jakethesnake:
Hate to disappoint but a car driving at 50 in the inside lane would not be prosecuted by the police. They would not be interested however if another vehicle was tailgating the said vehicle they would be the one likely to be prosecuted.
There are plenty vehicles travelling around the 50 mark on a motorway including lorries
Always amazes me how drivers both professional or not use that as the excuse. I followed dangerously close because in my opinion they were driving too slow, so to counter something that I find annoying I’m going to do something dangerous as my answer to it.
This is car drivers but say someone is hogging the middle lane, another car firstly goes up really close, when middle lane car doesn’t move do they move out to the offside and overtake legally? No they move to the near side and undertake illegally. Why not just go past safely and legally and be done with it rather than do an illegal manoeuvre to make some sort of point that the offending driver probably couldn’t care less about anyway. Human mind boggles.
You sir should be made of wax you absolute melt.
Who cares. I just go outside or inside whatever lane is free at the time
That’s fine. If your in lane 1 already and a slower vehicle is hogging lane 2 you can pass legally. If you approach behind in lane 2 then move into lane 1 to go past then that’s a purposeful undertake which is an offence. You will have just reacted to an annoyance by carrying out an illegal manoeuvre. Not very professional.
Rowley010:
Jake isn’t saying he knows more than the rac. He’s saying that there is no number that is actually defined as too slow. 50mph certainly isn’t it.
If no number is defined, how do you know 50mph ISNT it.
jakethesnake:
Hate to disappoint but a car driving at 50 in the inside lane would not be prosecuted by the police. They would not be interested however if another vehicle was tailgating the said vehicle they would be the one likely to be prosecuted.
There are plenty vehicles travelling around the 50 mark on a motorway including lorries
Always amazes me how drivers both professional or not use that as the excuse. I followed dangerously close because in my opinion they were driving too slow, so to counter something that I find annoying I’m going to do something dangerous as my answer to it.
This is car drivers but say someone is hogging the middle lane, another car firstly goes up really close, when middle lane car doesn’t move do they move out to the offside and overtake legally? No they move to the near side and undertake illegally. Why not just go past safely and legally and be done with it rather than do an illegal manoeuvre to make some sort of point that the offending driver probably couldn’t care less about anyway. Human mind boggles.
You sir should be made of wax you absolute melt.
Who cares. I just go outside or inside whatever lane is free at the time
cue some frantic and pedantic googling to see if theres something that implies its illegal ( which it isnt ) .
if that fails,itl be either ignore,or a sidetrack referring to some similar aspect of poor driving standards again.
you can almost make up the rest of the topic in advance after a few posts now.
so long as you dont make it obvious that youve swerved in and back out again to wake the gormless cretin up then its not your problem what someone driving illegally hogging the middle/outside lane does.
thats why the introduced the more recent charges for doing so though unfortunately they seem to be seldom enforced.
Rowley010:
Jake isn’t saying he knows more than the rac. He’s saying that there is no number that is actually defined as too slow. 50mph certainly isn’t it.
If no number is defined, how do you know 50mph ISNT it.
Because 50mph isn’t too slow. You’d have be the speed of an agricultural tractor to actually be successfully prosecuted for inconsiderate driving or driving without due care.
dieseldog999:
cue some frantic and pedantic googling to see if theres something that implies its illegal ( which it isnt ) .
if that fails,itl be either ignore,or a sidetrack referring to some similar aspect of poor driving standards again.
you can almost make up the rest of the topic in advance after a few posts now.
so long as you dont make it obvious that youve swerved in and back out again to wake the gormless cretin up then its not your problem what someone driving illegally hogging the middle/outside lane does.
thats why the introduced the more recent charges for doing so though unfortunately they seem to be seldom enforced.
I don’t need to google because I know, A PURPOSEFUL undertake is illegal, staying in a lane that your already in and passing traffic on the left because your lane is moving faster isn’t.
Oh dear arguing for the sake of it? Ask any traffic cop and I guarantee they will tell you the same as what I’m saying.
I’m not trying to make out I know more than anyone else but that’s a fact. 100%
If your already in a lane that’s moving faster you can pass on the left.
If your in the slower lane and you move into the left to undertake then that’s a purposeful undertake which is illegal.
But what if the left hand lane is a slip road for an exit? By your reasoning I’d have to move out to lane 3 then cut across two lanes to get to where I want to be.
You dont get it. The actions themselves arent necessarily illegal, it’s the manner in which they’re carried out that is.
jakethesnake:
Oh dear arguing for the sake of it? Ask any traffic cop and I guarantee they will tell you the same as what I’m saying.
I’m not trying to make out I know more than anyone else but that’s a fact. 100%
It’s because they are so used to carrying out illegal or dangerous manoeuvres they are trying to justify it now and find some article on the internet that twists things to fit there it is actually legal theory
dieseldog999:
cue some frantic and pedantic googling to see if theres something that implies its illegal ( which it isnt ) .
if that fails,itl be either ignore,or a sidetrack referring to some similar aspect of poor driving standards again.
you can almost make up the rest of the topic in advance after a few posts now.
so long as you dont make it obvious that youve swerved in and back out again to wake the gormless cretin up then its not your problem what someone driving illegally hogging the middle/outside lane does.
thats why the introduced the more recent charges for doing so though unfortunately they seem to be seldom enforced.
I don’t need to google because I know, A PURPOSEFUL undertake is illegal, staying in a lane that your already in and passing traffic on the left because your lane is moving faster isn’t.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thats the reply i was waiting on…soooooo predictable old boy.
jakethesnake:
Oh dear arguing for the sake of it? Ask any traffic cop and I guarantee they will tell you the same as what I’m saying.
I’m not trying to make out I know more than anyone else but that’s a fact. 100%
I know I said I was going, but I just couldn’t help myself. You do realise that what you posted was an oxymoron. Oh, how tempting it is.
“Overtaking on the left is lawful if done in accordance with the above guidance. However, whilst there is no specific offence of overtaking on the left, if a driver undertook another vehicle, other than in the circumstances described above e.g. in the case of someone hogging lane 2 on a motorway, they may be prosecuted for careless driving.”
Exactly what I said in an earlier post.
Looks like you were wrong. Come on, admit it. I want to hear it. Can you say it. I’ll help you out, just copy and paste my next sentence
jakethesnake:
Oh dear arguing for the sake of it? Ask any traffic cop and I guarantee they will tell you the same as what I’m saying.
I’m not trying to make out I know more than anyone else but that’s a fact. 100%
I know I said I was going, but I just couldn’t help myself. You do realise that what you posted was an oxymoron. Oh, how tempting it is.
“Overtaking on the left is lawful if done in accordance with the above guidance. However, whilst there is no specific offence of overtaking on the left, if a driver undertook another vehicle, other than in the circumstances described above e.g. in the case of someone hogging lane 2 on a motorway, they may be prosecuted for careless driving.”
Exactly what I said in an earlier post.
Looks like you were wrong. Come on, admit it. I want to hear it. Can you say it. I’ll help you out, just copy and paste my next sentence
I, jakethesnake, was wrong
So that’s exactly what I said. And which part is Jake wrong about?
jakethesnake:
Oh dear arguing for the sake of it? Ask any traffic cop and I guarantee they will tell you the same as what I’m saying.
I’m not trying to make out I know more than anyone else but that’s a fact. 100%
I know I said I was going, but I just couldn’t help myself. You do realise that what you posted was an oxymoron. Oh, how tempting it is.
“Overtaking on the left is lawful if done in accordance with the above guidance. However, whilst there is no specific offence of overtaking on the left, if a driver undertook another vehicle, other than in the circumstances described above e.g. in the case of someone hogging lane 2 on a motorway, they may be prosecuted for careless driving.”
Exactly what I said in an earlier post.
Looks like you were wrong. Come on, admit it. I want to hear it. Can you say it. I’ll help you out, just copy and paste my next sentence
I, jakethesnake, was wrong
Oh dear, please show me where I said anything about overtaking on this thread?
You can’t even get the correct poster. INCREDIBLE.
jakethesnake:
In case you still don’t understand my post was about travelling at 50 in the inside lane.
Nothing about overtaking or undertaking.
That’s what I was thinking. He’s trying to argue for sake of arguing so much that he’s even forgotten who he’s arguing with, and in doing so has actually totally proved what I was saying about undertaking
jakethesnake:
In case you still don’t understand my post was about travelling at 50 in the inside lane.
Nothing about overtaking or undertaking.
That’s what I was thinking. He’s trying to argue for sake of arguing so much that he’s even forgotten who he’s arguing with, and in doing so has actually totally proved what I was saying about undertaking
jakethesnake:
In case you still don’t understand my post was about travelling at 50 in the inside lane.
Nothing about overtaking or undertaking.
Nope, you’re right jake. I dropped a whoopsie on that one. You see, I normally just skim over you posts. They’re the same old “I’m a driving god”, “you’re all dangerous truckers” rubbish. So when I saw your usual diatribe with no reference point in the middle of a discussion on undertaking, I assumed you were with everyone else and keeping up with the flow. But hey ho, I’m a big enough to hold my hand up.
Anyway, on your point on slow driving, I took your advice and asked a copper.
However in days on traffic i did used to pull slow moving vehicles but mainly for the purpose of finding out if they were fit to drive, and one of the main things i got out of this was driving without corrected eyesight and did many many eyesight tests."
So you see, driving too slow CAN be an offence, but at the very least it’ll attract attention from the fuzz. This reinforces what I said earlier about the act not being illegal as such, but the circumstances around it are.
Now, if you want, you can copy and paste from my above reply or you can copy and paste from below.
That’s just a link to a forum like this. Doesn’t mean any of the responses are actually from people who know what they are talking about or are anything more than bedroom lawyers.
There’s one reply on it where a bloke is clearly a copper said he once reported a coach for doing 15mph on a national speed limit so his passengers could admire the views. The crown prosecution service refused to take it further. So I think 50mph on a motorway is never going to get you in trouble.
Loving the way they’ve got each other’s backs.
If Cilla Black had been a trucker, she would have loved all this,.and would have been off down to Debenhams to buy a new hat.
