Smart Motorways are those that have either have had the hard shoulder
removed or the hard shoulder opened at various times to improve traffic
flow.
There is a danger that if you break down in lane 1 you have nowhere to
go if not within reach of an emergency refuge, which can result in
vehicles behind crashing into you at high speed.
I've noticed that whilst I'm on a smart motorway a lot of people tend to drive in lane 2, presumably the police can still prosecute for failing
to stay in lane 1 if not overtaking?
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
Smart Motorways are those that have either have had the hard shoulder
removed or the hard shoulder opened at various times to improve traffic
flow.
There is a danger that if you break down in lane 1 you have nowhere to
go if not within reach of an emergency refuge, which can result in
vehicles behind crashing into you at high speed.
I've noticed that whilst I'm on a smart motorway a lot of people tend to drive in lane 2, presumably the police can still prosecute for failing
to stay in lane 1 if not overtaking?
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There might
have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However, ostentatiously
veering from lane to lane in order to effect an "undertake" can amount
to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned above.
On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 14:57:52 UTC+1, John wrote:
Smart Motorways are those that have either have had the hard shoulder
removed or the hard shoulder opened at various times to improve traffic
flow.
There is a danger that if you break down in lane 1 you have nowhere to
go if not within reach of an emergency refuge, which can result in
vehicles behind crashing into you at high speed.
I've noticed that whilst I'm on a smart motorway a lot of people tend to
drive in lane 2, presumably the police can still prosecute for failing
to stay in lane 1 if not overtaking?
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
This is one of those win-win situations that the police have engineered, all under the guise of "road safety".
In your example above, the Police could actually prosecute both drivers - the driver in lane one for "undertaking" and the driver in lane two for not being in the inside lane when not overtaking.
I regularly "undertake" vehicles sat in lane two. I don't do it by speeding up to teach them a lesson, I merely pull into lane one and if it's clear then sit at 70mph......if I happen to "undertake" some idiot pottering along in the middle lane at65mph then so be it.
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of the
speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of the
speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move from
lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then move all the
way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
On 22/10/2023 23:05, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of
the speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move
from lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then
move all the way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
Are you complaining that it was in truth dangerous, or just against
the rules you think should be applied? What were all the vehicles in
Lane 2 doing that they could be passed on the inside? Why were they
not in Lane 1?
And was it actually illegal?
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to
Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
The
driver did not care about signalling and paid no attention to how close
he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how far
behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his vehicle
with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
On 22/10/2023 23:05, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of the
speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move from
lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then move all the
way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
Are you complaining that it was in truth dangerous, or just against the
rules you think should be applied? What were all the vehicles in Lane 2 doing that they could be passed on the inside? Why were they not in Lane 1?
And was it actually illegal?
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to
Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into lane
1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
The
driver did not care about signalling and paid no attention to how close
he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how far
behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his vehicle
with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
You could, of course, send that to the police, assuming it doesn't show
you doing anything naughty:
https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/
On 23 Oct 2023 at 12:15:26 BST, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an
exit, it had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He
started not in Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2,
and then returned to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could
have suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved
into lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that
lane.
In which case they are guilty of dangerous driving, the more so if
there was significant traffic in both lanes.
I agree weaving about and leaving insufficient clearance is dangerous driving, but overtaking people on their left in traffic is just as
legal as overtaking them on the right.
The
driver did not care about signalling and paid no attention to how
close he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how
far behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his
vehicle with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
You could, of course, send that to the police, assuming it doesn't
show you doing anything naughty:
https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/
On 23 Oct 2023 at 12:15:26 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to >>> Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have
suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into lane
1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
In which case they are guilty of dangerous driving, the more so if there was significant traffic in both lanes.
I agree weaving about and leaving insufficient clearance is dangerous driving,
but overtaking people on their left in traffic is just as legal as overtaking them on the right.
The
driver did not care about signalling and paid no attention to how close
he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how far
behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his vehicle
with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
You could, of course, send that to the police, assuming it doesn't show
you doing anything naughty:
https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to
Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into lane
1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
The
driver did not care about signalling and paid no attention to how close
he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how far
behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his vehicle
with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
You could, of course, send that to the police, assuming it doesn't show
you doing anything naughty:
https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:59:03 +0100
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 22/10/2023 23:05, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of
the speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move
from lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then
move all the way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
Are you complaining that it was in truth dangerous, or just against
the rules you think should be applied? What were all the vehicles in
Lane 2 doing that they could be passed on the inside? Why were they
not in Lane 1?
And was it actually illegal?
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to
Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
The
driver did not care about signalling
and paid no attention to how close
he pulled in front of vehicles in the outer lanes, nor how far
behind them he was, he left just sufficient room for his vehicle
with no margin for error.
I will look at my dashcam footage when I have time.
On 23/10/2023 07:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/10/2023 23:05, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of the
speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move from
lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then move all the >>> way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
Are you complaining that it was in truth dangerous, or just against the
rules you think should be applied? What were all the vehicles in Lane 2
doing that they could be passed on the inside? Why were they not in
Lane 1?
So are you proposing that two wrongs make a right? A couple of weeks ago
I saw similar driving on the M3 between J3 and J4; this was in and out
across four lanes in quite busy traffic around 4pm. There was traffic in lanes 1 and 2, with a 50m gap in lane 1 between a stream of cars doing
55 - 60, catching up with slow moving lorries in the same lane. Those in
lane 2 were overtaking the cars in lane 1 and approaching the rearmost
lorry, when the idiot about three cars back in lane 2 swerved into the
50m gap, accelerated forward, and pulled out just before the lorry into
lane 2, barely 10m ahead of the front car in lane 2. He then continued
out into lane 3 and immediately into lane 4, before swerving back into
lane 3 to undertake a stream of cars in lane 4.
And was it actually illegal?
What do you think?
As JN noted earlier it is an offence under Section 3,
Road Traffic Act 1988 (more specifically 3ZA) - "A person is to be
regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the
way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver."
Do you think he was a careful driver? What if we all decided to drive
like that?
On 23/10/2023 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 23/10/2023 07:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/10/2023 23:05, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:07:24 +0100
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2023 02:57 pm, John wrote:
On a secondary note, am I braking the law if I'm in lane 1 and
"undertake" a car driving at a lower speed in lane 2?
There is no law which prohibits passing in such a manner. There
might have been one at one time. But not now in GB. However,
ostentatiously veering from lane to lane in order to effect an
"undertake" can amount to the same Section 3 offence as mentioned
above.
On that I agree, I watched an idiot on the M1 recently using all 3
lanes to get ahead of the traffic in front of them, in excess of the >>>>> speed limit by an estimated 20 miles an hour.
Yes, today I watched a 'pocket rocket' type vehicle on the M1 move from >>>> lane 2 to lane 1, go past the traffic in that lane and then move all the >>>> way across to the outside lane. Another Idiot.
Are you complaining that it was in truth dangerous, or just against the
rules you think should be applied? What were all the vehicles in Lane 2 >>> doing that they could be passed on the inside? Why were they not in
Lane 1?
So are you proposing that two wrongs make a right? A couple of weeks ago
I saw similar driving on the M3 between J3 and J4; this was in and out
across four lanes in quite busy traffic around 4pm. There was traffic in
lanes 1 and 2, with a 50m gap in lane 1 between a stream of cars doing
55 - 60, catching up with slow moving lorries in the same lane. Those in
lane 2 were overtaking the cars in lane 1 and approaching the rearmost
lorry, when the idiot about three cars back in lane 2 swerved into the
50m gap, accelerated forward, and pulled out just before the lorry into
lane 2, barely 10m ahead of the front car in lane 2. He then continued
out into lane 3 and immediately into lane 4, before swerving back into
lane 3 to undertake a stream of cars in lane 4.
The question I was putting was whether it was actually dangerous or
whether you just deem it dangerous because it doesn't accord with the
rules you think should be applied.
Did he hit anything? Did he cause another vehicle to brake suddenly or swerve? If not, how was it dangerous?
And was it actually illegal?
What do you think?
Well, it's not necessarily illegal to undertake, and you don't mention
him speeding, so that disposes of any absolute offences.
As JN noted earlier it is an offence under Section 3,
Road Traffic Act 1988 (more specifically 3ZA) - "A person is to be
regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the
way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver."
It seems to me that he was perhaps a very competent driver. Maybe many
not so competent would be wary of even trying it because it wasn't
within their capabilities to pull it off successfully. And if he didn't inconvenience anyone, that's pretty much the definition of 'careful'
isn't it?
Do you think he was a careful driver? What if we all decided to drive
like that?
If they're all as competent, you tell me.
It would, I suppose keep me off the roads. There's nothing like a group
of superior drivers thinking they're better than all the others making accidents waiting to happen a certainty.
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned to >>> Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have
suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into
lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and
even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
On 23/10/2023 14:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/10/2023 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
So are you proposing that two wrongs make a right? A couple of weeks ago >>> I saw similar driving on the M3 between J3 and J4; this was in and out
across four lanes in quite busy traffic around 4pm. There was traffic in >>> lanes 1 and 2, with a 50m gap in lane 1 between a stream of cars doing
55 - 60, catching up with slow moving lorries in the same lane. Those in >>> lane 2 were overtaking the cars in lane 1 and approaching the rearmost
lorry, when the idiot about three cars back in lane 2 swerved into the
50m gap, accelerated forward, and pulled out just before the lorry into
lane 2, barely 10m ahead of the front car in lane 2. He then continued
out into lane 3 and immediately into lane 4, before swerving back into
lane 3 to undertake a stream of cars in lane 4.
The question I was putting was whether it was actually dangerous or
whether you just deem it dangerous because it doesn't accord with the
rules you think should be applied.
Did he hit anything? Did he cause another vehicle to brake suddenly or
swerve? If not, how was it dangerous?
Who mentioned dangerous?
That would be as defined in s2A of the RTA
1988, and appears to be different from s3ZA in degree. I am only
concerned with the driving being below that expected of a careful
driver, not *far* below as required for dangerous.
And was it actually illegal?
What do you think?
Well, it's not necessarily illegal to undertake, and you don't mention
him speeding, so that disposes of any absolute offences.
Once again, you are avoiding the issue of s3ZA by bringing in another
matter. For all I know he could have been, and possibly was speeding,
but that's not the issue.
With regard to the undertaking, you should look at the section for
"Careless and inconsiderate driving" at <https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences>. In particular, the first and seventh bullet points, the latter for swerving in and out of
lanes.
As JN noted earlier it is an offence under Section 3,
Road Traffic Act 1988 (more specifically 3ZA) - "A person is to be
regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the
way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver."
It seems to me that he was perhaps a very competent driver. Maybe many
not so competent would be wary of even trying it because it wasn't
within their capabilities to pull it off successfully. And if he didn't
inconvenience anyone, that's pretty much the definition of 'careful'
isn't it?
It appears that "competent" driving has not been clearly defined,
although there is interesting discussion at <https://www.bcl.com/what-is-a-careless-driver/>. In any case, it would
not matter if it was an F1 or rally driver doing the driving. Even
though they might be considered more competent in their driving skills
than ordinary mortals, that link I referenced notes "As well as
competent and careful, you will have heard words such as reasonable and prudent, when describing the driver possessing the requisite standard of competence."
Do you think he was a careful driver? What if we all decided to drive
like that?
If they're all as competent, you tell me.
It would, I suppose keep me off the roads. There's nothing like a group
of superior drivers thinking they're better than all the others making accidents waiting to happen a certainty.
On 23/10/2023 21:10, Jeff Layman wrote:
....
It would, I suppose keep me off the roads. There's nothing like a group
of superior drivers thinking they're better than all the others making
accidents waiting to happen a certainty.
Some years ago I read a survey that found that 80% of drivers believe that their driving ability is above average.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:rDGdnfuoBeMLb6v4nZ2dnZeNn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 23/10/2023 21:10, Jeff Layman wrote:
....
It would, I suppose keep me off the roads. There's nothing like a group
of superior drivers thinking they're better than all the others making
accidents waiting to happen a certainty.
Some years ago I read a survey that found that 80% of drivers believe that >> their driving ability is above average.
It's rather surprising its only 80%
People are only ever likely to remember instances of what they themselves consider to be "bad" driving; and so will use those as a basis when
compiling their personal "average".
And as they clearly consider themselves superior to those "bad" drivers they're also likely to consider themselves as better then average.
While what's considered to be "bad driving", too fast, too slow, too assertive, over cautious, will differ between individuals.
In a similar vein (almost) both experiments and actual behaviour
confirm, that at least some small dogs actually seem to believe
that they're as big, as big dogs; and will challenge them on that
basis. Which can lead to some amusing encounters when walking
in the park.
bb
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned
to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have
suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into
lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and
even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it >>> had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in
Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned
to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have
suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into
lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit?
You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it >>>>> had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have
suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into
lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and
even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable
confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit?
You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be
travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it >>>>>> had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into
lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and >>>> even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable
confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit? >>> You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be
travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation.
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than
at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to
pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
On 28 Oct 2023 at 13:34:30 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it >>>>>>> had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it.
More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into >>>>>> lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and >>>>> even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable >>>>> confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit? >>>> You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be
travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation.
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than
at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to
pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
If that means using any less care and observation moving to leftward than to a
rightward lane, then I believe you are quite wrong. And it is in dangerous situations of relatively heavy fast-moving traffic that you are most likely to
see passing, lawful or unlawful, on the left hand side.
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
On 28/10/2023 03:11 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 13:34:30 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, it >>>>>>>> had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.More like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into >>>>>>> lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it. >>>>>>>
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and >>>>>> even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable >>>>>> confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit? >>>>> You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be
travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation.
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than
at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to >>> pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
If that means using any less care and observation moving to leftward than to a
rightward lane, then I believe you are quite wrong. And it is in dangerous >> situations of relatively heavy fast-moving traffic that you are most likely to
see passing, lawful or unlawful, on the left hand side.
The law should not prohibit a dangerous practice because it's dangerous?
That's what you are saying there.
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
On 28 Oct 2023 at 15:36:21 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 03:11 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 13:34:30 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, itMore like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into >>>>>>>> lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>>>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it. >>>>>>>>
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and >>>>>>> even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable >>>>>>> confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit?
You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be >>>>>> travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation. >>>>
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than >>>> at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to >>>> pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
If that means using any less care and observation moving to leftward than to a
rightward lane, then I believe you are quite wrong. And it is in dangerous >>> situations of relatively heavy fast-moving traffic that you are most likely to
see passing, lawful or unlawful, on the left hand side.
The law should not prohibit a dangerous practice because it's dangerous?
That's what you are saying there.
Not what I am saying at all![1] But what kind of law could make it safe for you to change lane without looking? A law that gave you a posthumour gold star
for "knowing your rights"?
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
[1] Actually if the law is known to allow passing either side (as in the two bits of America I've driven in) then this is not at all dangerous. But I agree
a transition in this country would be hazardous.
On 28 Oct 2023 at 17:33:32 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 15:36:21 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 03:11 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 13:34:30 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no >>>>>>>> undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, itMore like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>>>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into >>>>>>>>> lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane. >>>>>>>>
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned
to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it. >>>>>>>>>
even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable >>>>>>>> confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit?
You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be >>>>>>> travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation. >>>>>
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than >>>>> at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to >>>>> pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
If that means using any less care and observation moving to leftward than to a
rightward lane, then I believe you are quite wrong. And it is in dangerous >>>> situations of relatively heavy fast-moving traffic that you are most likely to
see passing, lawful or unlawful, on the left hand side.
The law should not prohibit a dangerous practice because it's dangerous? >>>
That's what you are saying there.
Not what I am saying at all![1] But what kind of law could make it safe for >> you to change lane without looking? A law that gave you a posthumour gold star
for "knowing your rights"?
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
[1] Actually if the law is known to allow passing either side (as in the two >> bits of America I've driven in) then this is not at all dangerous. But I agree
a transition in this country would be hazardous.
'posthumous'
On 28 Oct 2023 at 15:36:21 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 03:11 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 13:34:30 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 01:22 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:34:13 UTC+1, Scion wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:45:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 12:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/10/2023 10:55, Davey wrote:
....
They were in Lane 2 because Lane 1 was about to diverge to an exit, itMore like dangerous driving. Any of the vehicles in lane 2 could have >>>>>>>> suddenly realised that this was the exit they wanted and moved into >>>>>>>> lane 1 without seeing there was a car overtaking in that lane.
had the dotted line to indicate a separating lane. He started not in >>>>>>>>> Lane 1, moved into it, undertook traffic in Lane 2, and then returned >>>>>>>>> to Lane 2 and beyond, 'in one fell swoop'.
I think "Driving without Due Care and Attention" would cover it. >>>>>>>>
Indeed. That is the whole underlying justification for any "no
undertaking" rule (and they take it very seriously on the continent and >>>>>>> even in Northern Ireland).
One should be able to move left on a multi-lane road with reasonable >>>>>>> confidence that no-one is about to pass on that side.
Did you miss the description of "Lane 1" being a filter lane for an exit?
You should very much expect that cars taking the exit lane could be >>>>>> travelling faster than cars staying on the main carriageway.
Dreadfully sorry about my response being a general one and not
necessarily applying in every last conceivable and possible situation. >>>>
Nevertheless, traffic in any lane except the leftmost lane (other than >>>> at some junctions) should be able to move left (returning into the
correct driving lane) with reasonable confidence that no-one is about to >>>> pass on that side. That is the way that a motorway or expressway is
supposed to be used. This is Great Britain, not Utah.
If that means using any less care and observation moving to leftward than to a
rightward lane, then I believe you are quite wrong. And it is in dangerous >>> situations of relatively heavy fast-moving traffic that you are most likely to
see passing, lawful or unlawful, on the left hand side.
The law should not prohibit a dangerous practice because it's dangerous?
That's what you are saying there.
Not what I am saying at all![1]
But what kind of law could make it safe for
you to change lane without looking? A law that gave you a posthumour gold star
for "knowing your rights"?
Highway code rule 268.
Also formerly rule 66 you could overtake on the left if you were turning left
[1] Actually if the law is known to allow passing either side (as in the two bits of America I've driven in) then this is not at all dangerous. But I agree
a transition in this country would be hazardous.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:00:50 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,720 |