[creepy coupe]

Picture the scene. Three lane motorway.

Driver in lane one signals to overtake move to lane two. Driver in lane three signals to move to lane two at the same time.

The driver in lane three is four car lengths further back to the car moving from lane one.

Discuss.

[robbiep]

Depends on locations and closing speeds, as much as anything. The driver in lane 3 will almost certainly be doing a higher speed. Four car lengths is what, 60 feet ? At a speed difference of 10mph, that takes about 4 seconds to be dead level. If 20mph difference in speeds, they'd be level within 2 seconds.

In general, I'd say that the driver in lane 3 should be more able to take avoiding action - the scene is unfolding in front of them, rather than behind them.

[stu14t]

This is what the highway code says and I've highlighted what I think is important.

"If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."

But it could be an interesting conversation with an insurance company if anything happens.

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by stu14t

This is what the highway code says and I've highlighted what I think is important.

"If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."

But it could be an interesting conversation with an insurance company if anything happens.

Stu. What you have highlighted is the common sense approach and one most of us hopefully adopt. I suppose the simultaneous actions/intentions by both drivers, play a part.

[stu14t]

Originally Posted by creepy coupe

Stu. What you have highlighted is the common sense approach and one most of us hopefully adopt. I suppose the simultaneous actions/intentions by both drivers, play a part.

Agreed, I think it's one of those situations that individual circumstances play an important part. The statement above is idealistic and in most cases fits the bill 90% of the time. However, there will always be grey areas when two drivers are merging into the middle lane, from the either left or the right, at the same time.

[r1cey]

I would say driver in lane three, should not move, and remain in lane three, until clear to move into lane two.
Driver in lane one should look over his right shoulder BEFORE actually moving (something I ALWAYS do on the motorway, a dual carraigeway, or overtaking (you never know what's going on in your blind spot)), so that if both drivers were about to change lane at the exact same time, then he/she could also hold off (and if they are fast approaching slow traffic and needed to move, then poor forward planning in my view).

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by r1cey

I would say driver in lane three, should not move, and remain in lane three, until clear to move into lane two.
Driver in lane one should look over his right shoulder BEFORE actually moving (something I ALWAYS do on the motorway, a dual carraigeway, or overtaking (you never know what's going on in your blind spot)), so that if both drivers were about to change lane at the exact same time, then he/she could also hold off (and if they are fast approaching slow traffic and needed to move, then poor forward planning in my view).

Definite Scottish contingent here

I agree that looking over the shoulder is a good idea and something I always do as a ex motorcyclist. I've noticed not many car drivers do though. The problem is that you're probably not going to see a car that's four lengths back.Nigh on opposite more likely.

I wonder if there's any more onus on the driver with a forward facing view?

[JNW1]

I always think the main responsibility for avoiding a collision lies with the person doing the overtaking so in your example I'd say the person in lane 3 needs to hold station and allow the person in lane 1 to move to lane 2.

That doesn't mean I think people have a right to pull out without looking in their mirrors but whenever I'm overtaking I tend to pay attention to the body language of the vehicles I'm passing. You develop a sixth sense for that idiot who isn't really paying attention but if they pull out and there's a coming together there'll be plenty who'll jump to the defence of the incompetent dullard whilst pointing the finger of blame at that "aggressive" driver in the BMW....

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by JNW1

whenever I'm overtaking I tend to pay attention to the body language of the vehicles I'm passing. You develop a sixth sense for that idiot who isn't really paying attention ....

I agree with you on this one.

[Lorcan]

I think it's important to indicate well before your manoeuvre. Too many drivers flip their indicator on at the same time as moving, or not at all. In these circumstances to prevent the driver in lane one having to slow I think the driver in lane three should stay put and let the driver in lane one overtake. The driver in lane three is not inconvenienced by this and can move over later.

[dopper99]

With regards not indicating…..

I’m driving in lane 3 passing cars in lane 2. As soon as you pass some cars in lane 2 (who are clearing itching to get into lane 3) they immediately pull in lane 3 right behind you without indicating. The amount of people I've seen do this is unreal. WTF is the matter with people?

Fair enough they might have a wait a few seconds while you pass them - but why not indicate?

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I always think the main responsibility for avoiding a collision lies with the person doing the overtaking so in your example I'd say the person in lane 3 needs to hold station and allow the person in lane 1 to move to lane 2.

So what is the driver in lane 3 doing if he's not overtaking?

Originally Posted by Lorcan

I think it's important to indicate well before your manoeuvre. Too many drivers flip their indicator on at the same time as moving, or not at all. In these circumstances to prevent the driver in lane one having to slow I think the driver in lane three should stay put and let the driver in lane one overtake. The driver in lane three is not inconvenienced by this and can move over later.

Agreed.

It's also about predicting things. The driver in lane 3, being further back, should be able to predict that the driver in lane 1 may be in range of a vehicle, about to overtake, and therefore hold his position in lane 3.

However, you could assume that the driver in lane 3 is there because he has just, or is, overtaking someone in lane 2. So why would the person in lane 1 move in front of this vehicle to lane 2?

If it came to an insurance claim, I'd say it would go 50/50.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

So what is the driver in lane 3 doing if he's not overtaking?

That's exactly what the driver in lane 3 is doing (or presumably was doing prior to indicating to move back to lane 2). I never suggested otherwise so what's your point?!

[werewolf81]

This kind of situation happened to me a few times and every time when I see that there's another car changing to the same lane where I want to go, I basically let him do that and stay back in my lane.

It doesn't matter if I'm in the lane three or one. It's not a race or showing off who's the boss. Safety always first.

I don't think there's just one law that can be applied here. It's more about common sense which unfortunately many people are lack of.

Another thing is to ALWAYS indicate lane changing.

[Canary_Yellow]

Lorcan's point about indicating is a really good one.

The longer the car in lane 1 in particular indicates the better chance of a collision course being avoided (assuming the car in lane 3 isn't being driven by an aggressive numpty).

The car in lane 3 should also indicate for as long as practically possible, but it is less likely to be seen by the car in lane 1 than the other way round

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by Lorcan

I think it's important to indicate well before your manoeuvre. Too many drivers flip their indicator on at the same time as moving, or not at all. In these circumstances to prevent the driver in lane one having to slow I think the driver in lane three should stay put and let the driver in lane one overtake. The driver in lane three is not inconvenienced by this and can move over later.

Lorry drivers being the worse.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by werewolf81

This kind of situation happened to me a few times and every time when I see that there's another car changing to the same lane where I want to go, I basically let him do that and stay back in my lane.

It doesn't matter if I'm in the lane three or one. It's not a race or showing off who's the boss. Safety always first.

I don't think there's just one law that can be applied here. It's more about common sense which unfortunately many people are lack of.

Another thing is to ALWAYS indicate lane changing.

Similar thinking, any doubt wait, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation. Too many press on regardless, many near misses are preventable by simply waiting for a situation to be clearer to interpret.

[Ross_T_Boss]

I get many of those 'indicate-and-move' folks when making progress. Most then swerve back into lane as they do then look after they starting moving... I'm always on guard to hit the anchors if needed.

Good observation of the other drivers is key to avoiding using the brake pedal... in the scenario laid out I'd say the driver in lane 3 should be paying attention as the faster car passing, and takes more responsibility, but would expect 50/50 in a claim.

From 3rd lane: make a well signalled move across if there's consistent traffic in L1. It's obvious they are going to want to move out fairly imminently then I'd wait out a bit longer to avoid moving into someones blind spot. Generally there's nobody on my rear bumper so I don't really have to factor that in

From 1st lane: he should have observed this, never move out when side-by-side to avoid the scenario, signal well in advance if someone is closing in from L3 as it's likely they will intend on moving across. I would think it's fair to move out if they haven't indicated or look to move to L2 after 2-3s.

[MrChumley]

I never move from lane 3 to 2 if I think it's likely that someone in lane 1 will do the same, whether they're signalling or not. I generally drive at around 75mph so the twat in the Audi behind me will just have to wait

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by JNW1

That's exactly what the driver in lane 3 is doing (or presumably was doing prior to indicating to move back to lane 2). I never suggested otherwise so what's your point?!

Your post read as if the vehicle in lane one was overtaking (and therefore to blame) because you said it was moving from lane one to two. The implication was that the vehicle in lane three was doing the numpty thing of just sitting ion the outside hogging in lane 3. No mention of it overtaking any vehicle in lane 2.

[jdrally]

My biggest grip is people who join A roads and think the slip road has right of way, even if their only doing 40 mph and joining a road where people can do 70. Or the drivers who come from the slip road and cut straight across to the outside lane.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

Your post read as if the vehicle in lane one was overtaking (and therefore to blame) because you said it was moving from lane one to two. The implication was that the vehicle in lane three was doing the numpty thing of just sitting ion the outside hogging in lane 3. No mention of it overtaking any vehicle in lane 2.

I think that's a strange (and incorrect) interpretation of my original post!

What I said was that IMO the primary responsibility for avoiding a collision rests with the overtaker and therefore in the scenario painted by the OP the vehicle in lane 3 should hold station; the implication of that is surely that the vehicle in lane 3 was overtaking and hence needs to exercise caution (and that's certainly what I meant!).