Overtaking on a three-lane single carriageway

[trashbat]

Suppose you are driving along here:



There's a car in front of you going slower than you'd like, and you want to overtake.

In opposing lane 1, there's a car, maybe roughly as shown but ideally a bit further back. There's also another car following it fairly closely behind.

Opposing lane 2 is clear.

Would you go for it?

If, either just as you move out or any time thereafter, the second opposing car decides they want to overtake too, do they in any sense have any more claim to that bit of road than you?

[Horse]

What are the two opposing vehicles? How have the drivers behaved so far? What are the speeds involved, for all four?

Plan to complete the overtake before reaching the 'sandwich' point? If not, hang back.

[Grahar]

Would you go for it?

I most certainly wouldn't. In fact I would exercise great care even with 1 car opposing in lane 1 if it meant passing the car in lane 2.

If, either just as you move out or any time thereafter, the second opposing car decides they want to overtake too, do they in any sense have any more claim to that bit of road than you?

They certainly wouldn't have any more claim to the road if they started signalling or moving out after you have started moving. If the other driver starts signalling whilst you already are then I wouldn't start moving unless the other driver cancels their signal. If you start signalling at the same time I would think it would be wise to submit to the opposing driver. Though I believe that in following the rules of the highway code lane 2 is effectively a shared overtaking lane, that may not (and probably won't be) the perception of any oncoming driver.

[gannet]

I have had just this scenario play out for me, albeit the opposing car was a lot further back and it was a multi car overtake on my part. I did go for it and aborted after a couple of cars because a car appeared at the start of the opposing overtaking lane (my car didnt like it very much and put me back out but that's another story)...

With the benefit of that experience, no I wouldn't go for it...

[Horse]

I did go for it and aborted after a couple of cars because

With the benefit of that experience, no I wouldn't go for it...

Hmmm seems to be my week for posting flying-related comments. This one applies here: "Never take off unless you have somewhere to land". Was your mid-row bail-out gap already identified, or did you rely on the goodwill of other drivers to let you into the column?

This sort of thing is easier on a bike, where you can 'hedge hop' (sorry!) from gap to gap along a column of vehicles, dropping in (using acceleration sense rather than heavy braking) to progress along.

[gannet]

I did go for it and aborted after a couple of cars because

With the benefit of that experience, no I wouldn't go for it...

Hmmm seems to be my week for posting flying-related comments. This one applies here: "Never take off unless you have somewhere to land". Was your mid-row bail-out gap already identified, or did you rely on the goodwill of other drivers to let you into the column?

This sort of thing is easier on a bike, where you can 'hedge hop' (sorry!) from gap to gap along a column of vehicles, dropping in (using acceleration sense rather than heavy braking) to progress along.

bail-out gap (like that ), yes already Identified and was no bother.

In hindsight, I didn't actually need to bail out but I wasn't sure how fast said oncomer was going to accelerate etc. Having to bail out twice was eye opening

[Horse]

In hindsight, I didn't actually need to bail out

Better that decision and being able to discuss it afterwards . . .

In hindsight, I didn't actually need to bail out but I wasn't sure how fast said oncomer was going to accelerate etc.

Someone I know (used to be a RoSPA bike examiner) would pose the question: if you went through a bend and at the exit thought "I could have safely done that 10mph faster", was your original bend assessment incorrect? Same principle: hindsight 'that was fine' rather than 'Oh dear'. (Although that doesn't prohibit reflection and possible learning)

[Terry Williams]

Can I pose another question on this type of road. Exactly the scene as in the OP's photo except there is a right turn junction. (A6 Wilstead hill north of Bedford heading towards Bedford).

Where would you position your vehicle to turn into this turn? In the middle lane, or stay in the nearside lane to the left of the double white lines?

Bearing in mind that the middle lane starts just past the said junction and oncomers are pressing to use the middle lane to overtake as soon as it widens, my view is that it would be "suicide" to position there.

My preference was to stay in the nearside lane, slowing following traffic and keeping a good look out for anyone following to suddenly swoop out to overtake me if the middle became clear.

[WhoseGeneration]

Suppose you are driving along here:



There's a car in front of you going slower than you'd like, and you want to overtake.

In opposing lane 1, there's a car, maybe roughly as shown but ideally a bit further back. There's also another car following it fairly closely behind.

Opposing lane 2 is clear.

Would you go for it?

If, either just as you move out or any time thereafter, the second opposing car decides they want to overtake too, do they in any sense have any more claim to that bit of road than you?

Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority, that said it, as always, depends upon relative speeds and what you're driving and to what extent you are prepared to "bend the rules".

As an aside, when I was an IAM Observer and had regular check drives with a Police Class 1, as it then was, I remember his telling me that his Instructor had said that an overtake was only "iffy" if you could see the white of the opposing driver's eyes.

In other words, the art of overtaking is being lost, it isn't antisocial, won't destroy the planet but most seem to think it akin to the most heinous crimes known.

[Silk]

Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority...

Although it's possible that road planners are trying to imply that's the case, I don't believe it is the case. As far as I'm aware, the normal rules regarding double white lines apply.

There are lots of roads that I regularly travel with similar markings, and I've never really known what they mean, apart from the obvious fact that you mustn't cross the lines from the solid side. I don't really know why anyone would want to any more or less than they would in the other direction.

Perhaps someone can shed some light here.

[trashbat]

I suppose you have to put a white line somewhere, otherwise it's back to the days of unattributed suicide lanes and their associated fatality rates.

I ask the question not because it happened (I did drive it, and did overtake with much greater distance and IIRC only one car), but because I can't quite reconcile the logic of it.

The simplest answer is to treat it like a two lane single carriageway, i.e. don't go if anything is coming. This seems like a waste of a fine opportunity and I wonder what the 'more progress, please' folk would make of it.

I do think that once you're committed to this overtake, and subsequently someone in the other direction chooses to move into that lane, that's their dangerous behaviour much more than it is yours.

However I also can't help but think that denying them their own overtake opportunity on what is at face value a bit of road available to them is at least discourteous.

Of all the situations you can find yourself in when driving in the UK, this seems like the most ambiguous possibility.

[martine]

Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority,

Why? The solid line applies to the oncoming traffic only, to stop them crossing into the extreme left lane - it says nothing about who has priority for the middle lane. My understanding is no one does.

[WhoseGeneration]

Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority,

Why? The solid line applies to the oncoming traffic to stop them crossing into the extreme left lane - it say nothing about who has priority for the middle lane. My understanding is no one does.

Your point is valid and thinking about it you're correct. however, should you, from the left lane have a collision with one in the centre lane I'm not sure how that would be viewed as to reponsibility by a jury. There's something subconscious about the one lane against two that somehow implies priority despite the markings.

It's an interesting debate, not least because I didn't realise such three lane roads still existed to any extent in the UK apart from some A roads with gradients where three lanes aided overtaking of slow vehicles and I'm old enough to remember the "suicide lanes", as labelled by trashbat.

[fungus]

This looks like the A35 East of Bridport. I know the road, but not well, and in the past ther have been fatals due to drivers travellling in oposing directions overtaking in the face of an oncoming driver using the middle lane. I would be very wary of overtaking in the situation you describe.

In my copy of Very Advanced Driving by A Tom Topper, he advises using headlights when overtaking on a three lane road, which back in 1973 when there were no DLRLs and very few drivers would consider using lights in day light, was fine. But nowadays when almost 50 per cent of vehicles seem to be using lights in perfectly good day light, that advantage is lost. Another similar road is the A37 stretch of the Dorchester by pass. I believe that the A6 over Shap Fell had some prety horendous head on collisions in the day before the M6 was built.

Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority,

Why? The solid line applies to the oncoming traffic only, to stop them crossing into the extreme left lane - it says nothing about who has priority for the middle lane. My understanding is no one does.

That is exactly my take on this. The DSAs Driving the Essential Skills advises drivers to exercise extreme caution on these roads, as oncoming drivers have just as much right to use the centre lane as you do. Similarly there is no priority at an unmarked crossroads.

[trashbat]

This looks like the A35 East of Bridport. I know the road, but not well, and in the past ther have been fatals due to drivers travellling in oposing directions overtaking in the face of an oncoming driver using the middle lane. I would be very wary of overtaking in the situation you describe.

West of Bridport, near Charmouth, but yes. There are various examples out there but this is the best sighted one.