Hmmm, why is this car braking in front of....

[Street Guardian USA]

 

[Bungus]

Oh Sh.......t. No way to avoid,

 

[Rajagra]

Well that was nasty. Person filming was too close, but even so I have to feel for him.

THIS is why it pisses me off when people do dangerous things around my van. They can't see through, they can't see over, yet their impatience makes them blast forward anyway.

At least the guy filming was just following.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[SawMaster]

Oh Sh.......t. No way to avoid,

I've seen most of the Russian car crash vids where there are many similar instances shown If you see the car ahead of you suddenly intentionally swerve, you had better be ready to follow them instantly because you just might need to It's a better bet than waiting to see for yourself why they swerved and find out the way this one did

Phil

 

[tk000]

Or one could point out that had both drivers been in the right lane, since they weren't passing anyone, the collision could have possibly been avoided.

 

[Rajagra]

Or one could point out that had both drivers been in the right lane, since they weren't passing anyone, the collision could have possibly been avoided.

And one could point out that the car that was undertaking made it impossible for the vehicles to move over sooner. Especially the lead car, who could only move over at the very last second, so the camera car had no warning at all.

I often wait for it to be safe to move back in after overtaking (ie put space between me and the vehicle I've passed) only to find some impatient dirtbag is already racing through on the inside, weaving across lanes violently.

Those impatient people would accuse me of being a lane hogger. But if I moved in sooner they would accuse me of cutting them off. So which is it? You can't accuse me of moving back too fast and too slowly at the same time!

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[kamkar]

Yeah i saw that in a compilation lately, for sure a prime example of pay attention and keep your safe distance.

 

[old4570]

oooh Shhhht !

Yeah ! What is that about tailgating ?
Can only conclude that was not a safe distance to follow another car ... ( For those conditions )

 

[tk000]

And one could point out that the car that was undertaking made it impossible for the vehicles to move over sooner

If they were already in the right lane, no one would need to undertake them.

 

[Rajagra]

If they were already in the right lane, no one would need to undertake them.

Nobody ever NEEDS to undertake. It is a choice whether to do it.

And watch again. Right at the start we see one car undertaking. Then we see the undertaking car I mentioned before.

The two cars in the left lane had NO chance to move right safely during the video, and we don't know what happened leading up to this.

Undertaking is dangerous, and here we saw two people doing it in a way that contributed to a terrible accident.

Undertaking IS dangerous. It is not like proper overtaking, and if you do it it has to be done with extreme caution. But because it has become normalised, it is rarely done cautiously. In my experience the vast majority of undertakes are done recklessly at excessive speed with complete disregard for events that are LIKELY to happen.

Normal overtaking should, essentially, be done as quickly as possible. Undertaking should be done only at moderate difference in speed, on the assumption that someone will want /need to pull back in. But people don't care. They just want to blast past. And they do.

The behaviour of people who undertake is so habitual that I often see cars in the middle lane being undertaken even when the outside lane is completely free. It is bad practice done by bad drivers. Just because it has been normalised that doesn't make it safe.

And note this video is not from the USA. In most countries the rule is to avoid undertaking other than in exceptional situations.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[sludgeguts]

Nobody ever NEEDS to undertake. It is a choice whether to do it...

I have been reported for "dangerously undertaking" on two occasions. Both times I was driving a sign-written bus. A bus that is only capable of a maximum of 62mph due to having a limiter fitted. A bus that is not allowed into lane 3 of a motorway.
On both occasions, the scenario was the same, I'm happily driving along in lane 1, maxed out on the limiter. I come upon a MLH pootling along in lane 2.
My options are:-
1. Continue past in lane 1.
2. Reduce my speed to match the MLH - thereby not "undertaking them".
3. Pull into lane 2 behind them & wait for them to move over.
4. Pull into lane 2 behind them & flash my lights/ sound my horn.
5. Pull into lane 3 to perform the overtake.

Option 2 creates a rolling road block, turning a 3 lane motorway into a 1 lane hazard, since those coming up behind will be doing 70+ and all tussling for position in lane 3.
Option 3 - well, if they are MLH, they'll never move over without an incentive.
Option 4 can be dangerous, it's also frowned upon by plod.
Option 5 is illegal.

On both occasions I was visited by road traffic police. Habitually saving cam footage of long journeys (just in case), I was able to show the traffic officers what had happened on each occasion.
In both instances, plod said that I had done the correct thing & two independant police units (Thames Valley & West Yorkshire) said that I had simply passed on the left. Both defined 'undertaking' as approaching in lane 2, moving to lane 1, driving past then moving back out to lane 2. In other words, the opposite of overtake. What they don't like is cars weaving in and out of lanes of traffic.
Their parting words were along the lines of "having words" with the driver concerned.

 

[Rajagra]

We've discussed this before. But this time see my comments above about the difference between undertaking responsibly or recklessly.

I've even done it myself a couple of times since our last talk! :-O But I've also seen many near - collisions because of it.

One simple thing I've done to make it safe is to go past in lane 1 when some fool is planted firmly in lane 3 doing well below the limit. The extra distance increases safety, even though it's the completely opposite approach to an ideal overtake.

What I despise is people making NO effort to try to get past on the outside, NO effort to alert the stupid lane hogger, NO effort to choose a safe speed, NO willingness to even give people time to move back in safely.

And by far the most undertaking I see IS recklessly done that way. Most undertaking drivers either don't know or don't care about the additional risks of passing on the inside. They LITERALLY treat a gap in the inside as if it was the overtaking lane and go through at full speed, even when the vehicle they are passing is itself doing over the speed limit. The people undertaking nearly always weave between lanes too, like they are on a race track. It is simple impatience and arrogance making them do it, not necessity.

Undertaking is a strong marker of the decline in driving standards of the last 20 years. There have always been poor drivers, but it used to be less common to meet the complete maniacs doing whatever the hell they want at other people's expense.

These days I can't drive more than a few streets without meeting them.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[SawMaster]

While I'm usually in the outside 'slow' lane there are times when me and my big old van are in the middle lane. From my vantage point I can see traffic conditions ahead quite well, while those directly behind me can't. I've noticed a few demographics of drivers who habitually undertake even when overtaking is possible. Sometimes I'm able to play that for a win by altering my speed as these idiots approach to be where there is a car in the slow lane just far enough in front of me so that nobody can get through, so when the undertaker swerves over they get stuck there I'll continue along legally as their blood boils with me not opening any room for them to get over. Even more fun is when there's a car behind them so they can't slow to get back behind me and pass me properly on the other side

I think that once in awhile they realize what they've done to themselves and what they've done wrong, but most of them don't seem to learn anything No matter- it's still fun for me

Phil

 

[DT MI]

^^^ I've been known to play that same game myself on occasion.

 

[kuoh]

Two wrongs... not saying I've never been guilty and I'm not proud of it.

KuoH

^^^ I've been known to play that same game myself on occasion.

 

[Module 79L]

On both occasions I was visited by road traffic police. Habitually saving cam footage of long journeys (just in case), I was able to show the traffic officers what had happened on each occasion.
In both instances, plod said that I had done the correct thing & two independant police units (Thames Valley & West Yorkshire) said that I had simply passed on the left. Both defined 'undertaking' as approaching in lane 2, moving to lane 1, driving past then moving back out to lane 2. In other words, the opposite of overtake. What they don't like is cars weaving in and out of lanes of traffic.
Their parting words were along the lines of "having words" with the driver concerned.

Here in Portugal the road code says it's illegal to undertake on motorways and the definition of undertaking is exactly as the one I highlighted in your answer. Since there are always so many MLH (and LLH, or RLH in your case, on 2-lane motorways) and lane 1 is empty most of the time, I use it, as it's something that the road code also says: keep right!
I've had arguments with some LE officers about the legality of passing lane hoggers on the right when drivers have a clear lane 1 in front of them and they stick to the idea that it's illegal until I make them see that it's not an overtaking manoeuvre because, just like in the UK, in Portugal the definition of overtaking/undertaking implies a lane change of some sort. So, due to this contradiction, the rule can't be applied in this specific situation, which makes it a flawed law. If they can't make good laws, they should hire someone who can.

But hey, I'm not complaining at all, this "hole" in the law allows me to do relaxed drives in an empty lane for kms (miles) on end.

 

[sludgeguts]

Undertaking and passing on the inside are two completely different things. Undertaking involves a lane change before the event, it has even been said that the charge will be careless or reckless driving. Also, passing on one side is no more dangerous than passing on the other, if the person you are passing doesn't check their mirrors beforehand...
And what about those instances where you have two motorways running parallel but separated by just white lines? If the right hand motorway has a speed restriction for something ahead but the left hand doesn't, are they still expected to slow down for the pass on the inside?
Those white lines separating lanes are give way lines, if you simply wish to wander around the lanes without looking and giving way to what is already there then you are at fault.
And what, exactly, constitutes a "safe speed" for passing on the inside? If I'm on my limiter at 62mph and the MLH is doing 50, are you expecting me to hit the anchors and dawdle past at 51mph? Because my dropping 11mph for no good reason certainly isn't a safe option for anyone following me - they are going to wonder wtf is happening, especially given that the mlh is still dawdling in the middle lane.

 

[Rajagra]

Undertaking and passing on the inside are two completely different things. Undertaking involves a lane change before the event

Where are you getting this from? Just from a policeman's personal definition? That holds no weight except when dealing with that policeman.

There is no legal definition of "undertaking". It is a slang word. It means overtaking, but on the wrong side. Nothing more, nothing less. Under = opposite to over. Undertaking = opposite style of action to overtaking. Simple.

Secondly, the only difference between passing and overtaking is that overtaking suggests passing a *moving* vehicle. Whether you're changing lanes or not merely changes how complicated and risky the overtake is. I suspect laws stick to using "passing", or use "passing" and "overtaking" synonymously. (In much the same way as "stopping" and "parking" are treated as the same in many laws.)
Again, break down the word to understand it. Overtaking = taking more, relatively = going faster, and passing someone else (in context.)

passing on one side is no more dangerous than passing on the other, if the person you are passing doesn't check their mirrors beforehand...

Oh, so it *should* be safe, so it's OK for you to assume it's safe? Get real. "If" may only be two letters, but it's a mighty big word.

Do you really not know that blind spots are a bigger problem on the nearside? And that checking the nearside requires observing a wider arc of view? And you drive a bus??? You might want to be careful who you say these things to. Would you happily tell your boss that passing on the inside is just as safe as passing on the outside? I doubt it.

And what about those instances where you have two motorways running parallel but separated by just white lines?

An exceptional case. People are directed into specific lanes and the lane markings are often different. So people have reason to expect others to be passing on the inside, so it's safer. Caution is still needed though, as we often see in dash cam footage.

Those white lines separating lanes are give way lines

They are called lane markings. But you're repeating a phrase I've seen elsewhere. Who is dreaming up these interpretations and presenting them as fact?

what, exactly, constitutes a "safe speed" for passing on the inside?

A speed where you can safely react to entirely predictable events.

my dropping 11mph for no good reason certainly isn't a safe option for anyone following me

Slowing to ensure a crash doesn't happen IS a good reason.

Dude, people's speed drifts up and down by that much all the time on motorways without them even noticing.

But you are presenting a contradictory argument. You are saying a planned and controlled 11mph alteration is so high that people can't cope, yet an undertaker can cope if a lane hogger cuts in front of him without warning at that speed difference.

Besides, a 10/11 mph difference is reasonably cautious in my book. You can shed that much speed almost instantly in an emergency, at least at legal speeds.

It's the +20-30mph (or greater) undertakes that are reckless. I see them a lot.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[sludgeguts]

Undertaking & passing - not just one copper's definition, one from West Yorkshire & one from Thames Valley. Completely independent of each other so someone must've told each of them.
I didn't say it *should* be safe, I said it is no more dangerous. The act of passing a vehicle on any side is dangerous if the muppet you are passing doesn't look.
Your speed might well drift up and down by 11mph but mine certainly doesn't.
White lines. If you are in lane 1 and wish to move to lane 2, do you not give way to anything nearby in lane 2? On a main road, you have parked cars ahead, you wish to overtake them, this involves going over the white lines, do you not give way to oncoming traffic ? That's how I was taught both when I took my car test and pcv.
"predictable events" - where a road bends to the right, you can predict that everyone will steer to the right. Red light, you can predict that just about everyone will stop. You cannot predict that someone you are overtaking will suddenly cut across you, no matter if you are passing on the left or right. Plenty of clips on YT showing cars speeding along L3 then suddenly veering off to the exit.
As for blind spots, people need to adjust their mirrors. You don't need to know what the side of your vehicle looks like so from a simple glance, you should have no sight of your vehicle. You only need to see the edges when manouvering (reversing or tight bends), in which case, you have time to move your head. You also don't need to watch the clouds in the sky either, what's on the road should be far more interesting.

 

[SawMaster]

I liken driving to American Square Dancing where you have 4 couples moving around in differing patterns and someone 'calling' out what move they are to perform next
If everybody makes the right move when they are supposed to, everything goes smoothly and quickly, and everybody has a good time But if just one person does the wrong thing or doesn't get their timing right, the whole scene comes unraveled and to avoid running into them or someone else you might have to step out of their way even though you're supposed to be doing something else

The fault belongs entirely to the first person who screwed up, for if they hadn't done wrong then nobody else would have needed to change their actions to compensate.

So IMHO if law wishes to become involved applying rules, it needs to allow those being adversely affected some leeway to make what decisions are needed to prevent furtherance of the original problem. MLH = undertaking without any major adjustment of speed so that you have the least effect on others around you that you can; otherwise you're just adding to the problem If there's just you and the MLH out there, then you should slow down while you undertake them.

And while you are undertaking, be pleasant and send the MLH your deepest wishes that they soon be undertaken by their mortician so that they cease to be a problem to the rest of the world

Phil