Motoring Middle Lane Hogging

[Stevo985]

No real surprise. Rents, fees and charges are starting to become a bigger source of revenue expenditure so let's make up a few more ways to make everyone more miserable. Arseholes.

This will make me much much less miserable to be honest.

 

If it reduces the amount of middle lane/outside lane hoggers I encounter on a daily basis (being someone who commutes on the motorway) I'll be thrilled.

 

The only people who are going to be miserable from this are the people who don't know how to drive. In which case I have no sympathy and I hope it teaches them a lesson.

[Jon]

I feel that using the word 'sheeple' should immediately invalidate any point that you make.

I'd have picked him up on the word 'wine' personally. Although it may actually be correct. Maybe people do have a wine, when having a whine ....

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I feel that using the word 'sheeple' should immediately invalidate any point that you make.

I'd have picked him up on the word 'wine' personally. Although it may actually be correct. Maybe people do have a wine, when having a whine ....

 

Right you should, I noticed my error after I'd been quoted, so little point in correcting it after that, Really bleat was the word I should have used

[peterms]

I don't think it's ever correct for the police to be judge and jury. That's not their job and they shouldn't be doing it.

 

I don't think that's the case, though.  Surely what's happening is that people are offered the choice of a fixed penalty (ie they agree they have committed an offence), or a prosecution as at present.  If they disagree with the police assessment of the situation, then the police can't impose a penalty without their consent.  The driver can choose to take it to court, though as now, not a court with a jury.

 

The more valid objection for me is the point made by the IAM: ''For on-the-spot fines, you need on-the-spot policemen''.  Cutting police numbers while asking them to become more involved in dealing with what we all know is a very large number of offences doesn't seem sensible.

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

The more valid objection for me is the point made by the IAM: ''For on-the-spot fines, you need on-the-spot policemen''.  Cutting police numbers while asking them to become more involved in dealing with what we all know is a very large number of offences doesn't seem sensible.

 

I see a lot of people taking this view, or similar, and I don't really agree with it.

 

It doesn't mean police numbers have to grow or anything like that.

 

It just means when a policeman, doing his normal job, sees someone doing this he has a legitimate reason to stop them and give a ticket. Whereas presently he can't really do much unless he puts it down as driving without due care and attention (I think), which would be a stretch.

 

I don't think this is meant to be a huge clampdown. it's not a case of sending out loads of policemen to stop it at any opportunity.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I don't think it's ever correct for the police to be judge and jury. That's not their job and they shouldn't be doing it.

 

I don't think that's the case, though.  Surely what's happening is that people are offered the choice of a fixed penalty (ie they agree they have committed an offence), or a prosecution as at present.  If they disagree with the police assessment of the situation, then the police can't impose a penalty without their consent.  The driver can choose to take it to court, though as now, not a court with a jury.

 

The more valid objection for me is the point made by the IAM: ''For on-the-spot fines, you need on-the-spot policemen''.  Cutting police numbers while asking them to become more involved in dealing with what we all know is a very large number of offences doesn't seem sensible.

 

You are right, Any such ticket is in effect an offer of a contract, The trick is in the presentation that it isn't and you have to accept or face much more severe penalties, It's a strange justice where you are penalised for the right to defend yourself against allegations. The reality is if you don't accept you often face justice that amount to nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise, which works on the presumption of guilt and you need to prove innocence. But as it is a legal matter rather than Lawful one this is how the rules are set up,

[peterms]

 

 

 

 

The more valid objection for me is the point made by the IAM: ''For on-the-spot fines, you need on-the-spot policemen''.  Cutting police numbers while asking them to become more involved in dealing with what we all know is a very large number of offences doesn't seem sensible.

 

I see a lot of people taking this view, or similar, and I don't really agree with it.

 

It doesn't mean police numbers have to grow or anything like that.

 

It just means when a policeman, doing his normal job, sees someone doing this he has a legitimate reason to stop them and give a ticket. Whereas presently he can't really do much unless he puts it down as driving without due care and attention (I think), which would be a stretch.

 

I don't think this is meant to be a huge clampdown. it's not a case of sending out loads of policemen to stop it at any opportunity.

 

 

The police can already do people for this, under "driving without due care and attention".  Tailgating should be treated as dangerous driving, a more serious offence.

 

I imagine the thinking is that police don't tackle this at the moment because the time taken up with the paperwork and a court appearance is excessive, most people are likely to accept on-the-spot fines, and so they can deal with the offences more quickly and simply.

 

But if they're not dealing with these things now, and they mostly aren't, then any extra time spent will be more difficult at a time when resources are being cut.  Either police numbers have to grow, or they have to do less of something else.  I was pulled over on an A road for driving with one headlight out.  I suppose the time taken came to 10 minutes, maybe 15.  I can't imagine the police choosing to spend more time on interactions like this if they are feeling under pressure.  Unless they are set performance targets for the number of penalties issued, of course...

[claretman]

I have just been fined £100 for being in the middle lane for too long.

Most expensive swim I've ever had.

[StanBalaban]

I have just been fined £100 for being in the middle lane for too long.Most expensive swim I've ever had.

First in the Joke thread, now here. You are Puss E Katt and I claim my £10

Edited June 6, 2013 by StanBalaban

[StanBalaban]

Every time I return home to the UK, I find a sense of normality on the motorways. The elephant racing trucks and mid lane hoggers are indeed annoying, and sometimes dangerous, but Id swap them in a heartbeat for the drivers out here in Dubai.

There's no lane discipline at all on our 6 lane highways, whilst tailgating and high beam flashing seem to be the national pastime for anyone in an Escalade or Land Cruiser.

[snowychap]

I don't think that's the case, though.  Surely what's happening is that people are offered the choice of a fixed penalty (ie they agree they have committed an offence), or a prosecution as at present.  If they disagree with the police assessment of the situation, then the police can't impose a penalty without their consent.  The driver can choose to take it to court, though as now, not a court with a jury.

It's a conditional offer with an incentive built in to accept it, though, isn't it?

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I don't think that's the case, though.  Surely what's happening is that people are offered the choice of a fixed penalty (ie they agree they have committed an offence), or a prosecution as at present.  If they disagree with the police assessment of the situation, then the police can't impose a penalty without their consent.  The driver can choose to take it to court, though as now, not a court with a jury.

It's a conditional offer with an incentive built in to accept it, though, isn't it?

 

Spot on, It's a conditional offer of a contract, usually without full disclosure or consideration.

[mykeyb]

They might want to take a closer look at the idiots on the M6 who use the hard shoulder when in use, come all the way down and then try to rejoin the motorway just at the exit. I see it every day and the worst offenders are lorries.

[Stevo985]

They might want to take a closer look at the idiots on the M6 who use the hard shoulder when in use, come all the way down and then try to rejoin the motorway just at the exit. I see it every day and the worst offenders are lorries.

Happens on the M42 too.

 

Also, there's plenty of people who use the Hard Shoulder on the M42 when it's not open. That REALLY annoys me. If you'd seen someone blasting down the hard shoulder 10 years ago it would be ridiculous.

[VillaForever1970]

One of the problems is that most people just dont understand what the other lanes are for.

You should be driving (in this country) in the left hand lane at all times unless you have to overtake, you overtake and come back in as you would on a none motorway road.

Even if you have to go into the 3rd or 4th lane its still just for overtaking and should be getting back into the left lane as soon as possible.

Do they even teach this to people passing there test anymore, older people i'm sure dont get that and think the middle lane is for cars and the left lane is for lorries. They would be in shock if you told them the other two lanes are meant to be for overtaking only.

[Stevo985]

I have actually said for a while that an old fashioned public information film would work wonders for lane hogging because you're right, some people on the road just don't know what the outside lane is for.

 

Speed has nothing to do with it.

[legov]

One of the problems is that most people just dont understand what the other lanes are for.

You should be driving (in this country) in the left hand lane at all times unless you have to overtake, you overtake and come back in as you would on a none motorway road.

Even if you have to go into the 3rd or 4th lane its still just for overtaking and should be getting back into the left lane as soon as possible.

Do they even teach this to people passing there test anymore, older people i'm sure dont get that and think the middle lane is for cars and the left lane is for lorries. They would be in shock if you told them the other two lanes are meant to be for overtaking only.

 

I'm not sure it makes a difference.

 

If everyone knew what the other lanes were for, and followed those guidelines, the left lane would become clogged, particularly on busy roads.

 

This would mean that overtakers using the other lanes would be forced to use those lanes for longer periods of time.

 

And so eventually you go back to the status quo again - people driving in the middle and right lanes permanently, whatever their reasons (ignorance, or circumstance) for doing so.

[StefanAVFC]

Just drove to and back from Bristol. The middle lane trucks and tailgaters are more of a problem than middle lane hoggers. Regarding using the middle lane, when it's so clogged with lorries, it's pointless to ever go into it. Especially if you're doing 70+ in the middle lane. Can't be dealing with people doing 100+ though.

Edited June 6, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[mjmooney]

One of the prob

You should be driving (in this country) in the left hand lane at all times unless you have to overtake, you overtake and come back in as you would on a none motorway road.

Even if you have to go into the 3rd or 4th lane its still just for overtaking and should be getting back into the left lane as soon as possible.

Do they even teach this to people passing there test anymore, older people i'm sure dont get that and think the middle lane is for cars and the left lane is for lorries. They would be in shock if you told them the other two lanes are meant to be for overtaking only.

 

"Older" people? I'd say it's younger people who don't get that.

 

But here's the rub: At what point are you not overtaking?

 

Scenario 1:

 

Inside lane traffic is well spaced out, and moving at an average speed of 55 mph. Center lane is similarly spaced, averaging 70 mph. You're in the inside lane doing 65-70 mph. You come up behind one of the 55 mph cars, and want to overtake. You check mirror, wait for a gap in the centre lane, signal, and overtake. As soon as you have done so, you signal and move back in to the left lane. You carry on at 65-70 mph until you reach the next 55-er, and repeat the manoeuvre. All well and good.

 

Scenario 2:

 

Same deal, same average speeds, except that the inside lane is much busier, with very few gaps. The middle lane traffic however is well spaced out. You overtake the first 55 mph car, but you realise that if you drop back to the left now, you'll just be behind another 55-er, and you'll have to do the manoeuvre again almost immediately. So you continue at 70 mph in the middle lane, effectively in a "continuous overtake" of possibly dozens of cars. (At this point, are you lane hogging?) Then somebody comes up behind you at 75 mph (or above) and has to slow down a little. All you can do is wait for a gap in the left lane, and move back as soon as it's safe - or let him overtake in the third lane if possible. Theoretically it isn't anyway, as you are both at the speed limit - he would have to exceed 70 mph to overtake. Who is legally at fault here? I'd say the tailgater.

 

In practice, you often find that the inside lane is very busy, but relatively slow, and the outside lane is almost equally busy, but with people speeding. In these cases, 70 mph in the middle lane is often the safest and most sensible tactic.

[StefanAVFC]

Oh and the worst thing is when there's a lane closure and you're queuing to get through. And arseholes drive down the empty lanes and cut in. I just don't let them in. ****.