Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[YZ250]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

[zirk]

Yep,

If I got time on my hands I tend to cruise it at 76.9 Mph, then all the clock gauges become static,     ...except the petrol gauge  .

[Lizzie_Zoom]

If other motorists are getting in the way when you have your cruise control on at 70 then it is best to turn it off or do, as Zirk suggests, set it to 75-80.  Other than that you note when the car ahead in the middle lane is slowing down and pull out, accelerate to overtake, then once safely past, pull back in and resume using the cruise control.

I personally set it at 80 only when the road is empty, but nowadays that is rare and it is just not safe enough to use. I just adjust my speed to road conditions and the speed other vehicles are travelling at

[YZ250]

If other motorists are getting in the way when you have your cruise control on at 70 then it is best to turn it off or do, as Zirk suggests, set it to 75-80.  Other than that you note when the car ahead in the middle lane is slowing down and pull out, accelerate to overtake, then once safely past, pull back in and resume using the cruise control.

I personally set it at 80 only when the road is empty, but nowadays that is rare and it is just not safe enough to use. I just adjust my speed to road conditions and the speed other vehicles are travelling at

Strictly speaking they are not in my way as my adaptive cruise sees a clear passage ahead. 
Surely going over 70mph is illegal though.   

[chrisgixer]

I think this is based on a misenterpritation of undertaking.

It would be rediculous for you to stop in an empty lane if, for example, the person in the lane to your right stops. By that measure. If lane 3 becomes congested, and slows to 30mph say, then everyone in lanes 1 and 2 should slow and go no faster than 30 even though the road in front is empty.
 
This is rediculous.

The definition of undertaking is a deliberate move to a left lane instead if a right lane in order to pass another vehicle.

IMO this is all part of the fact that nobody in the uk has been trained on motorway driving, or passed any form of assessment. Couple that with heavily congested roads and all sorts of strange ideas cone up.


All that happened in your thinly discized domestic example was somebody slowed down for no apparent reason.

There are some here that firmly believe that sitting in lane 2 when lane one is empty is perfectly acceptable and their Devine right. Even though keeping left is a major principle of motorway driving, it's 3 points and a fine if caught, and not to mention extremely inconsiderate.
 I mention this only because, your person in lane 2 should really be in lane 1.

But then, they've had no training either.

[YZ250]

?......accelerate to overtake......

Ah yes, that was the bit that got me in trouble recently. 

[Taxi_Driver]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

Apart from the fact its the law they should pull over into lane 1, when they have overtaken you, so when they slow down, you can move over to lane 2 and overtake them.
Maintaining a constant speed in lane 1 and 'undertaking' them isnt considered as undertaking, as long as you stay in lane 1.

An example of undertaking would be ...

lane 3 to lane 2 to get past car in lane 3 then back to lane 3

So in the eyes of law as i see it, you were correct and your other half wrong, technically...i think....and in my example.....if the car in lane 3 wasnt actually overtaking anything....then they could considered as breaking the law....as they should have moved over to lane 2 or 1 as appropriate....

But im sure the law (ex or not) will be along to say im talking 'dangle berries' or not 

[Varche]

It is a fairly common thing for folk to overtake then slow down to less than they were doing before. Just another example of some peoples inability to drive properly and considerately. One we get a lot over here is driving slowly through twisty bits and then they hoof it the minute they see a bit of straight.

The answer Cam of course is to buy or hire a driverless car. You can then be texting, reading, sleeping etc while the car takes the stress out of driving.

[Rog]

I think that generally the British have very poor lane discipline. In France drivers are quite happy to move over to let other cars pass, you don't often see the outside lane camel trains that we get here.

I think it is a combination of stubbornesss and self righteousness.

Stubborness " No will will not let him pass, why should I "

Self Righteousness "The speed limit is 70, that's what I'm doing and so should everyone else "

There is a 3rd group that is completely unaware of anything behind them, frequently these are Range Rovers 

[chrisgixer]

On a trip to Cornwall a few years ago we must of passed the same car on the same stretch 15 times. I'm not saying which but one if the drivers obviously wasn't as confident on un lit sections as there where on sections with street lights.

[YZ250]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

Apart from the fact its the law they should pull over into lane 1, when they have overtaken you, so when they slow down, you can move over to lane 2 and overtake them.
Maintaining a constant speed in lane 1 and 'undertaking' them isnt considered as undertaking, as long as you stay in lane 1.

An example of undertaking would be ...

lane 3 to lane 2 to get past car in lane 3 then back to lane 3

So in the eyes of law as i see it, you were correct and your other half wrong, technically...i think....and in my example.....if the car in lane 3 wasnt actually overtaking anything....then they could considered as breaking the law....as they should have moved over to lane 2 or 1 as appropriate....

But im sure the law (ex or not) will be along to say im talking 'dangle berries' or not 

That was my take on it as well. 

[Andy B]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

Apart from the fact its the law they should pull over into lane 1, when they have overtaken you, so when they slow down, you can move over to lane 2 and overtake them.
Maintaining a constant speed in lane 1 and 'undertaking' them isnt considered as undertaking, as long as you stay in lane 1.

An example of undertaking would be ...

lane 3 to lane 2 to get past car in lane 3 then back to lane 3

So in the eyes of law as i see it, you were correct and your other half wrong, technically...i think....and in my example.....if the car in lane 3 wasnt actually overtaking anything....then they could considered as breaking the law....as they should have moved over to lane 2 or 1 as appropriate....

But im sure the law (ex or not) will be along to say im talking 'dangle berries' or not 

That was my take on it as well. 

And mine. 

You can have an empty motorway & members of the Middle Lane Owners Club will still be in the middle lane ....... no way will I move to lane 3 to overtake them. At best I'll flash them while I'm still in lane 1 to give them the oportunity to move over, other than that I'll stay in lane 1 - assuming of course I'm doing a legalish speed 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

Apart from the fact its the law they should pull over into lane 1, when they have overtaken you, so when they slow down, you can move over to lane 2 and overtake them.
Maintaining a constant speed in lane 1 and 'undertaking' them isnt considered as undertaking, as long as you stay in lane 1.

An example of undertaking would be ...

lane 3 to lane 2 to get past car in lane 3 then back to lane 3

So in the eyes of law as i see it, you were correct and your other half wrong, technically...i think....and in my example.....if the car in lane 3 wasnt actually overtaking anything....then they could considered as breaking the law....as they should have moved over to lane 2 or 1 as appropriate....

But im sure the law (ex or not) will be along to say im talking 'dangle berries' or not 

That was my take on it as well. 

And mine. 

You can have an empty motorway & members of the Middle Lane Owners Club will still be in the middle lane ....... no way will I move to lane 3 to overtake them. At best I'll flash them while I'm still in lane 1 to give them the oportunity to move over, other than that I'll stay in lane 1 - assuming of course I'm doing a legalish speed 

If you are on a highly congested motorway, such as the M25, M6, etc, where you are in lines of traffic that is also occupying all the lanes then as long as you move ahead at the same speed as the traffic in front of you, you can pass the other vehicles in the lanes to your right that may be stationery, or just moving at a slower speed than the traffic in your lane.  That is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law.

However, if you are on a freely moving motorway where there are no queues in each lane and there is space to overtake slower moving vehicles in the lanes to the left, or in front of you (i.e. in lane 2, with lane 3 free), then you must overtake in the normal manner, NOT undertake which is illegal.

[YZ250]

I should clarify that none of these cars had overtaken me, they were in the process of overtaking. They hadn't cleared my car enough to pull back in or for me to overtake them. 

[relluf]

If I've got a clear run ahead of me on motorways I tend to use cruise control, more so to maintain a sensible speed. On a long motorway journey yesterday, I'd set the cruise control to 70mph and, as the road ahead was clear, I sat in lane one. Some of the cars that were overtaking me, at a few mph more than me, eased off through lack of concentration, which meant they slowly drifted back so that I glided up the inside of them.
Mrs YZ had a right pop at me, saying that I had undertaken them, which strictly speaking I had.  I told her that I had done nothing but maintain the same speed.

My questions are, assuming road ahead is clear:
1. Am I expected to switch cruise off every time some arse in lane two doesn't concentrate and drifts to a slower speed than I'm travelling at?
2. Why do they even bother going past me when they are going to do this?

In my younger days I would have just hoofed it so that I put about ten miles between me and them, but you can't do that these days can you.   

Anybody else suffer this?

Apart from the fact its the law they should pull over into lane 1, when they have overtaken you, so when they slow down, you can move over to lane 2 and overtake them.
Maintaining a constant speed in lane 1 and 'undertaking' them isnt considered as undertaking, as long as you stay in lane 1.

An example of undertaking would be ...

lane 3 to lane 2 to get past car in lane 3 then back to lane 3

So in the eyes of law as i see it, you were correct and your other half wrong, technically...i think....and in my example.....if the car in lane 3 wasnt actually overtaking anything....then they could considered as breaking the law....as they should have moved over to lane 2 or 1 as appropriate....

But im sure the law (ex or not) will be along to say im talking 'dangle berries' or not 

That was my take on it as well. 

And mine. 

You can have an empty motorway & members of the Middle Lane Owners Club will still be in the middle lane ....... no way will I move to lane 3 to overtake them. At best I'll flash them while I'm still in lane 1 to give them the oportunity to move over, other than that I'll stay in lane 1 - assuming of course I'm doing a legalish speed 

If you are on a highly congested motorway, such as the M25, M6, etc, where you are in lines of traffic that is also occupying all the lanes then as long as you move ahead at the same speed as the traffic in front of you, you can pass the other vehicles in the lanes to your right that may be stationery, or just moving at a slower speed than the traffic in your lane.  That is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law.

However, if you are on a freely moving motorway where there are no queues in each lane and there is space to overtake slower moving vehicles in the lanes to the left, or in front of you (i.e. in lane 2, with lane 3 free), then you must overtake in the normal manner, NOT undertake which is illegal.



Not quite sure I agree Lizzie.
I have no hesitation in staying in lane 1 or 2 and proceeding at my current speed passing vehicles on my right hand side.
I would not However move lanes to pass someone on their inside  to "gain benefit" as per below.

United Kingdom - The Highway Code discourages undertaking on motorways with some exceptions (rule 268): "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". Undertaking is permitted in congested conditions when frequent lane changing is not recommended.[4] On other roads, the Code advises drivers "should only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" (rule 163).[5] Rule 163 uses advisory wording and "will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted", but may be used in evidence to establishing liability in any court proceedings.[6] On all roads, undertaking is permitted if the vehicles in the lane to the right are queueing and slow moving.[citation needed] Undertaking in an aggressive or reckless manner could be considered Careless Driving or more seriously Dangerous Driving, both of which are legally enforceable offences.[dubious – discuss][citation needed]