Is this classed as Undertaking?
Discussion
jfire said:
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.
You can re-enter L2 whenever you like. Undertaking technically isn't illegal. Even if a copper does see you they wont bother you unless you did something dangerous or stupid (like cutting someone up). 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.
There isn't a charge for undertaking, they at best they might charge you for careless driving, but chances are they wont even bother as they've got better things to do.
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q891.htm
captain_cynic said:
jfire said:
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.
You can re-enter L2 whenever you like. Undertaking technically isn't illegal. Even if a copper does see you they wont bother you unless you did something dangerous or stupid (like cutting someone up). 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.
There isn't a charge for undertaking, they at best they might charge you for careless driving, but chances are they wont even bother as they've got better things to do.
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q891.htm
Like anything with driving when going outside what's written in law, highway code etc,..........you roll em.
That advice you linked to is stick to the Highway Code examples.
If you do something dangerous that makes it potentially a more serious offence.
Have you got that definition (source) you were talking about earlier?
Eeesh. Whenever there's a variable limit up on the M42, and the hard shoulder is open, I'm quite happy to sit there and cruise past at 60. I think I've sat in it until 3A at which point I need to shift over into L2 to continue on my way. I tend to stereotype the vehicles in L1 and give a little extra juice if I think they're just bimbling along at 58.
vonhosen said:
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.
There are no universally accepted definitions, but some are more accepted than others. That's why I made no claim to there being one, but when you cite what I believe is a web based dictionary's definition of "undertaking" to convict someone of a crime is unlikely to be widely considered to be sufficient.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.
We don't disagree on what discretion is then, I believe...
If an "overtake" is considered to be initiated with a change of lane, I don't believe the highway code breached in any way is it? Even if the highway code is violated, what law actually is? The highway code is a collection of recommendations and laws but only the latter are enforceable by a police officer are they not?
As I said, I do believe it's best to bypass via L3 if it is at all reasonable to do so. But it's simply not reasonable to expect someone travelling a legal speed in L1, to slow down, then if there is no gap in traffic wait several minutes, in order to bypass a blocking car via L3, when they could continue at their current speed and pass the obstacle in matter of seconds. If that is indeed the law, then it is indeed an ass, and I would hope that a police officer would use their discretion before applying it.
I will admit I would not do it on any formal assessment of my riding/driving, but there are many everyday reasonable things that I similarly wouldn't do under test conditions.
vonhosen said:
Have you got that definition (source) you were talking about earlier?
Are you really trying to say that an overtake doesn't involve changing lanes?Really?
And if you're not changing back to your original lane, you haven't performed an overtaking manoeuvre, you've performed a lane change.
See step 6 entitled: Pulling back into your lane.
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/overtaking-how-to-d...
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say good luck with your driving test.
captain_cynic said:
vonhosen said:
Have you got that definition (source) you were talking about earlier?
Are you really trying to say that an overtake doesn't involve changing lanes?Really?
As per the highway code.
If I am in lane 1, pass a vehicle in lane 2 I've overtaken on the nearside (commonly referred to as undertaking). No lane change involved.
If I pass another vehicle on this road
I've overtaken it (nearside or offside).
I haven't changed lanes but it's still an overtake/undertake.
captain-cynic said:
And if you're not changing back to your original lane, you haven't performed an overtaking manoeuvre, you've performed a lane change.
See step 6 entitled: Pulling back into your lane.
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/overtaking-how-to-d...
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say good luck with your driving test.
swisstoni said:
Busy lanes move relative to each other all the time meaning that L1 cars may well be 'undertaking' cars in L2 on occasion.
If this is an offence then I would like to plead guilty and ask for a further 500,000 offences to be taken into consideration.
Undertaking is acceptable in certain situations (see highway code), but the point is, because it's acceptable it doesn't mean that it isn't undertaking.If this is an offence then I would like to plead guilty and ask for a further 500,000 offences to be taken into consideration.
And overtaking/undertaking has nothing to do with lane changing, it's about passing another vehicle.
Prof Prolapse said:
vonhosen said:
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.
There are no universally accepted definitions, but some are more accepted than others. That's why I made no claim to there being one, but when you cite what I believe is a web based dictionary's definition of "undertaking" to convict someone of a crime is unlikely to be widely considered to be sufficient.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.
We don't disagree on what discretion is then, I believe...
If an "overtake" is considered to be initiated with a change of lane, I don't believe the highway code breached in any way is it? Even if the highway code is violated, what law actually is? The highway code is a collection of recommendations and laws but only the latter are enforceable by a police officer are they not?
As I said, I do believe it's best to bypass via L3 if it is at all reasonable to do so. But it's simply not reasonable to expect someone travelling a legal speed in L1, to slow down, then if there is no gap in traffic wait several minutes, in order to bypass a blocking car via L3, when they could continue at their current speed and pass the obstacle in matter of seconds. If that is indeed the law, then it is indeed an ass, and I would hope that a police officer would use their discretion before applying it.
Prof Prolapse said:
I will admit I would not do it on any formal assessment of my riding/driving, but there are many everyday reasonable things that I similarly wouldn't do under test conditions.
Why don't you, if you are convinced it's safe & reasonable?vonhosen said:
An overtake isn't considered to be initiated by a change of lanes. You can overtake without leaving a lane, see above & Rule 268 in the highway code.
I'm familiar with 268, it doesn't define "overtake". As for overtaking on a single track road with no defined lanes proving your point, I don't see it.
I'm not saying it necessarily does, but in context it's perfectly reasonable to assert that an "overtake" on a motorway/dual carriageway first requires a lane change.
vonhosen said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I will admit I would not do it on any formal assessment of my riding/driving, but there are many everyday reasonable things that I similarly wouldn't do under test conditions.
Why don't you, if you are convinced it's safe & reasonable?The same as if I'm stuck behind a tractor I will overtake on solid white lines. It isn't reasonable to keep a queue of traffic waiting indefintitely because of some paint on the floor. I'm a believer in, but not slave to, roadcraft. Sometimes common sense applies inspite of regulations, and I would say this is one of those instances.
Christ, you would have been the perfect policeman!
Prof Prolapse said:
vonhosen said:
An overtake isn't considered to be initiated by a change of lanes. You can overtake without leaving a lane, see above & Rule 268 in the highway code.
I'm familiar with 268, it doesn't define "overtake". Prof Prolapse said:
As for overtaking on a single track road with no defined lanes proving your point, I don't see it.
The point is you aren't changing lanes & it's still an overtake.It could equally be a wide single carriageway road & centre marking, with a moped trundling along in front of you at 30mph tucked right into the nearside. You passing it without having to cross the centre marking is still an overtake.
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm not saying it necessarily does, but in context it's perfectly reasonable to assert that an "overtake" on a motorway/dual carriageway first requires a lane change.
Rule 268 mentions both cases (a lane change & a no lane change) for the overtake on the left in recognition & to cover both scenarios.You could enter motorway at Junction 3, pass a vehicle in lane 2 on it's left & then exit at junction 4 having never left lane 1.
That's an overtake on the left.
Prof Prolapse said:
vonhosen said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I will admit I would not do it on any formal assessment of my riding/driving, but there are many everyday reasonable things that I similarly wouldn't do under test conditions.
Why don't you, if you are convinced it's safe & reasonable?The same as if I'm stuck behind a tractor I will overtake on solid white lines. It isn't reasonable to keep a queue of traffic waiting indefintitely because of some paint on the floor. I'm a believer in, but not slave to, roadcraft. Sometimes common sense applies inspite of regulations, and I would say this is one of those instances.
Christ, you would have been the perfect policeman!
You said there are things safe/reasonable that you wouldn't do on a formal assessment.
That's why I asked why you wouldn't do them on a formal assessment.
And what things?
vonhosen said:
You said there are things safe/reasonable that you wouldn't do it on a formal assessment.
That's why I asked why you wouldn't do the on a formal assessment.
Also don't be black, polish, or gay. That's my top tip for passing a driving assessment with a retired trafpol.
Prof Prolapse said:
vonhosen said:
You said there are things safe/reasonable that you wouldn't do it on a formal assessment.
That's why I asked why you wouldn't do the on a formal assessment.
vonhosen said:
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.
Because once there has been a differing of views over it & they decide to start the reporting process it becomes an exercise applying what you did relative to what is written about it in legislation/advice.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.
Todd Bonzalez said:
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?
vonhosen said:
You could enter motorway at Junction 3, pass a vehicle in lane 2 on it's left & then exit at junction 4 having never left lane 1.
That's an overtake on the left.
Would it be legal?That's an overtake on the left.
I ask this because M1(N)Jct21 to M1(N)Jct21a has this precise scenario.
Use Google Maps to see the area (Leicester Forest East). ( Google Map)
Often traffic joins the M1 from M69, stays in lane 1 and exits M1 onto the A46 at Jct 21a.
Should all this traffic travel at a speed slower than the rest of the M1 traffic, or should all the original M1 traffic have moved over to Lane 1 as Lane 1(N) became Lane 2(N) at Jct 21. In about 1 mile, they would need to move back to Lane 2 (which becomes Lane 1 at J21a)
Much easier to understand if you look at the map in Streetview as well as from above.
Prof Prolapse said:
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 can’t remember the last time I changed lane without indicating. I indicate all the time.
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.
All professional lorry drivers and drivers of other large vehicles indicate when returning to the left, so why shouldn’t I? Because I’m in a smaller vehicle? That’s just silly.
I have never ever EVER had anyone question me after I’ve indicated while returning to the left. And I don’t think I ever will get questioned about it, because it’s relatively standard and safe driving practice.
Apart from now on PH of course.
vonhosen said:
pingu393 said:
vonhosen said:
You could enter motorway at Junction 3, pass a vehicle in lane 2 on it's left & then exit at junction 4 having never left lane 1.
That's an overtake on the left.
Would it be legal?That's an overtake on the left.
Imagine that I have just joined the motorway at Jct 21a and will be leaving at Jct 21. Lane 1 starts at Jct 21a and ends at Jct 21, so it is possible to enter and exit the motorway without crossing any white lines.
I am in the circle travelling at 70mph and have noticed that the Google Car has been in Lane 2 all the time.
The car in lane 3 is travelling at 70mph and is passing the Google Car which is travelling at 50mph. The truck is doing 56mph and is catching the Google Car. Imagine, also, that the truck is closer to the Google Car than is shown, and I would not be able to safely move in front of it before reaching the Google Car.
View in front of Google Car...
Should I
a) Pass the Google Car using Lane 1 after the Audi has passed it in Lane 3.
b) Slow down to allow the truck to pass me, move from Lane 1 to Lane 3 (and possibly Lane 4), overtake the truck and the Google Car, then move back to Lane 1 before immediately exiting the motorway
c) Slow down to 50mph and keep station with the Google Car until the motorway exit.
d) Something else?
I would probably slow down to around 55mph and pass on the left (but not at the same time as the truck). I don't like sandwiching other cars when I pass them.
Edited by pingu393 on Friday 17th August 01:41
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff