Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

Dravokivich

manonboard wrote: »

Could a few people advise me on this statement above?

When i was doing my lessons about 8 years ago. I was advised not to signal my intention unless the conditions (space) were available. To do otherwise, would mean i intend to pull into a space that is not ok to pull into yet.
I thought the proper procedure was to check for the conditions first, then signal intent, then complete maneuver.

Thanks

They still instruct MSMM, Mirror, Signal, Mirror, Maneuver. But you need to adapt your actions to the scenario. Signalling as you are passing someone inside you, may prepare them to expect you to pull into that lane also.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Dunleakelleher is correct in when to use the indicator. But your instructor was wrong to say you shouldn't indicate until a space is available. You should give the traffic already in that lane an indication of your intent. Your instructor expects you to indicate and change lanes in one sequence. On the other hand if there is only one or two cars in that lane and nothing behind you then you should wait until last car has passed to indicate.

This reads like indicating as you change lanes. You shouldn't do that. Indicating doesn't give you the right to just move on in. You need to give way to the traffic already in the lane you wish to change to.

I'd be weary of taking any driving advice from you to be honest. It seems to be about how you can progress, regardless of the impact on others.

trellheim

Valid points, but in the defence of some slow moving vehicles joining, have you ever tried joining N7 outbound to M50 North, or N4 outbound to M50 North, in both cases, the descending turn is so tight that much above 30 Kph is plenty fast enough (as well as being the official speed limit), and trying to accelerate to 100 Kph in the available slip distance is impossible in something like a low power 4 x 4 pick up, they don't have the acceleration to do it in the distance available, and to make it worse, there's no alternative to avoid having to force the way into Lane 1 at whatever speed has been achieved in the distance available, as the fast moving second north bound slip is also coming in to play on the left.

Roscrea on ramps I'm looking at you here as they are awful beyond measure I don't know how they ever passed a risk assessment.

To take your own point Steve its valid, BUT does that give you the right to pull out and make a driver in the slow lane brake hard ( they may not be able to move lanes themselves ? ) Do you not get to wait for a gap in the traffic and then join without disruption - Again, yes, the N7 will be busy but does that absolve the joining motorist here

Dravokivich

trellheim wrote: »

Roscrea on ramps I'm looking at you here as they are awful beyond measure I don't know how they ever passed a risk assessment.

To take your own point Steve its valid, BUT does that give you the right to pull out and make a driver in the slow lane brake hard ( they may not be able to move lanes themselves ? ) Do you not get to wait for a gap in the traffic and then join without disruption - Again, yes, the N7 will be busy but does that absolve the joining motorist here

Those merges he's talking about throw you straight off into traffic to your right, as there's a hard shoulder slightly after them. but not even enough room to proceed as it's quite narrow.

Irish Steve

trellheim wrote: »

Roscrea on ramps I'm looking at you here as they are awful beyond measure I don't know how they ever passed a risk assessment.

To take your own point Steve its valid, BUT does that give you the right to pull out and make a driver in the slow lane brake hard ( they may not be able to move lanes themselves ? ) Do you not get to wait for a gap in the traffic and then join without disruption - Again, yes, the N7 will be busy but does that absolve the joining motorist here

No it doesn't, and I don't just force my way in regardless, If forced to do so, I will use a section of the hard shoulder to keep moving, and merge as seamlessly as possible, in that stopping on the slip is even more dangerous, but the reality is that the design of the junctions was a massive compromise forced as a result of inept planning and greed in allowing construction so close to the original bad design of the M50.

There are times during the day when gaps don't exist, and the biggest problem at some times are the morons that use Lane 1 as an overtaking lane doing 120 or more, when the other lanes are moving slower, but there's little can be done about that in the absence of more speed cameras and much stronger enforcement measures to take these idiots off the road for a while.

trellheim

in that stopping on the slip is even more dangerous

How so , is it worry about being rear-ended ?

I ask because a Defence Forces lorry convoy with some friends in it got involved in a rollover some years back exactly because someone had forced themselves onto them M50 from a slip . This is not a fling at you.

Sean Kinvarra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Its the hogger is the one who wants to suit themselves. If undertaking is extremely wrong and a criminal offence then why is it legal in N.Ireland?

what does the legality of it in another country have to do with anything. Turning left on red in legal in the states, doesn't mean anything here.

You've yet to prove legality in the UK though, just some opinion piece is the only thing you've posted.

I've been driving in the States and have never seen a turn left on red sign. Its all in your imagination.
I have also posted a link about overtaking on left being legal on numerous occasions. Maybe you can send me to prove it illegal. But before you go looking for it I'd advise you to read the Introduction and Wording to the UK Highway Code. No point in reading rules if you don't understand them.

AndrewJRenko

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I've been driving in the States and have never seen a turn left on red sign. Its all in your imagination.

From https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/traffic-tickets/moving-violations/running-red-lights-and-stop-10

“The Right on Red” Rule
Like most states, Idaho allows drivers to make a turn on a red light in certain situations – typically if there is no sign prohibiting "right on red," and if it is safe to do so under the circumstances.

Sean Kinvarra

GreeBo wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

So would I. Tailgating causes mult ivehicle pileups, So does idiots who make multi lane changes to pass a hogger while the driving lane is empty. Greebo is a typical one of those. Tailgating along with lane changing are the main cause of motorway crashes, and people often wonder why we have empty driving lanes!

Perhaps a refresher lesson is in order if you find overtaking so difficult?

No problem for me to overtake on either side when its safe to do so unlike yourself , if a hogger is doing 50kmh on outside lane of a 120kmh motorway you wouldn't pass on inside but prefer to hold other traffic up and along with the hogger cause congestion. You've a lot to learn about driving.

Irish Steve

trellheim wrote: »

How so , is it worry about being rear-ended ?

I ask because a Defence Forces lorry convoy with some friends in it got involved in a rollover some years back exactly because someone had forced themselves onto them M50 from a slip . This is not a fling at you.

Fully understand that, both personally and in relation to the M50 situations.

As for rear ending, if I'm driving my 4 x 4, it would have to be a massive rear end to be capable of causing me problems, due to the length and strength of what's behind me, if I'm driving my wife's Seicento, then yes, I'd be VERY concerned about being rear ended, as there's not much of anything behind me to provide protection, especially if the vehicle behind is any sort of truck.

I've seen (and a long time ago in the UK helped clear up) more than one incident caused by inappropriate lane changes, there's never a simple answer to getting into fast moving motorway traffic.

A lot less aggression from some of the M50 users would go a long way, but unfortunately, there are some out there that if they see even the slightest gap, they force their way in, which then discourages people from leaving sensible braking distances, and so the problem gets worse, and more accidents happen as a result.

Variable speed limits, properly enforced will make a significant difference, they work on the UK high density motorways, and can work here, with the right operation and enforcement.

Some of the lane merge structures need to be changed to make it safer to merge in, and I'd be very happy to see some American style hard barriers in a few key places to prevent inappropriate lane changes both joining and leaving the main line.

Even better would be to make some fundamental changes to remove some of the junctions close to the main line, so that things will flow, rather than being snarled with traffic trying to cross lanes when not really clear from the main intersection, but that's (again) down to inept design and bad (corrupt) planning, so changing it now is going to be almost impossible. I sometimes wonder what history will have to say in 50 years time about some of the decisions made over the last 20 years, hopefully, the people writing it won't be too harsh on the decision makers, though in some respects, it will be hard to be kind to some of them, given the reality they have imposed on all of us.

magicbastarder

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

if a hogger is doing 50kmh on outside lane of a 120kmh motorway you wouldn't pass on inside

is this being advanced as a serious example? most people can't even stick to 50 in a 50 zone.

Sean Kinvarra

magicbastarder wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

if a hogger is doing 50kmh on outside lane of a 120kmh motorway you wouldn't pass on inside

is this being advanced as a serious example? most people can't even stick to 50 in a 50 zone.

50 in a 50 zone is not a target to stick to. There is no law to state that you MUST drive at the speed limit. But if a hogger is doing 30kmh in an outside lane I will unlike some experts on here who think its illegal and dangerous pass on inside. Buses do it, taxis do i when bus lane is not in operation so what's the problem?

trellheim

A lot less aggression from some of the M50 users would go a long way, but unfortunately, there are some out there that if they see even the slightest gap, they force their way in, which then discourages people from leaving sensible braking distances, and so the problem gets worse, and more accidents happen as a result.

Variable speed limits, properly enforced will make a significant difference, they work on the UK high density motorways, and can work here, with the right operation and enforcement.

Some of the lane merge structures need to be changed to make it safer to merge in, and I'd be very happy to see some American style hard barriers in a few key places to prevent inappropriate lane changes both joining and leaving the main line.

I often think that the levels of education - we don't properly train for Dual Carriageway or Motorway driving - are then negatively reinforced with what people can see can be gotten away with - drive outbound on the Naas DC and its a rake of people up each others bums in the fast lane at 120 usually with a triple lane change to get off at the Ball . People genuinely have no better model of behaviour than that , same goes for entering a DC or Mway , think nothing of causing a big lorry to jam on cos usually the lorry has nowhere to go, its been minding its own business but its on a schedule

Anyway I could go on but won't

Andrew Beef

It drives me mad when I am overtaking other cars in the outermost lane and a tailgater comes along and tries to force me to suspend what I’m doing.

First Up

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It drives me mad when I am overtaking other cars in the outermost lane and a tailgater comes along and tries to force me to suspend what I’m doing.

Maybe they just want you to do it quicker?
I'm not condoning tailgaiting or breaking the speed limit but a great deal of the stuff in the third lane is caused by lane hoggers taking the middle lane out of commission and thereby defeating the whole point of a 3 lane motorway.

Andrew Beef

First Up wrote: »

Maybe they just want you to do it quicker?
I'm not condoning tailgaiting or breaking the speed limit but a great deal of the stuff in the third lane is caused by lane hoggers taking the middle lane out of commission and thereby defeating the whole point of a 3 lane motorway.

That doesn’t make it right.

I’m talking about circumstances where (say) I’m in the third lane overtaking traffic in the other two lanes and travelling at or in excess of the speed limit, and well in excess of the speed of the vehicles in the inside lane(s).

First Up

Andrew Beef wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Maybe they just want you to do it quicker?
I'm not condoning tailgaiting or breaking the speed limit but a great deal of the stuff in the third lane is caused by lane hoggers taking the middle lane out of commission and thereby defeating the whole point of a 3 lane motorway.

That doesn’t make it right.

I’m talking about circumstances where (say) I’m in the third lane overtaking traffic in the other two lanes and travelling at or in excess of the speed limit, and well in excess of the speed of the vehicles in the inside lane(s).

I'm not condoning that and you shouldn't be intimidated into forcing your way back into Lane 2 or going at a pace beyond your comfort zone (especially if already above the limit.)

But the cause of the combat zone in Lane 3 is the twits clogging Lane 2. The aggro you describe is one of the reasons why a carefully executed undertake in Lane 1 can be the safest option.

Andrew Beef

First Up wrote: »

I'm not condoning that and you shouldn't be intimidated into forcing your way back into Lane 2 or going at a pace beyond your comfort zone (especially if already above the limit.)

But the cause of the combat zone in Lane 3 is the twits clogging Lane 2. The aggro you describe is one of the reasons why a carefully executed undertake in Lane 1 can be the safest option.

Interestingly, the perpetrator is rarely (if ever) driving a decent car. I’m not quite sure what that suggests.

GreeBo

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

No problem for me to overtake on either side when its safe to do so unlike yourself , if a hogger is doing 50kmh on outside lane of a 120kmh motorway you wouldn't pass on inside but prefer to hold other traffic up and along with the hogger cause congestion. You've a lot to learn about driving.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and ignore you now.
Not only do you not have a clue what you are talking about, you frequently contradict yourself and make up rubbish to excuse your poor driving discipline.

Adios.

GreeBo

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That doesn’t make it right.

I’m talking about circumstances where (say) I’m in the third lane overtaking traffic in the other two lanes and travelling at or in excess of the speed limit, and well in excess of the speed of the vehicles in the inside lane(s).

If there is a gap you should still pull in to let them by and then continue your own overtake.

Slower left, faster right works for everyone

Andrew Beef

GreeBo wrote: »

If there is a gap you should still pull in to let them by and then continue your own overtake.

Slower left, faster right works for everyone

That is not correct.

It makes no sense at all.

Ash.J.Williams

Im up and down the motorways of Ireland all the time and my experience of hoggers is as follows...
Flying along the motorway around 127kmh slow down behind a lane hogger... I flash the lights once..... No reaction.... Flash again.... Nothing.... Cars start flashing me... Then they start undertaking... Car in front starts gestering me with abuse... Then I undertake and this exact sequence happens regularly

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

McCrack

Why would your sympathy be wanted?

Ash.J.Williams

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it's fine with the cops it's fine me

If you read further you may have gathered cars are
undertaking me... The person in front is causing a hazard.

S.L.F.

Just wondering, if a car is driving in a cycle lane with intention to turn left but not yet near the turn and it stops suddenly with a cyclist behind it. The cyclist hits the back of the car but the car is in the cycle lane. Who's fault is it?

trellheim

how on earth did you fit the motor into a cycle lane ?

McCrack

S.L.F. wrote: »

Just wondering, if a car is driving in a cycle lane with intention to turn left but not yet near the turn and it stops suddenly with a cyclist behind it. The cyclist hits the back of the car but the car is in the cycle lane. Who's fault is it?

Liability for damage will rest with the cyclist

Sean Kinvarra

Andrew Beef wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

If there is a gap you should still pull in to let them by and then continue your own overtake.

Slower left, faster right works for everyone

That is not correct.

It makes no sense at all.

Have to agree with you, it doesn't make sense whatsoever. Slower left , faster right is emplying there is such thing as the"slow lane" and the "fast lane". Pure nonsense You can pass on either side. Some commenters on here think that if a vehicle in lane one proceeds to pass a hogger then the hogger decides to move into the same lane and collides then the vehicle in lane 1 is at fault. Some people just never learn and base their facts on myths.

S.L.F.

McCrack wrote: »

Liability for damage will rest with the cyclist

Okay I can see how the cyclist is at fault for going into the back of the car.
But technically I'm wondering about this since the car is driving in the cycle lane and is not yet near the corner for their turn.

McCrack

A car in the cycle lane doesn't absolve a bike from liability if it hits into the back of the car and causes damage

Similarly a car in the bus lane doesn't absolve a bus (or any other vehicle) if it hits into the back of the car

S.L.F.

McCrack wrote: »

A car in the cycle lane doesn't absolve a bike from liability if it hits into the back of the car and causes damage

Similarly a car in the bus lane doesn't absolve a bus (or any other vehicle) if it hits into the back of the car

We all know that if you hit the back of anything that you're in the wrong but does that absolve the driver if they're driving in an actual cycle lane.

I might just ask a cop about this, it seems that nobody really knows the answer on boards.

Thanks anyway,

Seth Brundle

S.L.F. wrote: »

We all know that if you hit the back of anything that you're in the wrong but does that absolve the driver if they're driving in an actual cycle lane.

Part of the problem with our cycle paths is that they are a shared space on the road and therefore traffic is often allowed to drive and park in them!
What this has to do with tailgating and undertaking on a motorway, I'm not sure!

S.L.F.

kbannon wrote: »

Part of the problem with our cycle paths is that they are a shared space on the road and therefore traffic is often allowed to drive and park in them!
What this has to do with tailgating and undertaking on a motorway, I'm not sure!

Yes you're quite right. Have done my own research and just in case you're interested:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3573205,-6.2500421,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNI95sy5u5KcXhMFp2aardQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This lane is a mandatory bike lane with continuous white line both sides which means its a cycle lane only.
It then turns into hash lines which means a car may enter it to turn left but cannot drive in it.

I'm pretty sure the car is technically at fault.

pablo128

S.L.F. wrote: »

Yes you're quite right. Have done my own research and just in case you're interested:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3573205,-6.2500421,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNI95sy5u5KcXhMFp2aardQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This lane is a mandatory bike lane with continuous white line both sides which means its a cycle lane only.
It then turns into hash lines which means a car may enter it to turn left but cannot drive in it.

I'm pretty sure the car is technically at fault.

The car is committing an offence but that doesn't give anyone free reign to plough into the back of it and claim the car was at fault.

S.L.F.

pablo128 wrote: »

The car is committing an offence but that doesn't give anyone free reign to plough into the back of it and claim the car was at fault.

So a car brakes suddenly whilst driving in a mandatory cycle lane and the cyclist behind decides its a good idea now while I have a free reign to plough into the back of a large metal object

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

degsie

S.L.F. wrote: »

Just wondering, if a car is driving in a cycle lane with intention to turn left but not yet near the turn and it stops suddenly with a cyclist behind it. The cyclist hits the back of the car but the car is in the cycle lane. Who's fault is it?

You don't have cycle lanes on motorways.

cython

S.L.F. wrote: »

We all know that if you hit the back of anything that you're in the wrong but does that absolve the driver if they're driving in an actual cycle lane.

I might just ask a cop about this, it seems that nobody really knows the answer on boards.

Thanks anyway,

No guarantee that a cop will know the answer either (though they may think they do) - I had a rather enlightening discussion (for her) with a Garda one day (completely informal over coffee, nothing in the line of duty!), and she was surprised to learn that there is no maximum blood alcohol level in law for cyclists. Rather it's all quite subjective and while a breathalyser test could be used to show a cyclist was drunk, there's no hard and fast threshold above which it's an automatic offence. Now she's not traffic corps or anything so it's not part of a specialisation or anything for her, but it's still something she could find herself having to deal with.

trellheim

Ah lads this is just trolling this topic now

Irish Steve

OK, I think this thread has about run it's course,It's going nowhere other than off track, but before I bow out of what's becoming increasingly annoying, I will mention a specific sections of the Rules of the Road, relating to Motorways, as it seems that some people are not reading the full sentence in the relevant section

Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues
and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are.

I have emphasised one word from that quote that makes it very clear that passing on the left of a slow moving vehicle in Lane 2 or above is NOT acceptable, as the allowance for passing on the left relates to a SLOW MOVING QUEUE, NOT one lone slower moving vehicle that doesn't have the cop on to use the road correctly.

This does not unfortunately solve the issue of the moron that's half asleep and doing well under the speed limit, and it doesn't solve the problem of the pillock that's not actually travelling at the speed limit, but won't move because their speedo says they are doing 120.

The only thing that will sort them out is more enforcement, but in the scale of things, it won't happen any time soon. Perhaps if GPS equipped dash cam footage of blockers could be submitted to Gardai as evidence for a fixed penalty notice, we might see a change, but that's a legal minefield.

degsie

Autonomous vehicles will solve this.

Thread closed.

Last night at 9:30 I drove from Red Cow to Naas on N7. I spent 95% of my time in the left lane. I overtook 3 cars. However I undertook many many cars since everyone was in the middle lane. I never went above 100km/h.
That's a lot of rules of the road broken by me but I didn't really care as I had an empty lane to myself.

First Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I think this thread has about run it's course,It's going nowhere other than off track, but before I bow out of what's becoming increasingly annoying, I will mention a specific sections of the Rules of the Road, relating to Motorways, as it seems that some people are not reading the full sentence in the relevant section

Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues
and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are.

I have emphasised one word from that quote that makes it very clear that passing on the left of a slow moving vehicle in Lane 2 or above is NOT acceptable, as the allowance for passing on the left relates to a SLOW MOVING QUEUE, NOT one lone slower moving vehicle that doesn't have the cop on to use the road correctly.

None of which alters the fact that there are times when it is safer to continue in the driving lane at a pace faster than someone in Lane 2, than it is to execute a four lane manouver to pass him on the right.

If that is the alternative to blocking Lane 1 or to joining an already busy Lane 3, I will exercise my judgement and take my chances, with reasonable confidence that no traffic cop would disagree.

GreeBo

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is not correct.

It makes no sense at all.

In this country we drive on the left and overtake on the right.
Hence slower traffic will be on the left of faster traffic, albeit only while overtaking.
The point is that just because you were overtaking doesn't mean you have the right to stay in the third lane obstructing others.

Failing to follow this means you get people driving in lane 2&3 because there will always be more cars to overtake.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

None of which alters the fact that there are times when it is safer to continue in the driving lane at a pace faster than someone in Lane 2, than it is to execute a four lane manouver to pass him on the right.

If that is the alternative to blocking Lane 1 or to joining an already busy Lane 3, I will exercise my judgement and take my chances, with reasonable confidence that no traffic cop would disagree.

What makes this 4 lane manoeuvre so dangerous?
I don't understand this argument at all.

If you overtake 4 times in a journey do you consider it a dangerous journey?

Far safer to obey the rules than pass someone, who has already proven to be a poor driver by being in the wrong lane, on the side they wouldn't expect.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

trellheim

Far safer to obey the rules

Much of the debate here has been that the rules - i.e. the Road Traffic Act(s) are not clear. Many here argue that they are.


take the Naas DC

If we consider slow,middle,fast lanes ( and thats what I call them) someone who rapidly lane changes to get ahead fast,middle,slow and back to fast just to get a few places ahead will usually cause many drivers to get uneasy at best, and react badly at worst.

Take the above post , someone who nails it in the slow lane to 100 all the way to NAAS they will likely drive past a few cars in the middle lane with a rate of coming beside them quite slowly . Are they the same thing ?

pablo128

trellheim wrote: »

Much of the debate here has been that the rules - i.e. the Road Traffic Act(s) are not clear. Many here argue that they are.


take the Naas DC

If we consider slow,middle,fast lanes ( and thats what I call them) someone who rapidly lane changes to get ahead fast,middle,slow and back to fast just to get a few places ahead will usually cause many drivers to get uneasy at best, and react badly at worst.

Take the above post , someone who nails it in the slow lane to 100 all the way to NAAS they will likely drive past a few cars in the middle lane with a rate of coming beside them quite slowly . Are they the same thing ?

Here's a crazy idea. When you wish to change lane on a motorway, check all of your mirrors before beginning your manoeuvre. Make sure you are not pulling in on top of someone travelling faster than you are.

I know its difficult for some to comprehend this, but bizarrely its actually the law to do this. And the onus is on the lane changer to look out.

Sean Kinvarra

First Up wrote: »

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I think this thread has about run it's course,It's going nowhere other than off track, but before I bow out of what's becoming increasingly annoying, I will mention a specific sections of the Rules of the Road, relating to Motorways, as it seems that some people are not reading the full sentence in the relevant section

Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues
and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are.

I have emphasised one word from that quote that makes it very clear that passing on the left of a slow moving vehicle in Lane 2 or above is NOT acceptable, as the allowance for passing on the left relates to a SLOW MOVING QUEUE, NOT one lone slower moving vehicle that doesn't have the cop on to use the road correctly.

None of which alters the fact that there are times when it is safer to continue in the driving lane at a pace faster than someone in Lane 2, than it is to execute a four lane manouver to pass him on the right.

If that is the alternative to blocking Lane 1 or to joining an already busy Lane 3, I will exercise my judgement and take my chances, with reasonable confidence that no traffic cop would disagree.

You are not breaking any law in passing slower moving traffic to your right. The Rule that says " Overtake only on the right bla bla bla"... does not use the words Must/Must Not. They are the only words that make a rule mandatory. Other words like "Do/Do Not, Should/Should Not, "Only" as used in Irish Staves comment are only advisory.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

What makes this 4 lane manoeuvre so dangerous?
I don't understand this argument at all.

If you overtake 4 times in a journey do you consider it a dangerous journey?

Far safer to obey the rules than pass someone, who has already proven to be a poor driver by being in the wrong lane, on the side they wouldn't expect.

Because the guy dawdling in Lane 2 has very likely caused a build up of traffic behind him, making it difficult (and dangerous) for someone in Lane 1 to move into that Lane.

Because Lane 3 will already be more congested than it needs to be (because Lane 2 is blocked up) with little room for anyone to join.

Because traffic in Lane 3 will be moving appreciably faster than Lane 2, requiring someone trying to join it to accelerate quickly to try to find a gap.

Because moving back into Lane 2 (having passed the dawdler) and then back into Lane 1 brings you into potential contact with cars that may be changing lanes for whatever reason.

Most motorway accidents occur when cars change lanes.