Overtaking on zig-zags?

by **martine** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:20 pm

An examiner has criticised one of my associates for changing lanes on a 2 lane road in the zig-zags approaching a puffin crossing.

I always thought...ahem...assumed...the no overtaking rule was when on a normal, single lane road and changing lanes would be OK. (She wasn't actually overtaking either just getting into the r/h lane for approach to a roundabout).

Probably not a good idea to be mirror checking/shoulder checking so close to a crossing but is it illegal?

Can anyone clarify?

by **MGF** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:54 pm

martine wrote:...(She wasn't actually overtaking either just getting into the r/h lane for approach to a roundabout).

So she didn't actually pass the vehicle nearest to the crossing in lane 1 whilst within the zig-zags? That's all you need to do rather than 'overtake' in the popular sense.

by **TripleS** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:37 pm

It sounds to me as if the examiner, i.e. a human being, and therefore apt to take a slightly different view from other examiners, merely preferred her not to do that, without suggesting there was any illegality involved. Other examiners may be perfectly happy with what she did; but then I don't seem to have much contact with advanced driving examiners, so I don't really know about that. :lol:

Best wishes all,
Dave.

by **ROG** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:53 pm

I was on an assessment drive with one of our examiners and he said that it is best to stay in lane at zig zags in case a pedestrian has anticipated your travel line but it is not illegal to do so.

by **waremark** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:05 am

MGF wrote:
martine wrote:...(She wasn't actually overtaking either just getting into the r/h lane for approach to a roundabout).

So she didn't actually pass the vehicle nearest to the crossing in lane 1 whilst within the zig-zags? That's all you need to do rather than 'overtake' in the popular sense.

I think the rule is (and I think that this is what you mean) that you must not pass the vehicle nearest to the crossing. Apart from this, you are allowed to overtake.

by **TripleS** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:15 am

ROG wrote:I was on an assessment drive with one of our examiners and he said that it is best to stay in lane at zig zags in case a pedestrian has anticipated your travel line but it is not illegal to do so.

OK, but would he advocate staying in lane in all cases, including those where there are no pedestrians in sight?

This again sounds like: "You should always do this, and never do that"....etc., whereas I prefer to work on the basis that you maintain awareness of possible difficulties, but if they are clearly not there, you give yourself more freedom as to how you behave.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

by **ROG** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:34 am

TripleS wrote:OK, but would he advocate staying in lane in all cases, including those where there are no pedestrians in sight?

No - open view - no-one about - no problem

by **martine** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:09 am

Thanks guys - that's about what I thought. Clearly if it's busy or restricted view then it makes sense not to change lanes let alone overtake but I'm with ROG and TripleS if there's a clear view and no one about.

by **ExadiNigel** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:55 pm

martine wrote:Thanks guys - that's about what I thought. Clearly if it's busy or restricted view then it makes sense not to change lanes let alone overtake but I'm with ROG and TripleS if there's a clear view and no one about.

Ditto

Nigel

by **fungus** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:41 pm

waremark wrote, I think the rule is (and I think that this is what you mean) that you must not pass the vehicle nearest to the crossing. Apart from this, you are allowed to overtake.

We had a discussion at our local IAM group meeting a few months ago on this. One of the senior observers, an ex Police class1, Police instructor checked the regs and said that they only mentioned the lead motor vehicle, not bicycles, which was the point we were debating.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

by **MGF** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 pm

I don't think there is an exception in the regs. for stopping in the zig-zag area due to queing traffic. But we all do it (don't we?)

by **ROG** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:14 am

MGF wrote:I don't think there is an exception in the regs. for stopping in the zig-zag area due to queing traffic. But we all do it (don't we?)

It just says - (rule 192) In queueing traffic you should keep the crossing clear - which infers from the absence of anything else that it means just that - the crossing itself and not any other area.

The alternative would be for the rule to say -
in queueing traffic you should keep the crossing and zig zags clear

by **Fenland Flyer** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:33 am

Can I go back to the very beginning of this thread?
The Examiner didn't say it was an illegal move (as your Associate passed) and we don't know the exact circumstances of the manoeuvre or the exact conversation (Chinese whispers) so, having been there many times myself, it seems to me that the Examiner was giving some advice on the particular circumstance he/she saw and nothing more than that.
However, I agree with all the other comments re the legality and/or advisability of such a manoeuvre but, if the circumstances were right (in other words it was the right thing to do at the time) then I would have no problems with changing lanes in the zig-zag area (I've probably done it many times but, at my age, it's difficult to remember a specific instance!!)

by **7db** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:26 pm

MGF wrote:I don't think there is an exception in the regs. for stopping in the zig-zag area due to queing traffic. But we all do it (don't we?)

Circumstances beyond the driver's control?

by **ROG** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:56 am

The zig zags simply denote the danger area and have specific rules - if they were to be other then a yellow grid box would be there instead.

Overtaking on zig-zags?

Who is online