Surprised to be undertaken

[vonhosen]

Hmm, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to find that the driving in clip 1 is regarded as unsatisfactory. It all seemed smooth and steady to me, but of course it needs to be done with a restrained speed differential and with a maintained state of wariness.

The highway code & legislation isn't satisfied with just smooth & steady, it restricts further than adherence to those two.

[vonhosen]

Question: If it is below the standard expected of a normal competent driver to pass on the left then why is not below the standard expected of a normal competent motorcyclist to pass on the left / between two lines of moving traffic?

Why the double standard? Why allow the lower standard for the more vulnerable road user?

I don't see a difference in bikes 'undertaking' to cars doing it. A bike undertaking is akin to application of 1)

Filtering/lane splitting in stationary, slow moving or stop start traffic is a different thing altogether though & is akin to the application of 2)

[Gareth]

It seems funny to me that 'we' are more critical of passing on the left than on the causes of passing on the left.

It also seems strange how we each pick which laws to follow and which to ignore. Other transgression examples might include

• speeding in urban areas
• speeding in rural areas
• completing slowing after the start of a lower limit rather than before
• starting to speed up before passing a sign that permits a higher speed
• parking at night facing the wrong direction on an unlit road
• stopping where there is a double white line system
• crossing a solid line to overtake a slow moving vehicle that isn't travelling below 10 mph and isn't one of the permitted list
• not fully stopping at a stop line
• continuing in a lane past a sign to move over
• continuing in a lane past a sign to not continue in that lane

and so on. It must be that we each assign different values to each of these and other rules, or are ignorant about them.

FWIW I try quite hard to avoid breaking urban speed limits and often going much slower where appropriate, to avoid crossing a solid white line (except in one or two specific locations providing there are no other road users nearby) and being specific about when I am permitted to do so for passing certain slow moving road users, to adhere to the motorway signs about lane usage, and stopping at stop lines, but on a motorway I am happy to pass on the left providing I am travelling below the speed limit, the slower (often tail-gating) mloc drivers have every appearance of staying firmly where they are, the speed differential is relatively small, and there is a hard shoulder that can be used in case of the unexpected, because I really can't be bothered making multiple lane changes to go around them. I don't change lanes with the intention of passing on the left but, if by keeping left, I am able to arrange a larger safety bubble than road users in lanes to the right as well as making slightly better progress then I am happy with that.

[vonhosen]

Of course people's own values/beliefs will shape the choices they make, as you rightly point out.

Not everybody is more critical of passing on the left than those who don't keep left when not overtaking though. See my first sentence, some will be, some won't. It depends how it fits with their own values/beliefs.

'I regard his offending as worse than my own offending' isn't much of a defence to one's own offending though.

[Gareth]

The CPS view (in charging guidance) is that

"There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

* overtaking on the inside

.....snip

I've been looking at the CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Bad Driving which includes

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

• overtaking on the inside

What do the decided cases show? How bad must the driving be to result in a prosecution for passing to the left of other vehicles on a multi-lane road? Is this enough on its own? Or have there always been extenuating circumstances that made it necessary to prosecute, and in which passing on the left was then held as an (additional?) example of careless driving?

'I regard his offending as worse than my own offending' isn't much of a defence to one's own offending though.

I wouldn't claim this, although I would say that I thought, and think, that passing on the left in the circumstances and manner I outlined earlier is safer than making 4 or 6 separate manoeuvres, depending on whether slower traffic is in one or two lanes.

[vonhosen]

'I regard his offending as worse than my own offending' isn't much of a defence to one's own offending though.

I wouldn't claim this, although I would say that I thought, and think, that passing on the left in the circumstances and manner I outlined earlier is safer than making 4 or 6 separate manoeuvres, depending on whether slower traffic is in one or two lanes.

Careless driving isn't only about what you (or I) might consider the safest option though, just as saying 'I believed it was safer to exceed the speed limit at that moment in time than to not' wouldn't be the only consideration for that offence either.

Both are about what is expected of the driver in respect of the legislation as stated.
For careless that's simply the test of competence & care. A good indicator is what would happen on your DSA test?

[TheInsanity1234]

So from what I've learnt here, it's okay to undertake as long you're following someone else so you can argue that you were "merely keeping up with traffic ahead of me"

[superplum]

So from what I've learnt here, it's okay to undertake as long you're following someone else so you can argue that you were "merely keeping up with traffic ahead of me"

No! See HC Rule 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.

Stick to the common-sense principle that overtaking/undertaking requires a change of direction/lane to navigate around an "obstacle" whereas passing does not.

[vonhosen]

No! See HC Rule 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.

Stick to the common-sense principle that overtaking/undertaking requires a change of direction/lane to navigate around an "obstacle" whereas passing does not.

common-sense principle?


How do you square HC rule 268 (overtaking on motorways) with that?

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

That doesn't sound like it's only overtaking (undertaking) if you move to your left & overtaking rules in the HC are littered with the term 'pass(ing)' within them with them, including where you'd alter road position in order to pass.

[vonhosen]

So from what I've learnt here, it's okay to undertake as long you're following someone else so you can argue that you were "merely keeping up with traffic ahead of me"

Of course there is more to it than that.

eg

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.

[MGF]

...Many appear to think about careless driving as a question of whether the person committing to the act took care when considering whether to execute & in the execution of the manoeuvre itself. The actual test in legislation though goes further, asking whether the driving fell below the standard expected of a 'competent & careful' driver. Believing you carefully considered & executed the manoeuvre doesn't mean you aren't guilty of the offence. Even if those judging believe to you took care you could still fail the competent part of that test where they judge you fell short of the level of competence expected.

It is wholly irrelevant whether or not the driver believes he carefully considered and executed the manoeuvre. The test is objective. It isn't necessary to accept the defendant's belief and then label the driving as incompetent in order to find him guilty. You can simply disagree with his assessment that the driving was sufficiently careful.

The term 'competent and careful' has its roots in both civil and criminal cases. 'Competence' has been used where the defendant, a learner driver, has sought and failed, to be tested against a lower standard of ability. The law is clear that the standard of competence is that of an experienced driver, not a novice.

I don't see any reason why the introduction of 'competent and careful' into the Road Traffic Act should mean we ignore the case law prior to 2007. It reflects the case law, I think.

However much you want to twist the wording of the law, in your heart of hearts,
you know what it means, really.

Where is the wording of the law you speak of, other than in your heart of hearts? The difficulty is that the law doesn't give clear facts that need to be proved for the offence to be made.



I agree with von's interpretation of the HC in his examples but we should bear in mind that a breach of the HC is not,necessarily careless driving any more than complying with the HC precludes liability for the offence.

The only practical advice you can hope for is to get an idea of the sort of driving Police Officers are likely to report you for and drive accordingly or choose to take the risk in doing otherwise.

[OldenBill]

So "I did my incompetent best" won't wash! Thought not.

[5star]

If a vehicle in lane 1 intentionally increases speed to be faster than traffic in lane 2, or moves from lane 2 into lane 1 to maintain a faster speed, this is an undertake and is illegal.

If traffic in lane 2 slows, a vehicle already in lane 1 may slow or continue at the same speed, depending on:
1. Safety - the car in lane 1 should continue to a safe zone before slowing to match lane 2. Don't just slam on the brakes or sit in a driver's blind spot simply to avoid undertaking, and be aware of cars behind that may not slow with you.
2. Avoid disruption to other road users - If you have traffic behind and your lane is clear ahead, it is more appropriate to continue in your lane than to create a hold up behind. This has now become a queuing/filtering situation. The importance here is to maintain an appropriate speed differential between the lanes.

But what if a queuing/filtering situation has already arisen, and a car in slower (or stationary) lane 2 moves into lane 1 to benefit from the faster flow? This is annoying, disrupts the flow, and could be classed as an undertake. However, I don't think it actually is illegal, as vehicles must keep left unless overtaking?

[TripleS]

Hmm, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to find that the driving in clip 1 is regarded as unsatisfactory. It all seemed smooth and steady to me, but of course it needs to be done with a restrained speed differential and with a maintained state of wariness.

The highway code & legislation isn't satisfied with just smooth & steady, it restricts further than adherence to those two.

Apparently so, and I'm not in a position to dispute what you say, but this business of 'undertaking' is, to my mind at least, very much open to individual judgement, and that's bound to leave us in some difficulty because the dividing line between what is, and is not, acceptable is not clear.

Referring to clip 2, I can see that the behaviour of those passing us in lane 2 was perfectly OK; but given that the clip 1 'undertaker' merely stayed in lane 1 and quietly breezed past the lane 2 traffic with a moderate speed differential, and hopefully a good state of wariness, IMHO that also ought to be acceptable. What is definitely unacceptable is to indulge in a lot of lane swapping to make progress; I think most of us are aware of that.

I don't know how to overcome this difficulty: I guess it's just another example where judgements have to be made in the absence of clear rules.

[TheInsanity1234]

I deem undertaking to be something where you deliberately change lanes in order to pass a car in front on the left, however, if you're already established in the left lane, and there's a car in the right lane needlessly, then travelling at the speed limit and passing them is just that, passing.

That's how I view it.