Wrong undertaking (From The Argus)

In response to "name and address witheld" and other comments on the Argus site, it is interesting that people assume me to be a "lane hogger." Contrary to popular belief, there are times it is necessary to be in the outside lane, ie turning right down Olive Road. By undertaking I meant at speed and then pulling out in front of me to make the right turn. My original letter was written before the signs went up at Tates, even though the limit had already changed, and overtaking is not a licence to drive as fast as you like. I do not know why some people have to be so aggressive in their replies, it was an observation, and when the mobile speed cameras arrive hopefuly someone will remember it.

As they say on wikipedia - citation needed!

And why hold back your name from a letter of this type? Says very much to me that they dont actually believe what they've written.

If you're sticking to the speed limit it doesn't matter what lane you're in! No-one, except an emergency vehicle, has any business trying to overtake in those circumstances.

It's impatient, self-entitled drivers who don't stick to speed limits who cause accidents.

Andy R wrote:
If you're sticking to the speed limit it doesn't matter what lane you're in! No-one, except an emergency vehicle, has any business trying to overtake in those circumstances.

It's impatient, self-entitled drivers who don't stick to speed limits who cause accidents.

Well said. If its like a couple of dual carriageways I know then there is sometimes call to be in the right hand lane quite early to facilitate right turns.

downfader wrote:

Andy R wrote:
If you're sticking to the speed limit it doesn't matter what lane you're in! No-one, except an emergency vehicle, has any business trying to overtake in those circumstances.

It's impatient, self-entitled drivers who don't stick to speed limits who cause accidents.

Well said. If its like a couple of dual carriageways I know then there is sometimes call to be in the right hand lane quite early to facilitate right turns.

The only reason for needing to be in the outside lane early to facilitate a right turn is to beat the lane hoggers who are clogging the lane instead being in the inside lane, as they should be.

fredaj wrote:

downfader wrote:

Andy R wrote:
If you're sticking to the speed limit it doesn't matter what lane you're in! No-one, except an emergency vehicle, has any business trying to overtake in those circumstances.

It's impatient, self-entitled drivers who don't stick to speed limits who cause accidents.

Well said. If its like a couple of dual carriageways I know then there is sometimes call to be in the right hand lane quite early to facilitate right turns.

The only reason for needing to be in the outside lane early to facilitate a right turn is to beat the lane hoggers who are clogging the lane instead being in the inside lane, as they should be.

You're over simplifying.

Andy R wrote:
If you're sticking to the speed limit it doesn't matter what lane you're in! No-one, except an emergency vehicle, has any business trying to overtake in those circumstances.

It's impatient, self-entitled drivers who don't stick to speed limits who cause accidents.

Well you might want to read the Highway Code, that insists you should be in the nearside lane unless overtaking(as you've already been told). I find it is only people from the (extreme?) left side of politics that propose to stay on the right when driving.

Sat navs seem to encourage people to get into the outside lane far too early, and sometimes without reason. Apart from that, only incompetents and pedantic nicompoops hog the outside lane. The law says "keep left" as a general rule, so it would be a major contribution to road safety and the easing of congestion if these people kept left and avoided turning right at all times. Or indeed sold their cars and took to the buses, taxis or bikes like the rest of us right thinking people...