Is this classed as Undertaking?

[irocfan]

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

[32Ford29]

irocfan said:

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

To me THIS Imho is undertaking

[donkmeister]

Surely the correct approach is to indicate right, give an extended flash of HID as you cut to L3, indicate left then swerve back to L1 as soon as your back bumper clears the MLW's front bumper?

ETA sorry, just checked the HC and it's a should rather than a must.

On a related note, since someone on PH mentioned their friend or colleague insisted L1 was only for joining and leaving motorways I see it everywhere now. I can almost hear their adenoidal ramblings as they do it; "Control Tower, this is Road Captain Smith coming in for final approach, I'm moving into L1 AND I SHOULDN'T NEED TO INDICATE, over!"

[captain_cynic]

32Ford29 said:

irocfan said:

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

To me THIS Imho is undertaking

Undertaking is when you exit and re-enter a lane. Not sure if irocfan re-entered his original lane,

But it indicates why undertaking happens. if the LH lane was clear enough to permit an undertake, what the living fk was the Fiat 500 doing in any other lane?

I wouldn't have bothered trying to notify the other driver of their error and just undertook. No point in trying to educate the ignorant.

[Sam993]

irocfan said:

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

The worst thing in this story is that people like her breed and spawn the think-alikes, it would have been ok if she had one but a beige Fiat 500 usually indicates a 2+ situation. We're all fked is what I'm saying basically.

[Shakermaker]

Sam993 said:

The worst thing in this story is that people like her breed and spawn the think-alikes, it would have been ok if she had one but a beige Fiat 500 usually indicates a 2+ situation. We're all fked is what I'm saying basically.

I thought Fiat 500 was the standard for the "Daddy bought me a car!" brigade?

[Gad-Westy]

captain_cynic said:

32Ford29 said:

irocfan said:

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

To me THIS Imho is undertaking

Undertaking is when you exit and re-enter a lane. Not sure if irocfan re-entered his original lane,

But it indicates why undertaking happens. if the LH lane was clear enough to permit an undertake, what the living fk was the Fiat 500 doing in any other lane?

I wouldn't have bothered trying to notify the other driver of their error and just undertook. No point in trying to educate the ignorant.

A few weeks ago I saw something quite weird. Typically of a lot of 50 mph zones, people just pick their favourite lane. But on this occassion, a fully marked police car caught up with the queue in the outside lane. Nothing of note at all in the other two lanes but a queue of about 5-6 cars following a mini at the front. As police car arrives behind the queue, the tail-enders all moved left (middle lane, natch!) until the police car was behind the mini. Everybody around had slowed down a bit, I guess to avoid the chance of undertaking the police car so the road was now looking quite empty all around the mini and PC convoy. This went on for maybe a mile or so and then the PC put his blue lights on. Still nothing for maybe another 2 miles. Eventually mini driver notices and moves over except the police car by this point had clearly decided to pull them over so they followed it and I assume the perp got a minimum of a very big bking but I'd like to think it maybe went further.

Some people simply aren't engaged in driving. They give it no thought whatsoever. They're not thinking about what's around them, where they should be or what's happening up ahead, nothing.

[irocfan]

32Ford29 said:

irocfan said:

All this talk about 3 lane motorways is all well and good but for those that condemn all undertaking as bad what would you do here:

I'm driving along a sparsely trafficked D/C (A127) having just left the 50mph zone outside lane as I'm passing slower traffic and I spot ahead a beige Fiat 500. As I'm going at a reasonable lick I can see I'm going to catch her up quite shortly so I stay in the outside, leaving her the inside lane to pull into. I was following for over a fking mile at 50 mph:
Came up behind her and dropped back a little - still in the outside lane
Indicated to the right - nothing
Flashed her - nothing
Beeped her - nothing
So indicated left inside lane and I was on my way (noting in my rear mirror that she was STILL oblivious in lane 2)

To me THIS Imho is undertaking

no question it's undertaking - the question is what would you have done in this situation (and therefore by default is that sort of undertaking acceptable?)

[Sam993]

Shakermaker said:

Sam993 said:

The worst thing in this story is that people like her breed and spawn the think-alikes, it would have been ok if she had one but a beige Fiat 500 usually indicates a 2+ situation. We're all fked is what I'm saying basically.

I thought Fiat 500 was the standard for the "Daddy bought me a car!" brigade?

Depends on age, but the older end of spectrum is covered by the stay at home "husband bought me this cute car because I'm scared to drive the Range" characters.

[jfire]

Rules are doubly ambiguous in that they depend on what the other cars are doing, and the definition of those vehicles collectively but ultimately this all falls apart anyway because the other vehicles are paying no attention to the rules.

'Traffic' in L1 could be 100 yards away but really you're going to want to 'keep up' with it at 70mph when the idiot in L2 is doing 65. Pretty sure this is what understandably OP and many others are confused by and why idiots in the middle lane are so despised.

On a recent trip I could've got all the way to Wales in L1 passing idiots on the middle lane but my friends forbade this undertaking on the grounds that we could be killed by someone moving to the left without looking, so I wonder if that other poster's theory of not having to indicate when pulling to the left is more widely accepted as a mark of prime driving efficiency and observance of the Highway Code? Certainly driving beside someone for an extended period shouldn't really happen but again that relies on correct lane usage.

[jfire]

captain_cynic said:

Undertaking is when you exit and re-enter a lane. Not sure if irocfan re-entered his original lane,

But it indicates why undertaking happens. if the LH lane was clear enough to permit an undertake, what the living fk was the Fiat 500 doing in any other lane?

I wouldn't have bothered trying to notify the other driver of their error and just undertook. No point in trying to educate the ignorant.

I thought it was established that movement between lanes was not relevant. Otherwise where's the infringement in passing at 70mph everyone in L1?

[captain_cynic]

jfire said:

I thought it was established that movement between lanes was not relevant. Otherwise where's the infringement in passing at 70mph everyone in L1?

Not sure why you thought that.

But passing on the left is not illegal or even against the highway code. Undertaking is defined as re-entering the original lane.

[Toltec]

jfire said:

captain_cynic said:

Undertaking is when you exit and re-enter a lane. Not sure if irocfan re-entered his original lane,

But it indicates why undertaking happens. if the LH lane was clear enough to permit an undertake, what the living fk was the Fiat 500 doing in any other lane?

I wouldn't have bothered trying to notify the other driver of their error and just undertook. No point in trying to educate the ignorant.

I thought it was established that movement between lanes was not relevant. Otherwise where's the infringement in passing at 70mph everyone in L1?

TBH I thought it was established as overtaking on the left, undertaking is either when you do laps around an MLM or work for a funeral service.

[vonhosen]

captain_cynic said:

But passing on the left is not illegal or even against the highway code. Undertaking is defined as re-entering the original lane.

Where is that definition?

[jfire]

captain_cynic said:

Not sure why you thought that.

But passing on the left is not illegal or even against the highway code. Undertaking is defined as re-entering the original lane.

But then when can I enter L2 again, never?!

The way I look at it unless you're being a dick and intentionally pulling back out in front of a middle lane hog then there shouldn't be a contravention but it's not that simple is it? Because by the definition you will effectively be overtaking on the left even a mile down the road.

[Prof Prolapse]

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.

I don't indicate when returning to the left.

I was always told that you are always returning to the left following an overtake and allowing sufficient distance between you and the "overtakee" to make it unnecessary.

Unless you've fudged it or lack confidence in the distance you've left of course. Which we all do sometimes.

[vonhosen]

Highway Code said:

Rule 268.
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake.

So as far as the Highway Code is concerned passing on the left rules have nothing to do with whether a lane change is involved or not. It's don't pass on the left (except for a few limited circumstances it outlines).

Dictionary said:

undertake2

verbBRITISH
gerund or present participle: undertaking
catch up with and pass (another vehicle) while travelling on the inside.
"he undertook me, at 70 mph, while on his mobile"

No mention of lane changes.

CPS Charging advice said:

Driving without due care and attention
The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.

In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver, the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge.

The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

Occasionally, a collision may occur but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver, or other explanation to account for why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but prosecutors should exercise caution.

If the evidence is capable of proving how an incident occurred (e.g. a collision), the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.

The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson's at para 5.52):

"the fact that res ipsa loquitor has no application to criminal law does not mean that the prosecution have to negative every possible explanation of a defendant before he can be convicted of careless driving where the facts at the scene of an accident are such that, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, a court can have no alternative but to convict"

See also R v Warwickshire Police Ex p. Manjit Singh Mundi [2001] EWHC Admin 448 (the court held that crossing a central white line without explanation was, in itself, evidence of careless driving).

In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

• overtaking on the inside;
• driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
• inadvertently driving through a red light;
• emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;

and more follows

No mention of lane changes.

Road Traffic Act 1988 said:

38 (7)
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

And the offence that would be used is Sec 3 RTA

[Prof Prolapse]

Except police should be using discretion (and perhaps more universally accepted definitions).

I think it's a fair position to argue you shouldn't be potentially entrusting your life to the actions of an idiot by passing in L1 when you can move around them via L2 and L3, but I can think of a great number of instances where I have done so without incident, largely due to L2 and L3 being already occupied and the disproportionate time it would take to do otherwise. Most likely this has been in view of trafpol at some time or another.

[vonhosen]

Prof Prolapse said:

Except police should be using discretion (and perhaps more universally accepted definitions).

They do (and what universally accepted definition (source please))
They pick & choose who they are going to stop/report for it, they don't stop/report everybody they see doing it.
Where your ideas about what is acceptable are more removed from the views of Police/CPS & Courts, the more potentially problematic it is for you.The more removed you are from the marginal cases, the more likely you are to be stopped/reported.

Police drivers are (at least were when I was in the Police) trained that they weren't to pass on the nearside in routine patrolling, save in the Highway Code examples.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 16th August 14:44

[Todd Bonzalez]

32Ford29 said:

Why would you not indicate?

When I passed my test about 10 years ago this is what I was taught and what I did on my test (received no infractions). Is it not correct then?