Bad driving, lane discipline, undertaking & the LAW

[85jas]

This is going to be a a full on rant and for that, I apologise. But let me state some facts as I see them:

- The standard of driving in the UK is terrible, and this ultimately boils down to a general poor attitude towards other road users and a lack of familiarity with the rules o' the road.
- Apart from the crashy 17-25 age group the worst offenders (to me anyway) appear to be the 50-something executive car crew, men and women alike. The former usually pay a certain level of attention and despite inexperience / showing off etc. are not as bad as the latter, who can be found trying to take you out during lane changes for a bit of a laugh and are convinced they are the supreme being on the road.
- Although the level of driving skill and understanding of car handling / physics is generally very poor the main problems appear to be a lack of understanding regarding the highway code, not using the tools available (mirrors, indicators, lights) to observe or communicate with other road users and, most importantly, lack of planning.

:smt071 (grrrrr... ok.... breather.....)

Classic scenario: You're in the nearside lane of a three lane NSL carriageway in the middle of the day, light traffic, good conditions. Five hundred yards ahead there is a lorry with no vehicles between you and it (and yes, you all know what's coming). For three hundred yards fore and aft of the lorry the other two lanes are packed with vehicles traveling so close that when someone farts, they all recoil away in horror. Those joining the great big group overtake effort do so in the far offside lane. Now when I'm in the car I tend to do the appropriate thing; match speed with the middle lane, pick my gap to slot into, approach the lorry in the nearside lane then join the middle lane for the overtake before dropping back into the nearside lane (provided there's no clear overtaking opportunity in the offside lane). However when I'm riding I will tend to deliberately (and carefully, not quickly) undertake the whole feckin' lot, then slot into my gap. Clearly this is not allowed.

Classic scenario 2: Same carriageway. There is an executive merc in the offside lane doing 80mph. Now, being naughty like that, I would like to overtake. There is a car in the nearside lane and none in the central one. When driving I will approach the merc in the central lane overtaking the nearside car, then pull up behind signalling my desire to overtake. When I'm duly ignored I give them a quick flash " I'm not just sitting here for the hell of it " style and, if I'm further ignored I just pull back into the appropriate lane and do not undertake, However, on the bike I will deliberately undertake after having ascertained the driver is not going to change lane.

Now I really don't want to give bikers a bad image; whenever I intentionally do something naugty I do it 'safely' and don't just scream past like a wild thing with two fingers in the air. Really, by their poor, unskilled, attentionless driving they are forcing a more highly trained, more skilled, more vulnerable and far better looking road user to break the law in order to make progress.

Am I being a tw*t?

Rant over. Sorry.

[Spank86]

In the first example, its bad form to do it in a car. Why should you get to skip the queue. On a bike I'd do it if I could do so without slowing down traffic.

The second example I'd happily breeze by on the inside lane, it's not actually undertaking unless you move inside and then back out. If you were always in one of the inside lanes and dont move out then it's fine which Is what I usually do, why bother with the dance.

On the bike the other day I saw a car doing the outisde lane hog, after the two cars in front of me eventually undertook I did the same so close that you'd struggle to get a fag packet between me and the car. Absolutely no need to do it and very stupid but oh so satisfying.

[-Ralph-]

First example: From what you described you continued in lane 1 (nearside), which you were already in, and continued your at your speed passing the slower vehicles in lane 2 on the left. When you arrived at a slower vehicle, you slotted safely into lane 2 for the overtake. This is perfectly valid and legal and you've done nothing wrong, see highway code rule 268.

Second example: You haven't actually done anything illegal, there is no law against overtaking on the left. However other drivers are not expecting you to be overtaking on the left, therefore it is viewed as allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist, and you would probably be charged with driving without due care and attention (DWDC).

I personally think though that if there is a vehicle in lane 3 and the rest of the motorway is empty, and you move over to lane 1 to overtake on the left, a good lawyer may manage to argue that you had done it in a prudent manner, having been given no other option by the driver hogging lane 3, and that therefore you are not guilty of DWDC. Not sure I'd like to be the one to test it in court though.

[-Ralph-]

deliberately (and carefully, not quickly)

The only other bit of feedback I'd give, and this is nothing to do with law, is do it carefully and swiftly keeping to the left of your lane.

The slower you do it, the longer you spend sitting on the left hand side of that vehicle, where the driver is not expecting you to be, bang in the middle of that drivers left mirror blind spot. You don't want to be there too long.

Keeping to the left of your lane is giving yourself room and time to react if the car does start to change lane to the left without having seen you, though it does increase the length of the blind spot you have to pass through.

[Dicky Ticker]

2-----------If he is doing 80mph what speed were you doing. Two wrongs don't make a right in my book but you carry on as you are if you consider it to be good driving/riding.

As to being a t**t I will not comment.

The only time undertaking is 100%legal is if you are using a slip road to leave the road you are on and undertaking the vehicles in the nearside lane.Other scenarios may be permissible depending on the circumstances but leave you open to criticism

[Dicky Ticker]

If ALL drivers maintained lane discipline the need would not arise for good drivers to do silly things,but even good drivers suffer frustration and end up being bad drivers.

Think how it appears to the driver sitting behind you if you are ducking and diving from one lane to the other to gain a cars length

[-Ralph-]

The only time undertaking is 100%legal is if you are using a slip road to leave the road you are on and undertaking the vehicles in the nearside lane.Other scenarios may be permissible depending on the circumstances but leave you open to criticism

Legal, but again, just be careful. Some t**t will look at the sat nav or the sign, realise they are missing their junction, and make a dive for the slip road.

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

I don't really want to get dragged into this, but, "middle lane hoggers" are a major hate of mine.

Whenever I am on the M25 in the sections where there are four lanes I am always "undertaking" traffic as no-one drives in lane 1 of the 4.

I was lead to believe by a member of the Police force, when I asked him, what the ruling was and I was told as long as you don't change lanes to under-take (i.e. lane two to lane one or lane three to lane two or one) then it is legal as long as you are not breaking the speed limit

Slower traffic that is sat in the middle lane(s) is dangerous in itself, but, sitting in the middle lane is not illegal, it is just contrary to the high-way code

Best advice is just to over-take to the right of the traffic, but, if you are in a lane with a clear path and are travelling faster then vehicles to your right it is not illegal to "undertake"

[Dicky Ticker]

A valid point Ralph but I would expect a decent driver to be aware of this.I don't usually undertake on the slip road till it is safe to do so,normally after the chevrons at the very least.

With the above be ready for somebody pulling to their left into your path-----------------------without signalling

[-Ralph-]

decent driver

Now there's a big assumption ;)

[Owenski]

The slower you do it, the longer you spend sitting on the left hand side of that vehicle, where the driver is not expecting you to be, bang in the middle of that drivers left mirror blind spot. You don't want to be there too long.

+1 Not so much now I've moved but for the last 5years my commute has been about 75% motorway riding with a further 20% on Duel'C.
If you think people don't look over their right shoulder to perform suitable checks, you'd be astounded at the number who are clueless you're on their left.

Riding level with any vehicle is un advised IMO but to be on its left is just asking from disaster. I NEVER hang about if passing a vehicle, I will without fail make a concious effort to be in front and thus in the drivers field of vision as soon as is possible. Any person who vindictively strikes my bike from the rear after I've passed will be getting a visit from a lawyer branding a charge of assault with a deadly weapon/attempted murder.

As for your OP, doesn't sound like you do too much wrong HOWEVER if you're seen doing those things linked together far too frequently for a spectators liking it could be seen that you're travelling too fast (without speeding).
Making progress is fair enough but don't be fooled into thinking that speeding is the only offence available to you on the highway.

You are legally required to travel safely whilst maintaining control of your vehicle. Skids, stoppies and wheelies do not qualify as been in control, nor does filtering at 70mph qualify as safe. I'm sure we all drive our cars differently to how we ride our bikes but that for me means I'm less defensive whilst in the car, on the bike I generally act like everyone is out to kill me.

[-Ralph-]

I was lead to believe by a member of the Police force, when I asked him, what the ruling was and I was told as long as you don't change lanes to under-take (i.e. lane two to lane one or lane three to lane two or one) then it is legal as long as you are not breaking the speed limit

see highway code rule 268.

:smt023

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

The issue is HWC rule 268 says "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."

That seems to negate the ability to do it outside of "congested" conditions

[-Ralph-]

That seems to negate the ability to do it outside of "congested" conditions

Absolutely yes, and if a copper who stopped you didn't agree that 268 applied and charged you with DWDC, then that would be down to your lawyer to demonstrate that the conditions were indeed 'congested', which in itself is open to interpretation (who said the law was written in black and white?).

For three hundred yards fore and aft of the lorry the other two lanes are packed with vehicles traveling so close that when someone farts, they all recoil away in horror.

In the case of the OP, as he has described it though, I think he'd be OK.

[Spank86]

I'd argue that if the outside lane has a slower moving car in it then the road is by definition congested.

Of course they'd probably be content to do you for speeding if it was over 70mph.

[85jas]

In the first example, its bad form to do it in a car. Why should you get to skip the queue. On a bike I'd do it if I could do so without slowing down traffic.

That's it, it's bad form in a car, and I would be annoyed if somebody did that to me (not that I'd be in the wrong place in the first place!)

The only other bit of feedback I'd give, and this is nothing to do with law, is do it carefully and swiftly keeping to the left of your lane.

That is good advice. I don't want to scream past in a way which may be construed aggressive but doing it swiftly, I agree. Thanks!

2-----------If he is doing 80mph what speed were you doing. Two wrongs don't make a right in my book but you carry on as you are if you consider it to be good driving/riding.

As to being a t**t I will not comment.
Well that's it, if I want to speed then that's my funeral, but my point was less about the speed than the other driver's road position. The number of times the outside lane hoggers are doing a shade under 70 on a clear road amazes me. Though, in that case, of course you continue at 70 in lane 1. As for being a tw*t the answer is always yes :-D I set 'em up, you knock 'em down...

The issue is HWC rule 268 says "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."

That seems to negate the ability to do it outside of "congested" conditions
So this makes cruising past everyone in lane one legal, provided you're at or below the speed limit, it's then slotting into the queue in front of the car you've passed that's not allowed?


To clarify, I dont drive / ride like an ****, I do try to set a good example. The thing is I always think this stuff in my head when I'm on the road and rarely get the chance to discuss it. Compared to most of the forum members I have only a small amount of road experience, so It's really useful to discuss this sort of thing. It's all by degrees at the end of the day, as you say Ralph it's not black & white.

So essentially, think, think again, then do whatever you're going to do as safely and unobtrusively as possible.

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

So this makes cruising past everyone in lane one legal, provided you're at or below the speed limit, it's then slotting into the queue in front of the car you've passed that's not allowed?

If you change lanes to perform an undertake it is illegal, if you need to change lanes after undertaking legally to overtake some it is fine

[Fallout]

I don't believe there is a lack of understanding in lane discipline. Apart from the uber plebs that make up maybe 1 or 2% of road users (the sort of people that can't write their own name), people understand what they're supposed to do. They simple don't care, plain and simple. It's far easier to sit in a lane than change lanes. Then those that undertake to get a few cars ahead are just impatient and self important.

Basically people, in general, are inconsiderate and selfish at heart, and in the safety and impersonal environment of a car they show their true colours. The only reason why they don't push in front of you in a queue at the bank or barge in front of you on the pavement is because it's too confrontational and outside of their caged cocoon they don't have the balls.

[-Ralph-]

it's then slotting into the queue in front of the car you've passed that's not allowed?

That is allowed, it's nothing more than a lane change to perform a normal overtake.

It's changing lane to the left, in order to overtake on the left that's not allowed.

If the motorway is congested and you catch up with a queue of cars in lane 2, when you have been in a queue of cars in lane 1 the whole time, you are allowed to carry on in lane 1, passing on the left.

If the motorway is congested and you catch up with a queue of cars in lane 3, when you have been in a queue of cars in lane 2 the whole time, you are allowed to carry on in lane 2, passing on the left.

The very fact that a motorway is congested, means there will be cars at varying speeds in all lanes, and it is reasonable to expect every driver (even the numpties) in lanes 2 and 3, to expect there to be a car occupying the lane to their left.

[Spank86]

It's worth noting that the people travelling just under 70mph in the middle or outside lane probably believe they are travelling AT 70mph due to the inaccuracy of speedos.

[ChrisCurvyS]

Sadly I spend nearly alll of my commute on dual carriageways and motorways - few obs:

1 - As others have said, spend as little time as possible alongside vehicles in other lanes. Unless you're overtaking them, make sure you're either a good few feet in front or a good few feet behind.

2 - Think the outside lane hoggers are split between those who are just oblivious to the Highway Code/what's going on around them (most) and those who see you behind them and deliberately set out to annoy by lingering.

3 - One thing that's not been mentioned is people who've been sat behind a slower vehicle for ages but suddenly decide to pull out as you're coming up behind them, even when there's nothing behind you so they could have waited just a few seconds to save you a lot of hassle.

Having said all that, don't forget about 1 in 10 people on the road are driving illegally (much more in some areas) so expecting them to keep abreast of the Highway Code is probably a little unrealistic.

[yorkie_chris]

Having said all that, don't forget about 1 in 10 people on the road are driving illegally (much more in some areas) so expecting them to keep abreast of the Highway Code is probably a little unrealistic.

About 1 in 3 in Bradford and it shows.

[-Ralph-]

Having said all that, don't forget about 1 in 10 people on the road are driving illegally (much more in some areas)

About 1 in 3 in Bradford and it shows.

Never realised it was this high. We really should move towards the European system whereby insurance, MOT are an obligatory sticker in the windscreen much like our tax disk, and it's the law to carry your license at all times when driving.

If this were the case police could just stand in the road and wave cars into a layby for a 2 minute random check, and take illegal drivers off the road there and then. That ratio would quickly drop.

[Spank86]

It IS law to carry your licence while driving, the police are just pretty lenient on it.

As for the insurance and MOT, tax discs are bad enough in the days of computers, they should eb able to get that info from the reg without needing us to muck about with a silly bit of paper.

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

It IS law to carry your licence while driving, the police are just pretty lenient on it.

As for the insurance and MOT, tax discs are bad enough in the days of computers, they should eb able to get that info from the reg without needing us to muck about with a silly bit of paper.

You're right about the licence, you're supposed to carry the photo I.D. and the counterpart at all times.

As for the MOT, insurance and tax, they do use an ANPR to check the car/bike/vehicle has these things, but, for some reason only tax discs remain as the a need for physical representation

[yorkie_chris]

It IS law to carry your licence while driving, the police are just pretty lenient on it.

I thought it was in law that you also have the option of a producer, which in practical terms mean no it isn't law that you have to carry it about.

[-Ralph-]

The computer databases are notoriously innaccurate. Try out the insurance one on your vehicles here http://www.askmid.com/

If you started seizing every car that was wrong on the computer database, you'd have some very angry law abiding people.

I'd still want a bit of paper to show I'd paid my money.

[yorkie_chris]

I've got a traders policy and can add vehicles to MID without much if any checking as to whether I own it or not, it wouldn't exactly be hard to use that with nefarious intent.

[Spank86]

I thought it was in law that you also have the option of a producer, which in practical terms mean no it isn't law that you have to carry it about.

Like I said, the law says you have to carry it but the police only issue a producer if you fail to so theres not much in the way of punishment.


It's also law that you cant cycle on footpaths but theres no punishment for that either (footpaths, not footways).

[-Ralph-]

nefarious

Even I as the author of the most waffling posts on the forum, had to google that one.

[Spank86]

Really?

It's a good word.

[ChrisCurvyS]

Just going back to the topic guys and gals - the problem with enforcement is that the punishments are absurdly lenient - providing you're in a car and not on a bike of course.

The police can catch uninsured/unlicensed/banned drivers all they want but the courts rarely impose anything which deters them from doing it again - eg fines for no insurance which cost much less than the insurance would have, to be paid at a rate of 50p a week from your benefits (if at all), etc etc.

Speaking of which, anyone see this today?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/61414/britains-youngest-banned-drivers-revealed

If I was in the AA, I would cancel my membership purely based on that idiotic quote about it being a good thing that the courts impose Kafkaesque driving bans on children.

[Spank86]

I think he's saying its better they are imposed at the time of the offence rather than delayed until they turn 17.

I mean turning 17 and knowing you've got a 2 year ban to serve would probably cause them to simply not bother with the system and just carry on driving illegally.

[Biker Biggles]

I think you misread the article.The AA bloke was horrified by the figures,but the government idiot was the one saying the bans were from the date of conviction rather than from some date when they would have any meaning.
Actually these repeat offenders should be locked up,as a danger to themselves and everyone else,whatever their age.

[-Ralph-]

Kafkaesque

Is this thread becoming a big words that ralph doesnt know competition?


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[ChrisCurvyS]

I think he's saying its better they are imposed at the time of the offence rather than delayed until they turn 17.

I mean turning 17 and knowing you've got a 2 year ban to serve would probably cause them to simply not bother with the system and just carry on driving illegally.
I think the sorts of lads who nick cars and go joyriding at 12 aren't going to suddenly go legit a few years later and start tootling round in a dual control Nissan Micra. Plus, how much do you think insurance would cost for a 17-year-old with those previous convictions, if you could get it at all?

Should have explained myself better - I think the whole idea of banning a child from doing something they can't legally do anyway or giving them points on licence they don't have is just absurd and makes a mockery of the system. Stop doing it and do something that might actually change their behaviour instead.

[Spank86]

Guy I know went legit at about 20.


Jobs that need driving licences will do that.

[ChrisCurvyS]

Lads like him are probably the exception though aren't they?

Just speaking from experience - spent a lot of time in court as a reporter and you'd see the same people up for driving while disqualified over and over again. Chaps like this -

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/5165-dangerous-driver-escapes-jail

[Spank86]

I would have said that the ones who are banned as kids are the exception but that anyone who wants to hold down a proper job and life will eventually have to get a driving licence.

I mean yes there are the kids who go on to a life of crime and whatnot but some of them are just caught up in a gang of people at that age and will straighten themselves out.

They certainly don't need to pay for it maybe 5-10 years later. Not when it's just as easy to catch them then and punish them if they are still doing it.

[yorkie_chris]

There needs to be more judges with powers to say "well you've had chance to reform, you haven't done, so the best we can do is to keep your worthless hide away from the general public for a while, see you in 10 years"

[-Ralph-]

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=187398

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

Lads like him are probably the exception though aren't they?

Just speaking from experience - spent a lot of time in court as a reporter and you'd see the same people up for driving while disqualified over and over again. Chaps like this -

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/5165-dangerous-driver-escapes-jail

The issue here is like you said, someone gets caught with no licence so they get a ban and fined. Because they have a ban they have to do an extended driving test and their insurance will be cripling, as such they generally decide not to bother with either and drive anyway, thusly getting cause, repeat and rinse...

[yorkie_chris]

I think the problem is insurance and extended driving tests. Not a solution.

I think once you get caught for a crime you should be punished for it and that should be that, over and done with. Not punished and punished 10 times over for the next 5 years.

[Biker Biggles]

If a court bans you from driving,and you go on and drive anyway,that should be contempt of court which carries a very heavy prison sentence.But we dont seem to see these scrotes getting that do we?

[widepants]

Is it true that some American states have the 3 stricks and you're out rule.So if strike number three is shop lifting a bag of bubble gum its still curtains

[Spank86]

There needs to be more judges with powers to say "well you've had chance to reform, you haven't done, so the best we can do is to keep your worthless hide away from the general public for a while, see you in 10 years"

What, to a 12 year old?

[yorkie_chris]

What, to a 12 year old?

Probably said that in the wrong context, I was meaning more for incurable repeat offenders.

[Spank86]

I figured, but I couldn't resist :D

[keith_d]

If a court bans you from driving,and you go on and drive anyway,that should be contempt of court which carries a very heavy prison sentence.But we dont seem to see these scrotes getting that do we?

We don't have enough prisons to implement it.

http://www.howardleague.org/overcrowding/

If we had enough prisons, maybe a geometric fixed sentence would work. Eight days for your second offense, sixteen for the next, then 32, 64, 128...

I picked the eight day starter in the hope that even deducting days on remand they would get a meaningful sentence. Repeat offenders would quickly climb the ladder to eight months inside, which might give them pause to think.

And with a fixed tarrif you don't get whiny social workers saying, "Y'r honor he comes from a disturbed background and his disabled Grandma needs him at home". Tough, no discretion, no let-off.

Radical enough for everyone?? :)

[Biker Biggles]

We could also reduce the prison population by not putting people in there who are no threat to the rest of us.
Like the bloke who walks around naked everywhere,who might be odd,but will not wipe out a bus queue in a stolen Corsa any day soon.