Is this classed as Undertaking?

[Mandalore]

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".

[speedking31]

I think the key word in the HC Rule 268 is "traffic". It does not say "vehicle". So the situation where you're in lane 1 at the speed limit and approaching a slower vehicle in lane 2, i.e. passing a single vehicle on the left, is a scenario not permitted by the HC. Lines of cars are required for the rule to be invoked properly.

[Sam993]

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.

[hooblah]

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.

[saaby93]

jimmy156 said:

saaby93 said:

Not really
You get people complaining because lane 2/3 is stuck solid and isnt moving, yet its ok for them to nip to the front in lane 1 and prevent lanes2/3 moving
If they want to make it work move to Lane1 and begin a queue there without jumping ahead, taking some of the traffic from lanes 2 and 3 so everyone gets their fair share of progression

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse...

The only time you would have a point is when Lane 1 is signposted for use to take a particular exit, and will shortly not be part of the same dual carriageway. Even then, when people are queuing two miles or so ahead of the junction I still think its okay to use L1 as long as you merge safely and well before the exit.

In every other scenario, particularly where lanes merge for roadworks etc, all lanes should be used. If you feel people using lane 1 in the scenario are "pushing in" then you are just plain wrong!

"if you want to make it work" drivers should use all lanes to prevent the queue being longer then it needs to be. If people only used lanes 2 and 3, what should be a 2 mile tail back becomes a 3 mile tail back, and causes further congestion at other junctions etc.

No not being obtuse or wrong, you can work it out for yourself
Does the back of the queue in L2/L3 move quicker or slower if people scooting up L1 are pushing in at the front?
If the people in lane1 held station with those along side them, you'd soon get 3 lines of traffic all moving about the same speed and a shorter queue.
Easy

[jimmy156]

saaby93 said:

No not being obtuse or wrong, you can work it out for yourself
Does the back of the queue in L2/L3 move quicker or slower if people scooting up L1 are pushing in at the front?
If the people in lane1 held station with those along side them, you'd soon get 3 lines of traffic all moving about the same speed and a shorter queue.
Easy

If everyone used all three lanes, as per the highway code, you would already have 3 lines of traffic all moving at the same speed and a shorter queue.

Even easier.

Just because everyone else is doing it wrong, doesn't make it the right thing to do!

[Collaudatore]

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

Exactly!!

[roadsmash]

Collaudatore 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

Exactly!!

Just an argument of context. Should and shouldn’t carries as much weight in the right context.

You shouldn’t stab someone. Doesn’t mean it’s a guideline.

You shouldn’t race cars.

You shouldn’t date your mum.

You should always use indicators.

Etc.

[roadsmash]

saaby93 said:

why not try it next time at the supermarket or the post office and see what happens

A typical car park at a supermarket doesn’t have 3 lanes. What are you talking about?

[jimmy156]

roadsmash said:

Just an argument of context. Should and shouldn’t carries as much weight in the right context.

You shouldn’t stab someone. Doesn’t mean it’s a guideline.

You shouldn’t race cars.

You shouldn’t date your mum.

You should always use indicators.

Etc.

Its not though is it! It specific wording in the highway code that differentiates between law (must) and the rest of the code (should and other wording)

To apply to the above

You must not stab someone

You must not race cars (on the highway)

You must not date your mum (presumably?)

You should always use indicators

[Collaudatore]

roadsmash said:

Collaudatore 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

Exactly!!

Just an argument of context. Should and shouldn’t carries as much weight in the right context.

You shouldn’t stab someone. Doesn’t mean it’s a guideline.

You shouldn’t race cars.

You shouldn’t date your mum.

You should always use indicators.

Etc.

I feel your point, but actually it doesn't.
The statements in the HC saying MUST are law as defined by the road traffic act
Should and should not are not law
Just guidelines.
Guidelines are great...but not law
Anyway this argument is a little nonsense. Every situation is different and that cannot be covered in a flimsy booklet.

[Collaudatore]

jimmy156 said:

Its not though is it! It specific wording in the highway code that differentiates between law (must) and the rest of the code (should and other wording)

To apply to the above

You must not stab someone

You must not race cars (on the highway)

You must not date your mum (presumably?)

You should always use indicators

You win

[vonhosen]

Collaudatore said:

Y'all know the Highway Code is not the same as the Road Traffic Act?
It is only a list of guidelines and best practices unless it says "must" or some such..

True

But

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

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 15th August 19:50

[vonhosen]

Alex_225 said:

If you're doing the speed limit and there's a muppet in lane two or three sitting there doing less than the speed limit then going past them in lane one is not undertaking. You're keeping with the flow of the traffic and the lane hoggers should be keeping left anyway.

Undertaking is simply passing on the left, irrespective of circumstances.
The Highway Code provides the examples of when it's considered acceptable to undertake.

[Sam993]

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.

[Collaudatore]

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

[Collaudatore]

vonhosen said:

Collaudatore said:

Y'all know the Highway Code is not the same as the Road Traffic Act?
It is only a list of guidelines and best practices unless it says "must" or some such..

True

But

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

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 15th August 19:50

100% correct.

Basically the HC is to the RTA as the ACOPS are to the HS@W act.
Not legally binding as such, but if you f*ck up you'd better not be breaching it.

Applied to my points earlier that in many instances it is not necessary or even detrimental to the prevailing safety.
Sure... there are scenarios where it is necessary, but I'd argue that in reality those would be in the minority and even go so far as to say that if all other around are vaguely doing what they're supposed to... it'd be analmost redundant exercise

[Sam993]

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.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Sam993 said:

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 agree and have never rated instructors that highly (obviously some are better than others), I used to know one that was scared to drive in the dark. I have no idea how she ever made any money in the winter.

[R0G]

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