Conference terri::cars_uk

>UBOHUB::GILES_A        25 lines   5-APR-1989 10:08
    
>    being in the position of being "married" to a Police Class One
>    Traffic Police Officer and therefore knowing more than the
>    average phleb about law, whats safe and whats absolute ludicracy
>    I have to say that I'm suprised there aren't more accidents on our
>    sacred roads after reading the views of the "intelligent" sector..
 
This being the case, I would hope the UBOHUB::GILES_A does in fact know
the law. 

In 1986 a law was passed which allowed overtaking on the inside (undertaking)
on UK motorways at speed. The law came into force in 1987.

Basically it allows you to overtake on the inside LEGALLY if you are not
likely to cause danger to yourself or the other driver. It is not
automatically an offence to overtake on the inside. The law was introduced:
To reduce the congestion caused on motorways resulting from people driving in
the wrong lane and not pulling back to the left after an overtake. 

This information was divulged tonight by a Police Class 1 advanced driver
and RosPA ADA examiner to tonights RoSPA class.

Caution should be exercised when trying out this move! I am not keen to
do it in front of the Police and I am interested in finding out more details
on this law before I go trying it out! If you have an accident whilst
attempting this move due to the person on the right of you pulling in
then YOU are entirely responsible.

Comments?

		Craig

> In 1986 a law was passed which allowed overtaking on the inside (undertaking)

       I don't think that's the true meaning of undertaking, although I
       can see the connection with overtaking on the nearside :-)

       Sounds interesting, though. It's the first I've heard of it. I'll
       nip in the library and see if I can find a reference - do you have
       the exact name of the law?

       Ian.

       P.S. That's nip in the sense of paying a quick visit.

    Can anyone produce the exact name of the statute and any appropriate
    para numbers?????
    
    
    This sounds very interesting.  Why isn't it generally known?
    

Sorry, I don't know the name of the law. However, the highway code lists the
laws relevant to motoring - so a new copy of this might give you a pointer.
I'm surprised it isn't more well known too, perhaps they're not wanting it
publicised!?!?

	Craig.

For the majority of motoring history, overtaking on the left (in Britain!) has
been illegal.  So drivers do not expect cars to come steaming along on the left.
Then they change the law, but don't tell anyone!!!!
What intelligence our law makers have!!!!

The few drivers who know about this will exploit it, often quite sensibly I'm
sure, but other motorists will
a) Be confused
b) Be annoyed - maybe flash / toot / gesticulate at the "offender"
c) NOT BE EXPECTING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a fundamental change to the driving regs should have been far more widely
publicised, particularly as its greatest effect will be seen on motorways, where
there is less time to react to unusual situations!

I was on the M6 the other week (as a passenger).  We were in the left lane, then
pulled out to the middle to overtake, then tried to pull back to the left...
BUT someone else behind us had pulled out to the middle, overtaken the same car
we had, then quickly pulled back to the left and overtaken us (as the outside
lane was crowded).

If we'd pulled left and hit him... whose fault??????????????

More information on the exact nature of this law PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

Scott.

>>b) Be annoyed - maybe flash / toot / gesticulate at the "offender"

THEY will be the "offender" for being in the centre/rhs lane when a lane on
the left is free for use

...art

Art,  you miss my point.  In the example I gave, we were leaving a sensible gap
(ie > one car's length) before pulling back to the left, but Bozo the Wonder
Nerd used this gap to slip by on the inside, supposedly legally.  I don't
think the driver of the car I was in could under any circumstances be considered
the offender.

It seems to me very silly to legalise a potentially dangerous practice just to
get round the problem of middle lane "offenders".  Tougher laws against lane
indiscipline would be better.  Get the cops watching what lane cars are in
rather than worrying that they're doing 80 on a clear road!  Speed on its own
never hurt anyone - not using it sensibly does!

Scott.

>>(ie > one car's length) before pulling back to the left, but Bozo the Wonder
>>Nerd

this class of driver will ALWAYS cut you up etc etc 

to clarify what i said...

you should NOT drive in the centre (of rhs) lane when a lane to the left is free
for use

by free for use I mean: clearly safe to use i.e. the nearest car behind you
(in the lane to your left) should be visible in your rear view mirror before 
changing lane to move in front of him in his lane

whats the big deal about moving left in front of someone when you always
move right, in front of someone to overtake normally?

is it really too much for the drivers brain to observe that a car is moving
quickly on your left?

it seems to cope well enough with cars moving quickly on your right ? eh?

...art

    

>>whats the big deal about moving left in front of someone when you always
>>move right, in front of someone to overtake normally?
    
    I think part of the point being made is that a driver doeas not expect
    anyone to be 'undertaking' since it is assumed to be an illegal
    manoever - therefor it may lead to an accident. 
    OK - the driver _should_ always be aware of where all other
    cars are, and should look all round before pulling back in - but how
    many people make that extra special effort to see in there inside blind
    spot (if you see what I mean! :-) )
    
    Elaine 

    More on .98:  I was so taken aback by this that I took an edited copy
    into my local police station (Newbury) on my way home last night to
    try to get a definitive answer.  The desk sergeant disappeared to use
    the telephone - when she came back she said that they would still
    prosecute in this case.  So someone is mistaken.  I'd really like to
    get to chapter and verse on this one!
    
    Jeff.

    
    Hi,
    
    As the law goes regarding overtaking to the left on a multi lane
    carriageway...
    
    A driver may overtake on the left side when either
     i) the traffic to the right is stationary.
    ii) when directed to by personnel from an emergency service
    
    NB. A driver mayNOT manouver from the right hand carriageway, when
    previously stationary, to the left hand carriage for the sole purpose
    of passing the stationary vehicles (this IS illegal)
    
     Alan.
    

>                   <<< Note 145.108 by NEARLY::GOODENOUGH >>>

>    prosecute in this case.  So someone is mistaken.  I'd really like to
>    get to chapter and verse on this one!
 
The person to get in touch with is Tony Carter who works at the Police centre
at Junct 11 of the M4 (it was he who told the class). Failing that, perhaps 
some members of the Reading RoSPA committee who were at the meeting on 
Wednesday might be helpful in explaining his comments.

Craig

    I see more confusion arising in this note, .98 referred to passing
    whilst travelling in another lane, .109 refers to being stationary in a
    lane and jumping to the innner lane to pass. The two situations are
    sufficiently different to allow for one being legal and the other not.
    
    Take this morning: coming up on the m4 j 12 eastbound 1 mile marker,
    I'm in the middle lane, traffic solid left and right but clear ahead,
    so I proceed forward, passing traffic both left and RIGHT of me, not by
    a high margin of speed, but sufficient to class as overtaking. Was I
    right or wrong?.
    
    Richard
    
    P.S. I think I was in the right!.

As I understand it, there are the following cases:

- traffic moving in queues, left lane moving faster than right lane, thus
  overtaking on the inside.  This is definitely legal, the only confusion is
  what constitutes a queue.  I think of a queue as traffic sufficiently dense
  and slow moving to necessitate changing down a gear or two and use of brakes
  in a stop-start manner; less than 25mph (ish).

- car in middle or right lane, slower car in front, lane to left clear.  Car
  behind pulls to left, overtakes slower car, then pulls back in front of
  slower car.  Both cars are driving illegally in this case.  The slower car
  should pull in to the left, and the faster one shouldn't change lanes to the
  left with the intention of overtaking.

- car in left lane, travelling at constant speed, catches up with slower car in
  a lane to the right.  Car in left lane carries on and passes slower car to
  its right.  This is the case with dubious legality.

As I understand it, the new law is designed to make the latter case legal, so
that middle-lane-hogs don't obstruct the flow of traffic.  Unfortunately, the
law makes the second case above then dubiously legal:

  "Well I pulled in to the left lane, as the highway code says I should, and
   then just happened to catch up with a slower car in the middle lane.
   Honest, officer."

Can anyone confirm this, or offer a better interpretation.  As with a lot of
motor law it's a very grey area and requires common sense on the part of both
drivers and the police.

Scott.

    one is driving along a m/way in the left-hand lane and catches up
    with a 'middle-lane-hog'. Does this 'new' law allow me to pass (I
    don't use the word over/undertake!) the said car in the lane that
    I am travelling in, or should I do the 'normal' thing and move a-
    cross to the third lane, pass the car, them move back to my orig-
    inal lane?
    
    IMHO: this new law allows one to do the above, but does not allow
          the deliberate changing of lanes, to weave in and out, just
          to get in front of someone else.
    
    Martin.

    
    The other sunday I had the pleasure of accompanying a class 1 licenced
    traffic officer, as an introduction to the System Of Car Control.
    
    During this time we travelled the M3 from Basingstoke, in a southerly
    direction. We came across a 'centre lane cruiser' and followed said
    car for 1.5 miles (lanes 1 and 3 were empty). After the 1.5 miles
    the officer, using extensive observation and accelorator sence moved
    from lane 1, through lane 2 to lane 3, overtook/passed said car
    and proceeded to guide to motorist onto the hard shoulder.
    
      When on the hard shoulder the officer advised the motorist on
    the highway code/lane discipline and the correct proceedure for
    re-entering the carriageway.
    
       On returning to the patrol car the officer explained that to
    pass a moving vehicle on the right hand side is not only potentially
    dangerouse but against the road traffic act section * subsection
    **.
    
    note. *,** = I can't remember.
    
    
      Alan.

    
    
    oops the lower paragraph should read:
    ....to pass a moving vehicle on the LEFT hand side..... 
    
    or was it  near side/off side
    
    Carry on overtaking on the right....

    All this would be unneccessary if we had :
    
    a. Less cars   (as will happen in a few years)
    
    or
    
    b. If we adopted the American freeway system, which I believe allows
    overtaking on all sides ?
    
    Ric

re .118b

It is not legal to overtake both sides in every state.

Specifically it is illegal to "undertake" in New Hampshire (and no doubt 
elsewhere), though it is legal in neighbouring Massachusetts...

This law is widely ignored (undertaking being the norm).

/. Ian .\

    re 119
    
    Quite right.
    I had never encountered the term "undertake" before reading these
    notes. Over here "overtake" means simply "to come upon from behind,
    perhaps prepratory to passing". You then pass on whatever side strikes
    your fancy at the moment, common sense prevailing, let us hope,
    which sometimes doesn't.
    
    Driving in the left (fast) lane when the right hand lane is open,
    will sometimes, very rarely, will garner you attention from a traffic
    officer, but virtually never in states west of the Mississippi River.
    All of this in spite of the fact that "keep right except to pass"
    signs are quite common in all areas.
    
    However, "no passing on the right" rules are enforced quite rigidly.
    This apparent paradox refers in reality to mean, do not take to
    the shoulder (verge) in order to pass anyone in the far right lane.
    In this part of the country with its many 4X4 high ground clearence
    vehicles (50% of new vehicle sales in New Mexico are pick up trucks),
    this manouver is seen often, and aside from having your windshield
    sprayed with flying gravel it can be quite annoying.
    
    Reading these notes and trying to keep track of what is being described
    while visualizing all vehicles shifted to the opposite side of the
    road, is a good mental exercise.
    
    Terry
    

    Legal or illegal, the description of the described manoevre as
    "undertaking" may be rather to apt for comfort.
    
    Assuming a middle lane drongo, and assuming the chances of him/her
    using offside or internal mirror about 5%, then the chances of him/her
    glancing at the nearside mirror are about .0005%
    
    So the first awareness that creeps into the mind like a flash of
    low-voltage lightning is you alongside. Instant panic.
    
    Overtake on the right. And as fast as reasonably safe.
    
    Mike Day
    

Re: .119

Has NH law been changed in the last 6 years?  When I got my NH license the
law was that "undertaking" was legal, but only where there was at least 3
lanes.   It was definitely illegal where there were only two lanes.

jb

>      <<< Note 145.98 by MARVIN::COCKBURN "SCOTLAND 13, England 7 !!!" >>>
>           -< Overtaking on the left legal in certain circumstances >-

Ok, here's the full story, which I have in writing from RoSPA. 

* there is no specific offence of overtaking on the left *

Here's the relevent sections of the letter which I received from the head
examiner of RoSPA, and who talked to Tony Carter, whose comments caused 
this confusion.

'I have been specifically asked to reply to you regarding Tony Carter's
 comments, and having now had the opportunity to speak to him, he says that
 it was not his intention to convey the impression that overtaking on the
 left was permissable in any circumstances. The advice contained in the
 Highway Code still stands, even though the interpretation put on slow
 moving congested traffic conditions is applied more liberally nowadays,
 particularly on the M25.

'The law has not been changed, although there is no specific offence of 
 overtaking on the left or nearside. A driver that does so could find
 himself in court for driving without due care and reasonable consideration
 for other road users, or even reckless driving.'

  R L Smalley