Surprised to be undertaken

[vonhosen]

What do you think was careless (other than missing the Police car tracking him)?
What did he fail to consider or account for in the manoeuvre?

Too close to the car in lane 3 before moving into lane 2 then too close to the cars behind and in front in lane 2 then too close to the car in lane 3 on his return to lane 3. Nowhere near enough space between himself and other vehicles to account for sudden changes in position or direction by the other vehicles.

Looked like he'd been there a while & observed that everybody was steady, you hear him accelerate up into contact shoulder check & spend minimal time alongside. There were no sudden changes of position/direction by any other vehicle or anything to indicate that it was likely from them.
How accurately does the lens reflect the actual distances involved?

I'm not condoning his behaviour though, it was outside what I'd consider competent & careful driving behaviour. It was outside convention, the highway code, driving test standards etc.

[vonhosen]

...

No not all undertaking, just as not all speeding.
Just that which has fallen below the standards of competence & care expected in relation to them.

All of your posts relate to compliance with the HC, the driving test and convention. Can you give an example of undertaking that doesn't comply with the HC but you don't consider to be careless?

You can undertake within convention, the highway code & on the driving test in certain circumstances. You can read about them in the highway code.

My point is that I don't believe that showing care & attention during undertaking makes it OK, because it falls short of the standards of competence expected (which can be deduced through convention, highway code, test of competence etc).

[MGF]

You think he is driving with due care in the circumstances but as the riding doesn't satisfy your made-up test for the offence you would find him guilty. Of course you are free to apply your made-up test but what people shouldn't do is mistake it for the test applied by the courts.

[MGF]

Can you give an example of undertaking that doesn't comply with the HC but you don't consider to be careless?

You can undertake within convention, the highway code & on the driving test in certain circumstances. You can read about them in the highway code.

I was asking for an example if circumstances in which the undertaking is contrary to the HC.

[vonhosen]

You think he is driving with due care in the circumstances but as the riding doesn't satisfy your made-up test for the offence you would find him guilty. Of course you are free to apply your made-up test but what people shouldn't do is mistake it for the test applied by the courts.

I'm just applying the wording of the legislation, competent '&' careful, if the test is competently careful & not both competent & careful then that's what it should say.

The DVSA are charged by the government with setting out the national standards for safe & responsible driving.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... -standards

Let's look at another example.

You are travelling on a single carriageway NSL road, ahead of you is a LGV and 10 cars. You are all approaching red traffic lights. As you do so it becomes 2 lanes. Lane one has an ahead arrow (no wording) & the right hand lane has a right turn arrow (no wording). The LGV and 10 cars come to a halt in lane 1, while you drive down lane 2 to the head of it. The lights change to green, the LGV is slow away & you easily move off with no incident continuing ahead with a clear road now ahead of you.

Competent & Careful?

[GJD]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.

http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

Does this help with the answer to Gareth's question earlier in the thread?

How bad must the driving be to result in a prosecution for passing to the left of other vehicles on a multi-lane road? Is this enough on its own?

The article says he was done for riding without reasonable consideration. I think that must imply that passing on the left was not, on its own, the whole issue in this case - 'without reasonable consideration' requires some inconvenience to have been caused to another road user (presumably the driver behind in lane 2 in this case?)

I don't know if others might see it differently, but that looked to me like it was not just a pass that happened to be on the left, it was riding that would fail a test of 'care when considering whether to execute and in the execution of the manoeuvre'.

[GJD]

Competent & Careful?

PH thread reprise, anyone?

In answer to your question, I'd be dismayed if the simple fact that lane 2 had a right turn arrow was sufficient to render such a manoeuvre automatically illegal regardless of the circumstances.

[5star]

You are travelling on a single carriageway NSL road, ahead of you is a LGV and 10 cars. You are all approaching red traffic lights. As you do so it becomes 2 lanes. Lane one has an ahead arrow (no wording) & the right hand lane has a right turn arrow (no wording). The LGV and 10 cars come to a halt in lane 1, while you drive down lane 2 to the head of it. The lights change to green, the LGV is slow away & you easily move off with no incident continuing ahead with a clear road now ahead of you.

I don't know if any laws are being broken here, but let's assume for the sake of argument, such a manoeuvre is illegal.

Is it in the Public interest to prosecute?
Is this a genuine mistake?
What harm could come of this?
How anti-social is the offence?
How easy a mistake is this to make?
What is the best course of action to prevent reoffending?
What is the best course of action to prevent others offending?

What are the legal obligations?
Does the law allow discretion in how this offence is dealt with?
Is there consistency in approach to dealing with this offence?

Examples:
If the driver is intentionally queue jumping. pulling away with screeching tyres and two fingers up to everyone else in the queue, then I expect everyone in the queue would want a prosecution.

If circumstance had forced the driver into lane two (e.g. just emerged from a T junction and there were no gaps in lane 1), I doubt anybody would want to spend tax-payers money on prosecuting.

If you're on a motorbike, the car drivers in lane 1 probably won't care (and would probably expect it).

If a Police officer was only prosecuting women for the offence, that wouldn't be appropriate.

[vonhosen]

Look at the outcome here for a non event undertake.

http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/video_m ... _1_3949236

Does this help with the answer to Gareth's question earlier in the thread?

How bad must the driving be to result in a prosecution for passing to the left of other vehicles on a multi-lane road? Is this enough on its own?

The article says he was done for riding without reasonable consideration. I think that must imply that passing on the left was not, on its own, the whole issue in this case - 'without reasonable consideration' requires some inconvenience to have been caused to another road user (presumably the driver behind in lane 2 in this case?)

I don't know if others might see it differently, but that looked to me like it was not just a pass that happened to be on the left, it was riding that would fail a test of 'care when considering whether to execute and in the execution of the manoeuvre'.

Do you really think the vehicle in lane 2 was inconvenienced?
Was he forced to do anything?

[vonhosen]

You are travelling on a single carriageway NSL road, ahead of you is a LGV and 10 cars. You are all approaching red traffic lights. As you do so it becomes 2 lanes. Lane one has an ahead arrow (no wording) & the right hand lane has a right turn arrow (no wording). The LGV and 10 cars come to a halt in lane 1, while you drive down lane 2 to the head of it. The lights change to green, the LGV is slow away & you easily move off with no incident continuing ahead with a clear road now ahead of you.

I don't know if any laws are being broken here, but let's assume for the sake of argument, such a manoeuvre is illegal.

Is it in the Public interest to prosecute?
Is this a genuine mistake?
What harm could come of this?
How anti-social is the offence?
How easy a mistake is this to make?
What is the best course of action to prevent reoffending?
What is the best course of action to prevent others offending?

What are the legal obligations?
Does the law allow discretion in how this offence is dealt with?
Is there consistency in approach to dealing with this offence?

Examples:
If the driver is intentionally queue jumping. pulling away with screeching tyres and two fingers up to everyone else in the queue, then I expect everyone in the queue would want a prosecution.

If circumstance had forced the driver into lane two (e.g. just emerged from a T junction and there were no gaps in lane 1), I doubt anybody would want to spend tax-payers money on prosecuting.

If you're on a motorbike, the car drivers in lane 1 probably won't care (and would probably expect it).

If a Police officer was only prosecuting women for the offence, that wouldn't be appropriate.

Discretion in disposal, circumstances that weren't in the example or Police officer prejudice are not part of the decision into whether you believe the circumstances outlined fall below the standard expected or not.

[vonhosen]

Competent & Careful?

PH thread reprise, anyone?

In answer to your question, I'd be dismayed if the simple fact that lane 2 had a right turn arrow was sufficient to render such a manoeuvre automatically illegal regardless of the circumstances.

You had the circumstances, we can't cover all different circumstances & the notional competent careful driver would consider the circumstances as is, because part of the test is what he'd do in the circumstances. If it were different circumstances then the competent careful driver would be considering what he'd do in a different set of circumstances & it may not fail the test in those circumstances (i.e. a clearly broken down lorry at the stop line at the traffic lights in lane 1).

Or would you be dismayed simply because it's what you'd consider doing in those outlined circumstances?

What should a competent careful driver do in the circumstances as outlined?

[GJD]

I don't know if others might see it differently, but that looked to me like it was not just a pass that happened to be on the left, it was riding that would fail a test of 'care when considering whether to execute and in the execution of the manoeuvre'.

Do you really think the vehicle in lane 2 was inconvenienced?
Was he forced to do anything?

The law appears to have thought somebody was inconvenienced. I guess prime candidates are that vehicle in lane 2, or the one in lane 3 that he passed. It's difficult to gauge any foreshortening effect in the video, and I'm not a motorcyclist so I'm not in a position to assess it from a motorcyclist's perspective, but it looked like he was quite close in front of both cars. The point was about Gareth's question: "How bad must the driving be to result in a prosecution for passing to the left of other vehicles on a multi-lane road? Is this enough on its own?" This particular case doesn't seem to provide any evidence that the answer to the second part might be "yes" because, even if you or I feel differently, at least as far as the law was concerned there was more to this particular case than just passing on the left.

In heavy traffic wouldn't you say that things like good communication, and taking the time to ensure others around you are aware of your intentions and ready for what you wish to do, are important aspects of considerate, co-operative behaviour? If they are important at all, they are especially important if you're planning to step outside normal convention. It seemed to me that that mindset was absent and I believe it is something that ought not to be absent.

[MGF]

You think he is driving with due care in the circumstances but as the riding doesn't satisfy your made-up test for the offence you would find him guilty. Of course you are free to apply your made-up test but what people shouldn't do is mistake it for the test applied by the courts.

I'm just applying the wording of the legislation, competent '&' careful, if the test is competently careful & not both competent & careful then that's what it should say.

You are applying your made-up test.

...You can undertake within convention, the highway code & on the driving test in certain circumstances. You can read about them in the highway code.

This is neither in the legislation nor case law. It is imagined and incorrect.

I'll put the question to you again. Can you give an example of undertaking that is contrary to the HC but which you think is not careless? If you can't then you are effectively arguing that all contraventions of the HC as regards undertaking are also contraventions of S3 RTA, careless driving.

[MGF]

I blame Gareth for von's trolling. Referring to von's first misconceived post as an '"excellent contribution".

[GJD]

Competent & Careful?

PH thread reprise, anyone?

In answer to your question, I'd be dismayed if the simple fact that lane 2 had a right turn arrow was sufficient to render such a manoeuvre automatically illegal regardless of the circumstances.

You had the circumstances

Not the circumstances one might want to consider in deciding whether the driver should be a criminal. Is there a clear road ahead or a solid queue immediately beyond the junction? Is there enough space in the junction to get comfortably ahead of the LGV and move back across without having to cut them up? Is the condition of the road surface (e.g. things like mud or frost on the road) conducive to the level of acceleration you're planning to use? Ten cars back is a fair amount of time - starting from back there, can the driver be confident the lights will still be red and so the LGV not already moving by the time they get there? Can they be confident none of the other cars will move into the right hand lane before they get there? There are probably all sorts of other factors that don't immediately occur to me off the top of my head.

Did you mean to imply that all such concerns are satisfied and the only possible basis for questioning the manoeuvre is the use of the right turn lane to overtake straight on? As I say, I'd be dismayed if factors like that were not considered relevant on the basis that the presence of the right turn arrow alone was regarded as sufficient to automatically render the manoeuvre criminal.

Or would you be dismayed simply because it's what you'd consider doing in those outlined circumstances?

No, I'd be dismayed because interpreting a non-mandatory road marking in such a mandatory manner would be draconian and irrational.