speed limits

Bongles

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.

The safest option is not to get in the car. If you decide to risk driving, then when considering any overtake the safest option is almost certainly going to be to reject it and accept increased journey time.

I'm still not clear to what extent the objection here is about safety and to what extent it's about the Highway Code. It seems to keep flipping between the two. I don't understand how someone who didn't think that a careful assessment of the situation might sometimes conclude that passing to the left was safe could ever pluck up the courage to pass on the right.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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

That's because I think dealing with the situation quickly, efficiently and with minimal interaction and minimal fuss and bother is the safest (and most cooperative) way to approach it.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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

No I haven't. I have agreed that by staying behind them the worst that could happen is an extended journey time. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that this scenario is not one of those discussed by the Highway Code.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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.

OK. I see how you're using "well planned" there. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not what I regard as good planning.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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.

First bullet of 160. Crossing the centre line for any reason other than "to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road" would violate that rule.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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.

Are we still talking about the same scenario? The Highway Code is not being followed. There's someone up ahead in lane 2 when lane 1 is available to them. Lane 1 is therefore available to overtake - a scenario on which the Highway Code is deafeningly silent.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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.

Are we back to moving into lane 2 behind them and trying to prompt them into moving over? It's an option, but i really don't prefer it. Engaging in that level of unnecessary interaction to try and make someone do something you want them to do but they might not want to do is at best pointless dogamtic HC adherence and at worst dangerously confrontational. As I've said, the minimal interaction alternative is a huge safety and cooperation plus for me. The less I can get involved with them, the better for both of us. You now appear to be putting HC adherence above safety!

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Post #144 still applies.

It does not still apply. It never applied at the time. It was just you being silly. As I said at the time, I am familiar with the Highway Code. I'm still at a loss as to how my acknowledging that something goes against the Highway Code could give anyone the impression that I hadn't read it.

And as for my motorway driving training, I'll happily discuss this scenario with some people. But I know that none the people who I take coaching and training from are as dogmatic as you seem to be and none of them would advocate that kind of thinking.

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

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

I have no idea how the bit of my post you bolded has anything to do with that point. Please elaborate.

Following you on main beams actually prevented you from moving into a lane you knew only had a truck you had just overtaken in?

I don't like to pull into a truck's stopping distance, unfortunately other people have no issue with doing this and as the exit I was taking is the kind where L1 peels away, people changing into L2 from L1 is increasingly likely.

Couldn't you even see to the left on you?

Nope, it was that perfect not quite night time yet dusk condition where full beams in the mirrors really screw up visibility. Sadly the car I was in is not fitted with dimming wing mirrors.

If he hadn't dipped them, would you have driven in the third lane until you actually ran out of petrol.

Nope other options would be:

1) Keep going while observing L1 ahead and wait until you aren't alongside anyone in L1 or L2 before changing lane.
2) Take a hand off the wheel and hold it over the mirror.
3) As it's becoming a dangerous situation, accelerate to try and placate the guy behind a bit, hopefully he will turn the full beams off thus removing the danger and allowing a safe lane change.

I don't like option 2. I really really don't like option 2. I'm not keen on option 3 either.

Or was it more of driving at 70 and blocking him to teach him a lesson?

If I was doing that I wouldn't have posted about it on here to give you further ammunition with which to criticise my driving. I really wanted to get across as it's important to get into L2 early at that particular junction because when people realise that L1 is going away it's a lot harder to make it into L2 safely.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

I have no idea how the bit of my post you bolded has anything to do with that point. Please elaborate.

I don't like to pull into a truck's stopping distance, unfortunately other people have no issue with doing this and as the exit I was taking is the kind where L1 peels away, people changing into L2 from L1 is increasingly likely.

Nope, it was that perfect not quite night time yet dusk condition where full beams in the mirrors really screw up visibility. Sadly the car I was in is not fitted with dimming wing mirrors.

Nope other options would be:

1) Keep going while observing L1 ahead and wait until you aren't alongside anyone in L1 or L2 before changing lane.
2) Take a hand off the wheel and hold it over the mirror.
3) As it's becoming a dangerous situation, accelerate to try and placate the guy behind a bit, hopefully he will turn the full beams off thus removing the danger and allowing a safe lane change.

I don't like option 2. I really really don't like option 2. I'm not keen on option 3 either.

If I was doing that I wouldn't have posted about it on here to give you further ammunition with which to criticise my driving. I really wanted to get across as it's important to get into L2 early at that particular junction because when people realise that L1 is going away it's a lot harder to make it into L2 safely.

So you could see, and decided not to move over anyway?
Until you needed to to get off the motorway?
If it was that important to keep left, maybe you should have waited behind the truck for a few minutes, and not put yourself in lane 3 if you needed to leave the motorway.
Then no-one could have forced you to keep right with potentially nothing in any other lane.

Lum

I could see ahead fine, just not behind or to the side due to full beams in my mirrors, thus a lane change to the left was unsafe.

I think a mile and a half before the exit is plenty of time to be moving across while allowing enough contingency time for events such as this.

To take your suggestion to it's logical conclusion I should have done my entire journey in L1 to avoid any lane changes, only since this is the M4 and it has a bunch of junctions where L1 peels away, perhaps I should have done the entire journey in L2, then I'd never have to worry about changing lanes at all!

In all honesty I think the guy behind just didn't get why I wouldn't want to pull into a truck's stopping distance they just saw me signal left, started accelerating then got annoyed when I hadn't moved left yet.

DirectDebacle

Bongles wrote: »

That's because I think dealing with the situation quickly, efficiently and with minimal interaction and minimal fuss and bother is the safest (and most cooperative) way to approach it.

But it is still riskier than overtaking on the right. To reduce the obvious risks of overtaking a vehicle in lane 2 on the left (on a 2 lane motorway) why are you not using the hard shoulder instead of lane 1.

That would be much safer than using lane 1. The vehicle you are overtaking if it were to suddenly change lanes would have to travel across an empty lane before contact became imminent. Chances are you would have already completed the overtake by the time the numpty reached the point at which impact would have occurred, had you remained in lane 1. If not you would have much more time to take evasive action.

I'm sure you would agree that is a safer way of executing your preferred overtaking method.

Lum

It is illegal to overtake on the hard shoulder, it is not illegal to overtake in lane 1.

Hard shoulder is for emergency use only, therefore it is legal to move into it should the MLM decide they want to ram you off the road.

DirectDebacle

Lum wrote: »

It is illegal to overtake on the hard shoulder, it is not illegal to overtake in lane 1.

Hard shoulder is for emergency use only, therefore it is legal to move into it should the MLM decide they want to ram you off the road.

I know. The question is one of safety not legality. What would be the best road positioning to overtake on the left in terms of safety.

Lum

Depends a lot on the condition of the hard shoulder, they're frequently full of gravel and debris that ends up there after being thrown around the motorway by other cars.

I guess if you ignore the law, and in ideal circumstances, i.e. perfect road surface, no other cars ahead or behind that could decide to use the shoulder, no emergency vehicles or other hard shoulder users approaching from behind etc. etc. then yes it would probably be safer due to the increased distance between you and the MLM, safer than overtaking on the right even.

It's still illegal though, unlike overtaking in L1.

DirectDebacle

I almost entirely agree with this. Using lane 1 would not be as safe as using the hard shoulder. If the hard shoulder either did not exist or for reasons, akin to those mentioned by you, was otherwise unusable as an additional lane then overtaking in lane 1 would not be the safest option. If things went pear shaped then you have no escape route. Coarse steering and harsh braking on a poorly maintained hard shoulder is not the thing to be doing at motorway speeds.

I have no problem with brief and minor transgressions of the law in order to maintain maximum safety. For example briefly exceeding a speed limit to execute an overtake in a safer way.

However as you point out using the hard shoulder for overtaking is illegal. I believe being in close proximity and the incorrect lane whilst overtaking an unpredictable numpty is not a good place to put yourself in, no matter how many times you are lucky enough to get away with it.

As a nitpick and no more:), using the hard shoulder might be safer than overtaking on the right. However if you were overtaking on the right that means the numpty wasn't there (in lane 2) to cause you to even consider an overtake on the left.

Lum

As I've said a few times I don't regularly overtake people on the left in fact it's pretty rare that I will do it. Usually I will have had plenty of time to observe the MLM an get a feel for how they want to drive, most likely because they're doing 60 and I'm doing 70. Often these people are actually predictable, they haven't looked in their mirror since Tony Blair became PM and they will stay in that lane until they near the exit they want. Obviously you don't want to be passing them on the left if there is a junction coming up in the next few miles.

It's only when it appears that an overtake on the left would be safer than an overtake on the right that I'll consider such a move, such as the example I gave where L3 is filling up with 80+ mph drivers all fighting amongst each other for a place in L3 to overtake on the right. In that sort of situation I'll just stay in the lane I'm in and come past, possibly with a small burst of speed to minimise exposure to risk, and as discussed an eye on the hard shoulder as an additional escape route should I be unfortunate enough to meet Mikey72 on the road.

I might also consider it if the driver is weaving about in their lane or in some other way giving me the impression of being drunk/high, simply because of that hard shoulder escape route. Again this is simply a risk management thing, having an unpredictable drunk driver ahead of you is an unacceptable risk, so you take the momentary risk of passing them over the long term risk of not having them miles behind you in the distance.