Highway what?

bosseyed

Come on then. Hands up who, like me, can't recall ever reading a copy of the Highway Code. I mean I must have done at some stage to pass the driving test surely? But if I did my leaking brain hasn't retained an image of either me reading it or indeed any knowledge I may have gleaned from it.

So tell me, those of you who actually own one and who like to conceal yourselves around the home and then leap out at random moments purely to test the family with driving questions, (Jimmy! Answer me this, if I crash at 50 miles an hour in a 30 zone, just how many nuns, orphans and tiny kittens will be killed!?....Countless thousands Jimmy correct, however you haven't told me what it will do to the house prices in the area! *smack* no breakfast for you Jimmy, get in the wardrobe!), is there anything worth reading in there these days meaning I ought to buy a copy, or shall I continue to rely on common sense and my finely honed animal driving instincts?

Strider590

Every time I recount the highway code section 130 to people who give me abuse for overtaking on chevrons, they always insist they read the highway code on a regular basis.........

Shimrod

"you should not enter the area unless it is necessary"

Can you explain why it is necessary that you overtake the person in front?

I would take necessary as having to go around a parked car, not so you can get to home/work a bit quicker. That's probably why you get the abuse.

Lum

The highway code is not a book of law, any rule that is described as "should not" is merely a guideline.

However in the event of an accident the person who chose to ignore the guidelines will likely be found at fault. The classic example here is where there is a hatched area with broken lines as described above, but in the middle of it is a right turn lane for the people coming in the opposite direction to turn across in front of you.

It is perfectly acceptable to use both the hatched area and the right turn lane for your overtake but if someone coming the other way moves into that lane while you're in the middle of doing so, causing a head on collision, it is your fault.


As for "necessary" the possible interpretations of that vary wildly.

If someone is rushing home from a long distance job, and wish to get home before their son's bedtime so they can actually see their son because they are out on another job in the morning which will have them away from home until the end of the week. Is that necessary?

If someone is rushing to get to a hotel, because it is the day before payday, they have literally no money but do have a fuel card and a Premier Travel Inn card which is their only means of eating tonight. They are rushing because the hotel restaurant closes at 10PM and if they miss is they starve. Is the overtake necessary to increase their chances of being able to eat tonight?

We all know that driving too slowly can bring on tiredness quicker than would otherwise be the case, is it necessary to overtake a 40 everywhere moron to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem.


"Necessary" is just a meaningless weasel word in this context.

Strider590

Shimrod wrote: »

"you should not enter the area unless it is necessary"

Can you explain why it is necessary that you overtake the person in front?

I would take necessary as having to go around a parked car, not so you can get to home/work a bit quicker. That's probably why you get the abuse.

It's "necessary" in order to avoid a collision with the car your trying overtake

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

It's "necessary" in order to avoid a collision with the car your trying overtake

Same applies to solid white lines then ?

Strider590

^^ No, because that's naughty

Dave101t

the highway code is a book of rules, backed up by the road traffic acts, but certain words like necessary require common sense. that is the problem, too many idiots on the road. as someone who drivess 40k miles a year ive seen almost all of it, and almost all of that by women, 4x4's, or women in 4x4's!

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ No, because that's naughty

..and Hatch Markings are not ?:p

Strider590

Inactive wrote: »

..and Hatch Markings are not ?:p

Nope, perfectly legal

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

Nope, perfectly legal

Waste of time painting them then, we can all just ignore them.

Not so sure the boys in blue would take to kindly to it.