Surprised to be undertaken

[Gareth]

By the rulebook anyway, [...], AND you need to be keeping up with traffic in your lane, meaning that you don't comply if you do it on an otherwise empty road.

What are the words that specify this part? Rule 268 doesn't seem to preclude first catching up with traffic in your own lane ...

[trashbat]

"Do not overtake on the left ... In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane"

So if there isn't anything meaningfully in front of you, the exemption doesn't apply.

[5star]

If the coach was just sitting there and not moving, I'd probably have straddled both lanes (maybe 2/3:1/3) until past the hazard. This gives me the option to move into lane 2 if the coach does start to pull out, while blocking cars from behind from pulling alongside during the hazard and causing a potential squeeze-collision. This is a single fluid move, rather than 3 (lane change:pass hazard:lane change) and reduces potential confusion for other road users.

[OldenBill]

If the coach was just sitting there and not moving, I'd probably have straddled both lanes (maybe 2/3:1/3) until past the hazard. This gives me the option to move into lane 2 if the coach does start to pull out, while blocking cars from behind from pulling alongside during the hazard and causing a potential squeeze-collision. This is a single fluid move, rather than 3 (lane change:pass hazard:lane change) and reduces potential confusion for other road users.

5star's suggestion does sound sensible although I have always hesitated to straddle white lines fearing I'd be criticised for a breach of "lane discipline".

I've also seen the blocking method advised where cars are parked against either kerb (reducing the remaining road to just under two lanes, allowing for kids and door openings etc.) to make it clear to a later arriving oncoming vehicle (e.g. a white van)! that one was "coming through".

[Graham Wright]

A good clue when looking for intent, is to watch the front wheels. The first indication a vehicle is moving is the rotation of the wheel. Another useful sign is the angle of the front wheels. If they are pointing out, the vehicle moving could create a hazard. If they are straight, there will be a small interval before that hazard presents.

[Matt62]

Going back to Vonhosen's comment, it would be interesting to know who in practice would be most likely to be stopped and or charged with Careless driving:

1. The 'undertaker'
2. The driver who allowed/encouraged the 'undertaking' to occur (by incorrect road positioning / bloody mindedness / sleep / whatever....)

I am assuming legal speeds, both cars well established in lane, no collision/near miss.

[5star]

5star's suggestion does sound sensible although I have always hesitated to straddle white lines fearing I'd be criticised for a breach of "lane discipline".

The way to do it is not to wander across like you're drunk, but take a positive position with intent. There should be no doubt in other driver's minds that you're straddling for a reason, and they should be looking out for the reason why.

In my opinon, protecting my safety zone and also protecting the interest of impatient drivers behind is more important than lane discipline.

[TheInsanity1234]

What I'd do if I was confident that I had plenty of room before the faster driver would catch up to me is to shift over so I'm riding the cat-eyes, possibly slightly over as I go past the coach, then shift back into my lane.

If I wasn't confident that I'd have room, then I'd just ease off and try to reduce my speed so that the approaching car would get past, then I'd do as above.

If it was a case where I'm going to end up being overtaken as I go past the coach despite me dropping my speed or maintaining my speed, then I would simply accelerate so I can get past the coach before I end up being compromised by the overtaker.

(But of course, this kind of scenario wouldn't happen if everybody looked well ahead and adjusted their speed and positioning so they wouldn't end up in someone's way when the other driver has to react to something!)

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

From Vonhosen's post (and from my own reading of the HC and my driving experience), what I deduce is this:

Undertaking in queues of traffic with one lane moving faster than another by chance, and not lane hopping to take advantage of that fact = legitimate.

Any cynical, knowing act of undertaking, "because you can", in the absence of other traffic slowing the lane to your right = fair game for prosecution.

At least that's the way I've always played it. If I were to choose to undertake someone, because I considered they were travelling in a lane unnecessarily far to the right, and I wanted to go faster than them, I'd have to hold my hand up and take the rap if an officer of the law saw me and took me to task for it. So I don't do it - at least, haven't done so more than once or twice in the last 20 years, and then with a sense that I knew the law was not on my side.

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

In Martin's case I'd just have kept a close watch on the coach, and on my offside mirror, and been ready to move out if necessary. I'd have been aware of the lady behind me and her chassis language, and taken that into account.

* - Highway Code. It turns out there is not a specific law to be broken by overtaking on the left.

[Graham Wright]

What tickles me is the statement "passing slower moving traffic".

I know what it sets out to state but there is a hint of impossibility in the absence of the difference isn't there?

[vonhosen]

Going back to Vonhosen's comment, it would be interesting to know who in practice would be most likely to be stopped and or charged with Careless driving:

1. The 'undertaker'
2. The driver who allowed/encouraged the 'undertaking' to occur (by incorrect road positioning / bloody mindedness / sleep / whatever....)

I am assuming legal speeds, both cars well established in lane, no collision/near miss.

Or both.

[vonhosen]

From Vonhosen's post (and from my own reading of the HC and my driving experience), what I deduce is this:

Undertaking in queues of traffic with one lane moving faster than another by chance, and not lane hopping to take advantage of that fact = legitimate.

Any cynical, knowing act of undertaking, "because you can", in the absence of other traffic slowing the lane to your right = fair game for prosecution.

At least that's the way I've always played it. If I were to choose to undertake someone, because I considered they were travelling in a lane unnecessarily far to the right, and I wanted to go faster than them, I'd have to hold my hand up and take the rap if an officer of the law saw me and took me to task for it. So I don't do it - at least, haven't done so more than once or twice in the last 20 years, and then with a sense that I knew the law was not on my side.

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

In Martin's case I'd just have kept a close watch on the coach, and on my offside mirror, and been ready to move out if necessary. I'd have been aware of the lady behind me and her chassis language, and taken that into account.

For me this doesn't fall within scope (Re Highway Code) & would fall below the standard expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3pTwGNPMQ

This (especially see about 1.20 in traffic in lane 2) would fall within scope & wouldn't fall below the standard expected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SnwGjVpPdw

[jcochrane]

From Vonhosen's post (and from my own reading of the HC and my driving experience), what I deduce is this:

Undertaking in queues of traffic with one lane moving faster than another by chance, and not lane hopping to take advantage of that fact = legitimate.

Any cynical, knowing act of undertaking, "because you can", in the absence of other traffic slowing the lane to your right = fair game for prosecution.

At least that's the way I've always played it. If I were to choose to undertake someone, because I considered they were travelling in a lane unnecessarily far to the right, and I wanted to go faster than them, I'd have to hold my hand up and take the rap if an officer of the law saw me and took me to task for it. So I don't do it - at least, haven't done so more than once or twice in the last 20 years, and then with a sense that I knew the law was not on my side.

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

In Martin's case I'd just have kept a close watch on the coach, and on my offside mirror, and been ready to move out if necessary. I'd have been aware of the lady behind me and her chassis language, and taken that into account.

For me this doesn't fall within scope (Re Highway Code) & would fall below the standard expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3pTwGNPMQ

This (especially see about 1.20 in traffic in lane 2) would fall within scope & wouldn't fall below the standard expected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SnwGjVpPdw

If I understand correctly the difference between the clips is that in the first one the driver could easily move to the overtaking lane 3 as the cars in that lane were driving at or above his own speed. In the second clip this is not the case.
So would it be fair to summarise by saying where possible use an overtaking lane but if the cars in those lanes are driving slower it may be acceptable to stay in the non overtaking lane and pass slower traffic in the overtaking lanes with care and perhaps at a slower speed than in clip 1?

[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.

[vonhosen]

From Vonhosen's post (and from my own reading of the HC and my driving experience), what I deduce is this:

Undertaking in queues of traffic with one lane moving faster than another by chance, and not lane hopping to take advantage of that fact = legitimate.

Any cynical, knowing act of undertaking, "because you can", in the absence of other traffic slowing the lane to your right = fair game for prosecution.

At least that's the way I've always played it. If I were to choose to undertake someone, because I considered they were travelling in a lane unnecessarily far to the right, and I wanted to go faster than them, I'd have to hold my hand up and take the rap if an officer of the law saw me and took me to task for it. So I don't do it - at least, haven't done so more than once or twice in the last 20 years, and then with a sense that I knew the law was not on my side.

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

In Martin's case I'd just have kept a close watch on the coach, and on my offside mirror, and been ready to move out if necessary. I'd have been aware of the lady behind me and her chassis language, and taken that into account.

For me this doesn't fall within scope (Re Highway Code) & would fall below the standard expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3pTwGNPMQ

This (especially see about 1.20 in traffic in lane 2) would fall within scope & wouldn't fall below the standard expected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SnwGjVpPdw

If I understand correctly the difference between the clips is that in the first one the driver could easily move to the overtaking lane 3 as the cars in that lane were driving at or above his own speed. In the second clip this is not the case.
So would it be fair to summarise by saying where possible use an overtaking lane but if the cars in those lanes are driving slower it may be acceptable to stay in the non overtaking lane and pass slower traffic in the overtaking lanes with care and perhaps at a slower speed than in clip 1?

1) Is a fairly clear road, the driver is not just maintaining speed with the flow of traffic in his lane & there is no sudden speed change in the lanes next to him. He can be said to be deliberately passing (outside of convention by not passing on the right).

2) Is fairly heavy traffic in all lanes, where the speed of traffic in the lanes is broadly similar, but that speed ebbs/flows due to traffic ahead in the lanes. The result of that speed variation is that a lane of traffic that is travelling quicker than the lane beside it one minute is suddenly travelling slower than that lane a couple of seconds later. Drivers are just maintaining the flow speed in their lanes as those speeds fluctuate due to traffic ahead, rather than a deliberate pass.

1) Isn't forced into the manoeuvre it's a choice really, 2) almost is forced into the manoeuvre.