But if it's quiet enough to do this manoeuvre, then surely there's no need to be lane 3?

Maybe it is, HGVs in lane 1, people going round them in Lane 2?... use your imagination and meet me somewhere in between here!!

Imagine a moderately busy mtorway. does that help?!?

It's possible to see it happening if you're in lane 2, and making a straight exit between trucks?

Howzat?

It's possible to see it happening if you're in lane 2, and making a straight exit between trucks?

Howzat?

I give in! It is possible, and it works, and it causes no hassle to anyone else if done correctly. Take yourself on the motorway and have a look, it's easier to see rather than explain.

I suppose it's a lot easier to do lane 3 to slip road with blue lights

I suppose it's a lot easier to do lane 3 to slip road with blue lights

Are you assuming something sir?!?!?!?!

Actually, it's harder as people react to you and the picture you see changes a lot very quickly!!!!!

Generally, less people on the motorways would make it better for us

Generally, less people on the motorways would make it better for us

Fully agree!! I'm glad we've got there eventually!!

Maybe it is, HGVs in lane 1, people going round them in Lane 2?... use your imagination and meet me somewhere in between here!!

Imagine a moderately busy mtorway. does that help?!?

Define "moderately busy"; it just takes 16 evenly spaced vehicles in that mile for you to need to take half of 2 peoples' (yours and someone else's) stopping distance. 16 vehicles per mile per lane at 60mph represents 2880 vehicles per hour past a given point, some 69120 per day if the traffic density doesn't change at different times of day.

Any one advocating a continuous lane 3 to lane 1 manoeuver is asking for trouble and is a potential danger to other road users especially if it is used to take an exit off the motorway.. If the motorway is that clear anyway a proficient & safe driver would never be in lane 3 in the first place. Any lane changing manoeuver has its dangers and therefore to reduce the probability however small of an accident ocurring it is best to split each lane change as a separate manouever. Other drivers are not expecting 3-2-1 lane maneouvers and it is sometimes difficult to predict their reactions to a single lane change never mind three ! It only takes a second or so of an unpredicted and unexpected maneouver and other road users reactions to it that cause multple-pile ups.

Bring on the spy drones in the sky to take these dangers to the public off the road.

Just imagine if everybody started doing 3-2-1 manoeuves ! ?

Edited 6 May, 201016 yr by vwcabriolet1971

I have quite frequently done lane 3 to lane 1 as per the above, me overtaking car, overtaking truck. If there is no cars it is quite safe and a smooth manouver, on the otherhand if there is a car in lane 1 it would be bad, twisted metal, broken glass etc.

Like I mentioned previously, and at least one of you has grasped, this is a technique to be used WHEN THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT. I shall refrain from posting anything in the future that takes some lateral thinking or common sense to understand. If it was as dangerous as you mention, why has it been on various professional advanced driving courses for the past 30 odd years? Obviously they are all wrong.

If you've ever been on a motorbike minding your own business in lane 1 and some one overtakes the car alongside you in lane 2 and then the overtaker zooms over to lane 1 right in front of you because they hav'nt seen you , you will begin to understand the dangers of such manoeuvers . Almost all drivers I've seen doing these kind of manoeuvers have been travelling at speeds much greater than the speed limit. What if the motorbike rider had slowed down momentary to adjust his clothing , clean his visor, etc, and then started to accelerate as you passed the car in the 2nd lane ? Think about it !

Like I mentioned previously, and at least one of you has grasped, this is a technique to be used WHEN THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT. I shall refrain from posting anything in the future that takes some lateral thinking or common sense to understand. If it was as dangerous as you mention, why has it been on various professional advanced driving courses for the past 30 odd years? Obviously they are all wrong.

EIther you haven't grasped the concept of "keeping a safe distance", or you aren't aware that many of us have issues with some aspects of all "advanced driving systems", whether they are "Professional" (by which I presume you mean nothing more than that the instructors charge fees for their time). No-one is saying that you have to use lane 1 from a specific distance before your exit. What we are saying is that unless the road is fairly quiet you will at best look like a self-important **** and at worst cause a collision in order to save yourself maybe 10 seconds.

EIther you haven't grasped the concept of "keeping a safe distance", or you aren't aware that many of us have issues with some aspects of all "advanced driving systems", whether they are "Professional" (by which I presume you mean nothing more than that the instructors charge fees for their time).

Oh dear. The word presume.

I shall post my driving qualifications and then depart your narrow-minded site forever; which is a shame as on every matter except driving judgement and skill seems to be an excellent site.

Class 1 Police Advanced Driving (PS, I am not Police)

Tactical Pursuit and Containment (TPAC)

Class 1 Advance off road and 4x4 driving

HOYSTDS devices (stinger etc for those who don't know)

VIP protection and escape driving.

That was what I meant by professional driving instruction, not some chap who charges a few quid to teach you a tip or two he learned in a book.

To drive at a higher level, safely, you have to consider applying many, many techiniques to each manoeuver, this all started due to me suggesting one of those said tools. Treating all hazards with the same technique no matter what is what causes accidents, which I hope none of us here ever experience. I apologise for causing a row, but I clearly am not the kind of driver that fits in here.

All the best to you all.

Some interesting points. I think a big problem with internet forum discussions is that they can very easily lack the context that you can get from actually being in a car in a particular situation. As mentioned above, the key is a high level of forward observation and planning so that you can make maximum progress without compromising safety or inconveniencing/upsetting those around you and there are certainly situations where you can move from lane 3 to lane 1 for a slip road while maintaining this.

Of course, some people just like arguing

Chris

If you've ever been on a motorbike minding your own business in lane 1 and some one overtakes the car alongside you in lane 2 and then the overtaker zooms over to lane 1 right in front of you because they hav'nt seen you , you will begin to understand the dangers of such manoeuvers . Almost all drivers I've seen doing these kind of manoeuvers have been travelling at speeds much greater than the speed limit. What if the motorbike rider had slowed down momentary to adjust his clothing , clean his visor, etc, and then started to accelerate as you passed the car in the 2nd lane ? Think about it !

Maybe I have misunderstood, but isn't the motorbike rider then undertaking the car who has just overtaken him in lane 2?

In answer to the overall question, I'd suggest that if there was a bike in lane 1, this technique wouldn't be used because the bike is very capable of changing speed quickly and thus it's a big risk to assume he's going to remain steady. Whereas, for something like a truck/HGV in lane 1 (as was mentioned in the original post) it's much easier to manage risk as you have a performance advantage over them.

Chris

Maybe I have misunderstood, but isn't the motorbike rider then undertaking the car who has just overtaken him in lane 2?

In answer to the overall question, I'd suggest that if there was a bike in lane 1, this technique wouldn't be used because the bike is very capable of changing speed quickly and thus it's a big risk to assume he's going to remain steady. Whereas, for something like a truck/HGV in lane 1 (as was mentioned in the original post) it's much easier to manage risk as you have a performance advantage over them.

Chris

So because the motorbike rider is undertaking he deserves to die ?

Edited 8 May, 201016 yr by vwcabriolet1971

So because the motorbike rider is undertaking he deserves to die ?

No, it just makes it more likely to happen. Even if we ignore the person doing 3-2-1-slip in the scenario, there's every chance the car in lane 2 won't judge the motorcyclists behaviour correctly and could quite possibly pull back into lane 1, assuming they've completed their overtake - just as the motorcyclists makes the decision to speed up.

Your example does a good job of highlighting the risks of undertaking/travelling alongside other vehicles while approaching a slip road.

So because the motorbike rider is undertaking he deserves to die ?

Nobody deserves to die, but he's putting himself in unnecessary danger by not following the rules of the road like everyone else. Easily averted by using lanes 2 and 3 to get back up to speed.....

Chris

I dont have any professional driving cert's or techniques but I feel driving on the motorway at 'normal' speeds does not require these type of skills (no offence to people to use it for backing up their experience in driving)

My 2p is I drive whatever speed I feel comfortable with, that is generally overtaking the majority of people at a steady pace i.e. If someone is on lane 2 going at 60mph I would overtake at 70mph max.. I would not blat down at 100+ mph past someone because common sense says its not safe.

I tend not to like following people as many don't cruise at the speed I am at generally (alot of the time they change their cruising speed), even if they consistent I tend to speed up (to overtake) or slow down because I don't trust drivers in front to help me see what dangers are ahead. Cynical I know

If the people stop using the middle pedal to slow down it would help alot with stress..

If people do the simple mirror signal manoeuvre it would also make life alot less painful..

If people spend few more brain cells to think 'what if' and considering other drivers around them it would make life such a happier place..

Only 3 things they need to do to make everyone's lives better.. its a shame that many think its too hard to achieve..

My 2p is I drive whatever speed I feel comfortable with, that is generally overtaking the majority of people at a steady pace i.e. If someone is on lane 2 going at 60mph I would overtake at 70mph max.. I would not blat down at 100+ mph past someone because common sense says its not safe.

That's an interesting comment - what do you think makes it unsafe?

I tend not to like following people as many don't cruise at the speed I am at generally (alot of the time they change their cruising speed), even if they consistent I tend to speed up (to overtake) or slow down because I don't trust drivers in front to help me see what dangers are ahead. Cynical I know

Quite agree with this - never trust anything you haven't seen with your own eyes (including the tarmac you will be using) and positioning yourself in such a way to maximise the view ahead is always advantageous. Can't remember if I've mentioned it before, but on a multi-carriageway road, you want to be maintaining a bubble of safety around yourself and so when the bubble is compromised, eg overtaking something, you want to minimise the time you spend there, especially if it's a LHD lorry!

If the people stop using the middle pedal to slow down it would help alot with stress..

If people do the simple mirror signal manoeuvre it would also make life alot less painful..

If people spend few more brain cells to think 'what if' and considering other drivers around them it would make life such a happier place..

Only 3 things they need to do to make everyone's lives better.. its a shame that many think its too hard to achieve..

I think you've summarised the core of "advanced" driving in that. Basically, the majority of road driving is 80% mental effort and 20% driving skill and looking and planning ahead can make driving less stressful and make the roads a happier and more enjoyable place to be, imhe

Chris

That's an interesting comment - what do you think makes it unsafe?

Quite agree with this - never trust anything you haven't seen with your own eyes (including the tarmac you will be using) and positioning yourself in such a way to maximise the view ahead is always advantageous. Can't remember if I've mentioned it before, but on a multi-carriageway road, you want to be maintaining a bubble of safety around yourself and so when the bubble is compromised, eg overtaking something, you want to minimise the time you spend there, especially if it's a LHD lorry!

I think you've summarised the core of "advanced" driving in that. Basically, the majority of road driving is 80% mental effort and 20% driving skill and looking and planning ahead can make driving less stressful and make the roads a happier and more enjoyable place to be, imhe

Chris

Unsafe in 2 ways,1. that there is a reason the person in lane 2 is in lane to, either to overtake or simply oblivious to traffic behind (hence one needs to go lane 3 to overtake) therefore, if IMHO one blats past them you will either give them a shock physically (rocking of the car due to change in pressure and/or wind resistance) and mentally (as they are generally not looking how fast you overtake them).

2 is again not trusting any other drivers on the road as they may do something random and irrational (not uncommon imo). 2 different scenarios:

I've had was guy in lane 2 decides to speed up and 'not let me overtake because he has a big willy or something'. If my cruising speed is obviously faster than your regardless what's going to happen I will eventually overtake you again.....

2nd scenario is I've had people cut into the lane 3 because I believe they ought to teach me a lesson by slowing down and not driving fast.. IF they anticipated my speed WRONG and cut into me (literally) it would simply end up being a pile up.

Anyway, point would being is that if I pass them at higher difference in speed it will give me and them alot less time to react to that and end up me causing a pile up.

I tend to move to lane 3 (when it is safe to do so) for lorries and the likes simply because I dont like the thought of getting stuck underneath one of them things. Lorry drivers are generally more sane..

Thats my take anyway, its a shame that using the brain to plan routes and active looking is considered 'advance' driving.. I really did think that should be as standard really lol.

I dabbled with some IAM but I decided to stop as I didnt like the one phrase the instructor guy said to me "why did you signal? if your 100% sure there's no cars around you, you do not need to signal", I couldnt really answer that one then, but I think now I can simply say.. "well Im human, no-matter how elite I get it will never be 100% (and imo no-one can). I can be 99.9% but JUST INCASE that 0.01%, why not simply lift that stork 1 inch upwards?"

Unsafe in 2 ways,1. that there is a reason the person in lane 2 is in lane to, either to overtake or simply oblivious to traffic behind (hence one needs to go lane 3 to overtake) therefore, if IMHO one blats past them you will either give them a shock physically (rocking of the car due to change in pressure and/or wind resistance) and mentally (as they are generally not looking how fast you overtake them).

2 is again not trusting any other drivers on the road as they may do something random and irrational (not uncommon imo). 2 different scenarios:

I've had was guy in lane 2 decides to speed up and 'not let me overtake because he has a big willy or something'. If my cruising speed is obviously faster than your regardless what's going to happen I will eventually overtake you again.....

2nd scenario is I've had people cut into the lane 3 because I believe they ought to teach me a lesson by slowing down and not driving fast.. IF they anticipated my speed WRONG and cut into me (literally) it would simply end up being a pile up.

Anyway, point would being is that if I pass them at higher difference in speed it will give me and them alot less time to react to that and end up me causing a pile up.

So if these can be overcome it's not inherently unsafe? Some thoughts...

1. Do you think people in lane 2 are surprised by people overtaking in lane 3? I would think they'd be more alarmed if they were being help up in lane 2 and were looking to use lane 3 and someone "suddenly" appeared. One of the keys to minimising the surprise element might be to move into lane 3 earlier so that you don't get lost between their mirrors as you close on them. This will also give you a better view ahead of the situation ahead of them to see whether they're likely to move out before you commit to the overtake.

2. Completely agree about drivers being unpredictable. However, does driving past them slowly make the situation any safer once you're past the point of committing? Surely once you've committed, you want to be past as quick as possible? So the key is making sure you have their reaction *before* you get to the point of committing. Again, if you get into lane 3 earlier (without changing speed) you have more time to generate a reaction before you commit to the overtake. If the guy in lane 2 puts his foot down, you can just return to lane 2 without changing your speed. If the guy in lane 2 decides he's going to "teach you a lesson" you have plenty of space and time to slow down. Of course, if he's hell bent on driving into you, there'll likely be a pile up whether you're going slightly quicker or a lot qiucker. If it's any consolation, a trafpol told me a story about always expecting the unexpected. He was pursuing a stolen car in an unmarked traffic car along a dual carriageway at a reasonable pace (around 130mph) in fairly light traffic when a car driving steadily in lane 1 decided to "teach him a lesson" and pulled out in front of him at 60-70mph. The trafpol managed to slow down in time and avoid an accident and the driver from lane 1 was subsequently arrested and prosecuted for dangerous driving (thanks to the video evidence recorded inthe police car). The stolen car was also picked up by another patrol further down the road

Thats my take anyway, its a shame that using the brain to plan routes and active looking is considered 'advance' driving.. I really did think that should be as standard really lol.

Completely agree

I dabbled with some IAM but I decided to stop as I didnt like the one phrase the instructor guy said to me "why did you signal? if your 100% sure there's no cars around you, you do not need to signal", I couldnt really answer that one then, but I think now I can simply say.. "well Im human, no-matter how elite I get it will never be 100% (and imo no-one can). I can be 99.9% but JUST INCASE that 0.01%, why not simply lift that stork 1 inch upwards?"

Ah the great signalling debate It's a shame that you dropped it because of that as I think it's a very minor part of the course and I've spoken to examiners who expect you to always signal and those who expect you to signal "if it is of benefit to someone you can see or you can reasonably expect someone to appear who will benefit from it". That sums it up for me Perhaps a better question to ask is "is there a good reason for me NOT to signal?" and scenarios where this might apply is where it could confuse or mislead other road users and this is far more important imho. Perhaps another case of asking for a more open-minded observer

Chris

Nobody deserves to die, but he's putting himself in unnecessary danger by not following the rules of the road like everyone else. Easily averted by using lanes 2 and 3 to get back up to speed.....

Chris

I agree that the hypothetical motorbike rider is at fault but I posed this question as an example to illustrate the danger of the 3-2-1 manouver.( I don't ride a bike incidently). If the overtaking 3-2-1 driver had only completed a 3-2 overtake then he would have seen the motorbike before he had started the 2-1 move.With the level of traffic today each driver must drive defensively not only for his life but for other peoples lives as well .You have to assume some people will do wrong things because theyr'e not concentrating or aware of their surroundings .

Nobody deserves to die, but he's putting himself in unnecessary danger by not following the rules of the road like everyone else. Easily averted by using lanes 2 and 3 to get back up to speed.....

Chris

I agree that the hypothetical motorbike rider is at fault but I posed this question as an example to illustrate the danger of the 3-2-1 manouver.( I don't ride a bike incidently). If the overtaking 3-2-1 driver had only completed a 3-2 overtake then he would have seen the motorbike before he had started the 2-1 move.With the level of traffic today each driver must drive defensively not only for his life but for other peoples lives as well .You have to assume some people will do wrong things because theyr'e not concentrating or aware of their surroundings ( or they are idiots, but even idiots don't deserve to die) .

Edited 9 May, 201016 yr by vwcabriolet1971