting at me from their unmarked white corsa. I behaved after this! They didn't pull me over, but could I get a letter in the post from this? I did attempt to undertake them, but did it fairly politely and wasn't aggresively switching lanes.

[carreauchompeur]

No, you'll hear nothing from this. Sounds like local response/neighbourhood team using an unmarked car for running around in. badly.

[Aerate]

Came up quite quickly on a Merc A-class the other day on the M4. Just as I dropped-back, as he wasn't moving over, I got a brief flash from the concealed blue lights. Three CID in it I presume. The flash was a nice 'gentleman's warning'. Definitely no letter in the post

[Tony1963]

At which point was the op being "naughty"?

[sherbertdip]

Tony1963 said:

At which point was the op being "naughty"?

Who are you asking?

OP said he was being a bight naughty for undertaking, could argue tailgaiting as well by his admission, but us (PH readers) have no idea.

If the situation was as described the cops in the Corsa were being naughty as a minimum.

[voyds9]

Was he undertaking or passing a car on the left that was in the wrong lane.

[Brads67]

Doing 70 in L1 and passing a slower car in L2 isn`t undertaking in my view.

Dunno about the law cause I never pay much heed to it !

[Gafferjim]

Moving from L2 to L1 then back into L2 is undertaking, driving in L1 with a slower vehicle in L2 and passing it, but NOT then going into L2, is not undertaking, just that L1 is travelling faster than L2.

[vonhosen]

Gafferjim said:

Moving from L2 to L1 then back into L2 is undertaking, driving in L1 with a slower vehicle in L2 and passing it, but NOT then going into L2, is not undertaking, just that L1 is travelling faster than L2.

Undertaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the left to pass, just as overtaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the right to pass.
See rule 268

The Highway Code said:

Rule 268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

[Einion Yrth]

vonhosen said:

Gafferjim said:

Moving from L2 to L1 then back into L2 is undertaking, driving in L1 with a slower vehicle in L2 and passing it, but NOT then going into L2, is not undertaking, just that L1 is travelling faster than L2.

Undertaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the left to pass, just as overtaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the right to pass.
See rule 268

The Highway Code said:

Rule 268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Note the lack of MUST NOT in the highway code. It's not a specific offence and, although it might, by someone competent, be used to support a DWDCA charge; if the anecdote as reported is true I would doubt the ability of the clueless girlies masquerading as police officers, to make such a charge stick.

[vonhosen]

Einion Yrth said:

vonhosen said:

Gafferjim said:

Moving from L2 to L1 then back into L2 is undertaking, driving in L1 with a slower vehicle in L2 and passing it, but NOT then going into L2, is not undertaking, just that L1 is travelling faster than L2.

Undertaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the left to pass, just as overtaking is not dependent on changing lanes to the right to pass.
See rule 268

The Highway Code said:

Rule 268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Note the lack of MUST NOT in the highway code. It's not a specific offence and, although it might, by someone competent, be used to support a DWDCA charge; if the anecdote as reported is true I would doubt the ability of the clueless girlies masquerading as police officers, to make such a charge stick.

You'll have to show me where your post is relevant to what I said, I never suggested it was a specific offence in legislation.
All I did was clarify for the poster quoted that undertaking has nothing to do with moving to the left or not.

[SiH]

Are you sure they weren't just strippers who were animatedly enquiring as to the whereabouts of the pub that they were heading for?