Is this classed as Undertaking?

[Sam993]

R0G said:

I rarely indicate to go from lane 2 to lane 1 - what purpose would it serve as I should not be impeding anyones progress and those waiting behind want to see me move not indicate

Any driver crossing a white line needs to make sure it is safe to do so whether they are moving to a left or right lane

What about lane 3 to 2.

[Collaudatore]

Sam993 said:

Collaudatore said:

Sam993 said:

hooblah said:

I was taught years ago by my driving instructor that it wasn't necessary to indicate when moving to the left lane. The idea is that you've overtaken somebody (generally) and they wouldn't be going faster than you. In a perfect world that works, but in the real world it's probably worth doing when there is someone close to you. But if there's noone around then I don't bother.

I saw an AA learner with their DRL's on at around 8pm yesterday, on a dual carriageway with other cars around them having their lights on. I also see many learners practice in my area, the st that they do and that they should learn not to is shocking. An average instructor is just that an average driver who holds an instructor's licence. I don't see why I'd listen to someone like that over following the highway code.

I was taught by an advanced driving tutor not so long ago that it was sometimes beneficial not to indicate when returning to the left hand lane. Ex fire engine driver. Not some random ball bag.

This is the difference between what we all seem to be arguing over, though.

There ARE circumstances as described above when it is beneficial NOT to indicate to return left.
There are instances where it makes not a jot of difference
There are circumstances it is absolutely necessary
As grown ups and driving Gods that we all at PH are should be able to determine the difference quite easily

There are also instances when it might be beneficial to jump red lights... if you're a fire engine driver. But there's literally no reason not to indicate when returning to the left hand lane (or not to indicate when it's generally required) if you're not. Selective indicating doesn't help anyone but it leads to people not indicating at all in the long run, which creates chaos and turns driving into fking nightmare where you can never be sure what peoples intentions are, as is the case nowadays.

I, respectfully, disagree. There ARE scenarios where indication can be detrimental. If I get back on my laptop and off the phone I will illustrate as best I can, but these have been noted previously in this thread.
You know on the way home today I passed people. Indicated left and everyone was alive.
Likewise next time I didn't indicate left
Guess what happened...

[Collaudatore]

Sam993 said:

What about lane 3 to 2.

3 to 2 is riskier because 1-2 moves and may not have sight.
More inclined to indicate here (personally)

[Collaudatore]

Bored using phone.
I'll catch up tomorrow
Happy arguing PH

[M4cruiser]

Amazing how we can have a 6-page thread about the wrong thing.

The Highway Code calls it "overtaking on the left". It's not "undertaking".

Seems simple to me. The "over" bit means moving from "behind" to "in front". It's nothing to do with left or right.

"Under"taking, if it existed, would be moving from "ahead" to "behind" (either via the left or the right). It does happen in Top Gear film sequences where the camera car and the subject car are swapping places a lot.

Seems we need a thread on all the mis-nomers in the car industry, like "MoT" (which actually stands for Ministry of Transport, not a test certificate), and , "shock absorbers" (which should be dampers). I'm sure there are more.

But "undertaking"? Really?

[roadsmash]

If there was anything more stupid about arguing what undertaking is defined as, it’s arguing about whether it’s illegal to not indicate.

We can all be a right bunch of cretins at times.

[mygoldfishbowl]

M4cruiser said:

Amazing how we can have a 6-page thread about the wrong thing.

The Highway Code calls it "overtaking on the left". It's not "undertaking".

Seems simple to me. The "over" bit means moving from "behind" to "in front". It's nothing to do with left or right.

"Under"taking, if it existed, would be moving from "ahead" to "behind" (either via the left or the right). It does happen in Top Gear film sequences where the camera car and the subject car are swapping places a lot.

Seems we need a thread on all the mis-nomers in the car industry, like "MoT" (which actually stands for Ministry of Transport, not a test certificate), and , "shock absorbers" (which should be dampers). I'm sure there are more.

But "undertaking"? Really?

Limits and zones are not the same thing. Like banging your head against the wall reading how many people here think a speed limit is a zone.

[Sam993]

Collaudatore said:

Sam993 said:

What about lane 3 to 2.

3 to 2 is riskier because 1-2 moves and may not have sight.
More inclined to indicate here (personally)

Exactly, I'm glad you realise this, many don't. Hence the question is why not always indicate to eliminate the possibility of not doing it through lack of systematic approach to the subject?

[Sam993]

roadsmash said:

If there was anything more stupid about arguing what undertaking is defined as, it’s arguing about whether it’s illegal to not indicate.

We can all be a right bunch of cretins at times.

Seems to me that you like living in a sthole where nobody gives a fk about anything other than themselves. That's why we have persistent MLM's and persistent non indicators.

[anonymous-user]

Just sail past in the inside lane & don’t worry about it.
Good to have the hard shoulder as a bailout, if middle lane hogger wakes up

[roadsmash]

Sam993 said:

roadsmash said:

If there was anything more stupid about arguing what undertaking is defined as, it’s arguing about whether it’s illegal to not indicate.

We can all be a right bunch of cretins at times.

Seems to me that you like living in a sthole where nobody gives a fk about anything other than themselves. That's why we have persistent MLM's and persistent non indicators.

Give my post another read you smack head. Think you mis-understood it.

Clearly I am saying it’s ridiculous to argue about not indicating because it’s obviously wrong to not indicate. There’s nothing to argue about.

I can’t remember the last time I changed lane without indicating. I indicate all the time.

[Sam993]

roadsmash said:

Sam993 said:

roadsmash said:

If there was anything more stupid about arguing what undertaking is defined as, it’s arguing about whether it’s illegal to not indicate.

We can all be a right bunch of cretins at times.

Seems to me that you like living in a sthole where nobody gives a fk about anything other than themselves. That's why we have persistent MLM's and persistent non indicators.

Give my post another read you smack head. Think you mis-understood it.

Clearly I am saying it’s ridiculous to argue about not indicating because it’s obviously wrong to not indicate. There’s nothing to argue about.

I can’t remember the last time I changed lane without indicating. I indicate all the time.

Maximum respect bestowed upon thee.

[delta0]

If l2 isn’t able to maintain the speed limit but l1 can and moving into l2 and then l3 to overtake is difficult due to many cars then I will continue to pass in l1 being very wary that they could move into my lane.

If there’s room in l2 and l3 then I will move to l3 and then back l1 once passed.

Edited by delta0 on Wednesday 15th August 23:43

[R0G]

Sam993 said:

R0G said:

I rarely indicate to go from lane 2 to lane 1 - what purpose would it serve as I should not be impeding anyones progress and those waiting behind want to see me move not indicate

Any driver crossing a white line needs to make sure it is safe to do so whether they are moving to a left or right lane

What about lane 3 to 2.

Deffo signal as another could be about to go from 1 to 2

[Mandalore]

Sam993 said:

Mandalore said:

jimmy156 said:

Sam993 said:

Where does the HC state that it is allowed please? Nowhere. It states that "you should always (...) use them (indicators) to advise other road users before changing course or direction". It's not open for interpretation.

The key phrase here being "should" not "must" i.e its not law, its more of a guideline

The other key phrase is:

"Are people really that stupid and lazy, that they don't realise what the dotted line between the lanes on a motorway actually means, in real terms".

There are also other key phrases, "ignorance is not an excuse", "stop making st up" and so on.

Yes, people shouldn't make up rules based on their own obvious failings. that's very true.

[Pyrolysis]

I really wish the government they would bring back Public Service Announcements which are broadcast on TV. Top of the list should be "How to use a fking Motorway"

[Kuji]

Pyrolysis said:

I really wish the government they would bring back Public Service Announcements which are broadcast on TV. Top of the list should be "How to use a fking Motorway"

^^ That's been suggested before on PH and is an excellent idea.

To many people who think their lazy ways are correct could do with some education and if I am honest - some clear public ridicule.

Mototrways,
Roundabouts.
Mergers
junctions
etc,,

[Kuji]

roadsmash said:

Clearly I am saying it’s ridiculous to argue about not indicating because it’s obviously wrong to not indicate. There’s nothing to argue about.

I can’t remember the last time I changed lane without indicating. I indicate all the time.

Put this man in charge.

I think knob and coffee beans every time I see some idiot drift across multiple lanes without indicating. Irrespective of the fact that they 'might' have looked at the next lane before hand, nobody has any clue that they have.

What really boils my piss, I when you have indicated and started moving safely and some truly epic moron cuts across you from two lanes away.

[saaby93]

Kuji said:

Put this man in charge.

I think knob and coffee beans every time I see some idiot drift across multiple lanes without indicating. Irrespective of the fact that they 'might' have looked at the next lane before hand, nobody has any clue that they have.

What really boils my piss, I when you have indicated and started moving safely and some truly epic moron cuts across you from two lanes away.

Be alert
To paraphrase the HC , avoid a collision if you can

[Kuji]

saaby93 said:

Kuji said:

Put this man in charge.

I think knob and coffee beans every time I see some idiot drift across multiple lanes without indicating. Irrespective of the fact that they 'might' have looked at the next lane before hand, nobody has any clue that they have.

What really boils my piss, I when you have indicated and started moving safely and some truly epic moron cuts across you from two lanes away.

Be alert
To paraphrase the HC , avoid a collision if you can

Arent you the guy who insisted that the person exiting the entrance to a petrol station straight into a traffic light controlled crossroads was not at any fault, because everyone who could see a green light should have expected a complete nutter to enter the roadway.
If I recall, you vehemently discounted any suggestion that entering the junction when not being able to see any traffic lights indicated a clear lack of avoidance.


You can take your own interpretation of due care and avoidance and then file it.