Doublechocolatetiffin I have answered fully every question put to me, and have explained at length every possible aspect of this and backed this up with advice from police, police driving instructors, advanced driving instructors and observers and my own advanced training. I have cited the law, I have clearly explained the difference between the law and advisory paragraphs in the HC and what it means for a paragraph to be advisory. I have been asked for meaning behind paragraphs which is impossible to do without the very interpretation which you criticise me for, yet you do not criticise others for their interpretation of the HC, or indeed their total fabrications I notice.
Driving brings out some very adamant behaviour in people who are determined to believe how they have been driving for years is the right way. Humiliation, embarrassment, ego prevents some people from simply admitting they have been wrong, or from facing up to the reality that their actions may be dangerous. The HC is not a book which states everything you are allowed to do and everything which is illegal. Your starting point seems to believe that it is, and you keep on asking me to provide things which do not exist. As I said similarly before, the HC does not "suggest it's ok" to use your words to sing Barry Manilow songs pretending you are Tom Jones. But actually, it's ok to do that. According to your logic anything which is not in the HC is not permitted. You are wrong in your premise.
I have explained every single part. I cannot keep repeating myself. If you do not want to believe me, or accept the advice given by police and advanced driving instructors, you don't have to. But both interpret the HC too, we all do (even you), precisely because it does not cover every eventuality and is not all-encompassing and is not designed to explain safe driving or actions taken to avoid dangerous conditions or other drivers who are driving illegally. The HC is not as comprehensive as it should be, and it has long been disputed for its accuracy and up-to-dateness and is not as clear as it should be either. Which is why motoring organisations and the police - and you and I - have to have an element of interpretation. I am sorry you don't like that, but I cannot change that, I didn't write it.
What is important is that people do not make statements that are wholly untrue or fabricated and pretend they are the HC. To move away from all the angst here for example, on another thread, someone has said that the HC says you may drive on the hard shoulder as a continuation of the slipway when joining a motorway. They have stated this - and it is not true. Nowhere in the HC does it say that. On this thread, similar things have been written, and likewise there are some very angry posters who jump on anyone who tries to be calm and clear, angry that other expert advice and interpretations differ from their own view and interpretation not only of words, but of what advisory notes mean in the HC.
I have been very calm and polite and been hounded by a couple of aggressive posters here who have sworn and tried to bully me into silence. Driving does that to some people and I'd really not like to be on the roads when they are around.
If you would like further evidence or whatever to back up what I have said, please google - the internet is full of discussion among advanced drivers about this topic. The majority believe as I have written and as I was trained as as I agree, some don't. What is most telling is that it was a police driving instructor who trained me (not just a police driver) and also that there has not been one prosecution at all for passing on the inside (with the obvious caution as you correctly point out, which is no more or less than any manoevre near an oblivious middle lane road hog). I have done so in full visibility of police cars by the way, even with them behind me, with no action taken against me, and with the police car doing the same thing and following my line, both of us driving correctly.