Motorway middle-lane hoggers to face on-the-spot fines

[joescrivens]

When I drive on UK motorways I abide by the Highway Code and use the correct lane discipline. If I can do it, why can't others here do it? It really isn't difficult. I don't have to torture myself with ridiculous "what if" scenarios. I look ahead, judge, anticipate and drive accordingly, moving back to the inner lane when safe to do so as per the Highway Code.

i gave the reason earlier.

Lazyness.

Some people just can't be bothered basically. At least thats how i sometimes feel about it. Not always but depends on the motorway and how busy it is etc.

 

[chris954]

Or
It's the same if a vehicle pulls out from a side road into a main road and fails to give way to a speeding car. The driver pulling into the main road, failing to give way, will ALWAYS be the guilty party by virtue of the fact they failed to give way to the priority traffic (which an offside lane overtake will always be). If the speed was proven to be well in excess it is mitigating, but nothing more than that.

so the laws different for motorcyclists

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=467769

 

[fuzzyedges]

Educated responses? Mine have been. As a traffic cop I've explained where it would be enforced!

That explains the responces to my posts

 

[DorsetDude]

And it's 2-4-6-8 never too late

Sorry, not the lyrics thread is it.

 

[pepi1967]

And it's 2-4-6-8 never too late

Sorry, not the lyrics thread is it.

 

[ZoneV]

And it's 2-4-6-8 never too late

Sorry, not the lyrics thread is it.

Pull up to the bumper, bay-beeee...

 

[odd jim]

Came back to see how this was progressing

so the laws different for motorcyclists

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=467769

Nope, when did I infer that?

But like I said, each case has to be looked at in its own merits, certain factors will mitigate but if you fail to give way, you fail to give way.

But that case you referred back to (odd that you're looking up my old posts?) was a very strange one, where what was reported at least didn't add up. If you note my other posts you'll see that I said only the investigators and the CPS know all the evidence and the decision was based on that and we're not in a position to question what was presented in court.

 

[odd jim]

That explains the responces to my posts

???

 

[chris954]

Came back to see how this was progressing



Nope, when did I infer that?

But like I said, each case has to be looked at in its own merits, certain factors will mitigate but if you fail to give way, you fail to give way.

But that case you referred back to (odd that you're looking up my old posts?) was a very strange one, where what was reported at least didn't add up. If you note my other posts you'll see that I said only the investigators and the CPS know all the evidence and the decision was based on that.

you said, and I quote
"the driver pulling onto the main road failing to give way will ALWAYS be the guilty party by virtue of the fact they failed to give way to the priority traffic"

incidentally it was me who posted that originally, I didn't realise you had posted in it.

 

[odd jim]

you said, and I quote
"the driver pulling onto the main road failing to give way will ALWAYS be the guilty party by virtue of the fact they failed to give way to the priority traffic"

incidentally it was me who posted that originally, I didn't realise you had posted in it.

Yes I said that, when dealing with a simple case of failing to give way and causing an inconvenience to other road users.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you saying the fact she want taken to court by the CPS for death by dangerous driving conflicts with what I said above? She wasn't dealt with for failing to give way. If she was, she probably would have been given a ticket (it always used to be a £30 non endorsable ticket). But that's not how you deal with road deaths, obviously.

 

[nilagin]

But what does that mean? So as soon as I pass I should pull over, but 5 seconds later pull out again as I come up to a slower car? In theory you could get me weaving between lanes every 15 seconds or so? Maybe that's an extreme example but it does happen.

If you were travelling at 70mph having to change lane every 15 secs would mean you'd travelled over a quarter of a mile, I wouldn't say that was unreasonable.

Easiest way to catch middle lane hoggers is put up cameras at slip roads joining the motorway or dual carriageway. They'll head straight for the middle lane regardless of whether the inside lane is empty or not. No need to pull them over causing further hold ups while people slow to rubber neck to see what's going on, just fine them through the post.

 

[nilagin]

The law can be interpreted but as long as its interpreted within those boundaries you can be found guilty of the offence. And there are the boundaries so now you know! People will just have to be on their best behaviour. If everyone drives properly they haven't got anything to worry about, that's the point!

And what you've described above is inconsiderate driving. You should have seen the car in your offside mirror and waited. It makes no odds what speed he's driving at.

I would say it does matter. If I'm travelling at 70 mph and can see I'm catching a car in front which I want to overtake, I check my mirrors long before reaching the car in front and see a car in the distance behind me, I signal and manoeuvre. But the car coming up behind is travelling at 120mph, it's not unreasonable for me to have assumed that the car behind me was also travelling at the speed limit (no flashing blue lights to indicate an emergency vehicle) Therefore it is not inconsiderate on my part to make my manoeuvre and cause them to slow down, I would argue that it is the speeding motorist causing the inconvenience, not myself.

 

[nilagin]

It's all down to observation skills really. If you were always taught to blend in with other traffic and not get in other people's way then you carry that over. That's what my instructor taught me to do. You do not do anything that will cause another to change direction or speed.

Then you'll never be able to leave a road whilst you have other traffic behind you.

 

[ZoneV]

I would say it does matter. If I'm travelling at 70 mph and can see I'm catching a car in front which I want to overtake, I check my mirrors long before reaching the car in front and see a car in the distance behind me, I signal and manoeuvre. But the car coming up behind is travelling at 120mph, it's not unreasonable for me to have assumed that the car behind me was also travelling at the speed limit (no flashing blue lights to indicate an emergency vehicle) Therefore it is not inconsiderate on my part to make my manoeuvre and cause them to slow down, I would argue that it is the speeding motorist causing the inconvenience, not myself.

If you check your mirrors well in advance, as you said, and again just before committing to the overtake, you should know exactly what's going on around you, removing the need to make assumptions regarding the speed of the other cars.

 

[nilagin]

There are a lot of what ifs getting thrown around in here.

It will come down to what is seen at the time of the offence the same as it is with everything else motoring.

people will get away with it for so long then it will catch up with them in the end.
Most if not all motorway police patrols will have camera,s fitted botrh front and rear so if a driver decided that he was not hogging/tailgating then it will be a matter for the court to decide giving the evidence of the police camera film surely??

Many motorists have their own cameras fitted and can just as easily prove their innocence.

 

[Dale_tem]

I would say it does matter. If I'm travelling at 70 mph and can see I'm catching a car in front which I want to overtake, I check my mirrors long before reaching the car in front and see a car in the distance behind me, I signal and manoeuvre. But the car coming up behind is travelling at 120mph, it's not unreasonable for me to have assumed that the car behind me was also travelling at the speed limit (no flashing blue lights to indicate an emergency vehicle) Therefore it is not inconsiderate on my part to make my manoeuvre and cause them to slow down, I would argue that it is the speeding motorist causing the inconvenience, not myself.

You should always look twice so you can judge speed. That is your responsibility. The same as pulling out at a junction, you should check twice so you judge their speed and pull out safely.

I feel as a driver that my actions should not make people have to react to me (within reason). If I see someone catching me up when I want to pull out, I often let them past before pulling out, it costs me a whopping 3 seconds on my journey time.

 

[Dale_tem]

Nilagan are you disagreeing with everyone with silly statements for a reason or just because you are bored?

 

[nilagin]

If you check your mirrors well in advance, as you said, and again just before committing to the overtake, you should know exactly what's going on around you, removing the need to make assumptions regarding the speed of the other cars.

OK change the scenario a little, I'm being followed by a vehicle travelling also at 70mph and the vehicle travelling behind them is doing 120mph, I could quite easily MSMM and then pull out to overtake the car in front of me and in that time the car travelling at 120 mph will appear unsighted to me in no time at all. Extreme and unlikely, not really, a workmate's brother did just that on his motorbike, he hit the back of a car on the outside lane and killed himself instantly. So who would you say was at fault the car driver or the motorcyclist.

 

[nilagin]

Nilagan are you disagreeing with everyone with silly statements for a reason or just because you are bored?

I'm disagreeing because there are whopping big holes in some peoples reasoning.

 

[ZoneV]

OK change the scenario a little, I'm being followed by a vehicle travelling also at 70mph and the vehicle travelling behind them is doing 120mph, I could quite easily MSMM and then pull out to overtake the car in front of me and in that time the car travelling at 120 mph will appear unsighted to me in no time at all. Extreme and unlikely, not really, a workmate's brother did just that on his motorbike, he hit the back of a car on the outside lane and killed himself instantly. So who would you say was at fault the car driver or the motorcyclist.

Ah, now that's different you see.

In your first example, there was no good reason for you not to read the situation - you were making an assumption as to the max speed of everyone behind you.

In the second example, you could not possibly see the speeding car before it was too late.

See how it works yet?

 

[Dale_tem]

OK change the scenario a little, I'm being followed by a vehicle travelling also at 70mph and the vehicle travelling behind them is doing 120mph, I could quite easily MSMM and then pull out to overtake the car in front of me and in that time the car travelling at 120 mph will appear unsighted to me in no time at all. Extreme and unlikely, not really, a workmate's brother did just that on his motorbike, he hit the back of a car on the outside lane and killed himself instantly. So who would you say was at fault the car driver or the motorcyclist.

If they were all in the same lane, then in theory you couldn't see. BUT the car doing 120mph would need to pull out quite a way before reaching the car doing 70mph to do it safely, the probability of you pulling out at the same time is very slim and if you did, then they really should be far enough back to see you pull out.

I personally on my car have 3 mirrors, this often allows me to see not just the car behind me, but often a number of cars behind me, so I personally find it odd that in the situation provided you didn't see the car doing 120mph.

You also don't look and then go regardless, you are aware the whole time and should notice the car catching you up quickly and take the appropriate action.

 

[nilagin]

Ah, now that's different you see.

In your first example, there was no good reason for you not to read the situation - you were making an assumption as to the max speed of everyone behind you.

Everyone has to make assumptions to the speed of other vehicles, it's not an unreasonable assumption to believe they are not breaking the speed limit.
Regardless of how far back the car travelling at 120mph is, he could have 500yrds to slow down, not an unreasonable distance to pull out in front of someone to overtake, but they will probably still have to slow before you have completed your manoeuvre and moved back in.
The only person not fully reading the situation and being an inconvenience to other road users is the person speeding actually impeding other people who are travelling at the legal speed limit. If it were me speeding, I would be more considerate to those who were actually travelling at the speed limit and be prepared to have to adjust my driving to them than expect them to have to adjust to me whilst I'm braking the law.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

OK change the scenario a little, I'm being followed by a vehicle travelling also at 70mph and the vehicle travelling behind them is doing 120mph, I could quite easily MSMM and then pull out to overtake the car in front of me and in that time the car travelling at 120 mph will appear unsighted to me in no time at all. Extreme and unlikely, not really, a workmate's brother did just that on his motorbike, he hit the back of a car on the outside lane and killed himself instantly. So who would you say was at fault the car driver or the motorcyclist.

Did the car have its indicators on before it manoeuvred, or as it manoeuvred?

If you used your indicators early enough, like informing the guy behind of you next intention, ( which is what the highway code says "is it safe to manoeuvre yet!) then the guy in the fast car would have far more time to respond safely.

Middle lane hoggers are dangerous and those drivers cant be trusted to drive as the masses expect, they are not safe drivers....especially that 'pull out blind' Joe.

 

[odd jim]

I would say it does matter. If I'm travelling at 70 mph and can see I'm catching a car in front which I want to overtake, I check my mirrors long before reaching the car in front and see a car in the distance behind me, I signal and manoeuvre. But the car coming up behind is travelling at 120mph, it's not unreasonable for me to have assumed that the car behind me was also travelling at the speed limit (no flashing blue lights to indicate an emergency vehicle) Therefore it is not inconsiderate on my part to make my manoeuvre and cause them to slow down, I would argue that it is the speeding motorist causing the inconvenience, not myself.

Be realistic. If a cop saw that unfold in front of him, then he won't give you a ticket will he?

 

[nilagin]

I personally on my car have 3 mirrors, this often allows me to see not just the car behind me, but often a number of cars behind me, so I personally find it odd that in the situation provided you didn't see the car doing 120mph.

It's just a scenario, not something I have personally experienced but can envisage happening. If you are travelling at 70 mph and there is another vehicle travelling behind you at a safe distance and identical speed, on a straight road, you could have all the mirrors in the world and you would still be unlikely to see the car traveling at 120mph coming up behind them and you are making the assumption that they would start their overtake manoeuvre a safe distance behind the car following you. There's a good chance if they are travelling at 120 with other traffic on the road, they're not going to be too careful about judging when to pull out to overtake.

 

[ZoneV]

Everyone has to make assumptions to the speed of other vehicles, it's not an unreasonable assumption to believe they are not breaking the speed limit.

*snip*

Yes it is. Many, many people travel over the speed limit. Every second of every day there will be many people speeding on the motorway. To assume every car that doesn't display flashing blue lights will be travelling at 70mph or less is totally flawed logic.

 

[nilagin]

Be realistic. If a cop saw that unfold in front of him, then he won't give you a ticket will he?

So what does it matter if it's 90 mph or 120 mph?

 

[Dale_tem]

It's just a scenario, not something I have personally experienced but can envisage happening. If you are travelling at 70 mph and there is another vehicle travelling behind you at a safe distance and identical speed, on a straight road, you could have all the mirrors in the world and you would still be unlikely to see the car traveling at 120mph coming up behind them and you are making the assumption that they would start their overtake manoeuvre a safe distance behind the car following you. There's a good chance if they are travelling at 120 with other traffic on the road, they're not going to be too careful about judging when to pull out to overtake.

Again are you serious? You can only see 1 car behind you?

If the are directly behind you, your side mirrors will help or if they are over to one side, the opposite side mirror will help.

This is how I am able to monitor the progress of emergency vehicles catching me up to work out when to pull over.

 

[nilagin]

Yes it is. Many, many people travel over the speed limit. Every second of every day there will be many people speeding on the motorway. To assume every car that doesn't display flashing blue lights will be travelling at 70mph or less is totally flawed logic.

Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. That's like saying if 90% of people did something wrong it must be ok because only 10% didn't.
You break the law you suffer the consequences.

 

[nilagin]

Again are you serious? You can only see 1 car behind you?

If the are directly behind you, your side mirrors will help or if they are over to one side, the opposite side mirror will help.

This is how I am able to monitor the progress of emergency vehicles catching me up to work out when to pull over.

You obviously have no concept of the speed differential between 70 mph and 120mph and how much distance can be made in a very short time period at such a speed.

 

[odd jim]

So what does it matter if it's 90 mph or 120 mph?

The closing speed is quicker, and in your scenario you're describing a car effectively appearing out of no where if I've read it correctly.

If someone pulls out in front of someone they can clearly see, no matter what, it's likely to fall into the careless and inconsiderate bag. This is different to lane hogging though would you not agree?

 

[Dale_tem]

You obviously have no concept of the speed differential between 70 mph and 120mph and how much distance can be made in a very short time period at such a speed.

I do

I spend a lot of time travelling up and down the country (approx 30,000 miles a year) and have done for a number of years and have witnessed many things and have been cruising with people catching me up at well over 100mph from a long way back and stay out of their way.

I have also been speeding and had people not paying attention pull out in front of me, but I was paying attention and braked accordingly.

This is why I find your scenario so odd, it is easy to see cars catching you up.

 

[nilagin]

Did the car have its indicators on before it manoeuvred, or as it manoeuvred?

If you used your indicators early enough, like informing the guy behind of you next intention, ( which is what the highway code says "is it safe to manoeuvre yet!) then the guy in the fast car would have far more time to respond safely.

As far as I'm aware the driver of the car did overtake before starting his manoeuvre, but only the vehicle behind him would have seen this, the motorcyclist travelling so much faster would never have seen it, pulled out to overtake the vehicle in front of him and would have been confronted by a vehicle travelling a lot slower than him, no time to brake enough, no way to avoid the car in the time he had left, bang, game over.

 

[jockwav]

It is long overdue doing something about the idiot tailgaters,this is a huge pet hate i have of NUMPTIES who sit right on your bumper,motorway or anywhere else.

 

[ZoneV]

Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. That's like saying if 90% of people did something wrong it must be ok because only 10% didn't.
You break the law you suffer the consequences.

I didn't say it was right. What I'm saying is, if you pull out at 70mph to overtake in front of someone and there is a collision, don't expect your "no-one should travel faster than 70" argument to save you. The likelyhood is that you will be proportioned some of the blame for causing the accident.

And don't get me started on those who like to "teach Jonny-speeder a lesson" by doing this kind of thing "accidentally on purpose". I was nearly hit by a bike trying to avoid one of those clowns (but thankfully he managed to squeeze between us).

 

[boliston]

What annoys me is people who sit literally on your bumper to try and "bully" you to go faster when there is another car in front preventing you going faster, but the driver behind does not like the fact that you are leaving a 2 second gap as to many drivers anything more than a quarter second gap is an "alien" concept.

 

[bl0at3r]

8 pages of absolute b****cks - why hasn't this been closed already !

 

[big soft moose]

useful contribution to the debate there

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Eh?

Me?

One was making the point that the almost total absence of Traffic police is the main reason for falling driving standards.

One was also making an observation that your comment on mobile phone usage was so totally untrue that one wonders if you have the remotest understanding of what happens in the real world.

Stand at the side of any main road and see how many folk use their mobile phones whilst driving.

All these answers are of course dependent on how I determined your "Eh" and "Me" responses!

 

[bl0at3r]

useful contribution to the debate there

Have you actually read any of it? Complete drivel.

Just the usual suspects causing trouble, being pedantic and trying to antagonise people - oh and don't forget the people who are either utterly stupid or trying to play up to the audience.