Forum menu
Yep, lane hogging does no harm at all and doesn't slow people down, cause jams or encourage people to undertake - so it should definitely be left alone.
And I'm certain that the drivers of the 6 cars mentioned in the report all called the police and complained, so are certainly deserving of the epithet 'delicate little flowers'.
Jeez.
Most French autoroutes are just 2 lanes, difficult to hog a middle lane then. (At least the ones I've been on).
If the ****-wits who sit in the middle lane didn't, and stayed in the lane they were meant to be in instead, then the whole network would function as it was designed too, making life a lot easier for everyone. And, yes... safer.
Well, I think you might want some evidence there. As a counter-hypothesis (well, a hypothesis to counter to an assumption) one could suggest that more lane changing actually reduces safety because of the greater number of interactions.
It's also worth adding some context to the issue of middle lane hogging, which is that plenty of countries allow passing on the inside. I've no idea whether any research has been done to ascertain whether such rules reduce safety (removing confounding factors would be tricky) but it shouldn't be assumed that a system that passes on one side but encourages more lane changes should be inherently safer than one that allows passing on both sides and may as a result reduce the need to change lanes.
I think it's fairly clear that ducking in and out of every gap between vehicles in the inside lane would be seen as more dangerous than passing several in one go, so clearly there's a balance to be struck.
Fundamentally, though, all of this is missing the point, which is that collisions on motorways are mainly caused by people driving such that they're unable to avoid whatever unfolds ahead of them. 60mph is the speed limit for plenty of vehicles on such roads, and if people think that someone doing 60 in front of them is somehow dangerous, then they need to take a good long look at their own driving.
Fundamentally, though, all of this is missing the point, which is that collisions on motorways are mainly caused by people driving such that they're unable to avoid whatever unfolds ahead of them. 60mph is the speed limit for plenty of vehicles on such roads, and if people think that someone doing 60 in front of them is somehow dangerous, then they need to take a good long look at their own driving.
Far more succinct +1...
Having one vehicle in a lane doesn't constitute 'the middle lane going slower'. If you went past in the inside lane, you'd be done.
Done for what, exactly?
60mph is the speed limit for plenty of vehicles on such roads, and if people think that someone doing 60 in front of them is somehow dangerous, then they need to take a good long look at their own driving.
Speed isn't the issue. Incorrectly sitting in the middle lane, oblivious to whats going on around you, is the issue. Someone could be doing 20 for all I care. As long as they do it in the corresct lane, so I can get past them as I wildly hurtle along at 70.
Sitting in the middle lane, whatever the speed is you're doing, is simply bell-endery, which I believe is what our resident middle-lane-sitting ****-wit was prosecuted for. Here hoping for more prosecutions. Might make the idiots actually think about how motorways are meant to operate. Its hardly bloody complicated, is it?
The fact that six delicate little flowers who had to apply the brakes, use the indicators and turn their steering wheel a bit are considered "victims" tells a tale IMO...
Or was there an actual accident? did I miss something here? I hope they feel the £6.66 they're in line to receive cover's the emotional suffering the have undergone...
Whatever you do, don't let the fact that you clearly don't understand the topic, stop you from ranting about it.
Whatever you do, don't let the fact that you clearly don't understand the topic, stop you from ranting about it.
Feel free to enlighten me...
nice rant but I seriously doubt the police took details of the 6 cars that had to break and are now trying to contact them to give them a share of 40 bloody quid.
lol
Speed isn't the issue. Incorrectly sitting in the middle lane, oblivious to whats going on around you, is the issue.
Yes, but it's a really quite unimportant one.
It's just a case of some people being a bit annoyed because they have to move their hands and feet a bit.
Don't get me wrong, I find middle lane hoggers a little annoying, but it's really nothing to get angry about and it's not, per se, a safety issue. If it was, we'd have to ask some pretty searching questions about two-lane carriageways.
It's getting into the realms of inconsiderate though, which is what he'll have been done for.
Agree Cougar.
Done for what, exactly?
I think that when people get used to getting away with inconsiderate and poor driving a considerable proportion of them start pushing it further. Hogging the middle lane ignorant of all the other road users is the same mindset as driving into a low sun and not reducing speed. It is the drivers entitlement to drive however they want and **** everyone else.
I do like a good* STW driving thread, where two camps quickly form:
The first, the righteously indignant who want to demonstrate to everyone their amazing knowledge of the law, driving conventions and sheer skill behind the wheel (while refusing to acknowledge their own regular rule-breaking), and
The second, the passive aggressive who proudly pronounce their conversion from the stressed sales rep to the conscious ditherer: "I'm driving at 45 and see if I care"
There is, as yet, no sign of a clear winner....
*Don't worry, this doesn't qualify
Well, I think you might want some evidence there. As a counter-hypothesis (well, a hypothesis to counter to an assumption) one could suggest that more lane changing actually reduces safety because of the greater number of interactions.
So one arsehole sitting in the middle lane when one lane change could have put them in the correct lane actually decreases safety, because they have forced at least six other drivers to change lane who would otherwise not have needed to.
It's getting into the realms of inconsiderate though, which is what he'll have been done for.
Similarly inconsiderate to the cyclist not using the cycle lane, and holding up motorised traffic.
I suspect that on motorways in the SE there isn't sufficient space to accommodate all traffic not engaged in overtaking.
So one arsehole sitting in the middle lane when one lane change could have put them in the correct lane actually decreases safety, because they have forced at least six other drivers to change lane who would otherwise not have needed to.
It is of course a given that none of those drivers feeling the need to overtake are themselves engaged in unsafe practices, for example, exceeding the speed limit.
Good. I do a lot of motorway driving and get so ****ed off with useless ****s sat in the middle or outside lane going way less than the limit.
It's just a case of some people being a bit annoyed because they have to move their hands and feet a bit.
No. It's a case of reducing a three-lane carriageway down to one lane, and causing those behind who are driving correctly to either travel at the same speed as the rolling road-block, make four lane changes to pass instead of the two it would normally take, or pass on the left.
Or I suppose, a fourth option could be to blip your headlights to alert the other driver, but mostly the oblivious ones don't see you anyway and the ones doing it intentionally can react in all manner of unpredictable and potentially dangerous ways.
It is of course a given that none of those drivers feeling the need to overtake are themselves engaged in unsafe practices, for example, exceeding the speed limit.
The driver in this case was doing 60mph on a motorway so there would be no need to exceed the posted limit to need to overtake.
Done for what, exactly?
Rule 268, Highway Code.
If you went past in the inside lane, you'd be done.
being a smartarse ?Done for what, exactly?
As a driver of a less sporty car I find the sort of bell end who hogs the middle lane really dangerous and inconsiderate I come up behind them in the left lane at 70 followed by other people who have the wit and skill to follow the high way code they stay square in the middle I pull out to the middle signalling they can't drive so stay where they are because they either are unaware of me in their morrror or believe they have a god given right to block the lane I now have to either decelerate or try and accelerate out into the outer lane where cars are already overtaking. I then go past and pull across to the nearside keeping an eye out for others who have undertaken the lane hogger.
I know the person who prosecuted this no delicate flowers bleating to complain no compensation to victims just someone who can't follow a very simple rule who has been punished for driving poorly without regard to other road users.
Oh yes quite a few tickets issued all bar this Muppet suck it up and pay rather than dispute .
So one arsehole sitting in the middle lane when one lane change could have put them in the correct lane actually decreases safety, because they have forced at least six other drivers to change lane who would otherwise not have needed to.
If the six drivers who overtook him hadn't needed to change lane to do so, they'd have necessarily been in the middle or outside lane. So what you're saying is that six cars failing to move across as required is safer than one car failing to move across as required…? 😉
I still think my idea of snipers strategically placed on motorway bridges is betterer
Along with 5 points and a grand in fines...
Pah! Lightweight deterrents. I raise you with roadside decapitation and the still bleeding head skewered on a pole in the central reservation as a warning to all the other ****less idiots who can't or won't keep left unless overtaking.
That'd sort it.
No. It's a case of reducing a three-lane carriageway down to one lane, and causing those behind who are driving correctly to either travel at the same speed as the rolling road-block, make four lane changes to pass instead of the two it would normally take, or pass on the left.
Well, yes (though it's reducing it to two lanes rather than one, unless you argue that simply using a dual carriageway is basically the same offence as staying in the middle lane). I do agree. It's annoying and inconsiderate.
I'm playing devil's advocate because (a) anyone who argues it presents danger probably needs to adjust their own driving and (b) I have a large chip on my shoulder, namely the fact that this inconveniencing of others carries an identical punishment to the use of a mobile phone, which is a considerable and wilful addition to road danger.
Doubtful - between glancing occasionally at the road ahead and then more frequently between mobile screen and hair-view mirror, there's precious little chance of most drivers even knowing there [i][b]is[/b][/i] a reservationPah! Lightweight deterrents. I raise you with roadside decapitation and the still bleeding head skewered on a pole in the central reservation as a warning to all the other ****less idiots who can't or won't keep left unless overtaking.That'd sort it.
Well, yes (though it's reducing it to two lanes rather than one, unless you argue that simply using a dual carriageway is basically the same offence as staying in the middle lane). I do agree. It's annoying and inconsiderate.
Even more so on 4 lane sections of the M25 where 4 lanes become 2, because the middle lane hogger sits in lane 3 of 4.
Along with the snipers, can we please have landmines on those dodgy areas marked with lots of diagonal white lines, like in the middle where a lane ends? The mines being just big enough to take out a tyre, we don't want pile-ups, thanks.
Along with the snipers, can we please have landmines on those dodgy areas marked with lots of diagonal white lines, like in the middle where a lane ends? The mines being just big enough to take out a tyre, we don't want pile-ups, thanks.
Yeah! That's more like it. War on motorists. Has a nice ring to it methinks.
Rule 268, Highway Code.
I'm aware of that, but it doesn't answer the question.
Let's try again. Done for what exactly? What law is being broken by passing on the left? One cannot be "done" for "rule 268 of the Highway Code," one can only be "done" for breaking laws.
Driving without due care. Evidence of this would be that you ignored Rule 268 of the Highway code. If you don't believe me, pick a police car in the middle lane of the DC & then undertake it. See what happens.
War on Motorists, no, just getting the attention of the careless and impetuous.
I missed this,
The first, the righteously indignant who want to demonstrate to everyone their amazing knowledge of the law, driving conventions and sheer skill behind the wheel (while refusing to acknowledge their own regular rule-breaking),
I fail to see why either a knowledge of the law or a competence in a pastime which could potentially kill someone if done badly is in any way something to be criticised.
Unless you're conflating "competent" and "awesome" of course.
Done for what, exactly?
being a smartarse ?
Ooh, yeah thats me. Compared to the fwits that sit in the middle lane my arsehole is a longstanding champion of Countdown.
Driving without due care. Evidence of this would be that you ignored Rule 268 of the Highway code.
It [i]could [/i]be construed as driving without due care, but that's subjective. If you hurtled past traffic at Mach 1 whilst weaving in and out of traffic then probably. Passing a slower-moving vehicle whilst otherwise travelling safely and obeying the speed limit, I very much doubt it.
If you don't believe me, pick a police car in the middle lane of the DC & then undertake it. See what happens.
Unlikely to happen as highway patrol vehicles tend not to hog the middle lane at 60. Should the situation ever occur I'd be happy to find out for you.
The point is, me old Puma concolor, if you sit on a DC, unless the traffic slows in the outside lane, we quite clearly do not have a road system where you can use any lane to overtake. The situation you see in the US with cars cruising in, and overtaking in, any lane is not meant to exist here. The rule is: Overtake on the right. Otherwise why prosecute people for sitting in the middle lane. It wouldn't matter if you sat in the middle lane would it, if overtaking on the left is ok ?
It wouldn't matter if you sat in the middle lane would it, if overtaking on the left is ok?
Bingo. They could have just scrubbed 268.
Funnily enough, I was thinking the other day, whilst on the motorway, what had happened to the witch-hunt over this. Of all the things I've seen people do on the roads, this has to rank quite low down in terms of dangerous activities. It ranks as an annoyance for me, rather than something to get all Daily Mail over.
What is more dangerous is how other drivers react to lane hoggers e.g. those who like to make their feelings known by speeding right up to the bumper and staying there until they move; those who don't know how to use their brakes properly and swerve to other lanes at the last minute without looking properly; those who like to overtake and pull back in only a metre or two from the front of the "offending" car etc etc
The fact is that the "slow" lane is perma-clogged by heavy goods vehicles, while the "fast" lane requires a minimum speed of 90 mph, unless you run the risk of an Audi up your a**e. If you just want to drive normally, you are often left little choice but to stay in the middle lane. I'm not excusing it, and it's not something I do, but I can understand why people do do it.
Whatever you do, don't let the fact that you clearly don't understand the topic, stop you from ranting about it.
Feel free to enlighten me...
It's already been covered in the thread.
It's OK, He sat in lane 2 because it was windy
😯
The fact is that the "slow" lane is perma-clogged by heavy goods vehicles, while the "fast" lane requires a minimum speed of 90 mph, unless you run the risk of an Audi up your a**e. If you just want to drive normally, you are often left little choice but to stay in the middle lane. I'm not excusing it, and it's not something I do, but I can understand why people do do it.
Which isn't what happened in this case, lane 1 was empty.
Undertaking is legal in the sense that it was removed from the statute books about 40odd years ago, the manner in which you do it is more important than the act.
From an accident investigator:
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.The reason for this is in part due to the poor lane discipline experienced on Motorways. There are often many oaccisons (which many of you have probably experienced yourself) when lane 3 is stationary but lanes 1 and 2 are clear and so it is often easier to continue in the inside lanes and keep traffic flowing.
On other occasions drivers will catch up a vehicle doing say 50mph but remains in lane 2 whilst lane 1 is empty (late at night for example) and to go from lane 1 acrosss to lane 3 is potentially just as dangerous, whereas remaining in lane 1 allows the vehicle to pass quite safely (I hope I explained that OK?)
However, whilst there is no specific offence of undertaking, we still have careless driving under section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, and a driver who undertakes dangerously or badly will find themselves before the court for either careless or in the worst cases dangerous (section 2 of the same act)
But, to obtain a conviction, the prosecution has to show that the standard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver, and the act of the nearside overtake would not in itself be sufficient to secure a conviction.
However, if as I saw yesterday, a vehicle shoots past in lane 2 on the undertake, then into lane 1, undertakes and then shoots out to lane 3 and then back to lane 3 (if you like, weaving from lane to lane) then that would probably be sufficient to get the conviction.
If like me on the same route, I had a vehicle doing 45 - 50 in lane 2 in an empty motorway, I went past at around 60 and a Police car followed me and then pulled over the centre lane hogger, then you know that the hogger is going to get done for driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (which is a sub section of careless driving).
I hope I explained that OK.
The other question I get asked a lot is what if the centre lane hogger then moves back to lane 1 as you are undertaking and a colision occurs?
Well, then centre lane hogger has a statutory duty of care to ensure it is safe to move back in just as much as they do when moving to an outside lane, and there have been a few cases in civil law where the hogger has been held 100% liable on the basis that withthe evidence available they could have been in lane 1 in the first place, and so they commmitted the section 3 offence, and then failed to check it was safe to return to lane 1, and that the undertaking driver was acting perfectly reasonably for the circumstances.
So, in short, there is no offence, or specific offence, and if it is done sensibly, then nothing to worry about, but just be aware of the possiblity of the hogger moving across back into the nearside lane.
I hope that answers the question for you?
http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?13698-Undertaking
From my long trips up and down the nations motorways before escaping it is a problem.
In this case sitting at 60mph in the middle lane means a steady stream of cars sitting at 70mph in the outside to get past, people in the middle doing 60mph trying to slot into gaps on what appears to be a quiet bit of motorway. It concentrates cars into a space, blocks the flow of traffic and increases the risk to those that are there. Also if you have no understanding of how a motorway should work you present a danger to those around you.
I knew of some people who explained middle lane driving as a fear of changing lanes - join head to middle, stay there till exit, avoid having to pass truck etc. again if you can't change lanes on the motorway without being scared stay off them.
I knew of some people who explained middle lane driving as a fear of changing lanes
Yeah, I see that fairly often. Join the motorway, carve straight into the second lane without the slightest consideration for the existing motorway conditions, then stay there until the exit where they once again dive straight across the first lane onto the slip in one movement. Woe betide anyone who happens to be in lane 1 at the time. Madness.
It is really noticeable where there are 4 lanes and they carve straight across to the third lane.
These are the same people who don't reduce their speed when driving into a low sun or other poor visibility conditions, who overtake cyclists and then turn left across the cyclists path and all the other shit poor driving habits that they usually get away with because of circumstance rather than skill. I would rather they be penalised for their bad driving before they kill someone instead of waiting until it is too late.