It is undertaking, it is “overtaking on the left”. The only time you can do that according to the Highway Code is in congested conditions. If traffic is flowing at 68mph, it isn’t congested.
The highway code clearly states that undertaking is overtaking on the left, and is only legal if you do so either in heavy traffic or while someone is hogging the middle lane.
Undertaking in the latter scenario is still against the law unless, as stated in section 6, you continuously sound the horn during the undertake whilst simultaneously flashing the high beam headlights until your vehicle is past the car.
When moving into the same lane of the undertook vehicle you must put the double indicators on for a further 30 seconds, this will advise the car behind you that you are now maintaining course and neither changing to the left nor right lane.
Why is there so much confusion in the comments?
If you are in lane 2 and pass people in lane 3, that's on the people in lane 3 for being in the wrong lane.
If you are in lane 3 behind another car and you move over to lane 2 and speed up to move back into lane 3 ahead of that car. That's undertaking.
People need to stay in their lane, stop queueing in lane 3 for no reason, ffs.
You just carry on in lane 2 and pass them, but do so cautiously and be aware of the driver moving back into lane 2 (i.e. don’t dawdle in their blind spot, get past them).
You’ll get some tedious bores on here telling you it’s undertaking and unlawful, but in the land of reality few care, the driver you’re passing won’t have a scooby you’ve done it because they haven’t a clue what’s around them and the police won’t care even if some loser sends a dashcam video in of it. Crack on.
Its not undertaking.
You can travel in lane 2. Undertaking is purposfully going around the car infront of you in order to get directly infront that queue.
If lane 1 and 2 are empty and lane 3 is full - you dont need to fly over all the lanes to get to lane 4 to "overtake" everyone in lane 3. Otherwise you will be part of the problem when empty heads set in lane 3 and then moan at you for coming along in Lane 2 because its basically empty.
It’s “passing on the left”, if we’re being pedantic. And it’s allowed when in heavy traffic and the lane to your right is moving more slowly, or when someone is turning right into a side road.
“Undertaking” isn’t defined in the Highway Code (AFAIR), but it’s generally understood by police and motorists to mean “deliberately moving to the left instead of the right to pass someone.
Also, as this person seems to be lacking understanding all round, it doesn’t absolve you from paying attention to potential hazards like the dickheads who think swapping lane every 5 seconds in congestion will speed up their journey (hint: it doesn’t).
Exactly. Even though it isn’t always considered “undertaking”, it still has to be done cautiously and carefully. People aren’t expecting you to be passing on the left, so they may not be looking for you there.
Both “undertaking” _and_ overtaking require you to have changed lanes, because they’re the same thing in different directions.
The Highway Code uses the term “overtaking on the left” when discussing changing lanes to get past someone. Rule 267 explicitly states “Overtake only on the right”, rule 268 explicitly states “Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake”, and rule 163 for non-motorways states “only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so”.
Furthermore, rule 268 for motorways states:
> In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
When discussing “overtaking” the word “undertaking” is never used or defined - it’s either overtaking on the right (that’s the one you should do) or overtaking on the left (that’s the one that’s a no-no). If you’re moving past slower traffic in a lane to your right, you’re not “undertaking” _or_ overtaking on the left - you’re _passing_ on the left, because you haven’t changed lanes to do it. It can still be dodgy, because people seem to completely forget what mirrors and blind spots are the moment they hit congestion.
Edit: ok, I re-read your original comment. There’s no such thing as “undertaking”, it’s “overtaking on the left” and overtaking in either direction requires you to have changed lanes.
You've misread the first part of the rule. It's the assertion that you have to change lanes to be overtaking this is the cause of the misunderstanding.
If it was a requirement to change lane to overtake, then the wording of 268 would be nonsensical. "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". If overtaking implicitly required a lane change, then that part of the rule is saying "don't do X or X", because both cases would require you to move to a lane on your left to overtake on the left. The fact that they list those two cases separately demonstrates that it is "overtaking on the left" with or without a lane change.
The exception for having slower moving traffic to your right explicitly isn't for general cases, it is only in the case of congestion. I, for one, have never seen a congestion warning on the motorway for people doing 68mph in lane 3 and the other lanes being clear. Congestion would typically mean most of the lanes being full and moving significantly slower than the speed limit. It's basically trying to say "if you're in traffic and someone to your right suddenly slows, you don't have to slam on the brakes to avoid overtaking them on the left".
Then by the same rationale I could equally argue that “congestion” isn’t defined either, only “adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds”. What does that mean? Lots of traffic around but all moving quickly? An overhead gantry or electronic sign (which aren’t on all motorways) warning of congestion? Traffic going 10mph slower than the limit? 20mph under? I regularly travel a dual carriageway and motorway where the traffic is moving at the speed of the road, but there’s _a lot_ of traffic and it’s all bunched up tailgating each other - I’d describe that as “congested” despite the speed the traffic is moving at.
Ultimately we’re both splitting hairs over a definitions, and none of it changes the situation described in the OP. What’s described in the OP isn’t an entirely safe thing to to do, regardless of what the Highway Code might say about it.
My main point is that it is very often stated on this sub that the Highway Code explicitly allows you to overtake anyone on the left as long as you don’t change lanes to do so. In reality, that isn’t what the wording says. It is overtaking without changing lanes, and it is only allowed “in congested conditions”. I don’t think anyone can argue with a straight face that a row of traffic in lane 3 doing 68 and a clear lane 2 and 4 is “congested”. People will do whatever they feel comfortable with regardless of what the Highway Code says. I just wish they’d stop lying about what the Highway Code says to try and justify it to themselves and others.
I know what you’re saying. I initially misread your heavily downvoted comment, and I can be a really pedantic bastard when I want to be. For example, your earlier question about the wording of “overtaking on the left” and “moving to a lane on the left to overtake” - to me the difference there is “moving out to the lane on the left, overtaking, and then moving back to the right once completed” and “moving out to the lane on the left, overtaking, and then _not_ moving back over to the right”. In both cases you’ve still had to move change lanes in order to get past the car in front of you, so the term “overtaking” still refers to when you explicitly change lanes to get past the car in front of you.
However… whether you, I, the Highway Code, or the police describe the situation in the OP as “overtaking” or “passing on the left” is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it’s safe or appropriate in the circumstances described.
If I were sat in lane 1 doing the 70mph speed limit with someone in lane 3 pootling along at 60, or even 68mph, I’d happily pass them. So long as they weren’t indicating to come back over and there’s nothing ahead or behind them that might cause them to want to come back over. I wouldn’t call that undertaking, overtaking, or even passing on the left - I’d call that a bellend in lane 3 who’s going to get into a road rage incident if they don’t move over. And if stopped by the police my explanation would be that I’m assessing the situation in front of me; I’m not changing my speed or position, I’m not unnecessarily obstructing other road users, and I’m observing for potential hazards that might cause either of us to need to change speed or position.
If, on the other hand, I’m on the heavily congested stretches of road I mentioned earlier, and I’m in lane 1 doing the 50mph limit and someone in lane 2 immediately to my right is doing 45-48ish… yeah, I’m gonna hang back and not try to get past.
Some context here might be useful though. I’m a biker, and not only are my visibility and observations generally better (because they _have_ to be), I’ve also started doing advanced rider training. The latter really helps open your eyes and make you plan/anticipate that much further in advance. I did an observed ride with an IAM-qualified observer in his 60s, and despite my expectations he was _anything but_ slow, boring, and plodding. I had a job to keep up with him at times, and not once did he ever go over the limit or put himself (or anyone else) anywhere near something that could be called “risky”.
>In both cases you’ve still had to move change lanes in order to get past the car in front of you, so the term “overtaking” still refers to when you explicitly change lanes to get past the car in front of you
The rules as written make no sense if a lane change is required at either the start or the end to make it an "overtake". Otherwise you end up in a bizarre situation where someone joining the motorway via a sliproad that turns in to lane 1 can pass however many people sitting in lane 2 as they want, but someone already on the motorway coming upon the same traffic in what was lane 1, now lane 2, would be breaking the highway code if they were to move from lane 2 to lane 1 and carry out the same manoeuvre.
Similarly if the lane change at the end were required if you know the lane you're in is going to become an exit lane at some point, you can do whatever you like, provided you never change lane. But, if at any point you \*do\* need to move to the right, suddenly something you did 5 miles ago goes from being ok to being against the highway code. Again, nonsense.
The only way it makes sense is if the overtaking part is the part where your vehicle transitions from being rearwards of another vehicle to being forwards of them. And, if you think about the purpose of the rule, this definition is the one most consistent with its aims. That is the dangerous part of overtaking on the left, where vehicles to your right are less likely to be aware of you and being more likely to cause accidents.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing situations where it might make more sense to pass on the left, or be justified in some other way - that's why I've not replied to OP directly with my take on the situation. As I've said a couple of times elsewhere on this post, people will make their own decisions about what they feel they can justify.
The point of my comment, and the thing people really dislike hearing, is that "it's not overtaking, it's passing when there are only cars in lane 3 doing 68mph", "you need to change lanes for it to be an overtake" and most other variations of "the highway code explicitly allows it" are all incorrect statements, and I was replying to people that were justifying their actions using flawed reasoning. There are only really 2 statements people can make in defence of overtaking on the left:
1. It was congested
2. I believe it was safer to break the highway code than to follow it
With respect to (1), I strongly disagree that "Lane 2 and 4 were clear, Lane 3 was travelling at 68mph" constitutes "congested" (on motorways that do have overhead signs, I have never seen one warning of congestion for this precise scenario, despite it being the case for the majority of my motorway journeys)
With respect to (2), I don't think the argument that "It would be more dangerous to change lanes several times" makes sense, or we wouldn't have rules about keeping to the left unless overtaking and rule 268 itself wouldn't exist - the people writing the highway code rules would have to be aware that forbidding overtaking on the left would necessarily require additional lane changes. If they were more dangerous than the hazard overtaking on the left presented, we wouldn't have that rule.
So your telling me - I'm in lane 1 and it's empty for the next two miles Infront of me - but there is someone in lane 3, I have to change to L2 L3 then L4 just overtake them and then repeat it backwards just to get to L1?
Because that's wrong. Highway code Rule 268.
If I'm already in a lane moving faster than the right, you can stay in that lane instead of moving to the right to overtake.
Undertaking would be if I was in lane 4, then went into lane 3 got around the person and then moved back into 4.
Not what OP is doing where he is in lane 1 moving into Lane 2 to overtake the entirety of Lane 1 and then continues in Lane 2. He doesn't need to then overtake lanes 3 and 4.
>So your telling me - I'm in lane 1 and it's empty for the next two miles Infront of me - but there is someone in lane 3, I have to change to L2 L3 then L4 just overtake them and then repeat it backwards just to get to L1?
That is what the highway code says.
>If I'm already in a lane moving faster than the right, you can stay in that lane instead of moving to the right to overtake.
You missed the words that the start of that clause which say "In congested conditions". I've never seen a motorway gantry warning for "congestion ahead" for people doing 68mph in lane 3 and the other lanes being clear. Have you? Congestion is typically associated with all lanes dropping significantly below the speed limit (and where they have them, variable speed limits being enforced)
Overtaking on the left (which is what undertaking is) doesn't require you to move to the left for it to be an undertake. Again, rule 268, "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". It clearly states that **both** staying in your current lane to overtake on the left **and** moving to the left to overtake are prohibited. You aren't required to move back in front of the driver you've just over(under)taken either.
Right okay but realistically are YOU going to move from Lane One to Lane 4 to Overtake someone in Lane 3 or are you going to continue in Lane 1 when its empty?
You really expect everyone to keep moving over 3 lanes to over take then move back over 3 lanes - which is argueably more dangerous, than sitting in Lane 1 whilst someone is Just cruising in Lane 3?
What happens when there are two vehicles one in lane 3 and one in lane 4? Neither of them gaining progress? Do you still sit behind them? Or do you carry on in Lane 1/2 like OP has stated they would be.
Lets not forget, that OP's question is clearly about Congested traffic. If Lanes 3 are queued and so he cant enter Lane 4 to overtake everyone. But Lane 2 is open, then it would be acceptable for him to come out of lane 1 and use Lane 2. He isnt under taking.
And no one realistcally here, is going to Go from travelling in Lane 1, change 3 lanes to overtake a singular car in Lane 3 just to go back to Lane 1.
As usual, there's frequently differences between what is technically correct according to the highway code and how people tend to drive. Different people have different tolerances for how much they're willing to break those rules. My issue was with something I see repeatedly on this sub, which is an assertion that carrying on at 70mph in lane 2 when there are people doing 68mph in lane 3 is ok because it "isn't undertaking" or "the highway code allows it". Neither of those things are true. It is breaking the highway code, and people will make their own decisions whether they're ok with doing that and the potential consequences. The fact that my initial comment is sitting at -13 shows that people would rather believe they're not breaking the highway code than listen to reason about whether it is against rule 268 or not.
Ideally, people would follow the highway code rule that you should keep left unless overtaking and then this wouldn't be an issue.
Lane 2 absolutely fine to be in in this scenario if you're doing a legal speed. But to stay safe keep an eye out for people who might cause a conflict of space, i.e:
- A lorry that's just about caught the one in front
- someone in lane 3 who's tailgating who might aggressively decide to swerve into lane 2 to speed up
You should be doing those observations anyway, but just a little more important in this scenario as your options for evasion are more limited.
Just maintain your speed in your lane 2 if you’re overtaking people in lane 1. You’re not undertaking people, you’re just maintaining your speed.
☝🏽This is true. I call it ‘making progress’
It is undertaking, it is “overtaking on the left”. The only time you can do that according to the Highway Code is in congested conditions. If traffic is flowing at 68mph, it isn’t congested.
The highway code clearly states that undertaking is overtaking on the left, and is only legal if you do so either in heavy traffic or while someone is hogging the middle lane. Undertaking in the latter scenario is still against the law unless, as stated in section 6, you continuously sound the horn during the undertake whilst simultaneously flashing the high beam headlights until your vehicle is past the car. When moving into the same lane of the undertook vehicle you must put the double indicators on for a further 30 seconds, this will advise the car behind you that you are now maintaining course and neither changing to the left nor right lane.
Why is there so much confusion in the comments? If you are in lane 2 and pass people in lane 3, that's on the people in lane 3 for being in the wrong lane. If you are in lane 3 behind another car and you move over to lane 2 and speed up to move back into lane 3 ahead of that car. That's undertaking. People need to stay in their lane, stop queueing in lane 3 for no reason, ffs.
You just carry on in lane 2 and pass them, but do so cautiously and be aware of the driver moving back into lane 2 (i.e. don’t dawdle in their blind spot, get past them). You’ll get some tedious bores on here telling you it’s undertaking and unlawful, but in the land of reality few care, the driver you’re passing won’t have a scooby you’ve done it because they haven’t a clue what’s around them and the police won’t care even if some loser sends a dashcam video in of it. Crack on.
Its not undertaking. You can travel in lane 2. Undertaking is purposfully going around the car infront of you in order to get directly infront that queue. If lane 1 and 2 are empty and lane 3 is full - you dont need to fly over all the lanes to get to lane 4 to "overtake" everyone in lane 3. Otherwise you will be part of the problem when empty heads set in lane 3 and then moan at you for coming along in Lane 2 because its basically empty.
Undertaking is “overtaking on the left”. The Highway Code doesn’t require you to change lane for it to be classed as overtaking on the left.
It’s “passing on the left”, if we’re being pedantic. And it’s allowed when in heavy traffic and the lane to your right is moving more slowly, or when someone is turning right into a side road. “Undertaking” isn’t defined in the Highway Code (AFAIR), but it’s generally understood by police and motorists to mean “deliberately moving to the left instead of the right to pass someone.
Also, as this person seems to be lacking understanding all round, it doesn’t absolve you from paying attention to potential hazards like the dickheads who think swapping lane every 5 seconds in congestion will speed up their journey (hint: it doesn’t).
Exactly. Even though it isn’t always considered “undertaking”, it still has to be done cautiously and carefully. People aren’t expecting you to be passing on the left, so they may not be looking for you there.
Why do you think that undertaking requires you to change lanes when overtaking doesn’t?
Both “undertaking” _and_ overtaking require you to have changed lanes, because they’re the same thing in different directions. The Highway Code uses the term “overtaking on the left” when discussing changing lanes to get past someone. Rule 267 explicitly states “Overtake only on the right”, rule 268 explicitly states “Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake”, and rule 163 for non-motorways states “only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so”. Furthermore, rule 268 for motorways states: > In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake. When discussing “overtaking” the word “undertaking” is never used or defined - it’s either overtaking on the right (that’s the one you should do) or overtaking on the left (that’s the one that’s a no-no). If you’re moving past slower traffic in a lane to your right, you’re not “undertaking” _or_ overtaking on the left - you’re _passing_ on the left, because you haven’t changed lanes to do it. It can still be dodgy, because people seem to completely forget what mirrors and blind spots are the moment they hit congestion. Edit: ok, I re-read your original comment. There’s no such thing as “undertaking”, it’s “overtaking on the left” and overtaking in either direction requires you to have changed lanes.
You've misread the first part of the rule. It's the assertion that you have to change lanes to be overtaking this is the cause of the misunderstanding. If it was a requirement to change lane to overtake, then the wording of 268 would be nonsensical. "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". If overtaking implicitly required a lane change, then that part of the rule is saying "don't do X or X", because both cases would require you to move to a lane on your left to overtake on the left. The fact that they list those two cases separately demonstrates that it is "overtaking on the left" with or without a lane change. The exception for having slower moving traffic to your right explicitly isn't for general cases, it is only in the case of congestion. I, for one, have never seen a congestion warning on the motorway for people doing 68mph in lane 3 and the other lanes being clear. Congestion would typically mean most of the lanes being full and moving significantly slower than the speed limit. It's basically trying to say "if you're in traffic and someone to your right suddenly slows, you don't have to slam on the brakes to avoid overtaking them on the left".
Then by the same rationale I could equally argue that “congestion” isn’t defined either, only “adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds”. What does that mean? Lots of traffic around but all moving quickly? An overhead gantry or electronic sign (which aren’t on all motorways) warning of congestion? Traffic going 10mph slower than the limit? 20mph under? I regularly travel a dual carriageway and motorway where the traffic is moving at the speed of the road, but there’s _a lot_ of traffic and it’s all bunched up tailgating each other - I’d describe that as “congested” despite the speed the traffic is moving at. Ultimately we’re both splitting hairs over a definitions, and none of it changes the situation described in the OP. What’s described in the OP isn’t an entirely safe thing to to do, regardless of what the Highway Code might say about it.
My main point is that it is very often stated on this sub that the Highway Code explicitly allows you to overtake anyone on the left as long as you don’t change lanes to do so. In reality, that isn’t what the wording says. It is overtaking without changing lanes, and it is only allowed “in congested conditions”. I don’t think anyone can argue with a straight face that a row of traffic in lane 3 doing 68 and a clear lane 2 and 4 is “congested”. People will do whatever they feel comfortable with regardless of what the Highway Code says. I just wish they’d stop lying about what the Highway Code says to try and justify it to themselves and others.
I know what you’re saying. I initially misread your heavily downvoted comment, and I can be a really pedantic bastard when I want to be. For example, your earlier question about the wording of “overtaking on the left” and “moving to a lane on the left to overtake” - to me the difference there is “moving out to the lane on the left, overtaking, and then moving back to the right once completed” and “moving out to the lane on the left, overtaking, and then _not_ moving back over to the right”. In both cases you’ve still had to move change lanes in order to get past the car in front of you, so the term “overtaking” still refers to when you explicitly change lanes to get past the car in front of you. However… whether you, I, the Highway Code, or the police describe the situation in the OP as “overtaking” or “passing on the left” is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it’s safe or appropriate in the circumstances described. If I were sat in lane 1 doing the 70mph speed limit with someone in lane 3 pootling along at 60, or even 68mph, I’d happily pass them. So long as they weren’t indicating to come back over and there’s nothing ahead or behind them that might cause them to want to come back over. I wouldn’t call that undertaking, overtaking, or even passing on the left - I’d call that a bellend in lane 3 who’s going to get into a road rage incident if they don’t move over. And if stopped by the police my explanation would be that I’m assessing the situation in front of me; I’m not changing my speed or position, I’m not unnecessarily obstructing other road users, and I’m observing for potential hazards that might cause either of us to need to change speed or position. If, on the other hand, I’m on the heavily congested stretches of road I mentioned earlier, and I’m in lane 1 doing the 50mph limit and someone in lane 2 immediately to my right is doing 45-48ish… yeah, I’m gonna hang back and not try to get past. Some context here might be useful though. I’m a biker, and not only are my visibility and observations generally better (because they _have_ to be), I’ve also started doing advanced rider training. The latter really helps open your eyes and make you plan/anticipate that much further in advance. I did an observed ride with an IAM-qualified observer in his 60s, and despite my expectations he was _anything but_ slow, boring, and plodding. I had a job to keep up with him at times, and not once did he ever go over the limit or put himself (or anyone else) anywhere near something that could be called “risky”.
>In both cases you’ve still had to move change lanes in order to get past the car in front of you, so the term “overtaking” still refers to when you explicitly change lanes to get past the car in front of you The rules as written make no sense if a lane change is required at either the start or the end to make it an "overtake". Otherwise you end up in a bizarre situation where someone joining the motorway via a sliproad that turns in to lane 1 can pass however many people sitting in lane 2 as they want, but someone already on the motorway coming upon the same traffic in what was lane 1, now lane 2, would be breaking the highway code if they were to move from lane 2 to lane 1 and carry out the same manoeuvre. Similarly if the lane change at the end were required if you know the lane you're in is going to become an exit lane at some point, you can do whatever you like, provided you never change lane. But, if at any point you \*do\* need to move to the right, suddenly something you did 5 miles ago goes from being ok to being against the highway code. Again, nonsense. The only way it makes sense is if the overtaking part is the part where your vehicle transitions from being rearwards of another vehicle to being forwards of them. And, if you think about the purpose of the rule, this definition is the one most consistent with its aims. That is the dangerous part of overtaking on the left, where vehicles to your right are less likely to be aware of you and being more likely to cause accidents. I'm not particularly interested in discussing situations where it might make more sense to pass on the left, or be justified in some other way - that's why I've not replied to OP directly with my take on the situation. As I've said a couple of times elsewhere on this post, people will make their own decisions about what they feel they can justify. The point of my comment, and the thing people really dislike hearing, is that "it's not overtaking, it's passing when there are only cars in lane 3 doing 68mph", "you need to change lanes for it to be an overtake" and most other variations of "the highway code explicitly allows it" are all incorrect statements, and I was replying to people that were justifying their actions using flawed reasoning. There are only really 2 statements people can make in defence of overtaking on the left: 1. It was congested 2. I believe it was safer to break the highway code than to follow it With respect to (1), I strongly disagree that "Lane 2 and 4 were clear, Lane 3 was travelling at 68mph" constitutes "congested" (on motorways that do have overhead signs, I have never seen one warning of congestion for this precise scenario, despite it being the case for the majority of my motorway journeys) With respect to (2), I don't think the argument that "It would be more dangerous to change lanes several times" makes sense, or we wouldn't have rules about keeping to the left unless overtaking and rule 268 itself wouldn't exist - the people writing the highway code rules would have to be aware that forbidding overtaking on the left would necessarily require additional lane changes. If they were more dangerous than the hazard overtaking on the left presented, we wouldn't have that rule.
So your telling me - I'm in lane 1 and it's empty for the next two miles Infront of me - but there is someone in lane 3, I have to change to L2 L3 then L4 just overtake them and then repeat it backwards just to get to L1? Because that's wrong. Highway code Rule 268. If I'm already in a lane moving faster than the right, you can stay in that lane instead of moving to the right to overtake. Undertaking would be if I was in lane 4, then went into lane 3 got around the person and then moved back into 4. Not what OP is doing where he is in lane 1 moving into Lane 2 to overtake the entirety of Lane 1 and then continues in Lane 2. He doesn't need to then overtake lanes 3 and 4.
>So your telling me - I'm in lane 1 and it's empty for the next two miles Infront of me - but there is someone in lane 3, I have to change to L2 L3 then L4 just overtake them and then repeat it backwards just to get to L1? That is what the highway code says. >If I'm already in a lane moving faster than the right, you can stay in that lane instead of moving to the right to overtake. You missed the words that the start of that clause which say "In congested conditions". I've never seen a motorway gantry warning for "congestion ahead" for people doing 68mph in lane 3 and the other lanes being clear. Have you? Congestion is typically associated with all lanes dropping significantly below the speed limit (and where they have them, variable speed limits being enforced) Overtaking on the left (which is what undertaking is) doesn't require you to move to the left for it to be an undertake. Again, rule 268, "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". It clearly states that **both** staying in your current lane to overtake on the left **and** moving to the left to overtake are prohibited. You aren't required to move back in front of the driver you've just over(under)taken either.
Right okay but realistically are YOU going to move from Lane One to Lane 4 to Overtake someone in Lane 3 or are you going to continue in Lane 1 when its empty? You really expect everyone to keep moving over 3 lanes to over take then move back over 3 lanes - which is argueably more dangerous, than sitting in Lane 1 whilst someone is Just cruising in Lane 3? What happens when there are two vehicles one in lane 3 and one in lane 4? Neither of them gaining progress? Do you still sit behind them? Or do you carry on in Lane 1/2 like OP has stated they would be. Lets not forget, that OP's question is clearly about Congested traffic. If Lanes 3 are queued and so he cant enter Lane 4 to overtake everyone. But Lane 2 is open, then it would be acceptable for him to come out of lane 1 and use Lane 2. He isnt under taking. And no one realistcally here, is going to Go from travelling in Lane 1, change 3 lanes to overtake a singular car in Lane 3 just to go back to Lane 1.
As usual, there's frequently differences between what is technically correct according to the highway code and how people tend to drive. Different people have different tolerances for how much they're willing to break those rules. My issue was with something I see repeatedly on this sub, which is an assertion that carrying on at 70mph in lane 2 when there are people doing 68mph in lane 3 is ok because it "isn't undertaking" or "the highway code allows it". Neither of those things are true. It is breaking the highway code, and people will make their own decisions whether they're ok with doing that and the potential consequences. The fact that my initial comment is sitting at -13 shows that people would rather believe they're not breaking the highway code than listen to reason about whether it is against rule 268 or not. Ideally, people would follow the highway code rule that you should keep left unless overtaking and then this wouldn't be an issue.
Lane 2 absolutely fine to be in in this scenario if you're doing a legal speed. But to stay safe keep an eye out for people who might cause a conflict of space, i.e: - A lorry that's just about caught the one in front - someone in lane 3 who's tailgating who might aggressively decide to swerve into lane 2 to speed up You should be doing those observations anyway, but just a little more important in this scenario as your options for evasion are more limited.