John Lyon re:Undertaking

[jimmy the hat]

John Lyon said:

"All of us should be aware that in the UK there is on overtaking on the left (undertaking) on motorways [...] So what is meant by 'Do not overtake on the left?'? Well, when the speed of traffic is very slow and queueing up, and the nearside lanes are free of traffic, you may, if it is safe, move up and fill the space. But you must take notice of the first vehicle you pass on their left and you must wait until the driver has re-passed you again before you move out into the overtaking lanes - otherwise you are overtaking on the left and that is an offence. In other words, you must not make any progress by passing on the left".

This is a perfect example of what I have a problem with on this forum. 99% of it is informative and helpful, occasionally entertaining even. The stuff that's wildly wrong may be argued in such a way that at least informs understanding of what the damn-heck some people are doing on the road and why. Then a 200 carat gold piece of incredible bks comes along and, to me, discredits all that's good even just the tiniest bit.

Now before you all start jumping up and down on me, it's not a "why not undertake?" thread. (Although I'm happy to have that discussion - the basis for my defence is that the danger is very often negated by the undertakee never having the slightest intention of returning to the left.) It's the blind devotion to applying a set of rules to infinitely variable situations that I believe fundamentally undermines the concept of "advanced driving".

By way of example. Anybody who regularly uses a fairly busy two lane DC will be familiar with this. Inside lane, lorry every half a mile. Outside lane, line of tailgating cars as far as the eye can see. Every time there's a gap on the inside I'll return to the left. I won't necessarily make any effort to pass cars, I just don't want to be sat nose to tail with a bunch of people whose reactions I can't vouch for. Quite often when I come up to an obstacle and need to overtake, the car that was behind me will refuse to let me pull out. Perhaps by doing so they justify their position in the outside lane by "overtaking" me, perhaps they think I'm trying to undertake but am too timid, perhaps they're just selfish custards. Quite often they'll may no progress over you at all and they'll have to let you out several times and you will apparently reach the required number of strikes before they think "bks to you".

My question is twofold. Why should I run the risk of slowing down another lane while I wait for somebody I passed miles ago (A14 for example, entirely likely) to re-overtake me, only to find that the berk behind won't let me out?

If the danger in undertaking is a car on your outside returning to the left, surely you shouldn't EVER go up the inside. After all, if the outside lane is slowing down and as a result the inside is faster, surely people returning to the left is even more likely?

If he were to say, "if you pass a few cars it's their lookout but don't take the piss" I would be much happier.

Go on, pile it on. Or just point me to the threads where this has been done to death, I know some didn't think it was worthy of a mammoth thread to discuss it.

Cheers, Jim

[johnao]

jimmy the hat said:

John Lyon said:

"All of us should be aware that in the UK there is on overtaking on the left (undertaking) on motorways [...] So what is meant by 'Do not overtake on the left?'? Well, when the speed of traffic is very slow and queueing up, and the nearside lanes are free of traffic, you may, if it is safe, move up and fill the space. But you must take notice of the first vehicle you pass on their left and you must wait until the driver has re-passed you again before you move out into the overtaking lanes - otherwise you are overtaking on the left and that is an offence. In other words, you must not make any progress by passing on the left".

This is a perfect example of what I have a problem with on this forum. 99% of it is informative and helpful, occasionally entertaining even... Then a 200 carat gold piece of incredible bks comes along and, to me, discredits all that's good even just the tiniest bit.

My question is twofold. Why should I run the risk of...

My take on this is firstly, why do you regard... a 200 carat gold piece of incredible bks as discrediting all that's good even just the tiniest bit? Surely, an utterly stupid piece of advice such as this can't possible discredit the wiser advice of others.


And secondly, why bother to react to something as idiotic as this. Why dignify it with a response. It's best just ignored. I certainly wouldn't waste time and effort justifying my own actions in this situation; the advice is completely bonkers and best discarded without any further consideration.

[MagicalTrevor]

OP, I think our views on this are aligned

[jimmy the hat]

johnao said:

My take on this is firstly, why do you regard... a 200 carat gold piece of incredible bks as discrediting all that's good even just the tiniest bit? Surely, an utterly stupid piece of advice such as this can't possible discredit the wiser advice of others.


And secondly, why bother to react to something as idiotic as this. Why dignify it with a response. It's best just ignored. I certainly wouldn't waste time and effort justifying my own actions in this situation; the advice is completely bonkers and best discarded without any further consideration.

Would I be out of order to suggest that you're not a John Lyon fan?

In all seriousness, I ask because there's those to whom it's neither utterly stupid nor completely bonkers, at least not obviously so. There are those to whom this man is a legend and would never even think of questioning it and it's this lack of application of common sense that undermines the whole concept for me.

The people for whom "well the HC says" is the absolute answer rather than "well the HC says, because..." being a moot point.

Cheers, Jim

[johnao]

jimmy the hat said:

johnao said:

My take on this is firstly, why do you regard... a 200 carat gold piece of incredible bks as discrediting all that's good even just the tiniest bit? Surely, an utterly stupid piece of advice such as this can't possible discredit the wiser advice of others.


And secondly, why bother to react to something as idiotic as this. Why dignify it with a response. It's best just ignored. I certainly wouldn't waste time and effort justifying my own actions in this situation; the advice is completely bonkers and best discarded without any further consideration.

Would I be out of order to suggest that you're not a John Lyon fan?

In all seriousness, I ask because there's those to whom it's neither utterly stupid nor completely bonkers, at least not obviously so. There are those to whom this man is a legend and would never even think of questioning it and it's this lack of application of common sense that undermines the whole concept for me.

The people for whom "well the HC says" is the absolute answer rather than "well the HC says, because..." being a moot point.

Cheers, Jim

I am a huge fan of John Lyon. I have always got on well with John, he has helped me improve my driving skills enormously. And I agree he is a legend. I have told John what I like and dislike about his book, but I must admit to missing the particular point you have raised.

Edited to add: My general impression of John's book is that it is excellent and I've told him so. there are some areas which aren't entirely clear and I've discussed this with him and I'm happy with what he's told me. I've certainly recommended other advanced drivers to have a session with him and will continue to do so.

Edited by johnao on Thursday 31st May 18:28

Edited by johnao on Thursday 31st May 18:30

Edited by johnao on Thursday 31st May 18:54

[BertBert]

It doesn't seem quite worth the amount of condemnation the OP assigns to it. It's a bit on the daft/excessive side, but I can't see that it invalidates the rest of the book. Also maybe it's not a bad piece of advice for absolute protection against being done for "undertaking".

Also there's far dafter anal debates on here that we all enjoy. Let's do...

left foot braking in autos and overlapping and which end to fit the new tyres again

Bert

[jimmy the hat]

BertBert said:

It doesn't seem quite worth the amount of condemnation the OP assigns to it. It's a bit on the daft/excessive side, but I can't see that it invalidates the rest of the book. Also maybe it's not a bad piece of advice for absolute protection against being done for "undertaking".

Also there's far dafter anal debates on here that we all enjoy. Let's do...

left foot braking in autos and overlapping and which end to fit the new tyres again

Bert

I honestly think it absolutely is worthy of the level of condemnation and it's way more than a bit daft/excessive. It's quite obviously (to me) stark-staring bonkers. For the sake of being overly courteous to somebody who, frankly, doesn't deserve it, you might be holding up a whole lane of people who are just minding their own business in the correct lane. On top of that, there's no logic to it. The danger in undertaking is somebody pulling left and not expecting someone faster to be there. I think we can all agree that, even (especially?) those of us who regularly do it. What John's advocating is that it's OK to do the dangerous bit as long as you don't gain advantage.

How is that not worthy of calling into question?

I didn't say it completely discredits everything else but (and not that you should follow anything blindly, especially something that may affect your life and liberty) doesn't it make you think a bit deeper about what else he may be getting wildly wrong. To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to think it might be a wind-up to make sure the reader's paying attention.

Cheers, Jim

[MC Bodge]

I can't imagine that many people would agree with the ideas above, taken from the book, about undertaking.

It was I who suggested that it wasn't worth a mammoth thread about it.
-I still believe this to be the case.

ps. Could somebody who has read both the Porsche book and the new one please comment on what the new book offers over the old one?

Edited by MC Bodge on Thursday 31st May 20:56

[R0G]

John Lyon said:
"All of us should be aware that in the UK there is on overtaking on the left (undertaking) on motorways [...] So what is meant by 'Do not overtake on the left?'? Well, when the speed of traffic is very slow and queueing up, and the nearside lanes are free of traffic, you may, if it is safe, move up and fill the space. But you must take notice of the first vehicle you pass on their left and you must wait until the driver has re-passed you again before you move out into the overtaking lanes - otherwise you are overtaking on the left and that is an offence. In other words, you must not make any progress by passing on the left".

What offence would that be?

This bloke is usually quite good so why he is saying something is an offence when it is not deffo dimishes his credibility

[DocSteve]

R0G said:

John Lyon said:
"All of us should be aware that in the UK there is on overtaking on the left (undertaking) on motorways [...] So what is meant by 'Do not overtake on the left?'? Well, when the speed of traffic is very slow and queueing up, and the nearside lanes are free of traffic, you may, if it is safe, move up and fill the space. But you must take notice of the first vehicle you pass on their left and you must wait until the driver has re-passed you again before you move out into the overtaking lanes - otherwise you are overtaking on the left and that is an offence. In other words, you must not make any progress by passing on the left".

What offence would that be?

This bloke is usually quite good so why he is saying something is an offence when it is not deffo dimishes his credibility

I agree this particular section of the book is not its best, but probably doesn't deserve some of the comments above. Overtaking on the left per se is not an offence although of course it could lead to being charged with the offence of careless driving. Apart from the statement that it is an offence in itself (which is clearly wrong) the rest of the advice really just sums up what the HC advises in a slightly more pedantic way.

[simoid]

I can't help thinking that he's been watching too much F1 with the ideas of 'gaining an advantage from overtaking on the inside'.

I can't see any problem with safely staying in L1, then move to L2 if there is a slower vehicle in L1 and return to left after overtaking.



P.S. I can't see how saying "I passed them, then let them pass me back" is a defence against the "offence" of "overtaking on the inside" Shirley you go against the HC advice as soon as you begin to pass them on the inside.

Edited by simoid on Friday 1st June 12:26

[Red Devil]

Early on Sunday morning last weekend I drove the entire 4 lane section of the A1(M) north of Alconbury in Lane 1 at 70mph. The nearest car ahead of me in Lane 1 was the best part of a mile away and Lane 2 was completely devoid of traffic. Over the whole stretch I passed a total of 7 MLMs in Lane 3 and 1 zombie in Lane 4 (!) all bimbling along in their own little universes.

The idea that I should move out to Lane 4 and then back to Lane 1 to get past the MLMs is simply daft. The one in Lane 4 would have been interesting. I think he was on Planet Zog with the car on cruise control.

Yes, I did 'gain advantage'. So what? I reached my exit (J17) without any need to alter course or interact with the drone pilots. How that could sensibly be described as careless escapes me.

[MC Bodge]

Next you'll be telling us that you didn't check your coolant level before and during the outward and return journeys.


I bet you didn't double-de-clutch every shift either

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 1st June 16:52

[cosicave]

I sympathise with all of the above views, although I disagree with MC Bodge's assertion that this is an unworthy thread.

Jimmythehat's opening post raises a reasonable and very difficult question about the rigid application of certain protocols, which many people may prefer not to discuss; and here I would consider the inclusion of the author(s) of publication(s) who may feel the need to make reference to such quagmires. The reasons many shy away from this particular topic are:

• raising the spectre of such topics is likely to increase rather than decrease the tendency for a polarization of public opinion, risking an increase of the problem we are discussing here;
• that it is difficult to present a view on such emotive topics without appearing to fall into one camp or the other; thereby inviting criticism and/or justifications from the other, with risk to credibility;
• that any such author or authoritative view must take account of and not be seen to be out of step with his/her/its own peer group – once again with implications for credibility – which in this case is guidance aimed at being in the interests of society, whether or not it succeeds.

My question is simple and without prejudice for or against the guidance offered by Lyon or others, and it is this: is there a reasonable and workable alternative?

In attempting to answer such a question, we must – above all else – recognise that people are different and that the rules of the road must apply to every one of us, including those who may wish to, prefer to, or actually do drive differently; and must also appreciate that ultimately there needs to be some authoritative perspective in order that people know where standards stand!

I'll repeat my question:
is there a reasonable and workable alternative to the current, commonly accepted, authoritative standpoint?

One more point – which may at first appear trivial but reinforces how I began – is that any authoritative publication aimed at improving safety must avoid labyrinthine debate: for clarity, yes; but not least to limit its own volume! Here I hope it will be seen that Lyon cannot deliberately encourage such contention within his perceived readership. On the other hand, a forum is an ideal place to thrash it out by anyone sufficiently courageous – despite the almost inevitable, inconclusive result. (sic)

- - -o0o- - -

Edited: I got a name wrong.

Edited by cosicave on Friday 1st June 22:47

[BertBert]

I'm not sure life is long enough.
Bb

[0a]

"Do not overtake on the left" isn't something I subscribe to any more given the quality of driving on UK roads - i have been "undertaking" for 5 years now, never a problem. The sooner we can legally do so, the better.

[Nigel Worc's]

I pass on the left a lot more now than I used to.

Even more so on roads with four or more lanes, where I've got to cross three or more lanes just to "find" the muppets, so I can move out and pass them on the right.

I've never knowingly done it with a copper behind me ...... wonder who he'd go for, me or the slower vehicle not keeping left ?

[cosicave]

Nigel Worc's said:

…I've never knowingly done it with a copper behind me ...... wonder who he'd go for, me or the slower vehicle not keeping left ?

A very, very good and most relevant question.

This is why legislation (and authorship which supports it) is wise to allow for such discretion, by avoiding absolute legal perspectives – yet at the same time trying to avoid publicising such a lack of absolute definition, since to do so tends to open a can of worms…

It is unfortunate that Lyon appears* to have attempted to pin down the justification for the authoritative view in what might be considered 'competitive' terminology ("making progress" in this case implying gaining advantage 'over' another road user), for this may appear at odds with his own defence of established protocols aimed at reducing the likelihood of disgruntlement (or worse) in the first place**!

Yet how else could he touch on the subject? Despite my apparent criticism, based on what has been quoted in this thread, he appears to have chosen his words carefully. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is a very emotive topic and one which tends to be very difficult to fully defend from either perspective. It is the reason people tend to prefer to side-step the issue, rather than to risk being caught out in debating it.

- - -o0o- - -

N.B.
1: *I should add that I have not read his book. Rather, I have drawn the impression from this debate.
2: ** In reality, the biggest threat to public safety is not the possibility of someone who is being 'undertaken' moving left without warning; rather, it is the possible outcome of irrational behaviour as a consequence of feeling out-manoeuvred or somehow 'outdone'. And it is this which every driver should be most concerned with asking oneself: "how may someone react to what I'm doing if they do not think like me?" [This applies every bit as much to the 'lane-hog' –who is wasting available road space (often consciously and selfishly)– as it does the 'undertaker'!]

Edited syntax

[MC Bodge]

BertBert said:

I'm not sure life is long enough.
Bb

Exactly.

Just use a bit of common sense.

Whilst driving, or doing anything else, use a bit of thought, judgement and discretion, including what the effect of your actions will be on other people.

A 'plan' and 'Rules' may provide guidance, but they do not apply to every possible situation. A good driver(or exponent of whatever activity) will respond quickly and effectively and unobtrusively to almost all encountered situations and maintain the flow and rhythm of what they are doing -They won't be flicking through their book of rules.

I believe that having a mind that questions what you read/are told is a good thing. I believe that blindly following rules is not.

Cosicave, are you trying to write some sort of philosophical thesis? You're not convincing me of the need for a debate on this particular subject.

Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 2nd June 14:24

[waremark]

R0G said:

John Lyon said:

.....This bloke is usually quite good so why he is saying something is an offence when it is not deffo dimishes his credibility

If it tells you that you should not take what any one individual says at any one time as an absolute truth but should think about and consider it on its merits then it has done you a service.

In many ways John is very good, but he is neither infallible nor always consistent.