Undertaking....

[zetec]

...yes I know this has most probably been done to death.

I use the 4 lane sections of the M1 and M25 quite a bit, most of it well out of peak times, late evenings and weekends.

What is the general consensus on undertaking? Quite often I will sit in Lane 1 and just pass on the inside, having observed the vehicle for a while as I approach it’s not going to move over, for me it’s safer than crossing 3/4 lanes of motorway and back again.

I recently had a passenger for my journey and he commented that my driving was the smoothest he had experienced. No harsh acceleration or braking, I read the road ahead.

But, I broke the law. What would happen if an officer of the law would witness my driving?

[66mpg]

If the former police officer who addressed my IAM group last year is correct it hasn’t been an offence since the Road Traffic Act was revised in 1972. The MLMs are however guilty of driving without consideration for other road users and could be reported for same if only there was a police officer on the road to witness it.

[trickywoo]

I think as long as you aren't weaving to make progress - i.e. under then over taking its fine to coast past on the inside.

If everyone did this with skill I think the motorways would flow a lot better than they do.

[Jag_luvver]

The highway code appears to discourage it, but there doesn't seem to be any legislation directly associated with it:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/motor...

[Dizeee]

Its not illegal, and I too have started doing this with great enjoyment. It also highlights the moronity and down right ignorance of the imbecile you are passing.

[vonhosen]

Jag_luvver said:

The highway code appears to discourage it, but there doesn't seem to be any legislation directly associated with it:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/motor...

There is no specific legislated offence, just like there isn't for lane hogging etc.
Sec 2/3 RTA 1988 is the 'catch all' legislation that would be used where necessary.

[WaferThinHam]

trickywoo said:

If everyone did this with skill I think the motorways would flow a lot better than they do.

If people kept left properly, then we wouldn't need to undertake.

Personally yes, most days on the motorway/dual carriage ways. I tend not to do it in front of the police as it's begging for a pull IMO.

[RobM77]

I tend to do what I feel is safest and take each case individually, and quite often I think undertaking is the safest way to make progress. I used to slow behind the lane hogger and either give a quick flash of my lights or sit with my indicator on, but I had such a low success rate and the odd bit of road rage that I decided it was safer just to pass on the inside. The other potential problem is that by slowing you can back up any traffic behind you, some of whom may undertake, and then if the lane hogger moves over as people are undertaking it all gets messy (there have been a few accidents caused by this described on these forums). I think it's much cleaner and safer just to pass on the inside and continue; I do it on a daily basis. Would I do it in front of a policeman? No, but they're so rare these days that's not normally an issue.

[JamesBryan88]

I technically don't see it as undertaking if you remain in that same lane for a period of time. If it were illegal, non of us would make progress until the idiot lane hogger moves out of the way.

I see undertaking as this: You're behind a car in lane 4, whilst lane 3 is clear the car in front does not move over. You then proceed to enter lane 3 and undertake car in lane 4, and then you move back into lane 4. That would be undertaking in my view.

[RobM77]

JamesBryan88 said:

I technically don't see it as undertaking if you remain in that same lane for a period of time. If it were illegal, non of us would make progress until the idiot lane hogger moves out of the way.

I see undertaking as this: You're behind a car in lane 4, whilst lane 3 is clear the car in front does not move over. You then proceed to enter lane 3 and undertake car in lane 4, and then you move back into lane 4. That would be undertaking in my view.

Logically, if someone's genuinely lane hogging then they're not overtaking anyone and there's nobody in front of them. Ergo there's no need to move back into the hogger's lane after the manoeuvre - you just continue on your way in the lane you passed them.

[vonhosen]

JamesBryan88 said:

I technically don't see it as undertaking if you remain in that same lane for a period of time. If it were illegal, non of us would make progress until the idiot lane hogger moves out of the way.

I see undertaking as this: You're behind a car in lane 4, whilst lane 3 is clear the car in front does not move over. You then proceed to enter lane 3 and undertake car in lane 4, and then you move back into lane 4. That would be undertaking in my view.

You may see it like that but the authorities don't agree with your interpretation. They consider it passing on the left irrespective of whether there was a lane change or not.
There are circumstances they will deem that as acceptable & circumstances where they don't.

Highway CodeRule 268 said:

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake

[InitialDave]

I pass people on the left all the time, simply as a function of them being sat in an outer lane while a left one is flowing faster or empty. If they were driving properly, it would rarely come up.

I see no justification for it to concern the police in the slightest. If they really feel like expending effort in such a scenario, they'd be best off getting the aforementioned numpty to keep left like they're meant to.

[JamesBryan88]

RobM77 said:

Logically, if someone's genuinely lane hogging then they're not overtaking anyone and there's nobody in front of them. Ergo there's no need to move back into the hogger's lane after the manoeuvre - you just continue on your way in the lane you passed them.

I'd agree about staying in the lane, but some do move back over.

[vonhosen]

InitialDave said:

I pass people on the left all the time, simply as a function of them being sat in an outer lane while a left one is flowing faster or empty. If they were driving properly, it would rarely come up.

I see no justification for it to concern the police in the slightest. If they really feel like expending effort in such a scenario, they'd be best off getting the aforementioned numpty to keep left like they're meant to.

Invariably when the Police are interested in any of this it's because the person undertaking is both undertaking & exceeding the limit when doing so.

[silverfoxcc]

JamesBryan88 said:

I technically don't see it as undertaking if you remain in that same lane for a period of time. If it were illegal, non of us would make progress until the idiot lane hogger moves out of the way.

I see undertaking as this: You're behind a car in lane 4, whilst lane 3 is clear the car in front does not move over. You then proceed to enter lane 3 and undertake car in lane 4, and then you move back into lane 4. That would be undertaking in my view.

Even better

move over to the nearest clear lane on your left

[66mpg]

Sometimes it’s only after you have passed on the left and gone up the road a bit that it becomes clear just how much of a rolling road block a slow moving MLM is. The view in your mirrors will show the MLM blithely cruising along with an angry, frustrated pack bunching up behind. A little clot in the circulatory system of the country.

[lbc]

vonhosen said:

JamesBryan88 said:

I technically don't see it as undertaking if you remain in that same lane for a period of time. If it were illegal, non of us would make progress until the idiot lane hogger moves out of the way.

I see undertaking as this: You're behind a car in lane 4, whilst lane 3 is clear the car in front does not move over. You then proceed to enter lane 3 and undertake car in lane 4, and then you move back into lane 4. That would be undertaking in my view.

You may see it like that but the authorities don't agree with your interpretation. They consider it passing on the left irrespective of whether there was a lane change or not.
There are circumstances they will deem that as acceptable & circumstances where they don't.

Highway CodeRule 268 said:

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

InitialDave said:

I pass people on the left all the time, simply as a function of them being sat in an outer lane while a left one is flowing faster or empty. If they were driving properly, it would rarely come up.

I see no justification for it to concern the police in the slightest. If they really feel like expending effort in such a scenario, they'd be best off getting the aforementioned numpty to keep left like they're meant to.

Invariably when the Police are interested in any of this it's because the person undertaking is both undertaking & exceeding the limit when doing so.

The interesting words there (to me at least) are "invariably" and "both undertaking and exceeding the limit when doing so."

You will know the law better than any of us, but basically I agree with what James said at 1425 yesterday. Adding what you said to what he said, I think we ought to be able to undertake without much fear of getting nicked for it.

Generally speaking, if anybody is going to get nicked, it should be the one that tempts us to do the undertaking, not the one who does the undertaking carefully and safely.

[Chris944]

Nick the MLH! The outside lane hogger too. Yes please.

[MorganP104]

Is there anything more satisfying than undertaking a MLM, at the same time as someone else is overtaking them, at a speed matching yours?

Gives me such a warm feeling.