ADUK Archive

This one is always an interesting subject!

There has been a similar debate on the IAM forum and an ADI that posts over there stated that a pupil of his failed their DSA driving test for not overtaking on the left on a part-time bus lane when the road ahead of them was clear but others were moving more slowly in the outide lane.

ScoobyChris wrote:

Andy wrote:The reality is that 'undertaking' is no more legal or illegal than 'overtaking'.

Although the acid test is, would you do it in on an IAM/RoSPA test?

Chris

This is an interesting one and in some cases, depends on which test!

For example, RoSPA test guidelines state that a motorcyclist should not cross a marked centre line when negotiating a series of bends nor cut the corner at a junction. RoSPA do encourage straight lining or your side though. To my knowledge, the IAM doesn't have such a restriction and in my experience, does teach associates to use the full width of the road where appropriate.

Unusually for an IAM'er, I recently re-took my IAM bike test (after 20 something years), and did use the full width of the road to straight line a series of gently sweeping bends, which I could see all the way through, and my examiner happily followed me. At the end of the test, he also gave me feedback to suggest that I should have cut the corner off when turning right into a side road as the junction was open and we had a clear view.

So which test do I use to inform my riding now!!!!

Andy wrote:For example, RoSPA test guidelines state that a motorcyclist should not cross a marked centre line when negotiating a series of bends nor cut the corner at a junction. RoSPA do encourage straight lining or your side though. To my knowledge, the IAM doesn't have such a restriction and in my experience, does teach associates to use the full width of the road where appropriate.

I think as far as the IAM are concerned, a lot depends on the group, and the local examiners. The Bournemouth group discourage crossing the white line to straighten a bend, as apparently do some of the examiners. I personaly have no issue with crossing a broken white line to straighten a bend, provided that there is sufficient view to enable it to be carried out in complete saftey.

fungus wrote:I think as far as the IAM are concerned, a lot depends on the group, and the local examiners. The Bournemouth group discourage crossing the white line to straighten a bend, as apparently do some of the examiners.

Well, I thought we had consistent Observing and Examining. That's come as a shock that some Groups make up their own "rules". (Not really.........)
The latest IAM book does not forbid crossing lines, so why aren't all Observers and Examiners on the same page?

Hang on - how is F1rst marking going to be consistent around the country if Examiners have different ideas?

If there is an inconsistency on an issue then this needs to be reported to the chief examiner for it to be addressed

ROG wrote:If lane 1 clear to use then I would also use it to PASS a slower vehicle who I am certain is using lane 2

If you mean you would do it to turn right ie in Lane 1 and in the process you would be passing a vehicle also turning right but in Lane 2, why would you do it? What advantage, if any does it give you?

dth wrote:

ROG wrote:If lane 1 clear to use then I would also use it to PASS a slower vehicle who I am certain is using lane 2

If you mean you would do it to turn right ie in Lane 1 and in the process you would be passing a vehicle also turning right but in Lane 2, why would you do it? What advantage, if any does it give you?

At a guess...

ROG wrote:to PASS a slower vehicle

GJD wrote:

dth wrote:

ROG wrote:If lane 1 clear to use then I would also use it to PASS a slower vehicle who I am certain is using lane 2

If you mean you would do it to turn right ie in Lane 1 and in the process you would be passing a vehicle also turning right but in Lane 2, why would you do it? What advantage, if any does it give you?

At a guess...

ROG wrote:to PASS a slower vehicle

...........and at what risk as opposed to a bit of patience?

here's a link to an old thread on PH, quite an interesting read!

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 77935&nmt=

dth wrote:...........and at what risk as opposed to a bit of patience?

You didn't ask about risk, you just asked about advantage:

dth wrote:What advantage, if any does it give you?

As to the question that you didn't ask but now have, ROG's original post on the matter:

ROG wrote:If lane 1 clear to use then I would also use it to PASS a slower vehicle who I am certain is using lane 2

Caveat - I would also make darn sure that I am not next to anyone in lane 2 after passing the first exit as they usually try and go into lane 1 to exit instead of staying in lane 2

doesn't give me the impression that he's forgotten to consider risks as well as advantages.

Although Rog does appear t have limited risk to the part of the carriageway after the first exit which he identifies as the point of greatest risk of lane changing.
How does this sit with "Dave's rounadabout maxim no 1"?

I thought it meant you should never be alongside another vehicle on a roundabout. If it means you can pass vehicles but should not sit alongside them then it doesn't say anything more than we are generally advised to do on multi-lane carriageways.

MGF wrote:How does this sit with "Dave's rounadabout maxim no 1"?

I thought it meant you should never be alongside another vehicle on a roundabout.

What about when someone is passing you? Difficult to avoid being alongside then, at least for a brief period, but I wouldn't have thought that's a violation of the maxim.

MGF wrote:If it means you can pass vehicles but should not sit alongside them

That's what I've taken it to mean.

MGF wrote:then it doesn't say anything more than we are generally advised to do on multi-lane carriageways.

Even if that's true, is it a problem? When introduced to the idea of minimising time alongside other vehicles on multi-lane roads, I don't get the impression everyone automatically extends the idea to roundabouts too. From the number of times the maxim is offered in discussions about collisions and near-misses on roundabouts, I think it's very necessary.

GJD wrote:

MGF wrote:If it means you can pass vehicles but should not sit alongside them

That's what I've taken it to mean.

In that case it appears somewhat flawed as the riskiest place to be is in someone's blindspot isn't it? Not alongside them where they can see you.

GJD wrote:

MGF wrote:then it doesn't say anything more than we are generally advised to do on multi-lane carriageways.

From the number of times the maxim is offered in discussions about collisions and near-misses on roundabouts, I think it's very necessary.

The fact it is often repeated doesn't make it very necessary to do so. Especially as its meaning is unclear.

I would not go around with them !!

I would PASS them

A well timed brisk pass on the nearside when certain that the vehicle in lane 2 is holding it's line has never been a problem

If the pass cannot be done briskly then it will not give much of an advantage so I might as well wait

Hi all

Just looked at J/Rs original post and would like to add my bit to this..

If you are intending to go straight on at the next r/bout the "convenient" lane is not lane 2 because at the next r/bout there are 3 lanes..1 left and 2 straight on/right (and no lanes marked on the r/bout) which to my untrained eye makes lane 1 the obvious choice...follow round first r/bout and then you are in the "correct" lane to go straight on at the next, no lane changes required therefore no hassle to other drivers or yourself.

Sorry guys lane 1 all the way if it were me (and obviously the guy who screams round the outside thinks the same) if that involves undertaking so be it, to me a r/bout counts as queing traffic

Ivor

MGF wrote:In that case it appears somewhat flawed as the riskiest place to be is in someone's blindspot isn't it? Not alongside them where they can see you.

With no speed differential? I'd view not being alongside as preferable to being alongside.

MGF wrote:Especially as its meaning is unclear.

It's not unclear to me . I've never imagined that the necessary, brief period of alongside-ness involved in passing someone constitutes going around with them.