Motorway lane discipline

[anarchy-inc]

The behaviour of other people does not excuse your behaviour.

And if you are somehow surprised by the idiot in the outer lane
which 'forces' you to take some ilegal action the question arises
how you put yourself in that position. (The term 'due care and
attention' comes to mind -- which doesn't involve intent).

Wow, I never said I would have been surprised. Fact is, I can't see around bends so if there is a bend and as I come out of and this idiot is in the right lane all on his own doing 60, HOW THE HELL AM I IN THE WRONG?!?!?!?!? What "move" did I make!?!?!?

Due care and attention? I say it's the moron in the far right that should be prosecuted not me.

I don't think it says anywhere in the highway code that you flash
your lights to do anything other than give warning of your presence.

My point exactly but in the real world, this is not the case. Hence the book is wrong.

 

[anarchy-inc]

And just as bad: a car flashes to indicate to someone he/she is giving
way to allow them to pull out and they take the signal to mean it's
safe to pull out and ignore traffic in the other direction or filtering
round the nearside of the car that flashed them.

The use of the headlight signal in these circumstances is technically
a bad thing yet it's actually a mechanism that is abused in order to
be courteous. It's a pity there isn't a legitimate form of signal and
official protrocol.

And until such time that the highway code is changed to reflect the real world, I will continue to ignore such flashes. Imagine the flash came from a new driver who has just finished memorizing the highway code. They will have intended to warn you . . . .

 

[Dryce]

Wow, I never said I would have been surprised. Fact is, I can't see around bends so if there is a bend and as I come out of and this idiot is in the right lane all on his own doing 60, HOW THE HELL AM I IN THE WRONG?!?!?!?!? What "move" did I make!?!?!?

Due care and attention? I say it's the moron in the far right that should be prosecuted not me.



My point exactly but in the real world, this is not the case. Hence the book is wrong.

Actually the book is right.

What you're essentially doing is saying it's OK to hit somebody in
the rear because it's their fault they were driving slower than you
and that you were driving too fast for the road conditions (couldn't
see them in time).

You have a responsibility to drive at speeds appropriate to the
conditions. The bend is technically a hazard. You you should
have considered it as such and taken appropriate action to
negotiate it.

If you see the other vehicle in the outer lane prior to the bend
then you have to factor it in to your negotiation of the bend
and adjust your speed and approach appropriately.

If did not see the other vehicle then you have misjudged the
hazard and put yourself in a dangerous situation.

The term 'defensive driving' seems to have been forgotten
these days.

 

[glojo]

Sorry but if I'm doing 70 in the left lane, I'm NOT breaking the law. Imagine if you came round a long left hand bend on the motorway and then after the bend you come to this guy doing 60. How the hell would I have intentionally broken the law? Sorry mate but your argument doesn't hold up.

Sorry anarchy but with the greatest of respect I beg to differ, on two counts.

Firstly if you come round a bend at 70mph and you are confronted by a car doing 60mph in the offside lane then you legally simply slow down, move across to the offside lane and allow the car in front to return to the correct lane. We are talking hypothetical here and you will say the offside car won't move over??? I cannot debate hypothetical, but in general the offside car will pull over.

We all never travel at a speed whereby we cannot stop within the distance that we can see to be safe!!! Or words to that effect, so you will never go round a corner and be caught out by slower moving traffic??

Motorways and fast dual carriageways MUST be designed to a specification, no sharp bends being one of them (unless controlled by speed restrictions)

please don't spout the highway code as the gospel truth as it clearly is not the way things happen in the real world. And as it happens, I rarely see another car use the lights to "inform others of their presence", it's usually to give some one the right of way at a junction . . ..

Sadly you are twisting this to suit your wording. I am NOT talking about town driving, or in your example allowing someone out of a junction. We are both talking about the picture!! As an advanced motor cycle instructor I have ALWAYS found the highway code to be an informative book full of excellent advice, tips laws etc. I have also found that as drivers\riders we generally develop bad habits the day we pass our driving\riding test and this thread is highlighting that very point. What reference will you 'spout' from to prove your theory?

There have been some very informative posts that explain when to 'undertake' and when not to. Those that do 'undertake' have developed the habit and sadly convinced themselves that their behaviour is legal, in general they are wrong, but there is nothing anyone can say that will convince them they are wrong. Please read this thread for examples.

As I previously stated, If you say you never took the picture, then you simply never took it. I'm glad I did say that, but what's to say you never posted it on the link you kindly posted (I believe you never actually did )

Take care,
John

Edit:
Just read the above post, my apologies if I am labouring the point. I am NOT picking on you and I'm sure your a very competant driver

 

[anarchy-inc]

Actually the book is right.

So do you just blindly accept that everything in the book is correct? Remember, the highway code is just that a code not the law. It is used as a set of guidelines to teach the "rules of the road". Whenever a document like that differs from the real world it becomes wrong. Laws often change because things in the real world change. Of course until the code changes, anything you do that is different could make you at fault in an accident, but it
does not change the fact that it differs from reality.

What you're essentially doing is saying it's OK to hit somebody in
the rear because it's their fault they were driving slower than you
and that you were driving too fast for the road conditions (couldn't
see them in time).

I'm not even gonna go there. Nothing I said even remotely suggests that.

You have a responsibility to drive at speeds appropriate to the
conditions. The bend is technically a hazard. You you should
have considered it as such and taken appropriate action to
negotiate it.

If you see the other vehicle in the outer lane prior to the bend
then you have to factor it in to your negotiation of the bend
and adjust your speed and approach appropriately.

If did not see the other vehicle then you have misjudged the
hazard and put yourself in a dangerous situation.

The term 'defensive driving' seems to have been forgotten
these days.

I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with the situation I described. You are driving at 70 in the left lane and you are just about to negotiate a long left hand bend in the motorway. No amount of forward planning can help you be aware of the idiot in the fast lane going 60 as he is at this point well out of your field of vision.

 

[anarchy-inc]

Firstly if you come round a bend at 70mph and you are confronted by a car doing 60mph in the offside lane then you legally simply slow down, move across to the offside lane and allow the car in front to return to the correct lane. We are talking hypothetical here and you will say the offside car won't move over??? I cannot debate hypothetical, but in general the offside car will pull over.

True it is only hypothetical, but I have come accross it many times before and the idiots often don't move over. I still maintain it is safer to carry on on the left lane then crossing 2 lanes of traffic to get behind a numpty like this, flash him, in the hope he pulls over? Technically legal? No, but I seriously doubt it would really stand up in court. They'd have to PROVE that what I did was actually dangerous.

Sadly you are twisting this to suit your wording. I am NOT talking about town driving, or in your example allowing someone out of a junction. We are both talking about the picture!!

Yes, this seems to have split in two. But both are valid examples.

What reference will you 'spout' from to prove your theory?

Of course there is no reference to quote but can you honestly say that the majority of car drivers actually flash their headlights in accordance with code? If you believe this then you are not living in the real world. Sorry but true.

 

[Dryce]

I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with the situation I described. You are driving at 70 in the left lane and you are just about to negotiate a long left hand bend in the motorway. No amount of forward planning can help you be aware of the idiot in the fast lane going 60 as he is at this point well out of your field of vision.

'No amount of planning' doesn't cut it in this situation as you are
using it to justify taking the motorway bend at an inappropriate
speed.

Worse you're justifying this based on a 10mph speed difference!

Your scenario just doesn't cut it because if the bend is so tight
you can't see round it then your speed is inappropriate and if
you can see round it then you are not excused because you
have plenty of time to see the car ahead in the outer lane.

If you try and skew the circumstances (eg. M90 tight and steep
downhill S bend) you still either have the visibility or you are
going too fast for the conditions.

 

[glojo]

Of course there is no reference to quote but can you honestly say that the majority of car drivers actually flash their headlights in accordance with code? If you believe this then you are not living in the real world. Sorry but true.

Stamp feet, shout, rant....

We are talking SOLELY about this picture. YES, YES, YES.... I can honestly say that on fast moving dual carriageways\motorways, car drivers generally flash their headlights to warn others of their presence.

WHY are you disagreeing with this and WHY try to say I am NOT living in the real world. What world do you think I'm living in??

I am solely talking about the picture YOU posted. Stop wriggling, your on the hook

I think we should be very careful this thread does not get personal, I accept that I might not be in the real world and on motorways when a car behind me flashes their lights they really mean, 'After you!!' and the finger they raise simply means I only have one tail light working.

You have very strong opinions about the Highway Code, could you please point out the many problems you have with it? I'll then write to them.

Take care,
John

 

[Dryce]

They'd have to PROVE that what I did was actually dangerous.

Careless and without due care and attention are two alternatives
that are lesser and probably more appropriate to the circumstances
(assuming you didn't hypothetically set out with some sort of intent).

 

[Dryce]

I can honestly say that on fast moving dual carriageways\motorways, car drivers generally flash their headlights to warn others of their presence.

Most common flashes I see on dual carriageways/motorways are
cars on left lane flashing to indicate car coming onto the road via
on ramp can move over. And in outer lane flashing to say 'move over'.

The former is IMO several times more common.

You could construe that both of these warn of presence but both
are soliciting the supposed recipient of the signal to move lane but
under completely different circumstances.

I can't recall any time that I have ever seen a headlight flash signal
used as an actual warning of presence of the car undertaking the
flash. The only flashes which would constutite warnings have
been oncoming drivers warning of something they have passed
(old style speed trap or obstruction).

If it were up to me I would change the highway code to remove
the current warning definition as I think it is obsolete.

 

[Shude]

True it is only hypothetical, but I have come accross it many times before and the idiots often don't move over. I still maintain it is safer to carry on on the left lane then crossing 2 lanes of traffic to get behind a numpty like this, flash him, in the hope he pulls over? Technically legal? No, but I seriously doubt it would really stand up in court. They'd have to PROVE that what I did was actually dangerous.

I would simply have gone past him on the inside and if questioned I would have stated that he was probably getting into lane early for a future motorway split. If you are TWO lanes inside someone then I really don't see the harm.

Last time I flashed someone to pull in a lane they stuck up two fingers at me and then slowly drifted left, narrowly avoiding wiping out a mistubishi pickup that was overtaking us both on the inside out of sheer frustration.

 

[glojo]

Unaccustomed as I am to going off topic!! and desperately wanting to change hte subject.

I am definitely not in the real world. It is official and has very recently been confirmed.

I have just telephoned the Devon and Cornwall Police Collissions Unit on behalf of my son.

I informed them that we do not wish to make any complaint, or allegation against the driver the 'rear ended' my son (sounds rude??) I was told our decision was 'most unusual'

Regards,
John the 'most unusual'

 

[Shude]

I informed them that we do not wish to make any complaint, or allegation against the driver the 'rear ended' my son (sounds rude??) I was told our decision was 'most unusual'

If the other driver had just driven off without leaving details would your decision have been the same?

 

[glojo]

If the other driver had just driven off without leaving details would your decision have been the same?

No!!

The other driver was extremely polite, the insurance companies are the same for both drivers. His insurance have contacted us in writing accepting responsibility. My son's insurance company have contacted us in writing pointing out the accident is non blameworthy and he will not be liable for the £250 excess.

If there had been ANY problems then I would not have suggested our course of action. The offending driver has hopefully learnt from this and fingers crossed there will now be no further Police action.

Regards,
John

 

[Rose Chap]

The other driver was extremely polite, the insurance companies are the same for both drivers. His insurance have contacted us in writing accepting responsibility. My son's insurance company have contacted us in writing pointing out the accident is non blameworthy and he will not be liable for the £250 excess.

I applaud you for you and your son's stance on this! We all live in the real world and accidents do happen - its refreshing to see this one handled with maturity and common sense.

 

[uumode]

Most common flashes I see on dual carriageways/motorways are
cars on left lane flashing to indicate car coming onto the road via
on ramp can move over. And in outer lane flashing to say 'move over'.

The former is IMO several times more common.

You could construe that both of these warn of presence but both
are soliciting the supposed recipient of the signal to move lane but
under completely different circumstances.

I can't recall any time that I have ever seen a headlight flash signal
used as an actual warning of presence of the car undertaking the
flash. The only flashes which would constutite warnings have
been oncoming drivers warning of something they have passed
(old style speed trap or obstruction).

If it were up to me I would change the highway code to remove
the current warning definition as I think it is obsolete.

It is obsolete, as I dare not flash to indicate my presence.
e.g. travelling 70mph and a car is indicating to pull out - if I flashed it would be a receipe for disaster.

So have to use the horn instead and hope they hear it.

 

[BenzComander]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I thought the law was changed to make nearside wing mirrors compulsary, so that undertaking was to be permitted.

Also, the point that states traffic in your lane is moving faster than the lane to your right. Does this mean that if two people in their seperate cars decide to undertake together then it is OK?

Also if I am traveling in the left hand lane, and need to overtake somebody traveling in the middle lane, surely the act of crossing from the iniside lane, out to the "fast" lane and then back again is more hazardous than "undertaking" the eejit

I think many people cruise in the middle lane because they feel safer there, or are perhaps too lazy to keep changing lanes as the traffic flow dictates.

One solution would be to change the law and allow undertaking. A few encounters with cars passing them on the inside at the unofficial national speed limit would maybe change their minds.

And another thing, while on the subject. When will the law be changed to stop HGV's overtaking on two lane motorways/dual carriage ways. This really makes me mad

 

[uumode]

And another thing, while on the subject. When will the law be changed to stop HGV's overtaking on two lane motorways/dual carriage ways. This really makes me mad

I don't have a problem with that, unless the HGV is overtaking the over vehicle at 0.5mph! which is not really overtaking rather 'trying' to overtake taking about 5 minutes to do so.... and it doesn't really overtake in the end, the other slower driver, slows down to let them in (having seen their pain and effort in the 'overtaking' process).

 

[glojo]

And another thing, while on the subject. When will the law be changed to stop HGV's overtaking on two lane motorways/dual carriage ways. This really makes me mad

Wow!!!!!! How much do these HGV's pay to use our highways compared to us car users?? Are you out there Grav?

As far as I am aware I thought we had to have two rear view mirrors?? Please note this is a question, not a statement! An interior rear view mirror plus offside mirror, or offside, and nearside?? (Don't know about nearside and internal rearview, that just sounds both wrong and perhaps dangerous)

I think your undertaking questions have already been flogged to death so go with what you 'think'

Regards,
John the HGV supporter

 

[Dryce]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I thought the law was changed to make nearside wing mirrors compulsary, so that undertaking was to be permitted.

No. It's to allow you to check your nearside before making a manouevre.

Also if I am traveling in the left hand lane, and need to overtake somebody traveling in the middle lane, surely the act of crossing from the iniside lane, out to the "fast" lane and then back again is more hazardous than "undertaking" the eejit

Underaking is more dangerous IMHO.

I think many people cruise in the middle lane because they feel safer there, or are perhaps too lazy to keep changing lanes as the traffic flow dictates.

Lazyiness IMHO

One solution would be to change the law and allow undertaking. A few encounters with cars passing them on the inside at the unofficial national speed limit would maybe change their minds.

Try driving in Malaysia where undertaking is the norm. (Then look
at their stats on accidents [ gulp ]).

The solution is to shift focus on enforcement from speed cameras
to driving behaviour - eg. obstruction of outer lanes, tail gating, failure
to signal (esp. roundabouts), and use of mobile phones.

And another thing, while on the subject. When will the law be changed to stop HGV's overtaking on two lane motorways/dual carriage ways. This really makes me mad

Add that to my list above.