Middle lane driving: your views?

[tbtc]

Two thoughts.

Firstly, this is quite a clever move from the Government, they've got everyone talking about the "bugbear" of middle lane hoggers so that we've ignored the fact that speeding fines are going up from £60 to £100 as part of the same announcement (and Police can find you straight away without needing the courts, AIUI). Give the public something to rant about and they'll not notice what you are doing with your other hand (metaphorically). They'd not have got away with the £100 measure otherwise.

Secondly, it's funny how some people seem to detest middle lane hoggers and yet complain about speed camers - when many people die due to speed related crashes (whilst middle lane hoggers are more of a "mild irritation). I've seen people who defend the right to freedom from "intrusive" cameras (civil liberties etc) welcome the "crackdown" on middle lane drivers. Seems a more trivial issue to me.

 

[jon0844]

Actually, the media did state that speeding offences would rise to £100 too. Of course, many concentrated solely on the middle lane hoggers as it made a bigger story.

Tailgaters will also be easier to deal with. I guess that was rather more difficult to convey in news reports, but it's also another big problem (even if some of the tailgating is by people upset with those who are in the wrong lane - thus one thing solves the other!).

As for speed. Speed is the cause of relatively few accidents, but obviously has a greater impact (sic) in many - but we lost the plot in the late 90s with the introduction of speed cameras (now average speed ones on the other hand work very well indeed). I would prefer to be stopped by a police officer than caught be a static speed camera that could only detect speed, not all of the other offences that contribute to accidents - from drink/drug driving to simply not having a licence or driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

Road safety is a number of factors. I'm glad that we might see the police able to deal with all offences as it's clear that speeding was always the easiest offence to detect and other crimes have been largely ignored thanks to technology replacing traffic officers (or existing traffic officers having other duties that stop them dealing with offenders).

Just like fare evaders, if you don't enforce then you can't moan when people get more brazen.

I am sure that since the police got the right to confiscate vehicles, we've seen a marked improvement on the roads - but are there enough officers to 'win the war' on the bad motorists that you see every single day?

 

[jb]

To quote a Clarksonism, middle lane hoggers should be shot in front of their families. They are the scourge of the three lane road and the road rage these people incite leads to people tailgating to get passed them.

This is rubbish. Middle lane hoggers are a pain in the arse. Tailgaters (the vast majority of whom, like almost everyone else, are clueless drivers) are positively dangerous.

The biggest problem in terms of clogging the road is the lorry that elects to pass another one (perfectly legitimately) at 41 mph vs 40 mph on a slight uphill incline.

 

[jon0844]

Absolutely.

The problem with targeting just one group is that it doesn't solve the overall problem.

Many people indirectly cause accidents by doing silly things, like hogging a lane (any lane) or driving super slow as they're not confident enough to speed up or 'not in a rush'. This then causes others to take stupid risks. Can't defend that of course, but if you understand and accept it, you are on the way to helping reduce a lot of the problems.

I am sure someone driving in lane 2 must wonder why everyone around is driving so badly.. hooting, tailgating, changing lane really tightly to prove a point. 'Red mist' can affect everyone, even the police, so you have to try and remove triggers - especially when you aren't in a position to effectively police every road all of the time.

At the very least, I hope we might get people to realise that it's an offence to hog a lane and for it to become something that is socially unacceptable, as against something people can argue makes driving easier or safer (for them).

 

[PaxVobiscum]

There's nothing in Peter's post to suggest the vehicle was being driven inappropriately. The police have an exemption to many parts of traffic law. I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head where an officer may wish to travel in lane 2 of a motorway.

Sorry for OT but I can't resist telling this story:

I caused a bit of a stir in my work a couple of years ago when a number of us leaving the building at the end of the day were in a queue of stationary traffic at a st of lights.

I noticed that the police patrol car stopped in front of me had a brake light out, so I nipped out and told the driver (after switching off my engine first!) He looked a bit taken aback, but had the good manners to say "Thank you very much, Sir!) and drove off when the lights changed.

I lost count of the number of people who cme up to me in the following days and said "You're very brave - I wouldn't have done that!"

I don't think the polis have an exemption for that kind of thing.

 

[Antman]

Sorry for OT but I can't resist telling this story:

I caused a bit of a stir in my work a couple of years ago when a number of us leaving the building at the end of the day were in a queue of stationary traffic at a st of lights.

I noticed that the police patrol car stopped in front of me had a brake light out, so I nipped out and told the driver (after switching off my engine first!) He looked a bit taken aback, but had the good manners to say "Thank you very much, Sir!) and drove off when the lights changed.

I lost count of the number of people who cme up to me in the following days and said "You're very brave - I wouldn't have done that!"

I don't think the polis have an exemption for that kind of thing.

Indeed they don't but a brake light can fail on any vehicle
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So how much money has been collected by fining drivers who hog the overtaking lanes? Not much I guess.
To make serious money couldn't cops just take photos of people driving while holding and talking into mobile phones. Busy junctions on trunk roads would be good locations because traffic mostly slows down and photting would be easy. Alternatively stand close to a roundabout in a busy town and photograph them there. Or yet again visit where I live and prosecute people who choose to park on the pavement - a pointless exercise because cars can't pass in both directions at the same time when the road is partly parked upon.
If money raising is the real objective surely there are lots of opportunities without sending expensive cops in expensive cars to get a few motorway drivers.

Exactly, if raking in money is the objective then photograph drivers using phones and raise the fine to £500 because there is no excuse whatsoever for doing it and parking on pavement is another issue for which fines could be dished out

 

[jon0844]

Yes, I forgot to mention using a mobile.

No excuse to hold a phone. A Bluetooth headset can be picked up for peanuts, or just use the supplied corded headset.

And don't most cars now have Bluetooth handsfree built-in?

 

[PaulLothian]

Section 163 could conceivably offer a solution

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

- not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake...
- 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...

Also

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.

Interesting to know if there are formal definitions of 'congested conditions', 'moving slowly', and 'queue'!

 

[jon0844]

I think most of us can tell what the differences are to a degree, but having no hard and fast rule makes it all open to interpretation.

I've undertaken vehicles, but should point out that it was quite obvious the car wasn't about to pull back in, and it wasn't a case of undertaking loads of cars at speed. Quite possibly I could have been done, but there definitely was due care and attention on my part.

I generally prefer to overtake properly, and that means having to go lane 1>2>3<2<1 which is annoying. On occasion, some drivers realise their error (maybe daydreaming) and pull over.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

On occasion, some drivers realise their error (maybe daydreaming) and pull over.

I'm sure we've all done that. I know I have after a particularly stressful near on 13 hour shift and stuck in 50mph roadworks on my way home.

 

[CallySleeper]

Can't help but notice that OP hasn't returned to his thread in a hurry...

Also, it occurred to me today that more cyclists could be fined for riding on the pavement if there was greater enforcement?

 

[34D]

It's easily avoidable - stop hogging the middle lane. I get fed up of having to go out by 2 lanes because someone is too lazy to move across. Flash your lights at them, go across 2 lanes in front of them and they stay there in the middle. I hope it is actually implemented.

Well said Mr Black Watch

 

[starrymarkb]

Sliproads are a bit of a bugbear of mine - the point is to get as close to the speed of the traffic on the road you're joining as you can, so you can join it smoothly and safely. People in cars who dawdle down sliproads onto motorways at 40mph aren't just a nuisance, but can be actively dangerous as they attempt to join the carriageway with traffic doing a significantly higher speed.

Pretty much my experience this morning, the Northbound onslip at M5 J29 is pretty long (and a little twisty but nothing to speak of) but it is single lane and today I was stuck behind a car doing 35 all the way along it!

 

[transmanche]

Bringing out new laws like this is the easy bit, enforcing them is not.

It's not a new law, it's just a new way for the police to process the offence.

Previously you had to be reported for summons to a Magistrate's Court. Now the police can choose to issue a fixed penalty notice instead.

 

[bluenoxid]

It is not really dangerous drivers but dangerous driving.

Personally, I will drive in Lane 1 and undertake because it is safer for me to stay there and not cut across to Lane 3. If someone has spent the last 60 seconds sitting in Lane 2, it is highly unlikely that they are going to cut into Lane 1 when I am undertaking them.

Good Driving involves being aware of your surroundings, position and those of other drivers. We seem to forget that.

 

[transmanche]

The problem with coaches and lorries is the speed limiters.............another great idea from the EU:cry:

Speed limiters on lorries and coaches were a great idea. The sheer size and weight of those vehicles means they can cause a huge amount of devastation if they're involved in a crash.

Limiting their speed reduces the impact (sic) if they are involved in an incident. So I say well done to the EU!

 

[alanf]

Don't worry Cally sleeper i'm back You may have noticed i started the thread late last night and im about to go for a few shandies It's been a long day. I can take criticism so peoples comments don't really bother me if they don't agree with me i will get over it.For the record i prefer the outside lane i actually feel safer i nearly hit the back of a wagon on a fogbound M62 in lane 1 many years ago and i think it still bothers me. I just feel that it wont happen in lane 3. Yes i may hit a car but they bounce better and like i said i don't care how fast the car behind me is going if he wants to pass i will move.I think a lot of people think they are the police and wont let others pass if they are doing 70.Its not my job to stop people in a hurry they have there reasons whether we agree with them or not. Right im off to the club but will be back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Forgot to say the wagon had locked up and stopped so it didnt make the hard shoulder hence my near miss

 

[Crossover]

I've been thinking about this whilst driving today, as I drive a few junctions of the M62 each day to and from work.

Generally speaking, I tend to find myself in the middle lane quite a bit as I am doing 70 whilst there are often a line of trucks doing 56 up the inside lane so diving back in front of them would be dangerous anyway - either that or the cars in front in the middle lane mean I can't go any quicker in that lane anyway, so going into the inside lane isn't going to help if one maintains distances.

Of course, if there is a very clear section of inside lane, that is where you will find me, but I don't tend to constantly weave lanes whilst gaining on slower vehicles in a constant stream. I do also maintain awareness of what is around me - if I'm in the middle lane and there's nowt behind me, I'm clearly not causing an issue if staying out to overtake another vehicle a little further on the line

Personally, I think the bigger issue is people driving with phones to their ears...lots of people still do it - whether the additional fine will be any more of a deterrent though remains to be seen

 

[broadbander]

The problem with coaches and lorries is the speed limiters.............another great idea from the EU:cry:

Speed limiters on lorries and coaches were a great idea. The sheer size and weight of those vehicles means they can cause a huge amount of devastation if they're involved in a crash.

Limiting their speed reduces the impact (sic) if they are involved in an incident. So I say well done to the EU!

I agree with the 56mph speed limiters, for the reasons transmanche gives.

But today, different companies limit their HGVs and vans to different speeds... Sainsbury's has chosen 52mph (to reduce emissions), other companies use 56mph, I've seen some now with stickers proclaiming a vehicle is limited to 50mph, some vans limited to 60mph as well.

When a bunch of these vehicles all with slightly different limiters meets up on a motorway, you get mile after mile of overtaking battle.

Do the different limits help reduce congestion (by at least enabling some of these vehicles to overtake?) or do they hinder it by making overtaking more possible? I can't decide!

 

[Bald Rick]

I have lost count of the number of times I have come up the M40 between J3 and M25 where it goes 3>4 lanes, and there has been someone in lane 4 doing 65mph at the head of 3 or 4 cars with nothing in lanes 1-3 for half a mile ahead.

I take a perverse delight in going 2 clear lanes inside at (marginally) greater speed, and giving them the international sign language for "sir/madam you appear to be in the incorrect lane, please move across lest you inconvenience other road users".

This is often confused with the sign language for "you 'king idiot, get off the road until you learn to drive properly", but is subtlety different.

 

[CallySleeper]

Don't worry Cally sleeper i'm back You may have noticed i started the thread late last night and im about to go for a few shandies It's been a long day. I can take criticism so peoples comments don't really bother me if they don't agree with me i will get over it.For the record i prefer the outside lane i actually feel safer i nearly hit the back of a wagon on a fogbound M62 in lane 1 many years ago and i think it still bothers me. I just feel that it wont happen in lane 3. Yes i may hit a car but they bounce better and like i said i don't care how fast the car behind me is going if he wants to pass i will move.I think a lot of people think they are the police and wont let others pass if they are doing 70.Its not my job to stop people in a hurry they have there reasons whether we agree with them or not. Right im off to the club but will be back.

I'm sorry, but I believe that all you do by doing 70 in the fast lane is create an opportunity for a similar crash but on a greater/faster scale. It takes one driver doing up to 100mph or in limited visibility/at night to get too close behind you to realise your speed and not brake enough before they shunt you at high speed.

You'll care also how fast the car behind you is going if you don't see him to move out of the way in time! In good visibility/little traffic there should be no reason why you can't stay in lane 1 in safety, or at least lane 2. But not the fast lane.

Meanwhile, Quentin Wilson made a great point on the BBC yesterday about the problems of actually enforcing this with cops if there aren't really any cops on the motorways any more, only cameras. Thoughts?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm sorry, but I believe that all you do by doing 70 in the fast lane is create an opportunity for a similar crash but on a greater/faster scale. It takes one driver doing up to 100mph or in limited visibility/at night to get too close behind you to realise your speed and not brake enough before they shunt you at high speed.?

Anybody doing 100mph on the motorway, or doing high enough speeds not to be able to react to a driver doing the speed limit at night or in poor visibility is a dangerous driver.

 

[jon0844]

100 mph is illegal here. It wasn't always, but is now. It isn't in Germany and so I can conclude that driving at 100 mph can't automatically mean dangerous driving. Yet many other offences will always be dangerous, but less enforced as detection is harder.

Driving to the conditions is what makes the difference in determining dangerous driving or not. You don't always drive at the limit, but as the IAM and others will teach you; if the road conditions allow, you should drive at the limit and not hinder others by deciding to go slower.

But, the law says 70mph so beyond that you could expect to be prosecuted - but not necessarily for dangerous driving.

I am talking about motorways here, not speeding in residential areas or by schools where there's a risk of people stepping out unexpectedly that you need to have sufficient braking distance for.

I've done 140mph in Germany and I was by no means the fastest. On a two lane road with vehicles doing 50-60 in the next lane. Not a problem at all. If or when we can get lane discipline sorted we may be able to increase limits here. Not that I expect it to happen.

 

[CallySleeper]

Anybody doing 100mph on the motorway, or doing high enough speeds not to be able to react to a driver doing the speed limit at night or in poor visibility is a dangerous driver.

Just to clarify, I wasn't necessarily implying doing high speeds in poor visibility.

 

[notadriver]

I will be doing 90 mph in thick fog but on rails. Am I a dangerous driver?

 

[Eagle]

It isn't in Germany and so I can conclude that driving at 100 mph can't automatically mean dangerous driving.

Although that's not to say that the German police can't use the fact you were going that fast to reinforce a conviction for dangerous driving.

It's not true that some Autobahnen have no speed limit. They have an advisory limit of 130 km/h (81 mph), and while is not illegal to exceed that, if you are exceeding it and become involved in an accident you are likely to be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

 

[jon0844]

That comes down to what I said, inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions. When it's bad weather, the limit is enforced with cameras. France has two posted limits, although common sense should make people slow down.

I must stress that I wasn't doing 140mph constant (at 8mpg I couldn't afford it!) but I have good brakes and slowing down isn't an issue. In fact, one reason I think Germans are more tolerant of slower motorists is because you can then floor it later and feel like you're making up time.

With our limit, it's clear that people will feel that someone else has potentially cost them time.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

The thing is in Germany, when I went mum was doing around 95 an the autobahn and then we got so many people coming up behind beeping their horns expecting you to go faster, do they like driving fast because in my opinion anything over 80 is dangerous anywhere regardless.

 

[radamfi]

In addition to the advisory limit covering all of the Autobahn network, much of it is covered by mandatory speed limits, especially in and around urban areas where much of the traffic is. A lot of the network where no mandatory speed limit applies is just 2 lanes in each direction. That means that people who choose not to go at silly speeds have to stick behind lorries in the inside lane as it is too dangerous (or at least very uncomfortable) to overtake as there could be a car doing 190 km/h right behind you in a flash. German Wikipedia says that German Autobahns are in the bottom third for safety. If no speed limit was a good idea, many countries would have copied them by now.

The wasted fuel, environmental damage and excessive noise are enough reasons not to drive at high speed, even before you think about safety.

 

[jon0844]

The green party has always wanted to impose a low limit on environmental grounds, not safety.

Remember we had a suggestion under Tony Blair of 50mph limits on motorways? And when we got the dodgy safety camera partnerships that made a lot of people a s##t load of money (yeah, yeah, no profit yada yada..), suddenly we saw loads of roads getting huge speed limit cuts and nice shiny cameras. Loads of roads gone from 70 to 50 and many to 40. In months, loads of law abiding motorists were now potential child killers.

The biggest con was the argument that the cameras inside were regularly rotated, when the truth was that some cameras were live all the time and many were never active. And guess which ones were with out of open stretches of roads, and those by schools.

Fixed cameras (not variable speed limit cameras) were a scam. Give us more police!!

Back to Germany, I never saw people being hooted or flashed (sometimes left indicator put on) for the reason mentioned; the ability to speed up. The key is knowing that as you approach at speed a group of vehicles, if any are gaining on the vehicle in front, someone is likely to indicate and pull out. Germans will pull out at 60mph ahead of an Audi doing over 100. Most drivers are already slowing down in anticipation and don't get upset.

Of course there are bound to be some idiots, but less than we have here in my opinion.