Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

Grolschevik

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I've previously posted this but for some unknown reason Mr Expert has a fear of reading it.
https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/undertaking-is-not-illegal/

Perhaps you should explain why an interpretation of British law on a British site for bikers should have any relevance to the Irish legal situation...?

OttoPilot

Grolschevik wrote: »

Perhaps you should explain why an interpretation of British law on a British site for bikers should have any relevance to the Irish legal situation...?

Maybe because a lot of Irish legal situations take precedence from UK law?

Grolschevik

OttoPilot wrote:

Maybe because a lot of Irish legal situations take precedence from UK law?

Only might apply sometimes in terms of British case law in common law that can be argued to be persuasive in an Irish court case.

Not when there's an explicit Irish statute on the subject.

OttoPilot

Grolschevik wrote: »

Only might apply sometimes in terms of British case law in common law that can be argued to be persuasive in an Irish court case.

Not when there's an explicit Irish statute on the subject.

So it may have some relevance according to you. If a court found that the statute legislation was ambiguous, they might look to British case law for guidance.

First Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Mr Expert has really put his foot in the trap. If only he had read the Introduction and Wording of the Highway Code he would have known about Rule 268 (Do Not) and what it meant.

http://driversmocktest.com/uk-highway-code-wording-explained/

Perhaps you should try reading it. I see nothing here to justify your stance, and even if I did, this is UK rules, NOT Irish Rules.

Other rules of The Highway Code are safe driving routines. You should always follow them for your and others safety. Failure to comply with these rules does not automatically mean that you will be prosecuted. You should however be aware that the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings. It may be used in civil law under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.
Even if the words do/do not and should/should not act as advisory rules, it does not mean you can ignore them. They call upon your judgement. There might be situations when you are forced to do something else. Be aware that NOT following the advisory rules put you in greater risk of an accident.

I'm not going to bother bolding or underling the bits that make it clear that there is still a potential offence here, as you seem determined to keep insisting on trying to derail this thread with stuff from another country.

The rules here in this country are clear, yes, they could be even more specific, but the latest version makes it clear, but you are insisting on trying to get people to ignore them.

Don't bother replying, I've just updated my ignore list, as it's clear that you have an inappropriate agenda, and are part of the problem rather than the solution

1. It was the UK that was under discussion. I know it is different here but we were comparing Irish motorway driving with here.

2. You can check back on how many times I have used the word "judgement" in my argument.

First Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Mr Expert has really put his foot in the trap. If only he had read the Introduction and Wording of the Highway Code he would have known about Rule 268 (Do Not) and what it meant.

http://driversmocktest.com/uk-highway-code-wording-explained/

Perhaps you should try reading it. I see nothing here to justify your stance, and even if I did, this is UK rules, NOT Irish Rules.

Other rules of The Highway Code are safe driving routines. You should always follow them for your and others safety. Failure to comply with these rules does not automatically mean that you will be prosecuted. You should however be aware that the Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings. It may be used in civil law under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.
Even if the words do/do not and should/should not act as advisory rules, it does not mean you can ignore them. They call upon your judgement. There might be situations when you are forced to do something else. Be aware that NOT following the advisory rules put you in greater risk of an accident.

I'm not going to bother bolding or underling the bits that make it clear that there is still a potential offence here, as you seem determined to keep insisting on trying to derail this thread with stuff from another country.

The rules here in this country are clear, yes, they could be even more specific, but the latest version makes it clear, but you are insisting on trying to get people to ignore them.

Don't bother replying, I've just updated my ignore list, as it's clear that you have an inappropriate agenda, and are part of the problem rather than the solution

1. It was the UK that was under discussion. I know it is different here but we were comparing UK motorway driving with here.

2. You can check back on how many times I have used the word "judgement" in my argument.

Cookie_Monster

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I've previously posted this but for some unknown reason Mr Expert has a fear of reading it.
https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/undertaking-is-not-illegal/

Stop posting the same opinion piece, it holds no water what so ever.
You're just trolling at this point tbh

First Up

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I've previously posted this but for some unknown reason Mr Expert has a fear of reading it.
https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/undertaking-is-not-illegal/

Stop posting the same opinion piece, it holds no water what so ever.
You're just trolling at this point tbh

It holds considerably more water than most of the 600+ other opinions in this thread.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

It holds considerably more water than most of the 600+ other opinions in this thread.

It's more so clasping at straws. It's one opinion piece regurgitated time and time again by him, because it suits his desire to justify doing what he wants on the road. He necro posted on Motors with it recently as well. It's the only thing that he can twist to support his position. I'd be more curious about the other opinions that are coming through, than such noise.

There was a very interesting what if presented earlier, about lane 1 over taking on the left of lane 3.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It holds considerably more water than most of the 600+ other opinions in this thread.

It's more so clasping at straws. It's one opinion piece regurgitated time and time again by him, because it suits his desire to justify doing what he wants on the road.

There was a very interesting what if presented earlier, about lane 1 over taking on the left of lane 3.

Maybe he keeps posting it in the hope of getting someone to comment on the substantive points in it.

There's plenty of "what if" posts here. The one I'd like answered is what if someone is doing 80 in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway with a queue behind him. Does the driver in lane 1 slow to 80 and thereby block that lane as well?

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Maybe he keeps posting it in the hope of getting someone to comment on the substantive points in it.

There's plenty of "what if" posts here. The one I'd like answered is what if someone is doing 80 in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway with a queue behind him. Does the driver in lane 1 slow to 80 and thereby block that lane as well?

The last time I commented on that scenario I believe you answered that the driver in lane 1 had already passed on the left to get into that position, thus rendering the point null and void?

Larbre34

First Up wrote: »

Maybe he keeps posting it in the hope of getting someone to comment on the substantive points in it.

There's plenty of "what if" posts here. The one I'd like answered is what if someone is doing 80 in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway with a queue behind him. Does the driver in lane 1 slow to 80 and thereby block that lane as well?

No. If traffic is moving well and all are able to proceed at the speed limit, the driver in Lane 1 can pass on the left. The queue behind the offending vehicle should pass on the right.

Then I'll do what I usually do and go all italian on the fella doing 80 in Lane 2.

Its my personal mission to correct motorway lane discipline in this country and i dont care who I offend while doing it.

GreeBo

Larbre34 wrote: »

No. If traffic is moving well and all are able to proceed at the speed limit, the driver in Lane 1 can pass on the left. The queue behind the offending vehicle should pass on the right.

Then I'll do what I usually do and go all italian on the fella doing 80 in Lane 2.

Its my personal mission to correct motorway lane discipline in this country and i dont care who I offend while doing it.

A good start for you would be to learn the rules regarding overtaking!:eek:

If traffic is "moving well" and "at the speed limit" then by definition its not slow-moving and so the car in lane 1 cannot pass on the left!

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Maybe he keeps posting it in the hope of getting someone to comment on the substantive points in it.

There's plenty of "what if" posts here. The one I'd like answered is what if someone is doing 80 in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway with a queue behind him. Does the driver in lane 1 slow to 80 and thereby block that lane as well?

The last time I commented on that scenario I believe you answered that the driver in lane 1 had already passed on the left to get into that position, thus rendering the point null and void?

It doesn't matter how; the driver in Lane 1 could find himself in that position having just joined the motorway.

Why not answer the question?

Larbre34

GreeBo wrote: »

A good start for you would be to learn the rules regarding overtaking!:eek:

If traffic is "moving well" then by definition its not slow-moving and so the car in lane 1 cannot pass on the left!

I never said good lane discipline corresponded to the Rules of the Road. The safe action would be to for the guy in Lane 1 to break the rule of the road and carry on at the same speed and pass the slowcoach. To slow down to match him and not pass is to cause a hazard.

Find me the prosecution record or a Guard who would waste their time booking someone for reasonable progress in Lane 1 and I'll change my mind.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

It doesn't matter how; the driver in Lane 1 could find himself in that position having just joined the motorway.

If you got into that position by passing on the left, tough.

First Up wrote: »

Why not answer the question?

I already did including the point about joining the motorway, but I can do it again if it helps you to understand.
However, It would be useful for the discussion if you could read my answers before replying.

If you merge onto the motorway you can either:
[*] merge ahead of the idiot in lane 2 and continue on your way
[*] merge behind the idiot in lane 2 and continue on your way
[*] merge into lane 1 and allow the idiot in lane 2 to pass you.

In no scenario is there a need to add yet another idiot to the mix by passing cars on the left.

GreeBo

Larbre34 wrote: »

The safe action would be to for the guy in Lane 1 to break the rule of the road and carry on at the same speed and pass the slowcoach. To slow down to match him and not pass is to cause a hazard.

Find me the prosecution record or a Guard who would waste their time booking someone for reasonable progress in Lane 1 and I'll change my mind.

How does this guy get into that position at a speed faster than lane 2 but not fast enough to have passed them *before* he joins the motorway?

The only answer I can think of is that he has already passed cars in lane 2 on the left, hence the argument is pointless.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I never said good lane discipline corresponded to the Rules of the Road.

I have no words.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no words.

Well you certainly don't seem to have any to answer the fundamental question;

Does a car travelling slowly in Lane 2 dictate the maximum speed of all cars in Lanes 1 and 2, requiring all cars wishing to go faster to compete for space in Lane 3?

And if so, do you consider that (a) desirable and (b) the safest option available?

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Well you certainly don't seem to have any to answer the fundamental question;

Does a car travelling slowly in Lane 2 dictate the maximum speed of all cars in Lanes 1 and 2, requiring all cars wishing to go faster to compete for space in Lane 3?

And if so, do you consider that (a) desirable and (b) the safest option available?

ok last time.

YES!

No it is not desirable, the car in lane 2 should be in lane 1 unless its overtaking a car in lane 1.

There is nothing unsafe about moving from lane 1 to lane 2 and lane 3, if you cant handle that you shouldn't be on a motorway.

as for "compete for space in lane 3"

What does that even mean? Because it sounds a lot like driving.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Well you certainly don't seem to have any to answer the fundamental question;

Does a car travelling slowly in Lane 2 dictate the maximum speed of all cars in Lanes 1 and 2, requiring all cars wishing to go faster to compete for space in Lane 3?

And if so, do you consider that (a) desirable and (b) the safest option available?

ok last time.

YES!

No it is not desirable, the car in lane 2 should be in lane 1 unless its overtaking a car in lane 1.

There is nothing unsafe about moving from lane 1 to lane 2 and lane 3, if you cant handle that you shouldn't be on a motorway.

as for "compete for space in lane 3"

What does that even mean? Because it sounds a lot like driving.

If there is nothing unsafe about it, why do we have so many accidents?

"Competing" in Lane 3 is what is constantly going on - on the M50 and M7. It happens because cars stuck in Lane 2 behind our dozy dawdler are waiting for a chance to jump into Lane 3, in competition with the faster moving traffic already in it. They don't always get it right, or make it.

And if you can't see why maintaining a position and safe speed in Lane 1 is a safer option to that, you shouldn't be on a motorway either.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

If there is nothing unsafe about it, why do we have so many accidents?

If its so dangerous, why do you ever overtake?
Surely arriving alive is better than being dead late.

First Up wrote: »

"Competing" in Lane 3 is what is constantly going on - on the M50 and M7. It happens because cars stuck in Lane 2 behind our dozy dawdler are waiting for a chance to jump into Lane 3, in competition with the faster moving traffic already in it. They don't always get it right, or make it.

All driving is effectively competing for a lane in that case.

One person driving like an idiot doesnt mean everyone else can also drive like an idiot, again, thats anarchy.

First Up wrote: »

And if you can't see why maintaining a position and safe speed in Lane 1 is a safer option to that, you shouldn't be on a motorway either.

Its dangerous because you are not supposed to be there, no one expects you to be there and you are breaking the law.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If there is nothing unsafe about it, why do we have so many accidents?

If its so dangerous, why do you ever overtake?
Surely arriving alive is better than being dead late.

First Up wrote: »

"Competing" in Lane 3 is what is constantly going on - on the M50 and M7. It happens because cars stuck in Lane 2 behind our dozy dawdler are waiting for a chance to jump into Lane 3, in competition with the faster moving traffic already in it. They don't always get it right, or make it.

All driving is effectively competing for a lane in that case.

One person driving like an idiot doesnt mean everyone else can also drive like an idiot, again, thats anarchy.

First Up wrote: »

And if you can't see why maintaining a position and safe speed in Lane 1 is a safer option to that, you shouldn't be on a motorway either.

Its dangerous because you are not supposed to be there, no one expects you to be there and you are breaking the law.

If you are that easily surprised on a motorway then you definitely shouldn't be on it.

Traffic jumping from a slower than necessary Lane 2 into a fast Lane 3 is more likely to cause an accident than anything else, especially if the cars doing it are impatient and annoyed at being blocked by a lane hogger.

Good drivers are aware of what is happening around them and take what they judge to be the safest option available. Its called advanced driving and its a couple of classes up from a narrow understanding and application of the Rules of the Road.

Yes, the root cause of all this is the middle lane moron but the rest of us need to use our eyes and brains in responding to it.

That's what I do and will continue to do - in everyone's best interest.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

if the cars doing it are impatient and annoyed

Dont use someone elses poor driving to absolve your own poor driving.


Also your scenario just doenst happen in real life.

Lane 3 full of cars to the point that no one in lane 2 can merge? and what were all these guys in lane 2 doing just queuing rather than overtaking, unless your argument is based on lane 3 being solid cars from start to finish?
One would wonder how on earth we managed to overtake when the M50 was 2 lanes.

First Up wrote: »

Good drivers are aware of what is happening around them and take what they judge to be the safest option available. Its called advanced driving and its a couple of classes up from a narrow understanding and application of the Rules of the Road.

Can you show any examples of these advanced driving courses advocating breaching the ROTR & the statutes?

bodice ripper

I do my best to stay in lane 1 unless I am overtaking. Periodically, this means I am moving faster than lane 2, and consequently I overtake cars in that lane.
Surely we aren't suggesting I ought to slow down to match lane 2 so as not to be overtaking? Or, weirder still, change lanes twice so as to only pass on the right, and then all the way back to lane one to continue driving? That seems mad.

GreeBo

bodice ripper wrote: »

I do my best to stay in lane 1 unless I am overtaking. Periodically, this means I am moving faster than lane 2, and consequently I overtake cars in that lane.
Surely we aren't suggesting I ought to slow down to match lane 2 so as not to be overtaking? Or, weirder still, change lanes twice so as to only pass on the right, and then all the way back to lane one to continue driving? That seems mad.

You should overtake them in the same way you would if they were in your own lane.

bodice ripper

GreeBo wrote:

You should overtake them in the same way you would if they were in your own lane.

I amnt attempting to overtake them, I am driving in the driving lane. If the middle lane slows, and lane one does not, what am I supposed to do?

Alun

GreeBo wrote: »

You should overtake them in the same way you would if they were in your own lane.

"Should", yes, however in many cases doing so is as others have pointed out more risky than "undertaking".

OK, if the road is otherwise reasonably empty, it can be done safely, but consider this other, regrettably very common scenario on roads like the N7 where a 100km/h limit applies.

Lane 1: Virtually empty apart from yourself and a few other vehicles a long way off in the distance travelling at 100 km/h.

Lane 2: Fairly full of dawdlers doing 90km/h or less, but still with one or two spaces big enough to pull into without causing too many problems, but would still involve slowing down to their speed to move into lane 3.

Lane 3: Idiots travelling nose to tail at up to 120km/h or more, constantly tipping the brakes, causing a ripple back effect behind them when they do, with often less than a car length between them. You're travelling even slower than them than you were in lane 1, and your chances of moving out into lane 3 safely without causing a problem is small.

I know what I'd do in such a case, and ROTR or not, it won't involve mixing with the chaos in lane 3.

GreeBo

Alun wrote: »

"Should", yes, however in many cases doing so is as others have pointed out more risky than "undertaking".

OK, if the road is otherwise reasonably empty, it can be done safely, but consider this other, regrettably very common scenario on roads like the N7 where a 100km/h limit applies.

Lane 1: Virtually empty apart from yourself and a few other vehicles a long way off in the distance travelling at 100 km/h.

Lane 2: Fairly full of dawdlers doing 90km/h or less, but still with one or two spaces big enough to pull into without causing too many problems, but would still involve slowing down to their speed to move into lane 3.

Lane 3: Idiots travelling nose to tail at up to 120km/h or more, constantly tipping the brakes, causing a ripple back effect behind them when they do, with often less than a car length between them. You're travelling even slower than them than you were in lane 1, and your chances of moving out into lane 3 safely without causing a problem is small.

I know what I'd do in such a case, and ROTR or not, it won't involve mixing with the chaos in lane 3.

Im not saying its annoying, far from it in fact.

But its never going to get any better if we all just abandon the rules and suit ourselves, afterall, thats *exactly* what the idiots in lane 2 are doing.

If you are doing 100 and lane 2 is doing 90 then you should be overtaking them in lane 3.
If someone behind you in lane 3 doesnt like that, then as long as you are not hogging lane 3 unnecessarily, thats their problem.

In any case, its rare in my (albeit somewhat limited on that road) experience that there is so much traffic in lane 3 that you can *never* get it and yet lane 2 is moving so slowly in comparison that those 10kmph make any significant difference to your journey to warrant it.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

if the cars doing it are impatient and annoyed

Dont use someone elses poor driving to absolve your own poor driving.


Also your scenario just doenst happen in real life.

Lane 3 full of cars to the point that no one in lane 2 can merge? and what were all these guys in lane 2 doing just queuing rather than overtaking, unless your argument is based on lane 3 being solid cars from start to finish?
One would wonder how on earth we managed to overtake when the M50 was 2 lanes.

First Up wrote: »

Good drivers are aware of what is happening around them and take what they judge to be the safest option available. Its called advanced driving and its a couple of classes up from a narrow understanding and application of the Rules of the Road.

Can you show any examples of these advanced driving courses advocating breaching the ROTR & the statutes?

My driving decisions include making the best of undesirable situations. That isn't an excuse for anything; its called taking responsibility. In the language of advanced driving its called defensive driving - how not to get into bad situations and how to get out of them.

Lane 3 doesn't have to be full. If Lane 2 is full and doing 80, it doesn't take much of an error for someone with a restricted view (or just bad judgement) to pull out in front of someone doing 110 or 120.

When the M50 had only two lanes, we didn't have middle lane hoggers.

GreeBo

bodice ripper wrote: »

I amnt attempting to overtake them, I am driving in the driving lane. If the middle lane slows, and lane one does not, what am I supposed to do?

What do you do when the car in front of you slows and there is traffic in lane 2?

Use the hardshoulder to pass?

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

My driving decisions include making the best of undesirable situations. That isn't an excuse for anything; its called taking responsibility. In the language of advanced driving its called defensive driving - how not to get into bad situations and how to get out of them.

Lane 3 doesn't have to be full. If Lane 2 is full and doing 80, it doesn't take much of an error for someone with a restricted view (or just bad judgement) to pull out in front of someone doing 110 or 120.

When the M50 had only two lanes, we didn't have middle lane hoggers.

But overtaking on the left is not defensive driving. Your are throwing yourself into a rather risky blind spot, people are expecting over takes on the right, not the left. You are creating risk, not driving defensively.

bodice ripper

GreeBo wrote:

What do you do when the car in front of you slows and there is traffic in lane 2?
Use the hardshoulder to pass?

I slow down, obviously.

You know, you didn't actually answer the question I actually asked...

Alun

GreeBo wrote: »

In any case, its rare in my (albeit somewhat limited on that road) experience that there is so much traffic in lane 3 that you can *never* get it and yet lane 2 is moving so slowly in comparison that those 10kmph make any significant difference to your journey to warrant it.

Outbound it's not as bad for some reason, but I see it frequently inbound when it's busy on a Sunday evening for example with people returning home form a weekend away.

Larbre34

GreeBo wrote: »

How does this guy get into that position at a speed faster than lane 2 but not fast enough to have passed them *before* he joins the motorway?

The only answer I can think of is that he has already passed cars in lane 2 on the left, hence the argument is pointless.

I have no words.

I don't think you have any maths or physics either.

I join the M50 southbound at Junction 5, I travel in Lane 1 at 100 km/h and without changing lane, just after Junction 7 I come upon 4 cars travelling in Lane 2 at 80 km/h, the first one holding up the 3 behind. At my constant 100 km/h, I pass them on the left, in my lane. Thats how.

Not in a million years would I slow to match their speed, Id just keep going, in full knowledge that Id never be prosecuted for it.

GreeBo

bodice ripper wrote: »

I slow down, obviously.

Bingo!

bodice ripper wrote: »

You know, you didn't actually answer the question I actually asked...

Actually I think you'll find I've answered it several times already on this thread.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

My driving decisions include making the best of undesirable situations. That isn't an excuse for anything; its called taking responsibility. In the language of advanced driving its called defensive driving - how not to get into bad situations and how to get out of them.

Lane 3 doesn't have to be full. If Lane 2 is full and doing 80, it doesn't take much of an error for someone with a restricted view (or just bad judgement) to pull out in front of someone doing 110 or 120.

When the M50 had only two lanes, we didn't have middle lane hoggers.

But overtaking on the left is not defensive driving. Your are throwing yourself into a rather risky blind spot, people are expecting over takes on the right, not the left. You are creating risk, not driving defensively.

I am doing it because it is safer than the alternatives and in the full awareness of the implications and risks. That is the definition of defensive driving.

I ensure that the lane hogger(s) know I am there and I give them the time and space to move into Lane 1. Only when I am satisfied that they know I am there and that they intend to stay where they are, do I gradually and carefully pass them in Lane 1. If safe I glance over and 9 times out of 10 they are staring straight ahead. (Younger women drivers being the worst but white man does it too.)

GreeBo

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't think you have any maths or physics either.

I join the M50 southbound at Junction 5, I travel in Lane 1 at 100 km/h and without changing lane, just after Junction 7 I come upon 4 cars travelling in Lane 2 at 80 km/h, the first one holding up the 3 behind. At my constant 100 km/h, I pass them on the left, in my lane. Thats how.

Not in a million years would I slow to match their speed, Id just keep going, in full knowledge that Id never be prosecuted for it.

Erm, thats not the same scenario.

You were not blocked in by lane 2 (which is the scenario under discussion) , you choose not to overtake them when you caught up with them, for some unknown reason.

Why didnt you pass them out as you caught them?

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

My driving decisions include making the best of undesirable situations. That isn't an excuse for anything; its called taking responsibility. In the language of advanced driving its called defensive driving - how not to get into bad situations and how to get out of them.

Lane 3 doesn't have to be full. If Lane 2 is full and doing 80, it doesn't take much of an error for someone with a restricted view (or just bad judgement) to pull out in front of someone doing 110 or 120.

When the M50 had only two lanes, we didn't have middle lane hoggers.

But overtaking on the left is not defensive driving. Your are throwing yourself into a rather risky blind spot, people are expecting over takes on the right, not the left. You are creating risk, not driving defensively.

I am doing it because it is safer than the alternatives and in the full awareness of the implications and risks. That is the definition of defensive driving.

I ensure that the lane hogger(s) know I am there and I give them the time and space to move into Lane 1. Only when I am satisfied that they know I am there and that they intend to stay where they are, do I gradually and carefully pass them in Lane 1. If safe I glance over and 9 times out of 10 they are staring straight ahead. (Younger women drivers being the worst but white van man does it too.)

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

I am doing it because it is safer than the alternatives and in the full awareness of the implications and risks. That is the definition of defensive driving.

I ensure that the lane hogger(s) know I am there and I give them the time and space to move into Lane 1. Only when I am satisfied that they know I am there and that they intend to stay where they are, do I gradually and carefully pass them in Lane 1. If safe I glance over and 9 times out of 10 they are staring straight ahead.

How exactly are you making sure they are aware of you? The Shinning?
(Note thats *not* The Shining, I dont want to get sued!)

First Up wrote: »

(Younger women drivers being the worst but white van man does it too.)

Again, words fail me.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I am doing it because it is safer than the alternatives and in the full awareness of the implications and risks. That is the definition of defensive driving.

I ensure that the lane hogger(s) know I am there and I give them the time and space to move into Lane 1. Only when I am satisfied that they know I am there and that they intend to stay where they are, do I gradually and carefully pass them in Lane 1. If safe I glance over and 9 times out of 10 they are staring straight ahead.

How exactly are you making sure they are aware of you? The Shinning?
(Note thats *not* The Shining, I dont want to get sued!)
True, you can't ever be 100% (maybe they use none of their mirrors.) Driving alongside for a short spell nefore moving ahead is the best.

First Up wrote: »

(Younger women drivers being the worst but white van man does it too.)

Again, words fail me.

They certainly do.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

I am doing it because it is safer than the alternatives and in the full awareness of the implications and risks. That is the definition of defensive driving.

I ensure that the lane hogger(s) know I am there and I give them the time and space to move into Lane 1. Only when I am satisfied that they know I am there and that they intend to stay where they are, do I gradually and carefully pass them in Lane 1. If safe I glance over and 9 times out of 10 they are staring straight ahead. (Younger women drivers being the worst but white man does it too.)

You may want to be careful of tripping over your comments here. If 9 times out of 10 they are just staring straight ahead, how have they seen you, prior to an action you only take once you are satisfied they've seen you?

I haven't done any advance driving courses, but my assumption of defensive driving is to reduce risk. Top hit from Google seems to suggest it's more so towing the line with what I learned through the EDT lessons we do here. Where have you seen it to follow your take on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_driving

The standard Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, defines defensive driving skills as "driving to save lives, time, and money, in spite of the conditions around you and the actions of others."

General principles:
Controlling your speed.
Looking ahead and expecting the unexpected.
Being alert and distraction free.
Regarding other participants in traffic:
Preparedness for all sorts of actions and reactions of other drivers and pedestrians.
Not expecting the other drivers to do what you would ordinarily do.
Watching and respecting other drivers.
Regarding your own vehicle:
Maintaining a safe following distance.
Driving safely considering (adjusting for) weather and/or road conditions.
Adjusting your speed before entering a bend, in order to avoid applying the brakes in the middle of a bend.

GreeBo

Dravokivich wrote: »

You may want to be careful of tripping over your comments here. If 9 times out of 10 they are just staring straight ahead, how have they seen you, prior to an action you only take once you are satisfied they've seen you?

I'd be particularly interested in how he can make all the drivers aware of him in a 4 car convoy...?

bodice ripper

GreeBo wrote: »

Bingo!



Actually I think you'll find I've answered it several times already on this thread.

So, you think everyone should slow down to match are move slower than the lane to their right?

Mental.

greasepalm

Drivers could also do with clean windows and mirrors to see behind and at the sides and to use their mirrors to see the 6 mile tailback behind them at 80 kmh in the fast lane.

GreeBo

bodice ripper wrote: »

So, you think everyone should slow down to match are move slower than the lane to their right?

Mental.

The law currently thinks that, because there shouldnt be any slower traffic to your right.

Thats not a reason to break the law though.

Dravokivich

bodice ripper wrote: »

So, you think everyone should slow down to match are move slower than the lane to their right?

Mental.

I think it's mad that you'd want to do it on the inside. People do wreckless stuff when they are frustrated and follow the leader when they see someone do something. All it takes is one person to cut into your lane to overtake the "hogger" on the left, and more will just follow them. If you drive in Dublin City much, you'll notice how it's never just 1 car at a time over taking a stopped bus.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

You may want to be careful of tripping over your comments here. If 9 times out of 10 they are just staring straight ahead, how have they seen you, prior to an action you only take once you are satisfied they've seen you?

I'd be particularly interested in how he can make all the drivers aware of him in a 4 car convoy...?

Indeed, the Middle lane hogger is capable of almost anything. So be aware, do it carefully, keep your eyes open. Much better than wagging your finger and waving the ROTR at them.

bodice ripper

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think it's mad that you'd want to do it on the inside. People do wreckless stuff when they are frustrated and follow the leader when they see someone do something. All it takes is one person to cut into your lane to overtake the "hogger" on the left, and more will just follow them. If you drive in Dublin City much, you'll notice how it's never just 1 car at a time over taking a stopped bus.

If i were overtaking, I would do it on the right.

I amn't hitting the brakes anytime the middle lane slows down beside me though.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Indeed, the Middle lane hogger is capable of almost anything. So be aware, do it carefully, keep your eyes open. Much better than wagging your finger and waving the ROTR at them.

OK, so we now know you dont use your finger to alert them to your presence, thats progress.
Any more clues?

bodice ripper wrote: »

If i were overtaking, I would do it on the right.

I amn't hitting the brakes anytime the middle lane slows down beside me though.

You already said you overtake on the left a couple of times in this thread.

Dravokivich

bodice ripper wrote: »

If i were overtaking, I would do it on the right.

I amn't hitting the brakes anytime the middle lane slows down beside me though.

Overtaking doesn't require a lane change. It's the act of passing traffic going in the same direction as you.