Highway Code Rules 253 to 273 (Motorway Driving)

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Motorways 253 - 273

Rule 264
If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past.

Rule 265
remember that traffic may be coming up behind you very quickly. Check all your mirrors carefully. Look out for motorcyclists. When it is safe to do so, signal in plenty of time, then move out

Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. 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.

Rule 272
Unless signs indicate that a lane leads directly off the motorway, you will normally leave the motorway by a slip road on your left. You should watch for the signs letting you know you are getting near your exit move into the left-hand lane well before reaching your exit signal left in good time and reduce your speed on the slip road as necessary.

Tailgating
Tailgating - what you need to know
Tailgating is a dangerous habit which involves a driver travelling too closely to the vehicle in front – making it unlikely they’d be able to avoid a collision if the driver were to brake quickly.

Try to stay calm. Drivers getting angry over tailgating incidents is a common cause of road rage.

Before Xmas I began traveling two hour each way to work. I kept within the speed limits. I didn't tailgate or undertake anyone and generally put up with the [horrendous] queues caused by accidents and incidents. Over those 7 weeks I convinced myself that I was being "wronged" when others tailgated, undertook me or clearly broke the speed limit.

However, driving today I slowed down a little. Not much just 2mph. And I decided I had no right to think ill of those who were violating the rules and laws of the road. I can't control them. I can, though, ensure my driving is up to a standard and that I am not stressing or "feeling rage" when I am tailgated. I'm currently doing 1,000 miles per week. That reduction in speed is theoretically adding 5 minutes a day to my journey. In reality I would imagine it's not even that much as the traffic can get very congested at times.

AiYn'U (New Years resolution - don't get stressed or enraged by someone else's [poor] choice of driving.
Better to arrive 5 minutes late in this world, than early in the next [Unbeknown to me I passed three fatalities last year in those 7 weeks]

[Lootman]

Rule 268
Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

What does "weave" actually mean?

You cannot overtake a vehicle in front of you without changing lanes. So when does "changing lanes" become "weaving"? How do you migrate from one lane to another without being perceived as "weaving"?

[bungeejumper]

You cannot overtake a vehicle in front of you without changing lanes. So when does "changing lanes" become "weaving"? How do you migrate from one lane to another without being perceived as "weaving"?

I suspect that any textiles textbook would tell you that weaving means thread past on the right, thread past on the left, thread past on the right, thread past on the left.......

BJ

[swill453]

Rule 268
Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

What does "weave" actually mean?

You cannot overtake a vehicle in front of you without changing lanes. So when does "changing lanes" become "weaving"? How do you migrate from one lane to another without being perceived as "weaving"?

It's in the context of changing lanes to pass on the left.

Much as you might wish it otherwise, it's not allowed here.

Scott.

[tjh290633]

Rule 268
Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

What does "weave" actually mean?

You cannot overtake a vehicle in front of you without changing lanes. So when does "changing lanes" become "weaving"? How do you migrate from one lane to another without being perceived as "weaving"?

It's in the context of changing lanes to pass on the left.

Much as you might wish it otherwise, it's not allowed here.

Scott.

My case is that I am travelling at the speed limit, or slower, in the nearside lane while the centre and outside lanes are full of vehicles going slower than me.

I am not obliged by the highway code to slow down to their speed. I am not changing lanes unless I catch up with a slower vehicle in front. Given the opportunity I will overtake it on the right then return to the otherwise empty nearside lane.

I have not broken the Highway Code.

TJH

[swill453]

My case is that I am travelling at the speed limit, or slower, in the nearside lane while the centre and outside lanes are full of vehicles going slower than me.

I am not obliged by the highway code to slow down to their speed. I am not changing lanes unless I catch up with a slower vehicle in front. Given the opportunity I will overtake it on the right then return to the otherwise empty nearside lane.

I have not broken the Highway Code.

I agree, that behaviour is what the HC explicitly says you can do.

Scott.

[redsturgeon]

Rule 268
Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

What does "weave" actually mean?

You cannot overtake a vehicle in front of you without changing lanes. So when does "changing lanes" become "weaving"? How do you migrate from one lane to another without being perceived as "weaving"?

It's in the context of changing lanes to pass on the left.

Much as you might wish it otherwise, it's not allowed here.

Scott.

Not quite that simple though is it.

It is a two lane dual carriageway.

I am cruising at 70 mph and sticking to the left hand lane whenever it is clear (as instructed by the HC) Most of the traffic is moving at around about 65mph.

I come up behind a car in the left hand lane travelling at 65mph, I pull out and after performing the overtake I return to the left hand lane as per HC.

About 200 yards ahead is a car in the right hand lane doing 65mph, the left hand lane is clear for 500 yards. I continue at my present speed in the left hand lane and undertake it. I then need to pull out and perform another overtake 300 yards later after which I again return to the left hand lane. Did I weave or not?

Nothing I have done would have changed whether the right hand land hogger was there or not.

John

[swill453]

About 200 yards ahead is a car in the right hand lane doing 65mph, the left hand lane is clear for 500 yards. I continue at my present speed in the left hand lane and undertake it.

The "weaving" I think is irrelevant here. By doing this you have breached the earlier part of rule 268 as that single car couldn't really be considered to be covered by 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.

So you're probably caught by the Do not overtake on the left bit I'm afraid.

Of course this isn't a precise definition, the judgement of the traffic police and the legal system itself come into play. How "careless" or "dangerous" it was, whether it's in the public interest to prosecute etc.

EDIT: To be strictly legal I suppose what you were supposed to do was move into the right lane behind it and flash your lights.

Scott.

[Lootman]

About 200 yards ahead is a car in the right hand lane doing 65mph, the left hand lane is clear for 500 yards. I continue at my present speed in the left hand lane and undertake it.

The "weaving" I think is irrelevant here. By doing this you have breached the earlier part of rule 268 as that single car couldn't really be considered to be covered by 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.

So you're probably caught by the Do not overtake on the left bit I'm afraid.

Of course this isn't a precise definition

And therein is the problem. "Weaving" is not defined and subject to interpretation. You stated above that "weaving" only applies if you undertake and not if you overtake. But if that were the case then that prohibition is already in the HC and so the "no weaving" rule or advice is redundant.

To my mind "weaving" means a vehicle that constantly swerves from one lane to another, all in an attempt to maintain or increase its speed. Whether that swerving is left or right is less important than the aggressiveness of the swerves.

[swill453]

And therein is the problem. "Weaving" is not defined and subject to interpretation. You stated above that "weaving" only applies if you undertake and not if you overtake. But if that were the case then that prohibition is already in the HC and so the "no weaving" rule or advice is redundant.

To my mind "weaving" means a vehicle that constantly swerves from one lane to another, all in an attempt to maintain or increase its speed. Whether that swerving is left or right is less important than the aggressiveness of the swerves.

I don't make the rules (or enforce them )

I think it's pretty obvious that the intention is that a manoeuvre to the right could be deemed entirely acceptable while the same manoeuvre to the left would not be.

Scott.

[Lootman]

And therein is the problem. "Weaving" is not defined and subject to interpretation. You stated above that "weaving" only applies if you undertake and not if you overtake. But if that were the case then that prohibition is already in the HC and so the "no weaving" rule or advice is redundant.

To my mind "weaving" means a vehicle that constantly swerves from one lane to another, all in an attempt to maintain or increase its speed. Whether that swerving is left or right is less important than the aggressiveness of the swerves.

I don't make the rules (or enforce them )

I think it's pretty obvious that the intention is that a manoeuvre to the right could be deemed entirely acceptable while the same manoeuvre to the left would not be.

The rule is obvious except for the reference to "weaving" which is ill-defined. Either it is redundant or else it applies whether done to the left or to the right. After all, the last part of a "legal" overtake is a move to the left. If someone does that dangerously close to me then I am probably going to conclude that they "weaved", just as if they "weaved" into the slow lane to undertake.

Anyway I mostly drive on crowded motorways in the South and, beyond a certain point, lane discipline breaks down. It's fine on quiet, open roads but don't try it on the M25 at 5 p.m. on a Friday.

[redsturgeon]

I think we have all seen the weavers in action but it is a difficult thing to define.

John

[jfgw]

I suspect that any textiles textbook would tell you that weaving means thread past on the right, thread past on the left, thread past on the right, thread past on the left.......

That would be my interpretation (except that more than one thread may be passed on one side consecutively, not necessarily one at a time). If the weft did not pass one side of some warp yarns and the other side of the others, it would be loose and, as such, would not be woven.

The Cambridge English dictionary gives this,

to go or make a path by moving quickly and changing direction often, especially to avoid hitting things:

The boy weaved through/between/in and out of stationary traffic on a bicycle.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/weave


Julian F. G. W.

[Lootman]

The Cambridge English dictionary gives this,

to go or make a path by moving quickly and changing direction often, especially to avoid hitting things

So part of the definition of "weaving" is that it is a manoeuvre intended to avoid hitting other vehicles.

And the HC doesn't want us to do that?

[swill453]

So part of the definition of "weaving" is that it is a manoeuvre intended to avoid hitting other vehicles.

And the HC doesn't want us to do that?

If I shoot someone to avoid having to stab them, that must be ok right?

Scott.

[Lootman]

So part of the definition of "weaving" is that it is a manoeuvre intended to avoid hitting other vehicles.

And the HC doesn't want us to do that?

If I shoot someone to avoid having to stab them, that must be ok right?

I am just trying to determine a consensus between all these different definitions of "weaving".

Suppose we are on the 6-lane section of the M25. Let's call the leftmost lane 1 and the rightmost lane 6.

Driver A moves between lanes 1 and 2, passing on either side.

Driver B moves between lanes 2 and 6, passing only on the right.

Who is the bigger weaver? Intuitively I'd say it is B but I get the impression you don't think B is weaving at all.

[swill453]

Who is the bigger weaver? Intuitively I'd say it is B but I get the impression you don't think B is weaving at all.

I'm not hung up on the definition of weaving, since the Highway Code only uses it in the context of passing on the left.

Scott.

[Lootman]

Who is the bigger weaver? Intuitively I'd say it is B but I get the impression you don't think B is weaving at all.

I'm not hung up on the definition of weaving, since the Highway Code only uses it in the context of passing on the left.

I'm not hung up on it either. Not least because it appears to add nothing. But again, what extra value and meaning does the reference to "weaving" add? If passing on the left is illegal anyway then why mention "weaving" at all if that is all it means?

It's redundant UNLESS of course "weaving" has a wider meaning.

[Dod101]

Does Rule 268 apply specifically to motorways and not to two lane dual carriageways? I could argue that my undertaking was not undertaking at all; it was simply following Rule 268 of the Highway Code. I suppose I need to be in the nearside lane for a considerable distance before reaching the lane hogger so as not to make it appear that I am moving in to the nearside lane for the purpose of getting passed the him, but simply minding my own business and driving in the left hand lane (which is empty) as required by the HC.

As to weaving I think Lootman is just being obtuse. I think we all know what is meant by 'weaving'. It is surely moving from lane to lane to overtake vehicles, typically the inside lane, across the middle lane to the outside lane and maybe back to the middle lane and out again, overtaking slower moving vehicles all the while. It is usually considered dangerous or at the very least aggressive and inconsiderate driving. (I am not saying that I think it necessarily is, but in some circumstances it can be). Passing on the inside is surely not a necessary component of it.

Dod

[swill453]

I'm not hung up on it either. Not least because it appears to add nothing. But again, what extra value and meaning does the reference to "weaving" add? If passing on the left is illegal anyway then why mention "weaving" at all if that is all it means?

It's redundant UNLESS of course "weaving" has a wider meaning.

The Highway Code isn't the law, and I'd be pretty sure the word "weaving" doesn't appear in the relevant law.

The HC is (in this respect) describing road behaviour which may lead to prosecution. In my opinion the paragraph makes it pretty clear what's allowed and what's not. That's all it sets out to do.

Scott.