>> Interesting how when motorways are congested signs advise you NOT to change lanes to keeptraffic flowing!
That's because the more lane changing that goes on, the more people have to slow down to make space and then accelerate again. The whole motorway then flows slower than it would if everyone kept going at constant speed.
|
Can someone please explain what's the problem with overtaking from left?
|
What happened if, out of spite, someone in the lane to the right of you just braked and you went motoring past? Is that policeman going to pull you over and accuse you of undertaking?
What happens if the lane to the right of you is closed further up due to an accident which you did not know about or was not indicated on any roadside info boards - are you going to stop level with the queue in the lane to the right of you despite your lane being clear for miles?
Of course not.
Personally if the other lane was moving slower than me then I would probably drop my speed so that I'm not belting past at 70mph to their 40mph as you may (more likely will) get drivers pulling into the clear lane without looking.
Worrying when the police get it wrong.
|
Worrying when the police get it wrong.
We don't know the exact circumstances. Perhaps there was more to it than is described in the original post.
|
|
I was having a very satisfying undertaking session this morning doing around 25mph on the M90 which very nearly came to a sticky end when a Dutch registered artic in lane 2 decided he wanted the same bit of road I was using. THAT's one of the dangers of undertaking.
|
|
Keep a highway code in the glovebox, they are only £1.70 and you could have got it out if he got any more surly.
|
|
It all seems to hang on the meaning of the word "congested". Has a court ever decided this? Is speed relevant to congestion, or does it refer only to traffic density? Or is it actual speed as a percentage of speed limit - eg 40 mph in a 70 area is congestion, but 25 in a 30 area is not?
|
|
|
OK, there was probably more going on. Mr Plod may well have seen me laughing at an article on Radio 4. Definitely not a chap to be trusted. Or it may have been that I ambled past him 3 times while he was up the chuff of the bloke in front. His stopping distance was a bit suss as I re-call.
Best policy was still to tug forelock, doff cap and get off my knees, offering a prayer to my god of caution as I drove off at a sensible speed.
|
|
A quick , 'oh, by the way', if I was on the motorbike, he would have definitely had a case. Not that I could possibly comment on that one. Yes, I am that Kawasaki in the warmer weather.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamsafar, if there's one lesson i've learned it's this - don't try and be smart with a grumpy traffic cop. He's got the power to seriously mess with your day; you never know what he's just had to deal with so you've no idea why he's grumpy. In this sort of situation your aim is to get him to say 'ok sir, on your way and don't do it again' and you say 'thanks I won't' - quick and painless for both of you.
|
Was the nice PC in a marked traffic car or panda car or what?
There is a very fine line between "going with the traffic flow" and serial undertaking rather than join the line of cars passing a lorry or whatever, especially on a 2 lane dual.
Maybe he wanted a break from the queue and you provided an excuse.
You obviously passed the most important test, the attitude one.
Edited by Webmaster on 13/02/2008 at 00:41
|
My best mate?s girlfriend is a Crown prosecutor, and she actually looked into this for us after we asked her about it.
Apparently there is no hard and fast about what counts as congestion, or on what counts as undertaking. If the police pass the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, then they will make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to whether they wish to prosecute.
In a brief informal survey of prosecutors in her office, apparently there was a consensus on two things that they would consider when deciding if they were going to prosecute.
1. What was the speed difference? Too great, and it smacks of overtaking rather than just going with the traffic flow.
2. Was there an active move left before passing the vehicle in front? If the overtaking vehicles simply continued in the lane it was already occupying, with a reasonable speed differential, then it was felt that it would be extremely unlikely that the driver would be prosecuted. If an active move left took place to get around the vehicle in front, it was universally felt that that driver should be prosecuted.
I know this isn't quite the scenario that the OP was asking about, but I thought it was quite interesting, and it has certainly illuminated how I treat undertaking.
|
1. After joining the traffic, it was a steady 60 on my part, didn't overtake once as there was no point or space. The outside was 70, with the plod in a normal Focus in police markings, so nothing sneaky there, though I was suprised at him being in the thick of it.
I just sat in the traffic on the inside listening to R4 & Geoff Boycott ranting. No change there then. Next thing flashy-flashy in my rear view and pulled into the next P-bay, where I did the 'umble servant routine. Also, it was far too cold to hang around.
Q. Did it pay to get out of the car to 'chat' to the PC face to face. I hate it when they pin you in the car?
|
Think you did the right thing of being sorry even though you werent (or appear not to have been) in the wrong. But you were not sure at the time anyway?
Not so sure I would have been sorry if it had been me though, I would like to know what offence I was comitting and how exactly.
But it went no further so you obvioulsy were not doing anything he could really have you for! Well done for avoiding more wrath.
What part of A14 out of interest? as I get to use this quite a bit, and see a lot of undertaking happening (obvious weaving in and out of traffic)
|
|
Nice to see that it's not breaking the law that makes the difference, but whether your 'attitude' is 'ever so humble' enough.
|
Nice to see that it's not breaking the law that makes the difference but whether your 'attitude' is 'ever so humble' enough.
that's true for all sorts of things in life especially when it's not something serious, being polite usually gets you further than being aggressive in a one to one conversation
Edited by Webmaster on 13/02/2008 at 00:40
|
Nice to see that it's not breaking the law that makes the difference but whether your 'attitude' is 'ever so humble' enough.
There is, in cases like this, a significant grey area between completely law abiding and blatant flouting of the law. Those taking umbrage at being fingered tend to be the ones who are either trying to wing it or have something else to hide and are therefore chancing further inquiry. A willingness to accept advice will often save a lot of time and trouble.
|
|
Victim of bullying it seems to me. Law upset that they chose the wrong lane so thus take out their frustrations on the OP
|
2 cents - you aren't hamsafar in another guise are you?
Perhaps the two of you could get together and form Conspiracy Theorists Inc. ;-}
|
If Police were in a Focus then maybe they were a normal "beat cop" as opposed to traffic police, so may , therefore, not be as clued up with the rules?
But, as has been suggested many times before, police can stop you for all sorts of perceived reasons. Maybe they thought there was more to it but after speaking to you they were quite happy to let you go?
|
For Yorkiebar, it was east-bound joining at Stowmarket.
General consensus is that eating 'umble pie, and grovel gets you out of pickles like this. It's cheaper then £60 (or whatever the going rate is) and poss. points.
Thaks for the comments.
|
So in effect, plead guilty to something you didn't do so as to escape a harsher penalty ?
Is that how we want the law applied in the UK ?
|
So in effect, plead guilty to something you didn't do so as to escape a harsher penalty ? Is that how we want the law applied in the UK ?
No, not really. The OP simply used his noodle - the PC may have been wrong in the nicety of the law, but to make an issue would have, at the very least, delayed his journey more - if only for a 'details' check and/or producer. As has been pointed out by legal eagles here, the CPS wouldn't entertain pursuing for prosecution any but the most flagrant of undertakes.
There are battles worth fighting, but this encounter would only be contested by the awkward squad looking for a peg upon which to hang their sense of injustice or putative attack upon their human rights.
|
the PC may have been wrong in the nicety of the law
No he wasn't. The rule quoted applies to Motorways. On A roads, overtaking on the left is allowed when moving slowly in queues.
60mph is not "moving slowly".
Edited by jbif on 13/02/2008 at 10:08
|
On A roads, overtaking on the left is allowed when moving slowly in queues.
No - you quoted the relevant paragraph only partially.
The rule for non-motroways is: (quoted in full from highway Code)
"Stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"
The first sentence refers to changing lanes : "Stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues." (which, incidentally, applies to motorways also)
The second sentence refers to passing on the left, and makes no mention of absolute speed, just relative speed.
" If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"
|
woodbines:
The key word is "queue".
|
|
Yes jbif - but there's controversy about what a 'queue' is - if there's congestion - such as when the right hand lane is consistently slower than the left and/or traffic is more less in convoy in both lanes - then the 'it's ok to undertake' rules apply from my understanding. I would say the OP was in a queue, albeit a fast one - his ambient speed was that of those immediately in front & behind him.
|
Yes jbif - but there's controversy about what a 'queue' is - if there's congestion -
I did not know there was any controversy about it. Where is it?
I think the accepted meaning of the word "queue" involves "waiting".
The official definition of traffic "congestion" can be found at
www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/transport/drivi...f
|
Rule 268 appears to refer to motorways - presumably the A14 isn't so what rule applies to A roads/dual carriageways?
|
I only ever undertake when folk are blatantly ambling along in the middle or outside lane when lanes to the left of them are clear, which is becoming almost the norm of the stretch of M8 I use most days. Folk seem almost to have a phobia about driving in the left hand lane. I'll hang about behind them for a bit and overtake if we're both in the middle lane, but if I'm in the left hand lane, then I don't see why I should have to veer across 3 lanes then back again to get past, strikes me as far more risky than undertaking.
Surely it's these hogs that should be getting the ticking off, not people who are undertaking to get past them?
|
Rule 268 appears to refer to motorways - presumably the A14 isn't so what rule applies to A roads/dual carriageways?
Good point. The relevant bit for other roads is section 163:
* only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
* stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
Seems to me to be more stricter than the motorway rule.
|
Good point. The relevant bit for other roads is section 163: * stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are you may pass on the left
There seems to be disagreement on the meaning of the above. IMO the second sentence is contingent on the first being true, i.e. you can only overtake on the left if the traffic is moving slowly in queues, and the queue on the right is moving more slowly than the queue on the left.
So it looks to me as if the copper was in accord with the Highway Code.
From a safety point of view there is a huge difference between a motorway and a non-motorway.
On a motorway, it is common to see lane 3 full of cars nose to tail, and lanes 1 and 2 near empty. There is no danger in undertaking in lane 1 as lane 2 protects you. Undertaking in lane 2 is riskier, but as long as lane 1 is clear at the time, the risk is low. Similarly when undertaking cars in lanes 2 and 3, the hard shoulder is the safety lane in case of a numpty, assuming it is clear of vehicles.
On a non motorway the risk is higher. There are only two lanes (assuming a dual carriageway) and usually there is no hard shoulder. So if you undertake, and numpty decides to move left, where do you go?
|
|
|
|
