Overtaking on the left - illegal or not?

[Lauren]

Lauren, can I start a sentence with 'But'?

Thats an interesting question Matt. I think its possible though no doubt you'd need to follow it with a comma.

[ryan]

Lauren, can I start a sentence with 'But'?

Thats an interesting question Matt. I think its possible though no doubt you'd need to follow it with a comma.

Didn't think you could start a scentence with but, like 'however'....

[Red Devil]

http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_ar ... id=2124227

It’s hard to imagine a more lethal combination: a BMW driver hooked up to their office via Blackberry.
How many leave good old-fashioned common sense at home before starting their commute? Most of them, if the gaps between cars on the M25 are anything to judge by….

After reading that I did a little survey this afternoon. I counted 14 cars matching "BMW" and "gaps....M25" in less than half an hour.
5 of them were using mobiles. I was at the legal limit. 3 of them shot past me so must have been doing 85-90+.

Now please don't get upset Lauren - I do know there *are* responsible BMW drivers. It's just that there are an awful lot out there who don't do your chosen brand any favours.

Instead of investing yet more money in speed cameras, I would prefer to see the police *on the road* pulling these idiots. They are far more dangerous than someone doing 79 mph on a clear NSL road.

It was one of these menaces (a woman as it happened) who wrote off our prevous Volvo and came close to killing my wife and children last year so I guess you can say I feel strongly about the subject.

instant bans for mobile phone use

Totally agree. The problem would, as now, be catching them in the act and proving it in court.

[Lauren]

After reading that I did a little survey this afternoon. I counted 14 cars matching "BMW" and "gaps....M25" in less than half an hour.
5 of them were using mobiles. I was at the legal limit. 3 of them shot past me so must have been doing 85-90+.

Now please don't get upset Lauren - I do know there *are* responsible BMW drivers. It's just that there are an awful lot out there who don't do your chosen brand any favours.

Instead of investing yet more money in speed cameras, I would prefer to see the police *on the road* pulling these idiots. They are far more dangerous than someone doing 79 mph on a clear NSL road.

It was one of these menaces (a woman as it happened) who wrote off our prevous Volvo and came close to killing my wife and children last year so I guess you can say I feel strongly about the subject.

instant bans for mobile phone use

Totally agree. The problem would, as now, be catching them in the act and proving it in court.

Don't worry i never said i was responsible. Also i do what i can to uphold the reputation of BMW drivers.

[GeoffC320]

I'm not 100% convinced about this mobile phone business. My dad was a radio amateur for about the first 20 years of my life and I grew up thinking it fairly normal for someone to be driving around with a radio mike in one hand. To the best of my knowledge this never caused him any accidents or even near-misses. Probably because he was a very observant driver.

Now I do try to avoid mobile use when driving but I will answer a call if I have to. If possible I'll pull in but at all times will keep the call length to an absolute minimum. There's a lot been said about how "it's worse than having a passenger because a passenger can see the road ahead and shut up if you need to concentrate"...well guess what, I don't need them to do that because I'm quite capable of spotting the hazards myself and leaving them in silence if need be.

Bottom line is, if you don't put observation of the road as a high priority then it doesn't matter much if you have a phone in your hand or not.

Just my opinion, as ever.

[jrleech]

On a straight road, with no hazards then yes, I agree it's fine BUT there is no such thing, there are always hazards.

Just because a child hasn't run out into the road or the back end has slipped on diesel on a corner while you've been on the phone, doesn't mean it couldn't, and with only one hand free, you're disabled, and unable to act as you would if you had both hands on the wheel. You could argue that you'd just drop the phone and grab the wheel, but that time might be the difference between life and death (or crash / no crash).

I see hundreds of people on roundabouts/junctions on the phone, effecively a disabled driver with only one arm, but without the controls that a person such afflicted would have added to their car. Indicating, changing gear and steering with one hand isn't possible (in a safe, controlled manner), yet lots of people do it (if they can remember to indicate while having an in depth conversation).

One can argue that if you're very observant, then it's not a problem, but most of the drivers on the road are not observant, and so the law was passed. Also, I'd challenge you to keep your observation as 'high priority' if someone phoned to say your house was being burgled, or someone was in hospital.... until you answer the phone, you can't say how you'll allocate your thoughts.

Now texting while driving should carry a jail sentance for gross stupidity...

[ryan]

Mobile phone use while driving is a defo no no for me. It buggers your concentration up no end.
I've noticed recently if someone is driving erraticly in front of me, its nearly always because they're on a mobile phone...

[Andy Champ]

Lauren, can I start a sentence with 'But'?

But of course!

Now please don't get upset Lauren - I do know there *are* responsible BMW drivers. It's just that there are an awful lot out there who don't do your chosen brand any favours.

I used to work with a guy who bought a BMW despite his misgivings about the reputation of their drivers. I went around to his house, looked at his back tyres in passing and thought "How did he get bird droppings on the back wheels?" This proved to be the reason why, as he'd noticed, the road holding wasn't quite what it should be. It was canvas.

Mobile phone use while driving is a defo no no for me. It buggers your concentration up no end.
I've noticed recently if someone is driving erraticly in front of me, its nearly always because they're on a mobile phone...

I've heard it said that Sir Alec Issigonis designed the original Mini with no radio, because he disagreed with it for being distracting. Certainly there was nowhere for a radio.

He also forbade his passengers to talk.

Andy

[jrleech]

He also forbade his passengers to talk.

Even better, forbid passengers altogether. Weight saving = more speed

[Scotster]

according to the law the only way you can legally overtake on the left is when both lanes are crawling and your lane is moving faster than the other

This is the way i understand it also. However i also believe that if you are in the slow lane travelling at the speed limit and someone is in the fast lane travelling slower you are allowed to pass them as you are not performing any maneuver. Passing is ok, undertaking or changing lanes to pass is not.

Scott =op

[HT]

according to the law the only way you can legally overtake on the left is when both lanes are crawling and your lane is moving faster than the other

This is the way i understand it also. However i also believe that if you are in the slow lane travelling at the speed limit and someone is in the fast lane travelling slower you are allowed to pass them as you are not performing any maneuver. Passing is ok, undertaking or changing lanes to pass is not.

Scott =op

Pity theres no law to make drivers return to the left after their manoeuvre.

[Andy Champ]

according to the law the only way you can legally overtake on the left is when both lanes are crawling and your lane is moving faster than the other

This is the way i understand it also. However i also believe that if you are in the slow lane travelling at the speed limit and someone is in the fast lane travelling slower you are allowed to pass them as you are not performing any maneuver. Passing is ok, undertaking or changing lanes to pass is not.

Scott =op

Pity theres no law to make drivers return to the left after their manoeuvre.

I looked at the highway code again, you guys are making me do this a lot lately!


"238: You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear."

Should implies no law. B***r it. It then goes on

"Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you." But still no must. (I didn't mean to put "But" at the beginning of the sentence , it just happened!)

"242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake." Oh look, no "Must" here either... If you follow my link you'll get the references to the laws that go with this lot.

Andy

[jmachling]

Always wondered - is the Highway Code the law or simply guidance or an interpretation of the law in clear English for Joe Public? I presume the detail is to be found in the Road Traffic Acts, which I expect are rather impenetrable.

[HT]

Always wondered - is the Highway Code the law or simply guidance or an interpretation of the law in clear English for Joe Public? I presume the detail is to be found in the Road Traffic Acts, which I expect are rather impenetrable.

Yes the highway code is guidance in laymen terms, to inform drivers/road users what they should and should not do. Hence there appeas to be nothing readily availble road traffic act wise to prosecute lane hogging. Maybe it should be included in the highway code that a return to the left hand lane immediately after performing your manoerve is desirable - oh and that include BM drivers

[Andy Champ]

Always wondered - is the Highway Code the law or simply guidance or an interpretation of the law in clear English for Joe Public? I presume the detail is to be found in the Road Traffic Acts, which I expect are rather impenetrable.

If you follow my link you'll get the references to the laws that go with this lot.

That's Highway Code

Andy

[Tiamat]

I looked at the highway code again, you guys are making me do this a lot lately!


"238: You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear."

Should implies no law. B***r it. It then goes on

"Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you." But still no must. (I didn't mean to put "But" at the beginning of the sentence , it just happened!)

"242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake." Oh look, no "Must" here either... If you follow my link you'll get the references to the laws that go with this lot.

Andy

Of course its should, just becuase the road is clear does not mean that the left hand lane is safe, what about flooding, snow etc? It may be safer to pull into the middle lane and stay there. Thats why the Highway Code is so ambiguous about things, they have to cover so many possibilities.

[Ian Geary]

The driving test is largely skills focused IMO: can you slip the clutch, do a hill start, reverse round a corner etc.

These are bare minimums before taking a vehicle near anyone else. I am suprised by the number of people in multi-storey or supermarket car parks I see who don't seem to have any ability to make the car go where they want!

But anyway, my point is that the driving test does not cover attitudes. The whole approach to driving: courtesy, responsibility for your own actions, respect for other road users.

This is what is lacking, and making every adult driver shuffle the wheel and check the rear view mirror for 35 minutes every 5 years probably won't do much.

Looking back at the comments here, attitudes to driving have obviously changed in recent years as much as driving has itself.

But the undertaking problem first posted is about drivers not returning to the leftmost lane when they can, and the subsequent re-action of other drivers this causes (bunching in lane 3, and then bowling up lane 1 or 2 and cutting in at the last minute).

I'm not sure what the solution is - unless I ever take over the Country, in which case such driver should be afraid.

On a personal note though, I'm glad to find out I'm not the only driver on IMOC who cuts in front of a middle lane hog after overtaking them correctly.

Ian

[jrleech]

But anyway, my point is that the driving test does not cover attitudes. The whole approach to driving: courtesy, responsibility for your own actions, respect for other road users.

The above sadly applies for most things in life now, courtesy, responsibility for actions and respect for others is becomming a rare thing.....

[Tiamat]

The above sadly applies for most things in life now, courtesy, responsibility for actions and respect for others is becomming a rare thing.....

Shut up you muppet!


(tongue in cheek comment only)

[HT]

I looked at the highway code again, you guys are making me do this a lot lately!


"238: You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear."

Should implies no law. B***r it. It then goes on

"Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you." But still no must. (I didn't mean to put "But" at the beginning of the sentence , it just happened!)

"242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake." Oh look, no "Must" here either... If you follow my link you'll get the references to the laws that go with this lot.

Andy

Of course its should, just becuase the road is clear does not mean that the left hand lane is safe, what about flooding, snow etc? It may be safer to pull into the middle lane and stay there. Thats why the Highway Code is so ambiguous about things, they have to cover so many possibilities.

Its very sad when it gets to the stage that we need instructions to cover every eventuality! If said lane hogger cannot understand that a flash of lights means 'I am here', and either adjust their speed or move into the correct lane, without consulting the highway code, then they should not be driving.