Leaving a Motorway

[219]

Okay, one for you that I've been meaning to ask for while since it happened though never got round to it.

Say lane one is a dedicated filter lane for leaving at the next junction. Can you undertake traffic that intends to remain on the motorway in lane two?

The example I use is the M25 clockwise, A3 turnoff, where the filter lane is over(?) a mile long. I was in the filter lane, and slowed to keep pace with an HGV in lane 2, remaining on his rear 3/4. My take on it was that it's just another lane on the motorway, and as such you'd be considered for the offence of overtaking on the inside lane. The views of the line of traffic that built up behind me cast doubts on my assumption. Roads were clear, no lines of traffic waiting, all flowing nicely.

The rage of the Cavalier driver with family in tow was tangible. I could literally see his spittle hitting the inside of his windscreen. I could see it because he was hanging onto my rear bumper like a bad case of the clap. Anyway, lots of people overtaking the hgv and en masse returning to lane 1 passing traffic on the right at 70.

What do you think? I've just read the HC on leaving a motorway and it doesn't deal with filter lanes.

Time to cover one mile @ 56mph = 64.29 seconds
Time to cover one mile @ 70mph = 51.43 seconds
Time saved by overtaking to get to the traffic lights quicker = 12.86 seconds

I would say the filter lane aspect is irrelevant; if on a multi lane road , traffic is moving in lanes and the lane on the left is flowing faster than the lane on the right , it is perfectly permissible to pass traffic moving more slowly in the lane to the right .

I would just keep a watchful eye for the lazy of thought who make a last minute lane change but other than that it is fine .

If the lane markings have changed from normal ones to long dashes with short gaps , then it no longer counts as a running lane on the motorway and is now the exit lane , so your concern does not apply .

Either way , it is fine .

 

[pmcgsmurf]

@Pontoneer

Derek, 10 years for a reply, member not been on for best part of a year ?

 

[219]

Better late than never

 

[markjay]

Better late than never

And yours is actually the correct answer

As long as you are driving at the same speed of other traffic in your lane, you're fine, regardless of what speed other lanes are moving. See MOCAS' post in #27.

See also:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/undertaking/

 

[Dickster]

Indeed, undertaking is not illegal at all. In fact I was stopped for doing it in the M25 near Dartford years ago. Early Saturday morning no traffic and someone was hogging the outside lane. I pulled right over to the inside lane slowly and then drove past. It was not considered wreckless and I was not prosecuted - a lot of drivers would have angrily tailgated...

 

[zipdip]

Well plenty of roads like that,normally the road markings change so that the inside lane is a dedicated road to exit the road be it a A road or M otorway,and so I would undertake on it if lane two was slowing traffic.

 

[Deleted member 150136]

Undertaking is when you move from any right lane to the left, pass a vehicle, then move back to the right.
Staying in your lane at a constant speed you can pass cars on either side.
As an example, on a quiet motorway and there is an inconsiderate lane hogger in the center lane, you can stay on the inside/left lane and pass them, that isn't classed as undertaking.

 

[219]

‘Undertaking’ is not even a real word in this context : while one might undertake a task , the act of passing other traffic is known as overtaking , be it on the right or on the left .

It is another example of poor English which has slipped into modern parlance .

 

[renault12ts]

‘Undertaking’ is not even a real word in this context : while one might undertake a task , the act of passing other traffic is known as overtaking , be it on the right or on the left .

It is another example of poor English which has slipped into modern parlance .

And yet...we know what is meant.

 

[E55BOF]

It's a logical development of the language, and while I bow to few when it comes to pedantry in protecting the English language, it's not a point I'd bother to make. What annoys me most is the use of the wrong word, or the wrong spelling, where the correct word is in common use; 'break' pads, anybody, or 'curbed' wheels? I suspect much of it is down to 'autocorrect' where no correction is actually needed, rather than ignorance.

 

[markjay]

It's a logical development of the language, and while I bow to few when it comes to pedantry in protecting the English language, it's not a point I'd bother to make. What annoys me most is the use of the wrong word, or the wrong spelling, where the correct word is in common use; 'break' pads, anybody, or 'curbed' wheels? I suspect much of it is down to 'autocorrect' where no correction is actually needed, rather than ignorance.

Isn't curb vs kerb simply a US vs UK thing?

 

[renault12ts]

Isn't curb vs kerb simply a US vs UK thing?

Yes...but they're wrong.

 

[markjay]

Yes...but they're wrong.

As they say... there's no such thing as 'UK English' and 'US English'.... there's only the Queen's English, and whatever it is that they speak over the pond

 

[E55BOF]

I've never yet had to kerb my enthusiasm for anything, nor gone out curb-crawling in a red-light district...

Two nations separated by a common language...

 

[219]

And yet...we know what is meant.

Oh indeed , but does not excuse the poor language .

 

[219]

It's a logical development of the language, and while I bow to few when it comes to pedantry in protecting the English language, it's not a point I'd bother to make. What annoys me most is the use of the wrong word, or the wrong spelling, where the correct word is in common use; 'break' pads, anybody, or 'curbed' wheels? I suspect much of it is down to 'autocorrect' where no correction is actually needed, rather than ignorance.

Too many of these spell checking devices are based on American spellings .

 

[190]

Some US spellings make more sense than ours. One example is tire vs tyre. As I think it's generally accepted that the word is derived from attire meaning a covering, I prefer the US version over our olde english one.

The US spellings I don't like are where S is replaced with Z and there of lots of them which are constantly picked up on spell checks. The US ending of words in -ize apparently predates -ise so they might be right again but I still don't like it.

 

[Fununcle]

Some US spellings make more sense than ours. One example is tire vs tyre. As I think it's generally accepted that the word is derived from attire meaning a covering, I prefer the US version over our olde english one.

The US spellings I don't like are where S is replaced with Z and there of lots of them which are constantly picked up on spell checks. The US ending of words in -ize apparently predates -ise so they might be right again but I still don't like it.

But how do you tell the difference between a tyre and something having a long day and starting to tire. That's why most, but certainly not all words with two meanings have different spellings. And yes I'm looking at you too, two and to.

 

[Dryce]

That's why most, but certainly not all words with two meanings have different spellings. And yes I'm looking at you too, two and to.

In the IT world I've been quite comfortable using US spelling such as 'disk' for someghing like a floppy or hard disk. Whereas I would use disc for something like brake disc. And program for a software program and pogramme for a TV programme. I've always felt that the differentiation is useful.

But I've noticed my younger colleagues on projects typically use the US versions for pretty much everything.

 

[Dryce]

The US ending of words in -ize apparently predates -ise so they might be right again but I still don't like it.

Or one might say they are less evolved ......