motorway etiquette

[Softus]

No, I didn't see it. But then I don't really have to see or hear someone say something wrong to know that it's wrong for them to say that thing.

To put things in perspective, I can't remember the last time I saw any danger arising from an instance of undertaking - the overwhelming majority of motorway problems are caused by insufficient distance from the vehicle in front, within the same lane.

 

[ricicle]

You mean amongst others those ****** that are 3 feet behind each other in the outside lane at about 100mph in torrential rain with brake lights flashing on and off like a lighthouse

 

[Softus]

That's exactly what I mean.

If you can drive in such a way as to avoid braking, then you'll keep out of trouble and avoid causing any.

Years ago I used to commute to Portsmouth regularly, and each time I tried tried to undercut my own Personal Best for the-number-of-times-that-I-had-to-brake. The lowest I managed was three times, over a 110 mile journey to Southsea.

 

[ricicle]

Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule

 

[Steve]

I'm gonna get myself one of those LED displays from maplins, pop it on the parcel shelf and program it to say "do you wanna get in the boot?" to flash at BMW/Merc/Mondeo drivers who get up behind me for no reason/when theres no way for them to get past for at least a mile. I'll also program it with "you're a **** driver" for the odd time that I loose it with them, and when they pay no attention to the first message.

 

[eggplant]

I often thought about that, a few different messages such as "Thers also an inside lane you t1t", "The spped limit is 60 u nob" (used for after overtaking old people on a 20 mile long single cariageway road on a Sunday afternoon after driving at 20mph for 10 minutes) and others, I figured that it probably wouldnt go down too well with certain drivers (ones that often drive fast cars with flourescent stripes on them...)

 

[Softus]

Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule

You'll like this one - I was once stopped, late at night, having been tailgated by a police car for about two miles. Naturally, I complained, quite loudly, that they were driving too close behind.

Now what the driver said: We're trained to drive close behind other cars, Sir, and there's no such thing as the two-second rule.

When I got home I phoned up his local station to report him, and the next day I received an apology and was told that he'd received a bollocking.

 

[Steve]

what was their reason for stopping you?

didn't you say "and i'm trained to be calm while being intimidated by the ecilop in my rear-view mirror"?

 

[Softus]

what was their reason for stopping you?

(a) they were bored and (b) I had put a tyre edge onto four molcules of white painted cross hatching on a funny left turn, with no other cars for hundreds of yards around. Needless to say they didn't press charges.

didn't you say "and i'm trained to be calm while being intimidated by the ecilop in my rear-view mirror"?

Hm. Perhaps I should have done that, instead of continuing to disgree with him to the point where he said "We could stand here arguing about this all night Sir".

Big mistake on his part - I took two steps over to my car, pulled out a toolbox, set it down on the grass verge, sat down on it and said "Well I'm ready, and if you change your mind then I'll call your boss tomorrow and argue with him about it.".

 

[ricicle]

You should have come out with the classic "why are you not out catching real criminals?"

 

[Softus]

Trouble is I already know the answer to that. Also, there's such a thing as being too lippy.

 

[Big_Spark]

A bunch of stuff from the Highway Code that is not law.

Once again we have Softus making it up as he goes along.

If you bother to READ the extract I have posted..you know Softus, with your eyes, then you will actually notice a reference at the bottom of the piece..

Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5 & 9 & MT(S)R regs 4 & 8

Please take note of the word LAWS..that means an ACT OF PARLIAMENT and therefore to be in breach of it is an offence..

Or perhaps Softus you might like to write to the Highways Agency, the DVLA, the Lord Chief Chancellors Office and the ACPO to inform them that they are all wrong, you are right and that you will drive however you like so **** everyone else.

Am I wrong or does the Highway code say you MUST NOT OVERTAKE ON THE LEFT.

Before anyone else jumps on this I am not saying the OP was wrong or doing anything wrong. I know the section of road he is talking about, and the overhead gantry clearly labels the lanes as seperate motorways, and therefore he is perfectly legal so long as he is driving within the speed limit.

And here I will agree with Softus, if you are actually driving on the left hand lane of a motorway or dual carriageway at 65mph, but those in the other lanes are only doing 50mph, you are perfectly legal. (So long as the traffic in your lane has not stopped or slowed to the lower speed of course!! ). It would only be an offence if you deliberatly change lanes in order to pass a vehicle, especially if it is moving at or above the speed limit, and then you tend to find the offence is careless/dangerous or reckless driving.

 

[Softus]

Once again we have Softus making it up as he goes along.

Please state just one example of something I've made up.

If you bother to READ the extract I have posted..you know Softus, with your eyes, then you will actually notice a reference at the bottom of the piece.

I noticed it - it refers to the legislation that prohibits (caveat where directed otherwise) the use of the hard shoulder to overtake. The reference to legislation covers only Rule 243 of the Highway Code, not Rules 241 and 242 as you appear to mistakenly believe.

Please take note of the word LAWS..that means an ACT OF PARLIAMENT...

You are wrong. Not all laws and written in statutes.

English Law embodies the component called Common Law, which is the rule of precedent, whereby previous judgments may be used to influence a new judgment. Murder is one example of a crime that is against Common Law.

Or perhaps Softus you might like to write to the Highways Agency, the DVLA, the Lord Chief Chancellors Office and the ACPO to inform them that they are all wrong, you are right and that you will drive however you like so f***** everyone else.

You are a behaving like a buffoon. I've written, several times, that overtaking on the nearside can be unsafe, in which case it's illegal, and that it can be safe, in which case it's legal. You seem to be the only one who thinks that I consider unsafe driving to be acceptable.

Am I wrong or does the Highway code say you MUST NOT OVERTAKE ON THE LEFT.

You are wrong, viz:

242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake.

And:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

This illustrates the fact that those parts of the HC that do not state "MUST/MUST NOT" are not legal requirements.

It really is exceptionally clear, this legal stuff.

It would only be an offence if you deliberatly change lanes...

Why would that be an offence, per se?

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus, I have come to the conclusion you are a troll. You are twisting what people say to start an argument.

On the one hand you have just stated that undertaking is dangerous, and therefore, as I stated in my post would be an offence of careless/reckless or dangerous driving, but on the other you argue it is OK to do.

The comment I made about you making it up as you go along clearly referred to your ficticious quote of something I had not said.

If you snip off a quote so losing the contect you can make something mean whatever you like.

Here is a quote from Essex Traffic.

" If we see any driver of a motor vehicle obviously and deliberatly passing on the left, except where this is as a result of prevailing traffic conditions, they will be stopped and either given an On the Spot penalty notice or prosecuted for a more serious offence. In the last 12 months there have been 42 accidents and 4 deaths directly attributable to this unacceptable manner of driving. The Highway code clearly states that passing on the left is not accceptable driving behaviour, and whilst there is no specific law preventing a driver from doing this, the Police do have the powers, and we will use the powers, to prosecute any driver seen doing this by way of other statutes in place."

The Officer then added

"It is one of those situations which is difficult to legislate about as there are many times when a driver will find themselves in the left hand lane of a road, highway or motorway and travelling faster than traffic to their right. It is generally accepted within the Police that this situation has to be dealt with using the common sense and experience of Officers, co-operation of the road using public and the laws which already exist to prosecute offenders"

And regarding your comment about the statutes, your right, I have investigated them and they do not refer to the other rules for the Highway code..This is misleading in the way it appears, and I apologise for my part in that confusion here. I do conceed that there is no specific law, but I think the comments of the Traffic Division of Essex Police clears this matter up. It is defacto illegal if not statute illegal..

 

[Softus]

You are twisting what people say to start an argument.

Please state one example of something that you've written that I've twisted.

On the one hand you have just stated that undertaking is dangerous...

No. FFS, I haven't stated that. For the umpteenth time, I believe, and have written, that I regard unsafe undertaking to be dangerous and to be an offence, and I regard safe undertaking to be non-dangerous and perfectly legal.

...and therefore, as I stated in my post would be an offence of careless/reckless or dangerous driving, but on the other you argue it is OK to do.

No. No no no no no. Dangerous driving is not OK. Safe driving is OK. Undertaking is not always safe, nor is it always dangerous.

You complain about me reading your words, but you haven't read mine. Here's an example:

crafty, AFAIK there's no specific law that prohibits overtaking on the inside, and it's perfectly legal in any circumstances where it's safe. For example, it's deemed sufficiently safe when a car is preparing to turn right and traffic can past on its nearside.

The comment I made about you making it up as you go along clearly referred to your ficticious quote of something I had not said.

If I have done that then it's unintentional and erroneous on my part - if you would tell me where I've done that then I'll check what I've written and, if I've made an error, happily apologise.

If you snip off a quote so losing the contect you can make something mean whatever you like.

I don't intend to twist or change meaning, but if you write many things in one sentence then snipping is one way of increasing clarity. To reiterate, if you tell me where I've changed the meaning then I'll happily apologise for any error on my part, but you're gonna have to tell me where I got it wrong.

And regarding your comment about the statutes, your right, I have investigated them and they do not refer to the other rules for the Highway code..This is misleading in the way it appears, and I apologise for my part in that confusion here. I do conceed that there is no specific law, but I think the comments of the Traffic Division of Essex Police clears this matter up. It is defacto illegal if not statute illegal..

Thank you for your magnanimous apology. However, you're still [slightly] wrong. There is no such thing as something being illegal as a consequence of something that a police officer thinks or says.

The quote from the Essex Traffic Police is a case in point. The words are largely spin - a laudible attempt, but nonetheless a bullying one, to discourage drivers from undertaking. In the following text I've emboldended the parts that are the most pertinent to the topic.

If we see any driver of a motor vehicle obviously and deliberatly passing on the left, except where this is as a result of prevailing traffic conditions, they will be stopped and either given an On the Spot penalty notice or prosecuted for a more serious offence. In the last 12 months there have been 42 accidents and 4 deaths directly attributable to this unacceptable manner of driving. The Highway code clearly states that passing on the left is not accceptable driving behaviour, and whilst there is no specific law preventing a driver from doing this, the Police do have the powers, and we will use the powers, to prosecute any driver seen doing this by way of other statutes in place.
.
.
.
It is one of those situations which is difficult to legislate about as there are many times when a driver will find themselves in the left hand lane of a road, highway or motorway and travelling faster than traffic to their right. It is generally accepted within the Police that this situation has to be dealt with using the common sense and experience of Officers, co-operation of the road using public and the laws which already exist to prosecute offenders.

So it's abundantly clear that the police know of no law addressing the act of undertaking, unless it can be shown to be an act of careless or dangerous driving.