No, I do what I would expect you to do. I overtake them and then return to what I was doing before.

Its called "live and let live".

I wouldnt tailgate anyone anyway, life is too short. I will slow down if you tailgate me though.

I live in Brittany in the north west of France. Many of the Route Nationale roads (RN) are dual carriageways. The driving standards of the average French driver leave much to be desired, except for their lane discipline on duals and motorways which is exemplary. They will very rarely ever stay in the overtaking lane (that's the FAST lane if you are a UK driver) after having overtaken and will usually (95%) signal to change lanes. Also when joining from a slip road they will not just signal and pull out from the slip road (ramp) in front of you, but wait until you are past and then join behind.

UK drivers take note!

>>I'm not sweeping from one side and back again to entertain you, simply as the quickest way round an obstruction.

You and I both know I was talking about the dramatic, demonstrative and sanctimonious overtakers, not simply the functional.

I have no way of knowing which you are.

>> is not the lane the Highway Code asks you to drive in

And you are not driving at a speed that the Highway Code finds acceptable. Why is there a difference between the two things?

Why should I not worry that as you are not driving at the speed the Highway Codes asks you to, that you may do other odd things and should not be trusted within my "bubble", especially when you are already acting irrationally by virtue of being frustrated?

All in all my point in this;

when someone is driving in lane 2, but not actually holding anyone else up, why does anyone get annoyed about it, or even care? Much less become obsessive?

>>You're breaking the law, but I can't say I care unless you're a nutter and endanger me. and anyway, so am I

I feel the need to explain that in that quote I meant "...so am I [breaking the law]" rather than a nutter.

As for the troll comment, I'm not clear as to your meaning; for clarification do you mean you fear I might be a troll or rather that I might be feeding them?

If you think I might be a Troll then ask around. Annoying, argumentative and troublesome perhaps, but not a troll.

That's fair. You can include arrogant as well. Also condescending, patronising, facetious and mocking.

Do let me know if you struggle with any of those.

Sarcastic, dammit I forgot sarcastic.

Edited by No FM2R II on 15/08/2012 at 17:14

Near us we have the A34. It may not be a motorway but it is certainly the most b*** mindedly sarcastic dual carriageway I know of. It takes the urine, particularly on wet Friday evenings.

(when no-one else is close) knock the MLOC's into lane 1.

Returning to seriousness for a minute, I don't really get the problem.

For a start in the example above, if nobody else is around why does it matter?

Secondly, I would differentiate between the two circumstances; Firstly there is those times when the motorway is busy and someone hogging the lane, particularly if at less that 70mph, causes completely chaos. Its inconsiderate and ridiculous. I get that and agree that these people are rude and should move over. However, they either don't care, so there's no hope, or they're oblivious, so there's no hope.

I would never do that, annoyingly people do, but generally one just needs to be philisophical about t since in the scheme of things its not the end of the world.

Then there is the other circumstance I frequently encounter on the motorway late at night. I'm travelling a long way, its very late, there's naff all around, other than periodic trucks in the "slow" lane. I will sit in the middle lane at around 80mph with the cruise control on and settle in to the long drive.

Every now and again a car will come along behind me, travelling considerably faster than my 80mph. Rather than just popping across to the "fast" lane, as I would do, passing me and going merrily on his way, it suddenly turns out that its driven by the behaviour police.

He will flash his lights like a crazy man, come far too close to the tail of my car, go into the "fast" lane at the last moment and then dramatically sweep back across to the "slow" lane, frequently with gestures. Why?

Why is he so concerned with what I'm doing?

Why is it such a big deal to use the "fast" lane?

Is it really worth getting so frustrated about and engdangering us both?

Does he think his behaviour will change mine?

I genuinely don't get it. Any more than I understand why people speed up when you overtake them.

And I'm not talking about the reasonably behaved simply making progress, I'm talking about the idiots.

And really, if all you can think of is "its your fault for daring to be in the middle lane" or similar, then I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to people who have minds.

The Highway Code also mentions speed limits. So if you're using the HC as a justification for being annoyed by people in the middle lane, then presumably we're annoyed by people breaking the speed limit as well?

Or is this a bit more selective than that?

It's not illegal to undertake, providing the traffic in the lane to your right is moving more slowly than the traffic in your lane (Highway code 260-something)

A middle-lane hogger doing 65 when you want to do 70 doesn't constitute "slow moving traffic".

Actually no it doesn't. It only says that you should use the leftmost lane when not overtaking.

I have no particular problem with the described driving at 80 in the middle, provided the driver has the courtesy to move over if the odd car becomes a stream of them having to go all the way around them.

There is a particular type of MLOC who really pulls my chain. They will be sat in the left lane, nothing around just me and them, who will wait until I've just pulled out to overtake them, just before the two-laner turns into a three, and pull straight out in front of me maybe 100 metres before the road expands. I can just about tolerate them hogging the middle lane, but what is the logic in forcing me to brake just so they can take 'their' place in the middle lane?

Thankfully it doesn't happen very often (although it has been 3 or 4 times in the last couple of years). On one occasion I will admit to having lost my rag a little, and overtook the little bleeder then sat in front of him in the middle lane and slowed to 40. He moved out into the third lane at this point, I returned to lane 1 and floored it. He sat there waddling in lane 3 at 40-50mph (it was a small car so no acceleration up the bank to speak of). I'm pretty sure he was still there by the end of the 3-lane section, having been undertaken in lane 1 by a van.

OK.

You sit in the middle lane late at night because there isn't much traffic and you don't want to have to change lane. This means that when another car is travelling faster than you that car has to change lane. That's why they get annoyed with you because your lazy, arrogant driving style has necessitated them to change lane when if you had been in the lefmost lane, where you should be, they wouldn't have to.

The faster driver would have to change lane anyway -- as he should have been in lane 1 also up to the point of overtaking.

To be forced to traverse 3 or 4 lanes to overtake someone sat in the 3rd or 4th lane with nothing else around though is beyond the pale -- and there should be no issue with passing such drivers on the left IMO.

>> that car has to change lane. That's why they get annoyed

Ooooh, I see. They have to change lane!!! No wonder they're furious at the arrogant behaviour of the other person!!

I thought it was ridiculous and just because they were a small-minded prat with an empty life and an emptier head who thought the world revolved around them. I hadnt realised the severity of the provocation!

Its all clear now. You want to overtake WITHOUT changing lanes.

I believed the world contained idiots, but it is nice to have proof.