speed limits

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

No, I'm assuming where you're undertaking, the car on the outside starts to move back in, you swerve left to avoid him, and hit the idiot undertaking you, as you don't expect him to be there.
Or do you take time out to check your blindspot first?

I would not start an undertake if there was someone using the hard shoulder nearby, in fact I would position myself in the middle lane in anticipation of that person deciding to exit the hard shoulder. I would also not describe the middle lane user as an MLM due to the possibility that they too have moved to the middle lane for that purpose.

Remember that I like to undertake quickly to minimise the risk exposure time, But I guess it is possible that while I'm in the middle of undertaking, someone driving some huge engined sports car could dive into the hardshoulder and position themselves in my blindspot at the exact moment that the MLM decides to swerve into me in such a way that I choose the hardshoulder over accelerating or braking, but the odds of that are sufficiently low that I am ok with the risk.

Edit: Also bear in mind that if I'm in a situation where I have chosen the hardshoulder over accelerating or breaking, that if I'd overtaken on the other side and that had happened, the equivalent escape would be into the central reservation which is often not usable.

jase1

Given that the Highway Code explicitly allows vehicles in the left lane to pass a stream of slower moving vehicles in a congested scenario, I wonder if mikey72 would take the time to look to his nearside if he was one of the cars in the congested lane in case there were vehicles legitimately passing him on the left, before pulling into the left lane himelf?

The answer to this would go a long way toward clarifying his position regarding whether his negligence of one side of his car is laziness or reaction.

Lum

I too would be interested to know that.

There's also one thing I should make clear. I do accept that overtaking on the left is riskier than on the right, all other things being equal.

That is why I'd only do it where other things are not equal, let me give you a typical scenario.

You're doing 70mph in L1, perhaps 10 minutes ago you were in L2 to overtake a truck. There is a reasonably steady stream of repmobiles passing you at 80+ in L2 perhaps some in L3 at 90+ too.

You happen across someone in the middle lane doing 56mph. There is nothing ahead in L1 for at least another 10 minutes, then maybe there is a truck or a 2CV or something.

There is still a steady stream of repmobiles coming past, they are moving into L3, some of them are getting dangerously close to the MLM, some of them are pulling into L3 in front of people doing 90+ and not leaving them much room to slow down. The usual chaos caused by an MLM halving the road capacity unnecessarily.

Do you:

a) Take your chances in L3 with the repmobiles.
b) Sit in L1 for the rest of your journey matching speed with the MLM.
c) Sod it, just pass the MLM in L1 while the repmobiles fight among themselves.

Clearly B is the lowest risk option, but not necessarily desirable if you're doing a long journey. C is much lower risk than A and is not braking any laws. Option A would require either breaking the speed limit and/or braking the highway code, the part about causing other vehicles to change speed or direction and is, IMO the worst option of the 3 by a long margin.


And at that I'm going to bed as I have a long motorway trip to do in the morning.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

I too would be interested to know that.

There's also one thing I should make clear. I do accept that overtaking on the left is riskier than on the right, all other things being equal.

That is why I'd only do it where other things are not equal, let me give you a typical scenario.

You're doing 70mph in L1, perhaps 10 minutes ago you were in L2 to overtake a truck. There is a reasonably steady stream of repmobiles passing you at 80+ in L2 perhaps some in L3 at 90+ too.

You happen across someone in the middle lane doing 56mph. There is nothing ahead in L1 for at least another 10 minutes, then maybe there is a truck or a 2CV or something.

There is still a steady stream of repmobiles coming past, they are moving into L3, some of them are getting dangerously close to the MLM, some of them are pulling into L3 in front of people doing 90+ and not leaving them much room to slow down. The usual chaos caused by an MLM halving the road capacity unnecessarily.

Do you:

a) Take your chances in L3 with the repmobiles.
b) Sit in L1 for the rest of your journey matching speed with the MLM.
c) Sod it, just pass the MLM in L1 while the repmobiles fight among themselves.

Clearly B is the lowest risk option, but not necessarily desirable if you're doing a long journey. C is much lower risk than A and is not braking any laws. Option A would require either breaking the speed limit and/or braking the highway code, the part about causing other vehicles to change speed or direction and is, IMO the worst option of the 3 by a long margin.


And at that I'm going to bed as I have a long motorway trip to do in the morning.

While I'm sure we all agree the highway code isn't law, and it's legal to overtake on the left etc, where does it say it's against the law to drive down the middle lane. It's just as legal, and I'm sure middle lane hoggers have an equally valid arguement they would use to justify it.

jase1

is the correct option.

Eventually Mr Trucker will turn up, pull into lane 2 and bully mlm into submission.

As I stated before, this absolves you of any blame.

Perhaps the truck will attempt an undertake. Let's see mlm try to side-swipe that,eh? I'm always up for a giggle.

Bongles

mikey72 wrote: »

If you want to try to pass me on the nearside, when I move back in...

When you move back in? For the whole time I've observed you, you never moved out. You've been in lane 2 for no apparent reason (other than perhaps you like it there) since I first saw you. Why would I expect you to move back in? Of course, at any moment you could decide to change lanes without looking - whether you're being passed on the left or the right - but unless everything I've seen about you so far, and what I can see ahead, gives me good reason to expect that you're not going to move into the lane I'm in, it would hardly be safe to consider passing you - on either side - would it?

jase1 wrote: »

I would also point out that any overtaking maneouvre relies to a large extent on the overtakee looking before he moves to the right in front of the overtaker. On the left or right really makes little difference.

Exactly.

Lum wrote: »

If I do happen to choose to overtake someone, on either side, and they choose to change lane into the side of me, deliberately or otherwise, I will see them and I will likely avoid them, that may be by putting my foot down, braking or swerving into the hard shoulder it depends on the situation.

mikey72 wrote: »

Would you take the time to check your blindspot first, in case you were being undertaken by someone using the hardshoulder for the next exit?

Too many times to remember, I have emphasised the need to carefully consider the safety of the manoeuvre before committing. I'd be shocked if you didn't think that something as basic as knowing what other vehicles are around or approaching was part of that.

Lum wrote: »

The question isn't "What's the likelihood of this person sideswiping me while I overtake them?" it is "What am I going to do if this person sideswipes me?"

If you can't answer that question satisfactorily then you don't want to be overtaking. On either side.

Exactly.

Bongles

jase1 wrote: »

is the correct option.

I think we've gone full circle . As I recall you said something similar before, and I piped up on page 5 wondering if you had any particular objection to option c.

I'd ask the same thing again but I'm not sure what would happen .

DirectDebacle

Bongles wrote: »

Actually, I'm not certain what the objection is. There seem to be a few different ones getting mixed up.

Is it an objection on principle to contravening the advice in the HC? To me, that would seem to ignore the difference between the HC and the law - to miss the implications of the fact that this is HC advice, not law. If it were absolutely unacceptable to ever consider doing this, it would be explicitly illegal. As I've said before, absolute, unwavering adherence to the HC for the sake of it would seem to me to be driving by rote rather than by reason, and is not the way I've been encouraged to think about driving in any of the further training I've had.

Or is the objection a belief that if the worst happened, you would be fully responsible for the consequences? I think such a belief would simply be wrong. If someone is themselves violating the Highway Code with their choice of lane, and they then change lanes for no apparent reason and without looking, I can't see them getting away without some difficult questions to answer.

Or is it an objection because passing on the left is thought dangerous? I think that one's been done to death. But for the avoidance of doubt, if you face this situation and you feel that passing on the left would be dangerous then for God's sake don't do it! Don't ever do anything you feel would be dangerous. However, if you believe it is inconceivable that passing on the left could ever be safe, then a) I clearly disagree (really rather strongly) and b) I have to wonder how you ever manage to pluck up the courage to pass on the right.



Could you give another example of something that could be well planned but bad driving. It's probably another case of the same words meaning different things to different people, but to me, well planned is kind of the definition of good driving.



I've certainly heard plenty of people from that world advocate this sort of thing. I'd be very surprised if the simple fact that it contravenes the HC would be sufficient to put the IAM off. From what I know they're big fans of using the full width of the road on single carriageways where safe for example, and that's a HC violation.



You brought this up before, but you never answered my question: Where does the Highway Code talk about dealing with lone drivers in the wrong lane (as distinct from queues and heavy traffic)? Now you're starting to give the impression that you're not familiar with it .



If you like . But can we add counting the number of times we get an adverse reaction from another driver? Avoiding that is one of the reasons I favour minimal interaction.

As I said in a previous post the most important factor to consider is safety. A good driver will always base their decision upon the safest option.

You stated your preferred option is based upon speed and efficiency.

You have already agreed that by following the advice in the Highway Code the worst that could happen is an extended journey time.

Please show where overtaking a vehicle on the left, on a two lane motorway where lane two is obstructed by a vehicle that should be in lane 1, is safer than adhering to the advice given in the Highway Code.

Could you give another example of something that could be well planned but bad driving. It's probably another case of the same words meaning different things to different people, but to me, well planned is kind of the definition of good driving.

By using acceleration control or other means, and accurate judging of speed and distance timing your passage over a zebra crossing to coincide with passing behind a pedestrian using it.

From what I know they're big fans of using the full width of the road on single carriageways where safe for example, and that's a HC violation.

Using the full width of the road on single carriageways is not necessarily a violation of the H.C. Link to the rule that states it always is please.

You brought this up before, but you never answered my question: Where does the Highway Code talk about dealing with lone drivers in the wrong lane (as distinct from queues and heavy traffic)? Now you're starting to give the impression that you're not familiar with it .

I didn't answer because you state your knowledge of the Highway Code is good, despite giving the opposite impression. Therefore I regarded it as a rhetorical question. It seems clear that your knowledge is not all that you claim. The Highway Code is a set of rules for all road users. It is not a driving instruction manual. Other publications and driving instruction fulfil this role.



Anyone who understood the Highway Code and its advice on overtaking on motorways would realise that by following those rules that the specific instruction you clearly desire and need is unnecessary.

If you wish to overtake then you will be in lane 2. By default the only lane available to overtake on a 2 lane motorway if the H.C. is followed.

By combining the above with the rules advising use of horn and flashing headlights the Highway Code will have you dealing appropriately with the situation without having to have it spelt out for you.

Post #144 still applies.

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

While I'm sure we all agree the highway code isn't law, and it's legal to overtake on the left etc, where does it say it's against the law to drive down the middle lane. It's just as legal, and I'm sure middle lane hoggers have an equally valid arguement they would use to justify it.

It's not against the law and I have never said it was. It's possible that they may get pulled for due care and attention if they sit there for mile after mile with nothing in the left hand lane.

It is against the HC and as I've said several times in this and other threads the HC only works if everyone obeys it and in some areas it gives little consideration to what to do with someone else breaks it. As soon as one person breaks it, others may also have to break it in order to deal with the situation that arises. This could, for example, be cutting across to the lane on your right on a roundabout because the person in front of you to your left has cut in front of you and you have a tailgater and no-one is using the space to your right.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

As I said in a previous post the most important factor to consider is safety. A good driver will always base their decision upon the safest option.

I disagree. The safest option is to stay at home or take the train. A good driver will accept that there is an element of risk to anything that they do and seek to minimise that risk while still making good progress.

You stated your preferred option is based upon speed and efficiency.

You have already agreed that by following the advice in the Highway Code the worst that could happen is an extended journey time.

And that carries it's own risks, especially on longer journeys, the risk of driving whilst tired, the risk of picking up tailgaters due to the fact that you're now doing 56 in a 70.

Please show where overtaking a vehicle on the left, on a two lane motorway where lane two is obstructed by a vehicle that should be in lane 1, is safer than adhering to the advice given in the Highway Code.

Being behind that person is higher risk than being in front of them. You are trading a brief moment of increased risk for an extended period of lower risk. Also at some point you will be joined by some muppet, probably driving a 4x4 Audi, who thinks that the best way of dealing with the situation is to tailgate the MLM with full beams on and you really don't want to be in the vicinity while that is happening.


As an aside, had a great example of such muppetry on my return journey just now. I was in L3 having just overtaken a truck, signalling left to move over when a 4x4, not sure which kind, comes storming up behind me with full beams on. This prevented me from being able to do a mirror and blindspot check and thus prevented me from changing lanes until he turned them off. Annoying as I needed the exit that was coming up in a mile and a half.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

It's not against the law and I have never said it was. It's possible that they may get pulled for due care and attention if they sit there for mile after mile with nothing in the left hand lane.

It is against the HC and as I've said several times in this and other threads the HC only works if everyone obeys it and in some areas it gives little consideration to what to do with someone else breaks it. As soon as one person breaks it, others may also have to break it in order to deal with the situation that arises. This could, for example, be cutting across to the lane on your right on a roundabout because the person in front of you to your left has cut in front of you and you have a tailgater and no-one is using the space to your right.



I disagree. The safest option is to stay at home or take the train. A good driver will accept that there is an element of risk to anything that they do and seek to minimise that risk while still making good progress.



And that carries it's own risks, especially on longer journeys, the risk of driving whilst tired, the risk of picking up tailgaters due to the fact that you're now doing 56 in a 70.



Being behind that person is higher risk than being in front of them. You are trading a brief moment of increased risk for an extended period of lower risk. Also at some point you will be joined by some muppet, probably driving a 4x4 Audi, who thinks that the best way of dealing with the situation is to tailgate the MLM with full beams on and you really don't want to be in the vicinity while that is happening.


As an aside, had a great example of such muppetry on my return journey just now. I was in L3 having just overtaken a truck, signalling left to move over when a 4x4, not sure which kind, comes storming up behind me with full beams on. This prevented me from being able to do a mirror and blindspot check and thus prevented me from changing lanes until he turned them off. Annoying as I needed the exit that was coming up in a mile and a half.

That was my point earlier.
No matter how great a driver claims to be, they need to be kid gloved by the worst drivers.

Following you on main beams actually prevented you from moving into a lane you knew only had a truck you had just overtaken in?
Couldn't you even see to the left on you?
If he hadn't dipped them, would you have driven in the third lane until you actually ran out of petrol.
Or was it more of driving at 70 and blocking him to teach him a lesson?