speed limits

cyclonebri1

I think you are correct, the message is getting through, ie, the right boot governs fuel costs.

And many are also driving less as well as slower,

NBLondon

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You've not seen any 2 lane motorways so have no experience?, so why the hell do you feel qualified to comment, they are all around, and anyone who travels the network gets exposure to them, really, :o:o, I would be.

I chose not to comment on the initial 2-lane scenario because I'd never encountered it. I know that's unusual compared to a lot of people on the internet who love the sound of their own voice (in their head while typing)... I may not have any 2 lane motorways where I drive (or have driven) but there are plenty of 2-lane dual carriageway trunk roads.

I commented on a 3-lane scenario someone else had brought up because - surprise! - I have experience of that.

I theorised on the 2-lane scenario because DirectDebacle asked me for my opinion. It was a fair question and deserved a reasonable answer.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Your last comment that the highway code doesn't specifically apply to cars already in lane 1 beggars belief to be honest

Made no such comment Bri. I said that moving from Lane 2 to Lane 1 is clearly a transgression of the Highway Code. Don't think anybody here disagrees with that. You'd make more sense if you debated with what people write rather than what you presume.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Oh, and the assumption of the fact that the other driver is the numpty sums it up for me.

I didn't introduce the phrase (useful as it is) but picked it up when responding to others. Notice that when DD suggested a reasonable cause for someone to be in Lane 2, I changed the terminology.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Have a good driving career, however short it may be:A

Well, thank you. I've enjoyed most of the last 25 years or so of it - and intend to enjoy the rest until such time as health or extreme penury prevent it.

DirectDebacle

NBLondon wrote: »

Well - if I'm following your advice and being behind the numpty instead and the numpty swings left without looking and meets the speed merchant; I've got to dodge the debris I suppose.

Sums up your attitude to your own and other road users safety quite nicely. I would much rather dodge debris than be part of the debris to be dodged.

Your fake and feeble excuses for overtaking on the left for reasons of safety, are not credible. The more you post the more you come across as an irresponsible driver, preferring to selfishly sacrifice safety in exchange for not losing a bit of speed or time. Would you execute your carefully planned and oh so safe manoevure if it was in view of the police.

The alleged careful planning process you claim is flawed and pointless. By driving to the rules of the road you will be a safer better driver.

Give it a try sometime.

Lum

NBLondon wrote: »

Now - look back at Lum's scenario - Lane 3 is filled with cars travelling in excess of the limit. To move from 1 to 3 would require brisk acceleration from 70 to 85, slotting into a gap between fast moving cars (including anyone else in Lane 2), pass the (possible)numpty and then back to Lane 2 or 3 and slow to 70 again. I (and my car) are capable of that but I judge that to be usually a higher risk than continuing in Lane 1.
Well - if I'm following your advice and being behind the numpty instead and the numpty swings left without looking and meets the speed merchant; I've got to dodge the debris I suppose.

Finally someone else here gets it!

I was never arguing that overtaking on the left is of equal safety to overtaking on the right when the road is clear, of course it isn't as the MLM is more likely to veer left than right.

What I have been arguing is that when the entire situation is taken into account, such as lots of speeding drivers trying to cram into a single lane at 85+. Joining that ongoing fiasco is a higher risk manoeuvre then the overtake in L1, you have all the fun of getting in to L3. You will either be breaking the speed limit or you will be "causing another driver to change speed or direction" which is also a HC transgression.

I've seen this sort of thing a not insignificant number of times. My favourite was when the MLM was in L3 of a 4 lane motorway doing 60 so we had an even bigger tailback caused as 4 lanes tried to cram into one. Luckily it wasn't rush hour or anything

I undertook the entire sorry mess in L1, safely away from any harm, and a whole empty lane between me and the MLM.

Oh and your linked page is interesting and quite right but doesn't actually add anything to this issue does it? What Bongles and Lum and I have all described starts from already being in Lane 1 at an appropriate speed for the conditions and deciding to continue to do so. None of us has mentioned going from Lane 2 to Lane 1 to undertake a vehicle in Lane 2... my interpretation of the Highway Code is that that would be a transgression.

Haven't seen the link but I'd agree that changing lanes with the express purpose of undertaking is very unlikely to be safe driving. The majority of times I see someone do that they then have to pull out in front of the car they have just undertaken because there is another lorry in L1.

My favourite example of such an idiot was the Audi S4 driver on the M4 who undertook a yellow van with flashing lights and a big "wide load" flag, having apparently failed to notice the enormous yellow digger with tracks the width of a car overhanging either side of the flatbed that was straddling L1 and L2. They then proceeded to pull in front of the escort van and get very wound up as everyone in L3 who had seen this decided to bunch up and not let the idiot in.

DirectDebacle

Finally someone else here gets it!

I was never arguing that overtaking on the left is of equal safety to overtaking on the right when the road is clear, of course it isn't as the MLM is more likely to veer left than right.


I've seen this sort of thing a not insignificant number of times. My favourite was when the MLM was in L3 of a 4 lane motorway doing 60 so we had an even bigger tailback caused as 4 lanes tried to cram into one. Luckily it wasn't rush hour or anything

I undertook the entire sorry mess in L1, safely away from any harm, and a whole empty lane between me and the MLM.

Completley different set of circumstances to the 2 lane m/way scenario I have been posting on.

Quite unusual too (to me) and what you did I see nothing wrong with from a safety point of view. As far as the H.C. goes the exception allowed for under Rule 268 probably applies.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

I've seen this sort of thing a not insignificant number of times. My favourite was when the MLM was in L3 of a 4 lane motorway doing 60 so we had an even bigger tailback caused as 4 lanes tried to cram into one. Luckily it wasn't rush hour or anything

I undertook the entire sorry mess in L1, safely away from any harm, and a whole empty lane between me and the MLM.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Completley different set of circumstances to the 2 lane m/way scenario I have been posting on.

Quite unusual too (to me) and what you did I see nothing wrong with from a safety point of view. As far as the H.C. goes the exception allowed for under Rule 268 probably applies.

or not.
268

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.

vaio

mikey72 wrote: »

......."the executive officer of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Expressway Traffic Police, was quoted by Bloomberg as describing the drivers as “A gathering of narcissists.”"

whilst grinning broadly

mattyprice4004

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but to sum up, if you're not in the left most lane and there is a decent sized gap you deserve to lose your license.

Keep left, or feel the force of my high beams until you do so!

DirectDebacle

mikey72 wrote: »

or not.
268

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.

If there is no traffic in an adjacent lane then you cannot be overtaking anything, can you?

mikey72

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If there is no traffic in an adjacent lane then you cannot be overtaking anything, can you?

Try it, and if you're pulled, tell them that and report back.
Should be good for a laugh.

(And if you don't think you're overtaking, your reference to Rule 268 was a bit pointless)