About time to.
"Traffic police said six drivers were forced to brake and swerve to overtake the vehicle,"
That makes me question the ability of the traffic police officer who said something so silly. It does cause congestion, but safe drivers are not forced to swerve.
I thought that too, If you have to swerve or brake to avoid someone travelling a bit slower in the middle lane..then clearly your not looking where your going, On a motorway of all places you should be looking at least 100 metres ahead..
|
About time to.
"Traffic police said six drivers were forced to brake and swerve to overtake the vehicle,"
That makes me question the ability of the traffic police officer who said something so silly. It does cause congestion, but safe drivers are not forced to swerve.
I thought that too, If you have to swerve or brake to avoid someone travelling a bit slower in the middle lane..then clearly your not looking where your going, On a motorway of all places you should be looking at least 100 metres ahead..
I aim to look as far ahead as I can see.
|
|
Daft twerp failed to turn up for the hearing.
Depending on circumstances i reckon you could argue your way out of this one in a court.
Am i the only one who doesn't bother too much about making a big drama out of overtaking a lane hogger, i've seen some do the exagerrated over-indicated swerve from the inside to the outside lane, overtake and give the statutory glare at the offender then rinse and repeat the over-indicated return to the inside lane..or they'll swerve and undertake taking all their venom out on their own tyres and suspension then pull sharply back in front of the offender to teach them a lesson presumably, why bother with it all, the offender's either blissfully unaware or possibly finds it all highly amusing that his little bit of main road trolling has pulled so many fish in.
I don't go past on the inside at breakneck speed to prove a point and no swerving or flashing of indicators nor glaring, but neither am i averse to just continuing on the lane i'm in at my previous speed and just ignore the rolling road furniture that happens to be in the lane to my right.
|
|
"six drivers were forced to brake and swerve to overtake the vehicle"
Fine that lot as well for being m****s. Plod obviously decided to pick on the middle lane hogger than 6 people who were driving poorly.
|
|
|
Daft twerp failed to turn up for the hearing.
And presumably failed the roadside 'attitude test' and/or did not take up or respond to offer of a course or fixed penalty.
The courts take a robust line with non-attenders usually involving 'throwing the book'. If he still tries to ignore it he'll be stung or enforcement costs too.
|
|
|
Daft twerp failed to turn up for the hearing.
Depending on circumstances i reckon you could argue your way out of this one in a court.
Am i the only one who doesn't bother too much about making a big drama out of overtaking a lane hogger, i've seen some do the exagerrated over-indicated swerve from the inside to the outside lane, overtake and give the statutory glare at the offender then rinse and repeat the over-indicated return to the inside lane..or they'll swerve and undertake taking all their venom out on their own tyres and suspension then pull sharply back in front of the offender to teach them a lesson presumably, why bother with it all, the offender's either blissfully unaware or possibly finds it all highly amusing that his little bit of main road trolling has pulled so many fish in.
I don't go past on the inside at breakneck speed to prove a point and no swerving or flashing of indicators nor glaring, but neither am i averse to just continuing on the lane i'm in at my previous speed and just ignore the rolling road furniture that happens to be in the lane to my right.
Must admit I sometimes gently overtake on the inside if traffic is light.
|
|
|
|
Signs of a true professional driver there GB. I really don't understand why people get soo uptight about it.
I have seen people do even more m****ic things than the middle lane hoggers, like those who overtake in the outside lane then cut across the front of the lane hogger to the inside lane and slow down until the middle lane hogger has overtaken, then move out to the outside lane to overtake and repeat this m****ic routine. I think I know which of the two is the worst.
|
|
I recently saw a video on youtube where a car was hogging the outside lane of a motorway at night, a police car came up behind them and the fool first stamped on the brakes and then turned all his lights off and then back on again. This was followed by the police car lighting up it's blues. Laughable really as all they had to do was move over and the police would have probably left them alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right, 'revenge beatings' can be worse than the original offence! But on a busy motorway, it does reduce the lanes by one, and can cause considerable congestion. If you have high speed traffic in lane 3, and a middle lane hogger doing 60mph in lane 2, overtaking can be difficult. I tend to overtake in lane 1, when safe, assuming an empty hard shoulder.
I think plod can do you for undertaking, if they deem it to have been unsafe.
|
|
I tend to do a shade under 80 in lane 2 unless I come up behind a lane hogger. The last time I went into Lane 1 on a seriously wet M6 the way the lorries were driving I was lucky to escape with my life. Went of at the next exit.
All driving requres awareness of other road users and only a very small percentage seem to have it nowadays. Fortunately idiot cyclists with camera on their head are not allowed on motorways so that at least is one less problem!
|
|
Fortunately idiot cyclists with camera on their head are not allowed on motorways so that at least is one less problem!
Plenty of self important twonks/concerned witnesses (delete as appropriate) with dash cams in cars or trucks though.
Cyclists have no monopoly on cheap lightweight digicams.
|
|
|
|
|
I've often found cars in the right hand lane and when I flash them they won't move over. When I overtake them on the left I've often noticed that they are of a foreign pursuasion and seem totally oblivious to what they are doing wrong.
I've just got back from Spain and they pull out to overtake and then go straight back to the inside lane. We are hopeless at this in England, you let a car out and they stay there for miles. We can have as many lanes as we want on a motorway, but only the outside 2 will get used.
|
|
If he'd have turned up for the hearing I reckon he would have got off.
I've always thought the police are on a bit of a sticky-wicket trying to prosecute anyone for supposedly doing this.
|
If he'd have turned up for the hearing I reckon he would have got off.
I've always thought the police are on a bit of a sticky-wicket trying to prosecute anyone for supposedly doing this.
I wonder if one or more other vehicles were involved in a game of silly bu**ers and chummy was the unlucky one who got fingered. Assume the cop car was camera equipped so whatever the Berlingonaut did was available to the bench in full colour.
He'd have saved himself a lot of bother if he'd either (a) paid the FP or taken a safe driving ourse or (b) turned up at court to plead not guilty and argue (or mitigate if he really knows he's guilty). Don't know what the rules are in Mags Ct but I suspect there will be some process whereby he can get the case re-opened/re-heard.
Otherwise it's appeal to the Crown Court or Judicial Review either of which make £900 plus victim surcharge look small beer cost wise.
|
|
|
|
|
I think plod can do you for undertaking, full stop. It's supposed to be against the law, unless traffic is "moving in lanes".
But people who sit in the middle lane forever when the left lane is plainly empty for three-quarters of a mile or more, typically at night, wind me up no end.
If the left lane is completely empty, why do they *DO* that?!?
They're either supremely arrogant or supremely incompetent, and actually deserve to be rammed off the road.
|
I think plod can do you for undertaking, full stop. It's supposed to be against the law, unless traffic is "moving in lanes".
Is it? I'm not aware of any specific law forbidding it.
I wonder how many here, decrying middle lane hoggers, are themselves when confronted with 'managed motorways' for refusing to use the hard shoulder if it's in use as a running lane?
|
|
Good point, BT.
I fairly frequently encounter this problem on the M1 between Jct 10 and 11. This is where, quite often during busy times, the gantry signs say "Congestion. Use hard shoulder," yet people pull out from the slip road at Jct 10 instead of continuing along the hard shoulder, often pushing their way into heavy traffic on what is now Lane 2.
I don't get it, I really don't. Are they thick, illiterate, or what? They can see other traffic is already on the hard shoulder. There are the gantry signs - repeated ad nauseam.
I just don't understand their thought processes - if they have any.
|
|
|
>>>"I'm not aware of any specific law forbidding it."
Hmmm, you raise an interesting point, BT:
I note that
Highway Code Rule 163:
"Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
g) only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so.
h) stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left."
uses the word "should", whereas for example
Rule 165:
"You MUST NOT overtake
b) if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line."
uses the word "must" presented in bold capitals.
Then, in the chapter about motorways:
Rule 267:
"Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right."
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."
So even these say only "Do not" rather than "You MUST NOT"
So are we to take it that they are only advisory, and no specific LAW is quoted?
So it seems if I am already in the LH lane (ie I don't 'weave') and going faster than a centre lane hogger, I can undertake on the motorway and the police can't strictly 'do' me for anything whatsoever!
Dang! - after all those years of anger I've endured !
|
|
Rule 268. Fine when snail racing is taking place. When I undertake I do it very gently. Sometimes I will sit level with middle lane hogger to see if their brain engages. Invariably these people are from another country so perhaps do not realise they are doing anything wrong.
Why do I sometimes undertake? Seems bit barmy to have to go from lane one, across lane 2 to lane 3, then back across lane 2, to revert to lane 1, to get ahead of a vehicle.
|
|
Which lane do you sit in level with the middle lane hogger? If it's inside, then where are they meant to go if their brain does "engage"?
And which nationality do you find the most frequent middle lane hoggers?
|
|
If they look across their brain will have engaged. I tend to get level, back off so they can move over, if they don't, I keep going. Most seem to be in a world of their own, so don't even notice me. Auto pilot drivers. Best off the road.
I'll let you guess.
Edited by Trilogy on 23/06/2015 at 08:56
|
Why do I sometimes undertake? Seems bit barmy to have to go from lane one, across lane 2 to lane 3, then back across lane 2, to revert to lane 1, to get ahead of a vehicle.
Seems a stupid thing to do. Generally we don't undertake in the UK so a driver won't be expecting you to be there so they could every easily move into the inside lane without realsiing that you are there. And it's not difficult to go from lane 1 to 3 and then back.
Just seems like a dangerous, lazy thing to do.
|
|
Whereas sitting in the middle lane when there's plainly no good reason isn't at all lazy, and causes zero hazard, zero inconvenience and zero congestion.
;-)
|
Whereas sitting in the middle lane when there's plainly no good reason isn't at all lazy, and causes zero hazard, zero inconvenience and zero congestion.
;-)
No, sitting in the middle lane is stupid and dangerous as well - if someone is being stupid and hogging the lane it doesn't mean you need to be dangerous and undertake them.
|
Why do I sometimes undertake? Seems bit barmy to have to go from lane one, across lane 2 to lane 3, then back across lane 2, to revert to lane 1, to get ahead of a vehicle.
Seems a stupid thing to do. Generally we don't undertake in the UK so a driver won't be expecting you to be there so they could every easily move into the inside lane without realsiing that you are there. And it's not difficult to go from lane 1 to 3 and then back.
Just seems like a dangerous, lazy thing to do.
It is a measured decision.
If they're alert, they'll look. Anyway, why should we have to go from lane 1 to 3 and then back to lane 1, just because a selfish middle lane driver is there? Middle lane hoggers are as selfish as people who think driving at 45 mph is acceptable on a '60' limit road. However, I do think some middle lane hoggers are ablivious to the fact they are doing anything wrong. Perhaps a bit brain dead.
|
|
What if they are not alert and just come back into lane 1 and hit you. Like you said they don't realise what they are doing abd a bit brain dead...so why risk it?
|
|
|
They're either supremely arrogant or supremely incompetent, and actually deserve to be rammed off the road.
Indeed, that last comment did make me laugh. That is Wacky Races cartoon behaviour. We shouldn't advocate that at all.
|
|
I don't advocate it, but it's how I end up feeling.
Gordonbennet ought to release some audio seminars on cassette/CD/podcast I can listen to, to talk me down from my het-up-ness when I encounter such drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right, 'revenge beatings' can be worse than the original offence! But on a busy motorway, it does reduce the lanes by one, and can cause considerable congestion. If you have high speed traffic in lane 3, and a middle lane hogger doing 60mph in lane 2, overtaking can be difficult. I tend to overtake in lane 1, when safe, assuming an empty hard shoulder.
I think plod can do you for undertaking, if they deem it to have been unsafe.
Leif, I do it gently, only when I am alone in my car, when traffic volume is low, and I scan surrounding cars for any potential unmarked police cars.
|
|
|
|
Daft twerp failed to turn up for the hearing.
Depending on circumstances i reckon you could argue your way out of this one in a court.
Am i the only one who doesn't bother too much about making a big drama out of overtaking a lane hogger, i've seen some do the exagerrated over-indicated swerve from the inside to the outside lane, overtake and give the statutory glare at the offender then rinse and repeat the over-indicated return to the inside lane..or they'll swerve and undertake taking all their venom out on their own tyres and suspension then pull sharply back in front of the offender to teach them a lesson presumably, why bother with it all, the offender's either blissfully unaware or possibly finds it all highly amusing that his little bit of main road trolling has pulled so many fish in.
I don't go past on the inside at breakneck speed to prove a point and no swerving or flashing of indicators nor glaring, but neither am i averse to just continuing on the lane i'm in at my previous speed and just ignore the rolling road furniture that happens to be in the lane to my right.
Gordon, you are right, again. You usually are. No point in getting angry with another driver. I see people getting angry with cyclists coming towards them on narrow one way streets. I just keep as far left as possible and ignore them. Not my problem to deal with. Makes for lower stress progress - best way.
|
No point in getting angry with another driver. I see people getting angry with cyclists coming towards them on narrow one way streets. I just keep as far left as possible and ignore them. Not my problem to deal with. Makes for lower stress progress - best way.
Maybe i've done so many years full time on the road that i've seen it all, just do me own thing at me own pace and let the world go to hell, it's tailgating its way there anyhow.
Like you i really can't be bothered with them.
Saw another altercation this morning near Tottenham, fast flowing single track road (that newish corridor that leads up to Enfield Lock, A1055?), bloke in an estate car must have got annoyed by the cabby behind (i haven't a clue at the lead up to this), so stopped, cabby goes to drive past so matey pulls across the road, cabby again tries to go by, matey again pulls hard over, by now they're both at right angles across the road.
Cabby just does a U turn and clears off the other way, sensible chap, matey then does the same and follows him...you have to wonder what makes these people tick, then you realise they're probably eligible to vote, more worryingly they might breed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
About time to.
"Traffic police said six drivers were forced to brake and swerve to overtake the vehicle,"
That makes me question the ability of the traffic police officer who said something so silly. It does cause congestion, but safe drivers are not forced to swerve.
This had me scratching my head. Either this driver was also driving very slow eg. 20mph, he was trying to swerve into people as they went past or other were driving far too fast.
The only thing I can think of is that he did a number of things and middle lane hogging was the easiest thing to book him for, even though is wasn't the most serious?
|
|
I don't see the point in under taking if the outer lane is clear, just shows a lack of road craft to me.
Pulling into the lorry lane everytime you pass someone can get very tiring, means far more concentration as the middle laners can often pen you in.
Its far better to drive in the middle lane at the legal speed, unless you have substatial empty road to your left. That leaves the outer lane available to those wanting to get somewhere quick.
IME those driving slow in the lorry lane (ok lane 1) are a bigger hindrance, as that means lorry man is then using lane 2.
|
|
It sounds as if you are justifying second lane hogging, although it isn't clear from your post.
A vehicle should move left if reasonable, but if in doing so, they would have to move right again, after ~10 seconds say, there is no point. The problem is that there is often a large speed differential between the lane 2 hogger, and lane 3. So if like me you don't drive at warp speed, getting from lane 2 to lane 3 can be very hard.
I think some people lane 2 hog as they see it as a compromise lane, and they lack confidence in overtaking. So they can cruise in lane 2 without ever having to move from lane 1 to lane 2.
|
It sounds as if you are justifying second lane hogging, although it isn't clear from your post.
A vehicle should move left if reasonable, but if in doing so, they would have to move right again, after ~10 seconds say, there is no point. The problem is that there is often a large speed differential between the lane 2 hogger, and lane 3. So if like me you don't drive at warp speed, getting from lane 2 to lane 3 can be very hard.
I think some people lane 2 hog as they see it as a compromise lane, and they lack confidence in overtaking. So they can cruise in lane 2 without ever having to move from lane 1 to lane 2.
Exactly Leif.
I'm afraid it's people who regard Lane 1 as the "lorry lane" that tend to be lane 2 hoggers, because they know best. Along with the 'in their own world mimsers or chatting to their passengers' types.
I used to get a bit worked up, but now I adopt gordonbennett's approach and either move round them or gently undertake with a pause before I get level with them.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm in the LH lane because the LH lane is clear as far as the eye can see, but I get closer and closer to someone sat in the middle lane for no reason, then it is that prat who is demonstrating a lack of roadcraft.
He or she is being discourteous to other road users and is a hazard, as, if I don't undertake, I have no option but to perform TWO pull-outs into a lane to my right, which would otherwise be utterly unnecessary.
They are also effectively reducing a 3-lane carriageway to a 2-lane one, and thus also being an unnecessary cause of congestion.
|
|
They are also effectively reducing a 3-lane carriageway to a 2-lane one, and thus also being an unnecessary cause of congestion.
That can also be levelled at lorries "elephant racing", something I see much more of, and more frustrating. Getting past one middle lane owner is easier than having a stream of LGVs in lanes 1 and 2, by the time all of the traffic that must pass has moved into lane 3 the congestion often slows that lane down to that of lanes 1 and 2.
I have no option....
There is an option to having to pull out. Slow down, it may not be the option you want, but it's an option.
|
|
|
|
Under taking is dangarous at speed, and should only be undertaken in crawling traffic.
Exceptions are when lanes are clearly marked, such a lanes splitting to exit onto other motorways.
Edited by xtrailman on 23/06/2015 at 12:53
|
|
I guess it is dangarous at speed - presumably because we're not used to it in the UK. I believe in the USA you can pass on either side - I presume that drivers there are accustomed to it and it doesn't spook them. People there will just tend to sit in one lane that is doing the sort of speed they want to do, and not pay much attention to what's passing them on either side in the other lanes.
Unfortunately, in the UK where we tend only to have 3 lanes and we set 'the rules of the road' with the intention of resulting in safer roads, we have the "pass only on the right" rule (even if it apparently isn't a law). But this rule then necessarily HAS to go hand-in-hand with the rule of "drive in the leftmost lane whenever it is reasonably possible to do so", otherwise the (safety) intention is undermined.
It is therefore centre-lane-hoggers who are the root cause of all the trouble.
|
|
Middle lane hoggers are only a problem when traffic is busy, same a outer lane hoggers.
The chap hogging the middle lane (OP) was driving dangerously IMO, same as tail gaters are.
But anyone driving at the legal limit is as far as i'm concerned entitled to do so, i believe drivers who do this have simply had enough of dodging in and out of the lane 1 overtaking slow traffic.
Same applies to those travelling at 90mph in the fast lane (lane 3), they get fed up of constantly weaving in and out and stay there until someone drives up at 100 mph.
I think most of us will happily drive in lane 1 provided its not hard work, and rut free.
|
|
The 6 drivers who braked and swerved should have been done for driving without due care and attention.
How many lorry drivers get done for tailgaiting or middle lane hogging with their "are they arent they overtaking" manouvers?
This guy is innocent of anything SERIOUS and £1000 fine and 5 points is totally inappropriate punishment. People driving without licences, insurance, MOT, stolen, cause death by dangerous driving, running over pedestrians, dont get anywhere that.
Police spokeperson said he caused inconvenvience to other drivers, in that case anyone causing inconvenience is now subject to a £1000 fine?????
He runs a small business which probably is now crippled financially.
Edited by brum on 23/06/2015 at 14:56
|
|
|
|
If I'm in the LH lane because the LH lane is clear as far as the eye can see, but I get closer and closer to someone sat in the middle lane for no reason, then it is that prat who is demonstrating a lack of roadcraft.
He or she is being discourteous to other road users and is a hazard, as, if I don't undertake, I have no option but to perform TWO pull-outs into a lane to my right, which would otherwise be utterly unnecessary.
They are also effectively reducing a 3-lane carriageway to a 2-lane one, and thus also being an unnecessary cause of congestion.
Do not forget that HGVs are banned from lane 3, so if there is slow traffic in lane 1 and a slow hogger in lane 2, they are unable to pass legally at all.
|
|
I read today in the Daily Something-or-Other that the muppet in the van is going to appeal - Just what grounds does he have to lodge an appeal?
|
I read today in the Daily Something-or-Other that the muppet in the van is going to appeal - Just what grounds does he have to lodge an appeal?
There were high winds on the uphill stretch of the M62 at the time which made driving dangerous and the inside lane was full of slower moving HGVs.
IIRC that stretch of the M62 is a smart motorway now whete most times speed limits of 50-60 mph are imposed and often ignored.
The police made him a scapegoat, and I'm inclined to believe him. Even if he was doing 60 mph on the middle lane on a busy motorway where somehow the majority of traffic was moving at an average of 70mph i.e. in some fairy land situation that Ive never witnessed, there is never a situation I can envisage where drivers are forced to swerve to avoid him. This is just BS given to the judge to convict in his absense.
Why didnt the cops just pull him over and give him a lecture or use the on the spot fine powers? They were probably too busy eating donuts....
He requested a hearing closer to his home as he couldnt afford to attend the hearing, but was ignored by the police/courts, that doesnt surprise me.
Sacrificial lamb that has had his world turned upside down by cops who should be doing proper work.
Edited by brum on 24/06/2015 at 00:50
|
|
The specific offence of undertaking (or nearside undertake) was actually removed from the statute books with the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic Act, and although the Highway Code advises against it, there is no specific law that prevents it.
|
|
Heard a, supposedly, IAM spokesman on the radio stating that on managed motorway working you shouldn't change lane.
Anyone tell me where this is stated?
|
|
I have seen signs stating this on managed motorways. Something along the lines of 'heavy traffic, stay in lane'. Chopping lanes causes congestion and doesn't improve the situation for the impatient driver.
|
|
|
"The police made him a scapegoat, and I'm inclined to believe him."
Really?
All the stuff about "all three lanes were busy" and "driving conditions were dangerous" is Stephens's own version, to be treated with scepticism, as is his claim that he has been picked on "because he drives a white van".
I simply do not believe he was prosecuted for anything other than egregious driving. Do we really believe the police chose someone at random and concocted a story? Some reports of the court case state that evidence was given that the inside lane was free at the time. Choose who you believe.
He says he did not attend court because his earnings would suffer. Whether true or not, what kind of message does this send out? Some accounts also state that he refused the on-the-spot fine, which is why the case went to court. There's little point in opting for a court appearance if you don't appear to argue your case.
His assertion, according to the Mirror is that "everyone does it" - i.e. hogging the middle lane. Presumably, he's no different.
The man deserves what he got, both for his driving and his disregard of the legal system.
His fine is £500, with costs of £400, plus the usual victim surcharge of £40. Five points on his licence, too. He could have avoided most of that if he had accepted an on-the-spot fine (£100 plus three points).
And he is certainly not the first to be caught, merely the first to be convicted in court. According to The Telegraph, over 10,000 motorists have been fined for a range of so-called anti-social driving offences, including lane hogging, since these were introduced. (tinyurl.com/n9jhutv)
Edited by FP on 24/06/2015 at 10:57
|
|
|
IIRC that stretch of the M62 is a smart motorway now whete most times speed limits ofhe 50-60 mph are imposed and often ignored.
It was actually on the high stretch toward Windy Hill, which is just plain 3 -lane, not smart.
So he "couldn't afford to go to court" but thought he could afford the likely cost of not going. Very intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
