|
There has been talk of making it legal to overtake on the left on motorways. Is it legal to do so? If so when are you allowed to. Does this apply to motorways only? Thanks, Mikey.
|
IIRC you can 'undertake' if the traffic in the right lane is slow moving and in a continuous line.
How about reading the highway code? I know I should......
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
There is no specific law against overtaking on the left, it is not an offence you could be reported for in isolation.
However, it is generally regarded as bad practice and if you were to have or cause an accident while doing so then that would be regarded as proportioning all or some of the blame towards you.
|
|
|
IIRC you can 'undertake' if the traffic in the right lane is slow moving and in a continuous line. How about reading the highway code? I know I should......
I don't happen to have a copy to hand - does it actually say "in a continuous line"? How long does a line have to be?
|
Looking for an answer to Clives question I found this:
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
It has to be said, this still seems open to interpretation to me.
In the past, when finding people queueing in the outside lane I have sometimes decided on a steady speed myself, 60 maybe, and just sat at that in the inside regardless of whether was falling behind or making ground. As I read that paragraph, I am OK to continue doing so.
|
Anything in the Highway Code which states "Do Not" or "You Should Not" is advice on good driving practice, which would be taken into account by a court in the event of an accident if one or more drivers involved had ignored that advice.
Where something is actually illegal the HC will state that "You Must Not".
|
Therefore deliberately undertaking a "middle lane hog" to make a point is an offence.
Not that I've ever done that, you understand
|
|
No, Rob. Merely good practice. Not an offence.
|
I do recall driving up a deserted A19 dual carriageway towards Teeside when I chanced upon a Focus doing 65-75 in the outer lane.
I sat on the inside for a while, assessing the situation (looking for police) before gently undertaking him, whereupon I was greeted with much headlamp flashing and that "you're mental" finger circling gesture.
Is there a simple gesture for "Read the Highway code again, you berk"?
|
|
|
Merely good practice.
Should there be a 'not' there?
Not an offence, as Mapmaker says, but were the middle lane hogger to swerve back to the 'slow lane' and crash into you, you would have left yourself open to blame for the accident.
|
Step forward Bazza, round of applause.
Trentham v Rowlands 1974.
Relying on the HC "overtake only on the right.. never move to a lane on the left to overtake..." held it was potentially dangerous and thus dangerous driving for a motorist to overtake another on the outside lane at 70 mph by moving over to the inner lanes to do so (undertaking), particularly having regard to the obligation mentioned in the HC on drivers being overtaken to return to the inside lane.
DVD
|
So DVD, did that court apportion the blame 100% on the undertaker rather than the lanehog?
The last part (particularly having regard to the obligation mentioned in the HC on drivers being overtaken to return to the inside lane.) seems to say that they saw the error on the part of the lanehog too.
|
by moving over to the inner lanes to do so
so if you're coming up on the inside, rather than moving over, then Trentham & Rowlands is not in point?
|
Bazza
No. Whilst not mentioned, in my book but depending on circumstances as to why he was out, then maybe an offence of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road (by lane hogging).
Cartographer. (Don't you just like that posh name?)
NO. Read it again slowly?
DVD
|
Dwight Roller Driver (that's posher than a van!)
You wrote: it was potentially dangerous and thus dangerous driving for a motorist to overtake another on the outside lane at 70 mph by moving over to the inner lanes to do so (undertaking), particularly having regard to the obligation mentioned in the HC on drivers being overtaken to return to the inside lane.
The 'by moving over' suggests an active decision to move over in order to undertake. If you have always been in the inside lane, then you are not moving.
so, YES!?
|
Ordnancesurveyproducer....
...puts down glass of meths, kicks cat and declares...
YES, I see what you are getting at, BUT the act of going down the left hand side is the dangerous manouevre at speed as vehicle in lane 3 can come back to lane 2. (Slurp) Bomber lane 3, comes behind veh in land 3 and uses lane 2 to get past. No different to bomber lane 2 coming up to vehicle lane 3 at speed and slotting down nearside another active decision what?. Lane 1 would no doubt be a different kettle of fish.
.....there's a old mill by the schtream...
DVD
|
So DVD Player is saying that moving up and past in Lane 1 is potentially dangerous, because of the risk that someone in Lane 2 might move over? But that is exactly what is permitted by the HWC if there is a stream of traffic in Lane 2, and the traffic in lane 1 just happens to be moving faster.
In my experience that is a much more dangerous situation. Half the people caught in Lane 2 are wondering whether they ought to switch to Lane 1, and tend to do so without bothering to look properly.
A single old dodderer in Lane 2 is much less of a risk. You can hang back a bit to see if he is going to move over, then give a toot and nip past.
|
I'm not called a pedant for nothing. I think if it were legislation, I should happily rely on the fact that mere continuance in Lane 1 to go past car in lane 2 would be smiled upon.
Whilst of course, agreeing with your identification of the dangerous manoeuvre.
AA.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting debate. I regularly find myself on the only short bit of dual carriageway here (on the Isle of Wight), gnashing my teeth because locals who want to turn right at, or even beyond, the next roundabout head straight for the outer lane at the exit of the previous roundabout!
As their only reason for being in the outer lane is a wish to turn right later (they're certainly not overtaking anyone) can I pass them on the inside? Please...?
|
JBJ, if thou art heading towards Cowes surely it makes sense to get in the RH lane to maximise the distance from the gates of Parkhurst?
Not to mention avoiding rusty bits of St Mary's hospital hitting your car on a windy day....
|
"Is there a simple gesture for "Read the Highway code again, you berk"?"
Yes, but whether you prefer to suggest (with said signal) they start on page one, or two, is a matter of judgment.
|
Well, according to my "observer" providing I am paying attention to the lane hogger there is no reason not to make progress along lane 1 BUT Under no circumstances should I cruise up behind Mr Hogger slip into lane 1 and then back into lane 2 in front of Mr Hogger.
Which seems entirely in accordance with passage quoted above.
But as it stands it is obviously open to interpretation which is not good :s
JaB
|
>>providing I am paying attention to the lane hogger
I do it, sometimes, if lane 3 is doing 40, lane 2 50 and I have no traffic in front of me. But I am always concerned that Mr Hogger is paying no attention to me.
|
But I am always concerned that Mr Hogger is paying no attention to me.
Well thats a given really after all if he was paying attention Mr Hogger wouldn't be in lane 2 in the 1st place.
I don't do it as a matter of course but I will do it with a certain amount of circumspection to be sure but I will do it and I don't think I'm breaking any laws in doing so, but I guess I'll find out one day :D
JaB
|
I'm not sure that it's an attention thing. The middle lane hogger I saw on Saturday morning moved over when flashed by the poilceman, but was soon back in the middle lane, after he'd generously permitted the policeman to pass. There was no traffic in the inside lane (except me, and then the policeman, and we were both in front of him, going more quickly).
It's pure, simple, stupidity!
|
It's pure, simple, stupidity!
yep!
Mind you as so many people have an aversion to lane 1 I think we're quite safe from a sudden lane change, I don't do it anywhere near junctions for example.
But being in lane 2 and passing lane 3 is pretty dangerous I would say especially the way some people just change lanes without thinking.
JaB
|
I've said this before, but was it not the case that that early public info film about driving on the new M1 and M6 stated that the inside lane was for slow vehicles, middle for "cruising" and outer for fast.
I wonder if many people have a residual memory of this and still believe it to be the law, which would explain Mapmakers guy moving back out once the poilce car had passed.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps that's why they're doing it. Actually, the rusty bits have been replaced and it's now all matt grey steel rather than the exciting shiny stuff. If only they'd spent a few quid on the right sort of bolts, eh?
To avoid Parkhurst, you just have to go straight...
|
I say! I say! I say!
To avoid Parkhurst, you just have to go straight... >>
We don't wish to know that kindly leave the stage
;) JaB
|
We have the subject raised time and again in the BR.
The HW code specifically state you should not pass on the left. However it refers to congested traffic where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds and allows undertaking to keep up with the traffic in your lane.
I cannot see anyway that guidance can be interpreted as allowing the undertaking of a middle lane hog(however annoying they are) - particularly at speed on a motorway/dual carriageway. I am not condemning anyone who does undertake in those circumstances, just don't try to say it is approved in the HC.
The scenario that I encounter time and again is a queue of cars in the outside lane patiently waiting to pass slower traffic in the inside lane(s). Using their interpretation of the HW code that allows undertaking, cars pass the queuing cars on the left at high speed and cut into the outside lane. It is simply queue jumping which I find infuriating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't see where the danger is in using lane 1 to pass a vehicle which is hogging lane 2. If you pay attention to them as you pass you will (in most circumstances) always have the hard shoulder to move in to should they decide that they want to return to lane 1, having passed a vehicle 10 miles earlier.
|
|
|
