Was I in the wrong?

[lucazkoh]

Hi all, will try to keep it short. Was driving to work today in the middle lane, with about maybe 7-8 car lengths (couldn’t really tell, it was dark) between me and the van in front. Van wants to go around the car in front, so pulls to the right most lane, and I kept cruising at my speed of 70. As he does so, right lane also slows down to a speed slower than 70, so I begin catching up. As I’m about a car length behind him, the car in front of me (middle lane) pulls into the left so I continue my speed and overtake said car and the van on the right due to him being slower than me. Next thing I know, van honks, pulls in behind me and gives me the high beams for a couple of seconds. His indicators were on when he was switching back to the middle but I’m sure they weren’t on as I was passing him.

Was I wrong to overtake the van this way? Bearing in mind I never sped up to prevent him from doing so, I was just cruising. If I was, does that also mean I should never go faster than a car on my right even if they have to slow down?

[Tony1963]

Nope, you were doing fine.

I'm sure a quick Google of this, then picking a decent looking result would say the same.

[Dr Jekyll]

Don't think you did anything wrong there (unless you really were just 8 car lengths behind at 70 of course). Maybe the van driver assumed you would hang back to let him move left.

[lucazkoh]

Dr Jekyll said:

Don't think you did anything wrong there (unless you really were just 8 car lengths behind at 70 of course). Maybe the van driver assumed you would hang back to let him move left.

Thanks for the replies. I was 8 car lengths behind but slowly caught up at my cruising speed cause the van had to slow down in the right lane. Normally I would have let him but I was nearly directly behind him when the car in front of me pulled left. If he switched left at the same moment I’m sure his van would’ve hit my front.

[Blue Oval84]

I think what you did sounds par for the course. If I'm in lane 2 and move to lane 3 which immediately slows down, I don't expect the cars in lane 2 to slow down just to avoid undertaking me. I'd just aim to nip back into lane 2 asap and join in the undertaking myself

[jondude]

Sounds to me like he knows he made a bad decision re making progress and took it out on you for not helping him get some 'respect' back.

Having said that I think I may well have slowed down when, as you say, you could clearly see he had run into a roadblock as such as I think I would indeed expect him to do what he did.

Also wonder why you all were barelling along in the middle lane for so long? And then he moves right, the other guy moves left and you part them both? At 70mph?

(Not attacking you, just wondering why it was like that - could none of you get over to the left?)

[lucazkoh]

jondude said:

Sounds to me like he knows he made a bad decision re making progress and took it out on you for not helping him get some 'respect' back.

Having said that I think I may well have slowed down when, as you say, you could clearly see he had run into a roadblock as such as I think I would indeed expect him to do what he did.

Also wonder why you all were barelling along in the middle lane for so long? And then he moves right, the other guy moves left and you part them both? At 70mph?

(Not attacking you, just wondering why it was like that - could none of you get over to the left?)

Lots of big lorries on the left at the time.

[Mike daily]

Don't worry about it, just the usual neanderthal.

[Duncan Lang]

You were in the right. He, like most van drivers, was just a dick!

[akirk]

so:
- | car followed by van followed by you | empty

- van moves into lane 3 to overtake car in lane 2 - orthodox
- car in lane 2 doesn't need to be there, so moves back into lane 1 - orthodox
- van only moved to lane 3 to overtake car in lane 2 - they are overtaking lanes - so with car moving back to lane 1, the van should move back to lane 2 and continue the overtake
- van can't do this because you have undertaken him in lane 2

sorry - unless that isn't what happened - then you are the one who has ploughed straight through a set of normal overtaking moves and you could have caused an accident - the traffic ahead slowing is an additional dynamic - but the basics of the van overtaking the car and doing so correctly are there happening ahead of you and you have driven straight through it - what you should have done is eased off / waited to see what would happen and then overtaken the van in lane 3 - not been impatient and gone past in lane 2

it would be quite normal for the van to not expect to be undertaken and to have simply moved back into lane 2 - which would be correct procedure as there was no longer a reason to be in lane 3 - you could have caused a very nasty accident...

lucazkoh said:

couldn’t really tell, it was dark

even more reason to have been cautious - the van may have found it hard to judge where you were - but in line with the highway code they would certainly not be expecting you to undertake them through the middle of their manoeuvre

lucazkoh said:

I was just cruising

so you didn't adapt your speed to meet the situation - very poor

lucazkoh said:

... does that also mean I should never go faster than a car on my right even if they have to slow down?

correct - despite what lots of tough keyboard warriors say on pistonheads, undertaking is not part of our system of driving in this country - there is an exclusion where parallel lines of traffic are moving at different speeds, e.g. in a traffic jam to avoid drivers being at fault on a technicality, but we do not have a system where you can undertake at speed just because you don't wish to change your speed / to get past someone slower

lucazkoh said:

Was I wrong to overtake the van this way?

yes - you should have moved into lane 3 and gone past the van on that side - as the van was moving back to lane 2 as well then all would have been fine. If traffic ahead in lane 3 was slower then you wait to overtake, slowing down in the meantime - if there was space the traffic ahead should have moved back for you to pass - if it doesn't, you wait.

our laws are not complicated, but drivers who see a gap and take it for themselves as you described can cause accidents - not good driving.

Edited by akirk on Thursday 26th October 08:38

[limpsfield]

It doesn’t need a long reply if it happened how you said, then you are in the right.

Angry van driver as he lost his place in the “queue”.

[lucazkoh]

akirk said:

yes - you should have moved into lane 3 and gone past the van on that side - as the van was moving back to lane 2 as well then all would have been fine. If traffic ahead in lane 3 was slower then you wait to overtake, slowing down in the meantime - if there was space the traffic ahead should have moved back for you to pass - if it doesn't, you wait.

our laws are not complicated, but drivers who see a gap and take it for themselves as you described can cause accidents - not good driving.

Edited by akirk on Thursday 26th October 08:38

When the car in front of me pull left, the van was diagonal to me, so much so that if he had pull left at that exact moment he would have hit me I’m sure. Or another way of saying it is if the car in front had been matching my speed, we both would have passed him anyway.

[ozzuk]

akirk said:

Tosh

Edited by akirk on Thursday 26th October 08:38

What are you talking about? It is perfectly legal to 'undertake' if the traffic in the right hand lane is moving slower. He already said he was doing the speed limit. Moving to a default position of the right hand lane from a clear lane is not a requirement, and would lead to more traffic issues. The van was in the wrong.

[akirk]

lucazkoh said:

When the car in front of me pull left, the van was diagonal to me, so much so that if he had pull left at that exact moment he would have hit me I’m sure. Or another way of saying it is if the car in front had been matching my speed, we both would have passed him anyway.

The issue is that you should not have been in that position - you were undertaking and that is not legal in this situation - regardless of what people think!
You should have held back to see what the van would do / or moved out behind the van to give it an opportunity to move back into lane 2. You should also have been reading the traffic ahead and anticipating - from your description it is quite clear that you were using the suddenly clear lane 2 to get past other traffic - saying that you were cruising and hadn't changed what you were doing as mitigation against the manoeuvre is actually admitting to not driving with due care and attention - you are supposed to adapt your speed to the situation...

ozzuk said:

What are you talking about? It is perfectly legal to 'undertake' if the traffic in the right hand lane is moving slower. He already said he was doing the speed limit. Moving to a default position of the right hand lane from a clear lane is not a requirement, and would lead to more traffic issues. The van was in the wrong.

And here lies the common misconception -let us look at the Highway Code:

Rule 268 of the Highway Code said:

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.

Seems pretty clear there - Do not overtake on the left - there is one clause - In congested conditions which these were not - this from the description was normal motorway flow - the OP was not 'keeping up' with the traffic in their lane and therefore had no basis on which to undertake (or 'overtake on the left' as the HC phrases it). You would be a brave person to argue your case in a court of law.

The HC clause is simply there for those times when the motorway is moving at c. 10 / 20 mph e.g. in a tailback and where the lines move forwards at differing paces, sometimes meaning that one line moves slightly faster than the line on its right - without the clause then technically those drivers would be acting illegally - it has no interpretation which suggests that the same applies in normal motorway traffic - anyone who doesn't understand the Highway Code should seriously consider whether they should be driving! If more drivers actually read the HC and obeyed it, we would have many less issues on our roads

[lucazkoh]

akirk said:

And here lies the common misconception -let us look at the Highway Code:

Rule 268 of the Highway Code said:

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./quote]
Seems pretty clear there - Do not overtake on the left - there is one clause - In congested conditions which these were not - this from the description was normal motorway flow - the OP was not 'keeping up' with the traffic in their lane and therefore had no basis on which to undertake (or 'overtake on the left' as the HC phrases it). You would be a brave person to argue your case in a court of law.

The HC clause is simply there for those times when the motorway is moving at c. 10 / 20 mph e.g. in a tailback and where the lines move forwards at differing paces, sometimes meaning that one line moves slightly faster than the line on its right - without the clause then technically those drivers would be acting illegally - it has no interpretation which suggests that the same applies in normal motorway traffic - anyone who doesn't understand the Highway Code should seriously consider whether they should be driving! If more drivers actually read the HC and obeyed it, we would have many less issues on our roads

Again, if the car in front of me was matching my speed and had not pulled left, I would have passed him within the next 2-3 seconds or so, I was that close diagonally behind the van. Wouldn’t me braking hard to avoid undertaking the van as you say, cause even more disruptions for the cars behind me as they would have to slow down as well? Traffic waves I think it’s called.

https://youtu.be/L45HwjzMu0g

Either way, I appreciate everyone’s comments. Thanks.

[akirk]

lucazkoh said:

Again, if the car in front of me was matching my speed and had not pulled left, I would have passed him within the next 2-3 seconds or so, I was that close diagonally behind the van. Wouldn’t me braking hard to avoid undertaking the van as you say, cause even more disruptions for the cars behind me as they would have to slow down as well? Traffic waves I think it’s called.

https://youtu.be/L45HwjzMu0g

Either way, I appreciate everyone’s comments. Thanks.

you are correct - braking hard is not the solution - but the solution here would have been to adjust your speed / position much earlier on - to say that you had got into the wrong position doesn't then justify a wrong decision... i.e. as you were 7-8 car lengths behind originally and watched the van move out - you had plenty of time to change your speed - you could simply have lifted off / braked lightly - there was no need to brake heavily.

as the van moved right you should be watching the car in front - you mention that there were lorries to your left (presumably the car was overtaking them), you must have been able to see that there was a space ahead of those lorries, and should have anticipated that the car may move left having finished its overtake - you then anticipate that the van would move back left... so it would have been a very simple judgment that moving up to undertake the van would not work well...

it is worth learning from - and planning further ahead... learning to read the road ahead is a very useful skill and then you don't get into situations like this where there is any debate / any risk of accident / etc. You posted asking whether you were wrong which suggests that you had some doubts - yes, you were wrong, and caused this situation - but don't beat yourself up - just learn from it and move on - driving is a continual learning experience...

Edited by akirk on Thursday 26th October 10:08

[Pica-Pica]

You were not necessarily wrong, but you were wrong in not anticipating the movement of the van.

When you are in one of several lanes queueing you (should) know by experience that people will swap lanes. This was a sudden queue that should have rung alarm bells. If you are passing other vehicles, minimise the time in their blind spot (the left side mirror is a great big blind spot because of its infrequent use).

[chunder27]

Try spending any amount of time non rush hour (then it is logjammed anyway) on the M1 or M25 in the South East.

The vast majority of berks on there never use the inside lane, they sit in the second. From Ricky to the M40 exit is all 4 lanes and I am sure everyone on there thinks the inside lane is a 5 mile slip road for the M40. Lots of sections like this both ways, miles long where folk just sit in lane 2.

You are in the minority hugely if you do use lane 1, it's usually empty anyway, and the only way you can progress is to undertake.

And as long as you don't do it stupidly faster or are swinging from lane to lane doing it I can't see the issue.

Why should I have to do more manoeuvres to deal with most peoples inability to understand basic lane usage?

Van guy was just miffed coz he made a wrong move, then in typical 3 IQ fashion retaliated like a football hooligan, you have to remember that a lot of these people are truly dumb, uneducated and overly aggressive.

[akirk]

chunder27 said:

Try spending any amount of time non rush hour (then it is logjammed anyway) on the M1 or M25 in the South East.

The vast majority of berks on there never use the inside lane, they sit in the second. From Ricky to the M40 exit is all 4 lanes and I am sure everyone on there thinks the inside lane is a 5 mile slip road for the M40. Lots of sections like this both ways, miles long where folk just sit in lane 2.

You are in the minority hugely if you do use lane 1, it's usually empty anyway, and the only way you can progress is to undertake.

And as long as you don't do it stupidly faster or are swinging from lane to lane doing it I can't see the issue.

Why should I have to do more manoeuvres to deal with most peoples inability to understand basic lane usage?

Van guy was just miffed coz he made a wrong move, then in typical 3 IQ fashion retaliated like a football hooligan, you have to remember that a lot of these people are truly dumb, uneducated and overly aggressive.

and you don't see the irony in your comment?!