Undertaken

[IVORTHE DRIVER]

You can't win but then I don't engage in the forum to win - simply to debate and validate my views or accept challenges to them and maybe change them.

Guess thats what we all should do..

I hate clever people...just a view of course not an opinion

Ivor

[MGF]

'Never' is unachievable even if you were perfect. That's my point.

As it happens, I thought the first word of the maxim was "Don't", not "Never". The difference being somewhat analogous to the difference between "don't" and "must not" in the Highway Code.

A better word in my view as it suggests a general rule rather than an absolute.

If the maxim is drawn from experience then, for you, it is a reminder of that and helpful in persuading you not to allow the situation to develop when if you were honest with yourself it didn't really need to.

I try to base my forecasting and behaviour on more than just my own experiences. I prefer to add in my imagination and in particular my imagination fired by the experiences and lessons of others. It's one of the reasons that I think these fora are so useful for driving - even though we are not sat behind the wheel here. If someone else can have the expensive and unpleasant experience on my behalf, then so much the better. I am not - of course - suggesting that driving with Dave is expensive or unpleasant!

Unfortunately the maxim on its own doesn't impart the benefit of your experience and I suspect your repeating it is at least just as much for your benefit as it is for others.

[Kevin]

The HC says, ‘only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so’.

The rab in question has two lanes on the approach, the left-hand lane for going straight on and turning right, and the right-hand lane for turning right only. If a vehicle is in the right-hand lane I would say that the driver is ‘signalling’ his intention to turn right, as that’s the only way he can go in that lane. We’re encouraged (or at least I was during my RoADAR training) not to put our actual turn indicators on if it’s obvious where we are going, such as when being in a dedicated lane.

On that basis I would say that it’s perfectly acceptable to pass the vehicle driving in lane 2 by undertaking in lane 1.

Views please anyone?

[Kevin]

Hi, Kevin; the problem with your scenario is that it doesn't allow for the possibility that the driver in lane 2 has taken up that position in error, maybe owing to being a stranger in the area, and may suddenly realise that he needs to move into lane 1. In that case I'll be glad I was not "going round with him". I think it's a mistake to assume that, simply because a driver is in a dedicated lane, he is going to stay there.

Indeed you're right the driver may try to move to lane 1. The driver may not even have taken up lane 2 in error, but may simply change his mind. Also a driver actually indicating right, may be doing so in error, or may have a change of mind. But I would still say that it's ok to pass on the left in example given, provided while doing so you remain alert to the possibility of the driver in lane 2 changing position. If you don't pass a driver because he may change lanes, then it could be argued that you shouldn't overtake a vehicle travelling in lane 1, just in case he decides to move into lane 2 as you pass. If that was the case then overtaking would be rare if not non-existent.

[MGF]

... If you don't pass a driver because he may change lanes, then it could be argued that you shouldn't overtake a vehicle travelling in lane 1, just in case he decides to move into lane 2 as you pass. If that was the case then overtaking would be rare if not non-existent.

I agree with you however I think the point is that the chances of unpredictable lane changes on a roundabout are much higher than on other types of road which necessitates a stricter approach.

[ScoobyChris]

On that basis I would say that it’s perfectly acceptable to pass the vehicle driving in lane 2 by undertaking in lane 1.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you (it's been one of those days!) but my interpretation of the HC is that it's only ok to "undertake" where the vehicle being undertaken is turning and you are not. For example, in the roundabout in the scenario the OP mentions, I'd have to be going straight on while the other car is turning right, rather than us both turning right and me undertaking in lane 1?

I believe overtaking is a slightly different scenario, albeit with similar risks on a roundabout, in that people expect traffic on their right to be moving faster. It's also easier to pick up a car in the peripheral vision on the right as the driver is closer.

Chris

[Kevin]

... If you don't pass a driver because he may change lanes, then it could be argued that you shouldn't overtake a vehicle travelling in lane 1, just in case he decides to move into lane 2 as you pass. If that was the case then overtaking would be rare if not non-existent.

I agree with you however I think the point is that the chances of unpredictable lane changes on a roundabout are much higher than on other types of road which necessitates a stricter approach.

Sorry, I should have said that I meant overtaking/undertaking on the approach to the roundabout rather than actually on it.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you (it's been one of those days!) but my interpretation of the HC is that it's only ok to "undertake" where the vehicle being undertaken is turning and you are not. For example, in the roundabout in the scenario the OP mentions, I'd have to be going straight on while the other car is turning right, rather than us both turning right and me undertaking in lane 1?

I believe overtaking is a slightly different scenario, albeit with similar risks on a roundabout, in that people expect traffic on their right to be moving faster. It's also easier to pick up a car in the peripheral vision on the right as the driver is closer.

Chris

I reckon that what you're saying is probably (even certainly ) what the HC intended, in terms of the car turning right into, say a junction and is positioned centrally in the road and there being enough room to pass on the left, but I wondered if there is anything to say that it can't be applied in the example given by JR. I realise that I'm applying the HC in a different scenario to the one that was probably originally engisaged, but it seems that it could fit. I like the suggestion that the vehicle doing the undertaking would have to be going straight on, but given that lane 1 also has the option of turning right, I wonder if that would in some way allow an undertake. Perhaps I'm clutching at straws

With regards to the vehicle in lane 2 changing back to lane 1, I would think that this is less likely than a vehicle going from lane 1 to lane 2, therefore making an undertake on this stretch possibly less risky than an overtake. The reason I say this is that lane 1 is probably the default position for most drivers, therefore for a vehicle to be in lane 2 the driver would have made a deliberate decision to move there and, having taken that position, would be less likely to want to move back to lane 1. I stress that I'm referring to the approach to the roundabout, not while actually on it.

[nigelc]

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a while on the forum and just stumbled across this thread. I've had several bad experiences of people cutting across from lane 2 to lane 1 on a roundabout and it's almost a daily occurence driving home from work on the A1 rab at Scotch Corner. Hence, I always try not to go alongside others.

One opinion I'd like though is one that caught me out the first time I drove to Sunderland. The road planners round there have a habit of random "No Car" lanes sometimes only about 10m long On the approach to this rab http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sr1+1bn ... 6,,0,26.94 the nearside lane had a queue of traffic with some trying desperately to move from lane 2 to lane one. I wanted to go straight on and saw the paint on lane 2 pointing that way and assumed that all these people wanted to turn left. I found out that local custom & practice is to use lane 1 for straight ahead and noboby was willing to let me in (the exit is only one lane).

My logic on seeing the paint in lane 1 on a later visit when the road was clear is that this would be for things that aren't cars to travel straight ahead and lane 2 for cars. Why else would the planners push cars into lane 2 only to have them fight their way back to lane 1 a few metres later?

[martine]

Hi Nigel and welcome.

My logic on seeing the paint in lane 1 on a later visit when the road was clear is that this would be for things that aren't cars to travel straight ahead and lane 2 for cars. Why else would the planners push cars into lane 2 only to have them fight their way back to lane 1 a few metres later?

I reckon it's to get 2 lanes of traffic the ability to move across the roundabout (2nd exit) and then 'zip merge' for the exit. There is a roundabout near me with the same situation and it causes problems. They should have 'use both lanes for ahead' signs followed by 'zip merge' signs at the exit...it might not work as the roundabout and exit look a little cramped but at least it might difuse the road rage.

I'm sure 'BigErr' will be along in a minute for a more professional view.

[GJD]

They should have 'use both lanes for ahead' signs followed by 'zip merge' signs at the exit...it might not work as the roundabout and exit look a little cramped but at least it might difuse the road rage.

Seems doubly odd that they've also hatched off the area that you'd use for zip merging.

[nigelc]

Thanks guys.

I reckon it's to get 2 lanes of traffic the ability to move across the roundabout (2nd exit) and then 'zip merge' for the exit.

It's even more odd that the locals avoid lane 2 like the plague. Just ends up with a stream of traffic queueing to get into lane 1 at the end of the no car lane thereby causing holdups for buses, lorries etc.

[gfoot]

I don't see much point in encouraging two lanes for straight-ahead traffic on such an average roundabout. If they marked some lanes on the roundabout itself it might work better, but they'd be narrow lanes.

This is equally annoying at junctions. The problem with these arrangements is that when the queues in the two lanes are uneven, if the next driver on the scene is polite he makes it worse; if he instead goes into the most empty lane, he's seen to be pushing in. In my opinion, unless the length of a traffic queue is a serious problem further back from the junction, they shouldn't paint multiple entry lanes for the same destination. It removes the ambiguity and potential for road rage.

The "no car" lane seems a crazy idea, do these exist elsewhere in the country? I can't see any reference in Know Your Traffic Signs.

What exactly is a "car"? Can HGVs use it? Vans? Google saw one: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sr1+1bn&hl=en&ll=54.869497,-1.442701&spn=0.000196,0.00066&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&layer=c&cbll=54.869497,-1.442701&panoid=77QRIv16zcMyjkj_vakukw&cbp=12,5.62,,2,4.53&t=h&z=21

Presumably they'd have put a proper cycle lane if it was meant for bikes, or used the standard "no motor vehicles" sign if that was their intention. But any form of vulnerable vehicle lane is dangerous on the approach to a roundabout as it prevents the vulnerable vehicles from asserting their intentions through positive road positioning.

[PeterE]

The "no car" lane seems a crazy idea, do these exist elsewhere in the country? I can't see any reference in Know Your Traffic Signs.

What exactly is a "car"? Can HGVs use it? Vans? Google saw one: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sr1+1bn&hl=en&ll=54.869497,-1.442701&spn=0.000196,0.00066&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&layer=c&cbll=54.869497,-1.442701&panoid=77QRIv16zcMyjkj_vakukw&cbp=12,5.62,,2,4.53&t=h&z=21

My understanding is that anything apart from passenger cars can use them - pedal cycles, motorcycles, vans, HGVs, buses, coaches, taxis. Seems to stem from the "cars are the root of all evil" philosophy

[TripleS]

The "no car" lane seems a crazy idea, do these exist elsewhere in the country? I can't see any reference in Know Your Traffic Signs.

What exactly is a "car"? Can HGVs use it? Vans? Google saw one: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sr1+1bn&hl=en&ll=54.869497,-1.442701&spn=0.000196,0.00066&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&layer=c&cbll=54.869497,-1.442701&panoid=77QRIv16zcMyjkj_vakukw&cbp=12,5.62,,2,4.53&t=h&z=21

My understanding is that anything apart from passenger cars can use them - pedal cycles, motorcycles, vans, HGVs, buses, coaches, taxis. Seems to stem from the "cars are the root of all evil" philosophy

Ah, clearly you are a graduate of the TripleS School of Paranoia......but I do sometimes feel there are grounds for that sort of scepticism.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[nigelc]

Thanks for the comments. Seem to have drifted off topic but interesting nonetheless.

I think the main point for me is that there may be drivers who are new to the area and unable to see the paint on the road if it's busy because of vehicles queueing over the markings. Also they won't know the local custom & practice which doesn't always follow the road markings. They may even be "pushed" into the wrong lane by no car lanes or bus lanes. On realizing their mistake they may attempt a last minute change of lane on approach to, or even on, a junction or roundabout. Strangers may be distracted by looking at road signs for guidance and could easily miss seeing other vehicles.

For those reasons I'm always wary undertaking on the approach to a junction. I still do it but am very cautious about what those around me might do next.