What on the roads has annoyed you today?

[Guest Harrydc]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

Mostly teens TBF. Most sensible, mature cyclists have the full on strobe LCD's.

What really gets me is when (and it's most of them) cyclists refuse to use the safer cycle lanes and ride in the road on major routes, particularly those with shared cycle/pedestrian lanes marked out on the path. You want to be safe? Use the cycle lanes. Don't moan when drivers cause you an issue. You're the issue. Cycle lanes are there for a reason. If we didn't have them there'd be massive pressure groups calling for them. We have them and the same people refuse to use them.

This also gets on my nerves. Sometimes there are specific paths where it's clearly labelled for pedestrians and cyclist's yet they still choose to use the road. 

 

Or when you've struggled to overtake a cyclist and then hit a read light for them to undercut you. These days I make sure I stop as close to the curb as possible when at lights with a cyclist approaching behind me, to prevent them coming up the side of me. 

[Phil Bowman]

9 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Again on the M1 last night, several blokes in the 3rd lane of 4, with nothing near - undertake at about 70 and they just look like they're in their own little world.

Why don’t you overtake them instead of undertaking?

[HighPeakFox]

42 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Why don’t you overtake them instead of undertaking?

Why on earth should I, when there are 2 empty lanes available? That would mean crossing 3 lanes just to pass them, only to return across 3 lanes to my original road position.

 

The more relevant question is, why do people sit in the middle of the road, potentially forcing other drivers to treat them as 3 lanes? 

[tom27111]

32 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Why on earth should I, when there are 2 empty lanes available? That would mean crossing 3 lanes just to pass them, only to return across 3 lanes to my original road position.

 

The more relevant question is, why do people sit in the middle of the road, potentially forcing other drivers to treat them as 3 lanes? 

 

Could not agree more.

 

Whilst I don't condone undertaking, in these circumstances, it is the safest thing to do by far.

 

About time we had unmarked coppers prosecuting these idiots in the wrong lane for driving without due care and attention. 

 

A real menace to competent drivers and big contributors to traffic hold ups.

[1972 Fox]

33 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Why on earth should I, when there are 2 empty lanes available? That would mean crossing 3 lanes just to pass them, only to return across 3 lanes to my original road position.

 

The more relevant question is, why do people sit in the middle of the road, potentially forcing other drivers to treat them as 3 lanes? 

Essentially you are correct but I'm sure you realise that by undertaking you are actually breaking the law.

[tom27111]

6 minutes ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

Essentially you are correct but I'm sure you realise that by undertaking you are actually breaking the law.

 

You aren't breaking the law by undertaking.

 

However, it can be punished by the police if deemed careless.

 

In these circumstances, you have reasonable grounds to justify your actions on safety grounds.

 

Six lane changes on a 4 lane stretch of empty motorway, just to overtake a moron in lane 3, or just continue safely in lane 1 and undertake?

 

It's a no brainer. 

 

That is not careless, it's a calculated and careful manoeuvre. 

 

The person in lane 3 is more likely to be prosecuted. 

[Phil Bowman]

9 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Why on earth should I, when there are 2 empty lanes available?

Law? Safety? Two wrongs don’t make a right? To be the better person?

 

9 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

The more relevant question is, why do people sit in the middle of the road, potentially forcing other drivers to treat them as 3 lanes?

Yes, but that’s them. And if one of them was on here saying they do that, I’d ask them why. You and I can’t control what they do, we can only control what we do.

 

I would only ever undertake (slow-moving traffic moving in lanes aside) in the extremely rare situation where not to do so would be actively more dangerous.

My thinking is - if someone is oblivious and/or ignorant enough to sit in a middle lane for no reason, they’re oblivious and/or ignorant enough to lurch to the left, without looking, at the precise moment I’m undertaking them.

 

Edited 6 December 2021 by Phil Bowman

[HighPeakFox]

53 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Law? Safety? Two wrongs don’t make a right? To be the better person?

 

Yes, but that’s them. And if one of them was on here saying they do that, I’d ask them why. You and I can’t control what they do, we can only control what we do.

 

I would only ever undertake (slow-moving traffic moving in lanes aside) in the extremely rare situation where not to do so would be actively more dangerous.

My thinking is - if someone is oblivious and/or ignorant enough to sit in a middle lane for no reason, they’re oblivious and/or ignorant enough to lurch to the left, without looking, at the precise moment I’m undertaking them.

 

Law - as mentioned by others, I don't think I'm actually breaking the law.

Safety - I'm 2 lanes away, how on earth is calmly passing a car at the greatest distance possible unsafe?

The other points simply don't come into it - common sense says stay as far away from them as possible.

 

If they can randomly lurch left, they can also randomly lurch right, and this way I have the protection of the totally empty lane 2. I would think that my moving across the entire 4 lanes would be just as likely to spook them anyway, especially if (as I suspected of one driver) they are in some way under the influence.

[Phil Bowman]

7 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

If they can randomly lurch left, they can also randomly lurch right

They can, but most people are less likely to move right without looking than to move left without looking.

And there’s always the chance that an oblivious middle lane cruiser will suddenly realise they’ve been sat in the middle for the last ten miles and decide to move left. I suspect most of them are only there because they overtook someone and it never occurred to them to move back in, although you do occasionally see someone who seems to be going out of their way to sit in the middle.

 

14 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

how on earth is calmly passing a car at the greatest distance possible unsafe?

It probably isn’t. In the vast majority of cases of course it’ll be fine. But we already know they’re someone who is either totally unaware of what’s going on around them, or has no idea where they should be, or just doesn’t give a toss about sensible driving, so they’re already more likely than most to do something stupid. And the most likely stupid thing for them to do is move left without looking.

The chance of all this happening at once may be very small, but I choose not to take it. I reckon there’s a slightly smaller risk in going past them on the right; you clearly disagree!

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

They can, but most people are less likely to move right without looking than to move left without looking.

And there’s always the chance that an oblivious middle lane cruiser will suddenly realise they’ve been sat in the middle for the last ten miles and decide to move left. I suspect most of them are only there because they overtook someone and it never occurred to them to move back in, although you do occasionally see someone who seems to be going out of their way to sit in the middle.

 

It probably isn’t. In the vast majority of cases of course it’ll be fine. But we already know they’re someone who is either totally unaware of what’s going on around them, or has no idea where they should be, or just doesn’t give a toss about sensible driving, so they’re already more likely than most to do something stupid. And the most likely stupid thing for them to do is move left without looking.

The chance of all this happening at once may be very small, but I choose not to take it. I reckon there’s a slightly smaller risk in going past them on the right; you clearly disagree!

To repeat - there were 4 lanes, not 3, so I had double protection of an entire empty lane between me and them. My slight hope was that someone passing them on the inside at 70 might gently nudge their dull brain into action, whilst not being close enough to me to endanger me.

[Phil Bowman]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

To repeat - there were 4 lanes, not 3

Yes. I know. I did read your post!

And I did say the chances of it being dangerous were small.

We each make a different choice in that situation - shall we just leave it at that?

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Phil Bowman said:

Yes. I know. I did read your post!

And I did say the chances of it being dangerous were small.

We each make a different choice in that situation - shall we just leave it at that?

So long as I can still be the 'better man' 

[Phil Bowman]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

So long as I can still be the 'better man' 

‘Better person’ I said. I was careful to be inclusive in my choice of language.

 

And you can be better than the middle lane fools you undertake, but not better than me. Obvs.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Phil Bowman said:

‘Better person’ I said. I was careful to be inclusive in my choice of language.

 

And you can be better than the middle lane fools you undertake, but not better than me. Obvs.

Isn't PC a blight, though, when it affects the choice of words we use to such a ridiculous degree?

[Phil Bowman]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

Isn't PC a blight, though, when it affects the choice of words we use to such a ridiculous degree?

I know what you mean, and get where you’re coming from, but I do think sometimes the commonplace terms do need to be challenged because they often do exclude women in particular.. And ‘the better man’ is probably one that shouldn’t be used unless we know that everyone involved is indeed a man.

[Buce]

44 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Law - as mentioned by others, I don't think I'm actually breaking the law.

Safety - I'm 2 lanes away, how on earth is calmly passing a car at the greatest distance possible unsafe?

The other points simply don't come into it - common sense says stay as far away from them as possible.

 

If they can randomly lurch left, they can also randomly lurch right, and this way I have the protection of the totally empty lane 2. I would think that my moving across the entire 4 lanes would be just as likely to spook them anyway, especially if (as I suspected of one driver) they are in some way under the influence.

 

From the RAC:

What does the Highway Code say about undertaking?

The Highway Code advises drivers not to undertake – although it is not a punishable offence in itself.

It states: “Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake.”

The Code though, advises that it’s OK for a car to undertake in slow-moving traffic, if its lane is moving faster than a lane on the right.

In these circumstances it’s deemed safer to undertake than to weave in and out of the traffic.

READ MORE: Driving offences and their punishments

The Code states: “In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right.

“In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right.

"Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.”

READ MORE: 16 Highway Code rules most people ignore

Is undertaking acceptable in any other circumstances?

So the Highway Code discourages undertaking, but – as detailed above – it is sometimes OK.

It may also be permissible in the following situations.

• Average speed checks
• It’s acceptable to undertake on motorways where average speed limits are in operation.
• Along these stretches of motorways overhead gantries will often advise vehicles to ‘stay in lane’. Therefore, it may be safer to pass a car travelling below the average speed limit on your right if your lane is moving faster. Again, this is safer than weaving in and out of the traffic.
• If a car is turning right or U-turning
• If a vehicle is in the right-hand land and turning right or performing a U-turn, it is permissible to undertake in the left-hand lane. Caution should be taken not to undertake too soon. It’s safer to wait until the vehicle has indicated and started to turn before passing it on the inside.

If you're at all unsure, it's always safer to just assume that undertaking is unacceptable and to drive in a safe and predictable manner.

READ MORE: Is it illegal to park on the pavement?

Can you receive a penalty for undertaking?

Some drivers may find it tempting to undertake, especially if they’re faced with a middle-lane hogger, but be aware that it can be dangerous and you can be fined for doing so.

Undertaking recklessly could see you receive a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for careless driving or driving without due care and attention.

READ MORE: 10 driving offences you didn’t know were illegal

This usually means three points on your driving licence and a £100 fine, although some police forces may offer a driver education course as an alternative.

In some more serious cases it could be considered dangerous driving which carries a harsher penalty of up to nine points on your licence or disqualification, a fine of up to £5.000 and a court summons.

Want to protect yourself against any losses after an accident? Get legal expenses insurance for just £15 a year with RAC Legal Care Plus.

[HighPeakFox]

OK, so technically I was in breach in this instance - and I say that in this instance, the law is an ass. It makes the aware driver responsible for the other driver's oblivious/uncaring state

[Phil Bowman]

Anyway, I’d probably rather have someone pootling along in a middle lane at a steady speed than those people who gradually slow down until you move out to go past them, at which point they speed up, leaving you to choose between breaking the speed limit or abandoning the overtaking - and then if you drop in behind them again guess what? They slow right down again!

[UniFox21]

12 hours ago, Parafox said:

Mostly teens TBF. Most sensible, mature cyclists have the full on strobe LCD's.

What really gets me is when (and it's most of them) cyclists refuse to use the safer cycle lanes and ride in the road on major routes, particularly those with shared cycle/pedestrian lanes marked out on the path. You want to be safe? Use the cycle lanes. Don't moan when drivers cause you an issue. You're the issue. Cycle lanes are there for a reason. If we didn't have them there'd be massive pressure groups calling for them. We have them and the same people refuse to use them.

I agree with the vast majority of this, and cycle Lanes are mostly great.

However a fair few times I've had to ride out of the cycle lane because of the state of them, having huge drains or pot holes every few metres. On my MTB that would be perfectly fine, but on my road bike it's me swerving into the road to avoid them or I'd end up getting caught and flung off. 

[Carl the Llama]

13 hours ago, Harrydc said:

This also gets on my nerves. Sometimes there are specific paths where it's clearly labelled for pedestrians and cyclist's yet they still choose to use the road. 

 

Or when you've struggled to overtake a cyclist and then hit a read light for them to undercut you. These days I make sure I stop as close to the curb as possible when at lights with a cyclist approaching behind me, to prevent them coming up the side of me. 

That's just unreasonable behaviour, besides, you do realise you can be just as easily passed on the right if you're kerb hogging?

[Guest Harrydc]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's just unreasonable behaviour, besides, you do realise you can be just as easily passed on the right if you're kerb hogging?

As they should. 

 

In fact, why should they overtake anyone? Just wait at the lights like everyone else. I've seen endless times of cyclist's overtaking people at lights and then going through the red. Most of the time they're just an inconvenience. 

[Carl the Llama]

50 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

As they should. 

 

In fact, why should they overtake anyone? Just wait at the lights like everyone else. I've seen endless times of cyclist's overtaking people at lights and then going through the red. Most of the time they're just an inconvenience. 

Because it makes no sense to wait 10 cars back when you're on a bike and there's a nice box at the front of the queue for you.  Funnily enough I came to a red the other day where a guy was sitting in the box in his SUV, told him what a nice bike he had as we waited for the lights to turn, he didn't seem amused.

[Guest Harrydc]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Because it makes no sense to wait 10 cars back when you're on a bike and there's a nice box at the front of the queue for you.  Funnily enough I came to a red the other day where a guy was sitting in the box in his SUV, told him what a nice bike he had as we waited for the lights to turn, he didn't seem amused.

And if there is no nice box? 

[Phil Bowman]

2 hours ago, Harrydc said:

And if there is no nice box? 

By far the safest place for cyclists at lights is at the front of the queue. All other things being equal, a bike can get going quicker than a car, and far better to be on your way and get into a good road position before cars are going past you. That’s why they have the nice boxes. Assuming you’d rather not put cyclists in a more dangerous position than necessary (it’s quite dangerous enough for them already), don’t deliberately stop them getting to the front at the lights!

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Harrydc said:

And if there is no nice box? 

What Phil said.  We all have to share the roads and it's nice to make the experience safe for other people.