speed limits

Lum

To be fair, most of the posters who frequent any motoring forum with some regularity, with the exception of StickingFibreglassTatOntoYourCitroenSaxo.co.uk, are going to be a little better than average simply because they clearly have an actual interest in driving and think discussing issues such as this one is important.

Even the people in this thread who I think are complete idiots advocating terrible driving practice, I still strongly believe are better drivers than average for this reason.

The problem is the average is so damn low. Notice how nobody has cropped up to defend driving at 40mph everywhere.

scheming_gypsy

lindopski wrote: »

I can guarantee that when I leave later to go out, I will get in my car drive away with nothing behind me at all in the rear view mirror. within 60 seconds I will have a car right behind me, annoyed at the fool doing 30 in a 30 limit, I will reach the dual carriageway and be overtaken instantly by said Irate driver now doubling the 40 limit to show his/her annoyance.
If only I had a camera to film it all and a place to put on the bet - I know I would be quids in, and I'm not even a TV psychic.

safe driving all

well you clearly wouldn't unless they hung back at 0mph waiting for you to hit the 40mph zone. If you think they'll sit behind you and then 'instantly' hit 80 when you get into a 40mph zone... then you need to step away from the crack pipe.

cyclonebri1

Bongles wrote: »

.



It doesn't say "must not", it just says "don't".







makes this a perfect example for remembering that the HC is not the law.

Well I/m sorry but in the simplest terms that means "don't do it", everyone except you seems to understand that.

What law will be broken if 1 of those cars you undertaken decides to rejoin the 1st lane and you collide? Well, pretty certainly on your part it would be careless or even dangerous driving, dependant on your speed.

I'll say again I like everyone else has seen this situation, I find moving to the left and holding speed for a while, ensuring I'm not in their blind spot, either gets the message over or at least alerts them to your position. A very slow move up the inside is then made more acceptable.

The fact that they shouldn't be there does not come into it, they are there and 2 wrongs etc.

Of course if you are then seen to wack it back up as you pass the last car then the law would again take a dim view, either from the "must not" or "don't" perspective. :A

Lum

Highway code can be cited in civil liability cases, yes, however it also requires to check before changing lanes and for the MLM to claim undertaking they'd have to be sufficiently alert to be aware of your presence which is unlikely as most don't seem to know what the shiny sticky-out things on the outside of their doors are for.

I agree that it will complicate matters a bit though, yes.

I also can't believe you advocate a "slow move up the inside". This is a terrible plan as while your are alongside the other car you are exposed to danger and if they do change lane could end up in a collision. It is better to accelerate and get the undertaking manoeuvre done as quickly as possible, thus minimising your risk exposure. Given most of these muppets tend to do 55-60 then 70-75 is a perfectly reasonable speed to pass. Expect flashes and/or hand signals however.

Also, undertaking does offer one significant advantage over overtaking if the person you are passing is suspected of not being a mirror-user. If they do start to make a lane change while you are alongside, you can likely dive into the hard shoulder to avoid them.

King_Nothing

If I need to undertake, I usually drog a gear or two, let the turbo take over, and get past them as quickly as possible, sauntering past them at 1mph more than them, puts me on their side for far longer than I wish to be, all it takes is for them to continue being asleep while they eventually change lanes back into the correct lane, and sideswipe you.

DirectDebacle

The safest and most appropriate way to deal with this situation is to stay behind the vehicle blocking the lane. Make the driver aware of your prescence by using flashing headlamps, horn or a combination. They will eventually move over. With luck they will not have a premature meeting with a professional undertaker, caused by colliding with an unprofessional one.

jase1

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The safest and most appropriate way to deal with this situation is to stay behind the vehicle blocking the lane. Make the driver aware of your prescence by using flashing headlamps, horn or a combination. They will eventually move over. With luck they will not have a premature meeting with a professional undertaker, caused by colliding with an unprofessional one.

There's an amusing little IAM film from the 1960s on Youtube that advocates doing this. Car sat behind an old blue car on the outside lane, IAM driver flashes then beeps the driver, driver eventually pulls over shoving two fingers up at the IAM bloke as he does so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE82FZpq0qM&feature=related

If it's good enough for the IAM.....

Strider590

jase1 wrote: »

There's an amusing little IAM film from the 1960s on Youtube that advocates doing this. Car sat behind an old blue car on the outside lane, IAM driver flashes then beeps the driver, driver eventually pulls over shoving two fingers up at the IAM bloke as he does so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE82FZpq0qM&feature=related

If it's good enough for the IAM.....

Hmmmmm..... Yes, but these days it's likely to result in serious road rage. The car would refuse to move over and would probably start brake testing you whilst giving you various hand gestures.

Bongles

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

What law will be broken if 1 of those cars you undertaken decides to rejoin the 1st lane and you collide?

If there's a collision, one or other driver (or maybe both) is probably guilty of at least careless driving. Which driver is guilty would obviously depend on how careful each had been.

I rather thought it would be obvious enough to go without saying, but perhaps it needs to be said for the avoidance of doubt: I wouldn't advise passing another vehicle (on its left or its right) unless you are confident that it's not going to change lanes. Of course, confidence is not certainty, but then certainty is not possible.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I'll say again I like everyone else has seen this situation, I find moving to the left

Hang on... moving to the left? In the situation I'm talking about here, you are already in the left lane. What situation are you thinking of?

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

A very slow move up the inside is then made more acceptable.

Very slow? I certainly didn't suggest that, and for the record I think it's an extremely bad idea.

cyclonebri1

Bongles wrote: »

If there's a collision, one or other driver (or maybe both) is probably guilty of at least careless driving. Which driver is guilty would obviously depend on how careful each had been.

I rather thought it would be obvious enough to go without saying, but perhaps it needs to be said for the avoidance of doubt: I wouldn't advise passing another vehicle (on its left or its right) unless you are confident that it's not going to change lanes. Of course, confidence is not certainty, but then certainty is not possible.




Hang on... moving to the left? In the situation I'm talking about here, you are already in the left lane. What situation are you thinking of?




Very slow? I certainly didn't suggest that, and for the record I think it's an extremely bad idea.

I'm sorry but you are making for too many suppositions here.
Passing up the inside unless in queing traffic is not being carefull as you put it.


Just how can you be "confident" that a car is not going to change lanes when you are undertaking it, many will to to make a point to you, and seeing something coming up behind on the inside is likely to cause a realisation that maybe they should be in the LH lane:T:T

Moving to the left?. Given that you don't see any issue in passing on the left when any sensible driver would actually pull to the right and pass on the outer side rather risk a run up the inside, I rather thought you wouldn't have too many issues with a sneaky undertake?.

I know you didn't say very slow, I read that much from your post, assuming that means you feel the best course of action is to whip down the inside quickly then you are an accident waiting to happen.

What part of "when traffic is moving slowly in queues" don't you understand ?:rotfl::rotfl: