How not to filter/weave through traffic

[T.C.]

..... and ..... what on earth is he doing undertaking in any case. Not only illegal but also very dangerous

Where does it say that undertaking is illegal?

I agree that what he did was stupid and dangerous, but undertaking on its own is not illegal.

That does not detract from the fact that the idiot rode like a knob head,

[Dalemac]

..... and ..... what on earth is he doing undertaking in any case. Not only illegal but also very dangerous

Where does it say that undertaking is illegal?

I agree that what he did was stupid and dangerous, but undertaking on its own is not illegal.

That does not detract from the fact that the idiot rode like a knob head,

I always thought that undertaking was only legal if done under the speed limit? i.e a car is sat in the outside lane doing 60mph and you cruise by at 70mph in the middle lane.

I have seen a few times people on the a46 sat in the outside lane at 40mph, with a long line of people sat behind waiting for them to get out of the bloody way. I just undertake the lot of the at 70mph...

[D-Rider]

Hmmm - well I've always understood that the only times you could pass on the left were in one way systems and when passing those waiting to turn right.

Did it change at some point or have I just learned this incorrectly?

Of course I understand that undertaking is perfectly legal in respect of funeral directors ..... dodgy link to this thread in that the idiot on the bandit was lucky not to need their services ..........

[Kwackerz]

I assume its like overexhuberant filtering...?

[flatlander]

undertaking is legal but only if dressed appropriately ie top hat etc

on a bike it is illegal however it is not illegal to be in a lane that is proceeding faster than another such as in say a traffic congestion /....

that's notr to say you couldn't be undertaken by an undertaker whose undertaking was to get the victim of undertaking taken away... at least that's what he undertook to do

bet TC loves it when we do this LOL

[D-Rider]

This is what the Highway Code says:

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
* not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
* move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
* take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
* give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
* only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
* stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
* give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215).

So what am I missing?

[T.C.]

There has never been any offence of undertaking, or to be more precise, it was removed from the statute books when the 1972 Road Traffic Act was introduced.

It was removed mainly because of the queues that formed close to junctions on multi lane roads such as motorways, where lanes 2 and 3 were solid but lane 1 was empty thereby allowing for traffic in that lane to continue. However, it also allowed for the numpties that still believe that we have slow fast and overtaking lanes and choose to sit in lane 2 on an empty motorway.

The only option is to report for either careless or dangerous driving, but to prove this offence, it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of driving or riding fell well below that accepted of a reasonably safe and competent driver or rider.

The simple act of undertaking is insufficient to establish that offence.

So for example, if you are travelling in lane 1 on an empty Motorway and you have the idiot ahead is hogging lane 2 and you choose to go past on the nearside, no offence.

However, if you went past in lane 1 and then swerved into lane 3 and then back to lane 1, then that may be sufficient to prosecute for the section 3 careless driving offence.

If you go past in lane 1 and the idiot in lane 2 suddenly switches back to lane 1, then primary liability lies with the driver in lane 2 because they have a statutory duty of care to ensure that it is actually safe to return to the nearside lane.

Remember, the lane 2 hogger themselves commit the offence of careless driving, or specifically driving without reasonable consideration for other road users which is a sub section of careless driving.

Speed has no bearing. and there is no speed set in law that makes it legal or illegal, it is what is appropriate for the circumstances, it is a judgement call made at the time, and in fact in a couple of successful filtering cases the rider was filtering (overtaking) in excess of 50mph and was not found liable.

As far as the Highway Code is concerned, remember these are a set of rules and guidelines unless it states "Must Not" and is then supported by the appropriate traffic regulation or act. If it states "Should Not" it is advice and is not supported in law.

So, whilst not illegal, it is about making a judgement call, and you have to balance out that judgement with the possibility of being taken out by some blind careless idiot.

I got stopped by a traffic plod a few weeks ago for an undertake in the early hours of the morning. He started to tell me my fortune about how illegal it was, so I calmly asked him for the act and section that made it illegal? So I got the bluster about how he would ensure that my licence was taken and, and, and...........

So I asked again, what act and section, I simply wanted a simple answer to a simple question.... Again I got the bluster at which point I got fed up with his lack of knowledge and I asked him to report me and we could have our day in court and he could explain to the magistrates what offence he had reported me for.

I then got the puzzled look. So I explained the law to him He said something along the lines of "You seem to know a lot about traffic law" I then told him a bit of my history. The look on his face was a picture

And this is half the problem these days. Poor policing standards from coppers who are themselves not properly trained anymore, and the fact that they can get away with giving members of the public a load of BS who are unable to defend their position because they themselves are non the wiser.

A couple of weeks later, I was followed through on the undertake in a different part of the country by a police car, and they promptly pulled the lane 2 hogger

So rest assured, undertaking is not illegal if done properly, and even in civil cases, it is being accepted that a rider or driver who is hit whilst undertaking may not be immediately or primarily liable.

Hope that helps.

[D-Rider]

It certainly does TC.
I guess that when I was learning I may well have been referring to a pre-1972 copy of the Highway Code so had formed understanding that it was illegal - and the modern wording doesn't really give much clue that it isn't.

I would say that there is a lot of confusion in that the highway code (the one source you have to learn) tells you to do or not to do a lot of things but it seems that these instructions aren't necessarily backed up by law. As I say, I would say that .... but nobody seems to know the highway code these days anyway.

[Dalemac]

move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

Speed has no bearing. and there is no speed set in law that makes it legal or illegal, it is what is appropriate for the circumstances, it is a judgement call made at the time, and in fact in a couple of successful filtering cases the rider was filtering (overtaking) in excess of 50mph and was not found liable.

Hypothetically speaking, what if, on a motorway, you were in the lane 3, with traffic in lane 1 and traffic in lane 2 overtaking lane 1 at 70mph.

You would have to be travelling quicker than 70mph to complete the maneuver and therefore it would be appropriate to do 80mph? Also the highway code states that you should move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking...


it seems there is a loop hole here (or at least chance for ambiguity)....

[D-Rider]

Wouldn't think so Dale.

Why would you be trying to overtake something that in itself is going as fast as you are allowed to

[Dalemac]

Wouldn't think so Dale.

Why would you be trying to overtake something that in itself is going as fast as you are allowed to

Not necessarily in lane 3 to overtake but there because of traffic - more lans equals a shorter queue. Theoretically there would never be a need for more than two lanes based on speed, because all traffic would be in the left hand lane and the right hand lane would be used for overtaking the slow coaches. However the length of the traffic queue would be hideous.

All i am saying is that the wording suggests you should proceed as quickly as possible and pull back over when it is safe to do so..

Also, it doesn't say you mustn't overtake a vehicle that is going at the maximum speed limit.

[T.C.]

it seems there is a loop hole here (or at least chance for ambiguity)....

Not really. If you are in lane 3 overtaking slower moving vehicles in lanes 1 and 2 doing 70 then the only offence you may commit is excess speed, depending on the speed that you are doing.

Bear in mind that Motorways and Dual Carriageways were designed with sustained high(er) speed driving, unlike single carriageway roads where not only will speeds vary, but drivers and riders have to figure out when and where it is safe to overtake.

D-Rider, I have looked at the pre 72 Highway Code, and even in that edition no statement is made about undertaking being illegal.

But then the fact that you made that comment (and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way) also supports how many people still believe that the Highway Code refers to Slow, Fast and Overtaking lanes, and yet the Highway Code has never ever made such reference. Like you say, people learnt it to pass their test and then never look at it again, but are still happy to quote the contents

[D-Rider]

I've always believed you should be in the inside lane on a motorway unless overtaking.

.... that's if you can't find a viable alternative to being stuck on a motorway in the first place ...........

[T.C.]

I've always believed you should be in the inside lane on a motorway unless overtaking.

You are 100% correct, but so many people still believe that the middle lane is the driving lane.

Hopefully (possibly) things attitudes will change with the recent announcement that drivers will start getting fined heavily for incorrect lane discipline which will eliminate to a degree, the need to even think about the nearside overtake.

[HisNibbs]

Thanks for that informative discussion. After many years of not undertaking and getting frustrated at times, I gave up with it a few years ago. Now I tend ride in the lane that gives me the most space with the expectation that no one will see me coming. I had thought that this though an effective policy, was illegal. Nice to know that it is not and that judgement should be taken as to whether I was being safe and considerate, both of which I always try to be.