I am becomming a middle lane hogger, are you?

I am becomming a middle lane hogger, are you?

Author
Discussion

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
C70R said:
spookly said:
C70R said:
spookly said:
Uh, yeah. you'd think so wouldn't you.

So consider these two stellar examples:
  • Muppet sat in lane 2, no traffic visible as far as the horizon. As I come up behind him I give him a flash. He moves into lane 1. I pass, then pull into lane 1 well in front of him. He immediately pulls back out into lane 2 despite me flying off into the distance in front.
These kinds of people are screwing up the capacity of the motorway network.

Just because you are a part time MLM, and only stay in lane 2 when it's too much work for you to pull in and out, does not mean you aren't part of the problem.

Either speed up, pull in, or take an A road.
Sort of shot yourself in the foot there, champ. laugh

If you'd actually read what I wrote, and engaged your brain before you'd typed, rather than trying to score a cheap internet point, you wouldn't have looked like such an utter chump.
laugh
Not really. It shows how these idiots can reduce an even empty motorway down to their own speed. If I hadn't been willing to undertake in the second example I would have been stuck at her glacial pace.... so she managed to reduce the capacity/speed of a road with only two cars on it. Just as bad as someone doing 25mph in a 50mph single carriageway.

And as you probably know, all the MLMs in heavier traffic are an even greater menace.
Surely, if it's an empty motorway then someone in L2 doesn't really present much of an impediment to your progress?

You're trying too hard, and looking silly.
You're right that the guy in lane 2 didn't prevent me over taking him. But why should I move from lane 1 to lane 3 because he has a weird fetish for lane 2.
Inconsiderate and st driving.

Are you actually excusing the behaviour of someone who drives in lane 2 on an empty motorway? Or just trying to score some points because you believe you should be able to drive 100's of miles in lane 2 without pulling in.

vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You're guessing that the two in your example would do the same in different circumstances, you don't know because that's not what you observed.
Your complaint is about something in relation to a set of observed circumstances,when that something didn't exist in those circumstances.
You don't like what you perceive as them not abiding by the rules, but you are happy to break rules to deal with it.
I'd guess you break other rules that you consider an inconvenience at the time & don't fit with your personal values, whilst castigating others for doing likewise. Their rule breaking should be dealt with harshly, yours ignored?

That's not holier than thou by me either, because I'm a rule breaker toor, so it's just as fair me getting done as it is you or them. There's no moral high ground if we are willing to pick & choose. Just a load of sinners bhing about each other's sins.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th August 16:16
Ah, you'd be wrong to assume that those are my assumptions.

I literally could not give a fk about other people breaking the rules if it does not endanger or inconvenience me. And I treat others the same.
I might break some rules that I consider silly or inconsequential, but I do my utmost to make sure I do not unnecessarily inconvenience others (like being an MLM) and certainly not endanger anyone.

So I am certainly not being holier than thou.... but I am saying "get the fk out of my way asshat the other lanes have room in them so you shouldn't be here you inconsiderate tt".

Hope that clears things up.
It does

You think your values trump other's values.
What you consider important matters, what they do doesn't.

If you don't care what they think, then it's rich wanting them to worry about what you think.
So the merry go round will continue, you won't see the change you desire.

CABC

5,533 posts

100 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
there are MLMs for sure.
But the problem isn't helped by the inconsiderate fast boys who never concede space in L3 or 2 when another car keeping to the right comes up against slower traffic. Fast cars need to let people pull out to overtake too, otherwise people who aren't really MLMs just stay in lane thinking they'll never get back out otherwise. Fast boys need to lose the ego and slow boys need to pay more attention.
no chance!

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You're guessing that the two in your example would do the same in different circumstances, you don't know because that's not what you observed.
Your complaint is about something in relation to a set of observed circumstances,when that something didn't exist in those circumstances.
You don't like what you perceive as them not abiding by the rules, but you are happy to break rules to deal with it.
I'd guess you break other rules that you consider an inconvenience at the time & don't fit with your personal values, whilst castigating others for doing likewise. Their rule breaking should be dealt with harshly, yours ignored?

That's not holier than thou by me either, because I'm a rule breaker toor, so it's just as fair me getting done as it is you or them. There's no moral high ground if we are willing to pick & choose. Just a load of sinners bhing about each other's sins.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th August 16:16
Ah, you'd be wrong to assume that those are my assumptions.

I literally could not give a fk about other people breaking the rules if it does not endanger or inconvenience me. And I treat others the same.
I might break some rules that I consider silly or inconsequential, but I do my utmost to make sure I do not unnecessarily inconvenience others (like being an MLM) and certainly not endanger anyone.

So I am certainly not being holier than thou.... but I am saying "get the fk out of my way asshat the other lanes have room in them so you shouldn't be here you inconsiderate tt".

Hope that clears things up.
It does

You think your values trump other's values.
What you consider important matters, what they do doesn't.

If you don't care what they think, then it's rich wanting them to worry about what you think.
So the merry go round will continue, you won't see the change you desire.
Glad it helped.

I don't think my values trump others. I think the values I stated are a bare minimum standard to be involved in society and not be seen as a selfish prick.

So the values I stated were:
  • Don't unnecessarily inconvenience others
  • Don't endanger others
Do you think it fine for people to inconvenience other people if there is no need to?
Do you think it is ok to endanger other people?



spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
CABC said:
there are MLMs for sure.
But the problem isn't helped by the inconsiderate fast boys who never concede space in L3 or 2 when another car keeping to the right comes up against slower traffic. Fast cars need to let people pull out to overtake too, otherwise people who aren't really MLMs just stay in lane thinking they'll never get back out otherwise. Fast boys need to lose the ego and slow boys need to pay more attention.
no chance!
I agree. But I'd also add that fast boys would happily let people out into the outer lanes if they didn't then try to overtake a 65mph vehicle inside them at 66mph... what's wrong with pulling out and getting the overtake done then get back in.

Kinkell

537 posts

186 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
Cruising at 70 mph in the middle lane is where I like to be. Truckers in lane 1 are doing 60 and speeders in lane 3 are doing 80.

TheTrash

1,847 posts

205 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
Kinkell said:
Cruising at 70 mph in the middle lane is where I like to be. Truckers in lane 1 are doing 60 and speeders in lane 3 are doing 80.
Poor effort, you forgot to add that no one should be doing more than 70 anyway

Toltec

7,159 posts

222 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
Kinkell said:
Cruising at 70 mph in the middle lane is where I like to be. Truckers in lane 1 are doing 60 and speeders in lane 3 are doing 80.
I like to be not sharing a road with 'tards that cannot drive, we seldom get what we want.

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
Toltec said:
Kinkell said:
Cruising at 70 mph in the middle lane is where I like to be. Truckers in lane 1 are doing 60 and speeders in lane 3 are doing 80.
I like to be not sharing a road with 'tards that cannot drive, we seldom get what we want.
I agree, but what if that tard has an IAM badge? Isn't he then more qualified to decide if it is appropriate to hog the middle lane.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
There are some real issues with lane discipline on Motorways/Dual Carriageways that have become far more prevalent in the last few years (maybe they are all foreigners in hire cars but I doubt it).
As someone who drives as a part of my job it is not uncommon now to come across cars in the outside lane when the rest of the road is empty. It is more common on Dualled roads but I often come across this on three lane Motorways too. These drivers are more often than not doing between 70-80 mph. I drive significantly faster than this but on what is often a near enough empty road you would expect anyone with even a modicum of competence to see me coming (besides which, what the hell are they doing there anyway?). On a three lane Motorway I may just pass them without leaving lane 1 as there is a whole lane of safety separating us, or I may cross to lane 3 and sit behind them to see what happens. I might even intimidate them if I feel like it should they then stay there (they've got it coming as far as I'm concerned) until they do move. On a Dualled road I will usually move from lane 1 so I'm behind them, although sometimes I will just undertake them.
But the most mystifying thing about all this is the regularity with which they move back to the outside lane having moved to the adjacent lane (with or without encouragement) for me to pass.
And all this on an empty road.
What are they doing?

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
spookly said:
Are you actually excusing the behaviour of someone who drives in lane 2 on an empty motorway?
If a motorway is actually empty (in that I can see no other road users) I'll drive in lane 2 - mainly because it's usually very late at night and if a deer was to run out onto the carriageway I'd like to have opportunities to swerve in either direction. As soon as I see someone else then I'm back in L1.

zarjaz1991

3,471 posts

122 months

Friday 19th August 2016
quotequote all
davepoth said:
If a motorway is actually empty (in that I can see no other road users) I'll drive in lane 2 - mainly because it's usually very late at night and if a deer was to run out onto the carriageway I'd like to have opportunities to swerve in either direction. As soon as I see someone else then I'm back in L1.
That's got to be the lamest excuse for middle lane tardness I've ever heard.

A deer? Really? How many times has that happened to you then?

vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You're guessing that the two in your example would do the same in different circumstances, you don't know because that's not what you observed.
Your complaint is about something in relation to a set of observed circumstances,when that something didn't exist in those circumstances.
You don't like what you perceive as them not abiding by the rules, but you are happy to break rules to deal with it.
I'd guess you break other rules that you consider an inconvenience at the time & don't fit with your personal values, whilst castigating others for doing likewise. Their rule breaking should be dealt with harshly, yours ignored?

That's not holier than thou by me either, because I'm a rule breaker toor, so it's just as fair me getting done as it is you or them. There's no moral high ground if we are willing to pick & choose. Just a load of sinners bhing about each other's sins.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th August 16:16
Ah, you'd be wrong to assume that those are my assumptions.

I literally could not give a fk about other people breaking the rules if it does not endanger or inconvenience me. And I treat others the same.
I might break some rules that I consider silly or inconsequential, but I do my utmost to make sure I do not unnecessarily inconvenience others (like being an MLM) and certainly not endanger anyone.

So I am certainly not being holier than thou.... but I am saying "get the fk out of my way asshat the other lanes have room in them so you shouldn't be here you inconsiderate tt".

Hope that clears things up.
It does

You think your values trump other's values.
What you consider important matters, what they do doesn't.

If you don't care what they think, then it's rich wanting them to worry about what you think.
So the merry go round will continue, you won't see the change you desire.
Glad it helped.

I don't think my values trump others. I think the values I stated are a bare minimum standard to be involved in society and not be seen as a selfish prick.

So the values I stated were:
  • Don't unnecessarily inconvenience others
  • Don't endanger others
Do you think it fine for people to inconvenience other people if there is no need to?
Do you think it is ok to endanger other people?
But you do think your values trump others, because you believe it's fine for you to break rules that others may hold dear (what they value) for whatever reason, whilst it's not OK for them to break rules that you hold dear.

We share the roads, having to share inconveniences us all.
When it gets to defining what one might consider unnecessary inconvenience it goes down to personal views. What one might consider unnecessary, another doesn't.
To get around that we have societal rules governing road use that set out the minimum requirements of everybody.
You are in no position of strength when deciding it's OK for you to break the rules you see as not worth adhering to & then expect others to then adhere to the rules you believe are important.
Same with danger. What you may consider acceptable risk, another may consider it's not acceptable.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If you adhere to all the societal rules you are in position to, as you don't you hold no higher ground than the others.

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You're guessing that the two in your example would do the same in different circumstances, you don't know because that's not what you observed.
Your complaint is about something in relation to a set of observed circumstances,when that something didn't exist in those circumstances.
You don't like what you perceive as them not abiding by the rules, but you are happy to break rules to deal with it.
I'd guess you break other rules that you consider an inconvenience at the time & don't fit with your personal values, whilst castigating others for doing likewise. Their rule breaking should be dealt with harshly, yours ignored?

That's not holier than thou by me either, because I'm a rule breaker toor, so it's just as fair me getting done as it is you or them. There's no moral high ground if we are willing to pick & choose. Just a load of sinners bhing about each other's sins.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th August 16:16
Ah, you'd be wrong to assume that those are my assumptions.

I literally could not give a fk about other people breaking the rules if it does not endanger or inconvenience me. And I treat others the same.
I might break some rules that I consider silly or inconsequential, but I do my utmost to make sure I do not unnecessarily inconvenience others (like being an MLM) and certainly not endanger anyone.

So I am certainly not being holier than thou.... but I am saying "get the fk out of my way asshat the other lanes have room in them so you shouldn't be here you inconsiderate tt".

Hope that clears things up.
It does

You think your values trump other's values.
What you consider important matters, what they do doesn't.

If you don't care what they think, then it's rich wanting them to worry about what you think.
So the merry go round will continue, you won't see the change you desire.
Glad it helped.

I don't think my values trump others. I think the values I stated are a bare minimum standard to be involved in society and not be seen as a selfish prick.

So the values I stated were:
  • Don't unnecessarily inconvenience others
  • Don't endanger others
Do you think it fine for people to inconvenience other people if there is no need to?
Do you think it is ok to endanger other people?
But you do think your values trump others, because you believe it's fine for you to break rules that others may hold dear (what they value) for whatever reason, whilst it's not OK for them to break rules that you hold dear.

We share the roads, having to share inconveniences us all.
When it gets to defining what one might consider unnecessary inconvenience it goes down to personal views. What one might consider unnecessary, another doesn't.
To get around that we have societal rules governing road use that set out the minimum requirements of everybody.
You are in no position of strength when deciding it's OK for you to break the rules you see as not worth adhering to & then expect others to then adhere to the rules you believe are important.
Same with danger. What you may consider acceptable risk, another may consider it's not acceptable.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If you adhere to all the societal rules you are in position to, as you don't you hold no higher ground than the others.
Complete bks.

I may be breaking the rules, but not in a way that inconveniences anyone else. They are breaking the rules in a way that gets in everyone else's way and causes additional risk and inconvenience.

If I am above the speed limit then I slow down well in advance of coming up behind other cars, and never pass or overtake with ridiculous speed differentials. I do that as I do not want to endanger myself or others, or cause them to panic.

One behaviour inconveniences nobody, the other inconveniences everybody as soon as the roads are even moderately busy... which is most of the time.

Trying to equate the two as similar as they are both breaking rules is a bit of a dumb argument. What next? Murder is the same as speeding as they are both breaking the rules? Oh, hang on... you're not a BRAKE member are you?


vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
But you do think your values trump others, because you believe it's fine for you to break rules that others may hold dear (what they value) for whatever reason, whilst it's not OK for them to break rules that you hold dear.

We share the roads, having to share inconveniences us all.
When it gets to defining what one might consider unnecessary inconvenience it goes down to personal views. What one might consider unnecessary, another doesn't.
To get around that we have societal rules governing road use that set out the minimum requirements of everybody.
You are in no position of strength when deciding it's OK for you to break the rules you see as not worth adhering to & then expect others to then adhere to the rules you believe are important.
Same with danger. What you may consider acceptable risk, another may consider it's not acceptable.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If you adhere to all the societal rules you are in position to, as you don't you hold no higher ground than the others.
Complete bks.

I may be breaking the rules, but not in a way that inconveniences anyone else. They are breaking the rules in a way that gets in everyone else's way and causes additional risk and inconvenience.

If I am above the speed limit then I slow down well in advance of coming up behind other cars, and never pass or overtake with ridiculous speed differentials. I do that as I do not want to endanger myself or others, or cause them to panic.

One behaviour inconveniences nobody, the other inconveniences everybody as soon as the roads are even moderately busy... which is most of the time.

Trying to equate the two as similar as they are both breaking rules is a bit of a dumb argument. What next? Murder is the same as speeding as they are both breaking the rules? Oh, hang on... you're not a BRAKE member are you?
See, your value is inconvenience & you think that should be the universal priority.
It may not be their priority (as we have to put up with a degree of inconvenience anyway).
Your priority doesn't trump theirs, although of course in your head it will.

Speed tends to increase risk (risk being a function of both the likelihood of the adverse outcome & also the severity of it should it happen)
What you may be happy to accept (even if it's minimally more), others may not be happy for you to in their presence.
You don't care about actions affecting their values as long as it's not causing inconvenience which is your value.

Of course I don't behave in a manner that accommodates everybody's or societal values. I break rules. I just get less wound up than you about other's failings because I accept we all have them..
You're blinded to it by self import filtering.
Reality is that your values/views are of no more import than theirs, except to you of course, but that's a narrow field.

You are going a bit Goodwin with the murder bit.
We are looking at relatively minor traffic matters V relatively minor traffic matters.
The societal outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, lane discipline isn't.
On that basis the societal view is that compliance with the limit is more important & your values by placing lane discipline above it are more out of kilter.



Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th August 01:17

mickthemechanic

326 posts

105 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Kinkell said:
Cruising at 70 mph in the middle lane is where I like to be. Truckers in lane 1 are doing 60 and speeders in lane 3 are doing 80.
Agree with this. Constantly moving in and out to pass trucks and caravans is bks.

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Having to weave in and out of lanes is one thing, but sitting in the middle lane of a quiet motorway marks you out as a complete nob

mickthemechanic

326 posts

105 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
Having to weave in and out of lanes is one thing, but sitting in the middle lane of a quiet motorway marks you out as a complete nob
Yes definitely a nob if empty motorway = lots of trucks and caravans.

SteveTTT

111 posts

135 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Blakewater said:
Switch on adaptive cruise control, switch off brain and let the car do the driving.

I passed an Angry Dad type today with his family in a Vauxhal Zafira who was quite happily pootling along in the middle lane. A little further on I came up behind a cluster of traffic overtaking a mix of HGVs and caravans in lanes one and two, headed by someone who wouldn't switch his cruise control from 65mph to get on with his overtake.

Angry Dad enters the outside lane further back, tailgates a couple of people out of his way and starts tailgating me. No thought for letting those people back out if the outside lane speeds up, despite the fact they've just overtaken him. We're all making progress, albeit slowly, in the outside lane and I'm staying alongside gaps before I have a clear run to get ahead of the next vehicle in the middle lane because I don't want to linger alongside vehicles and get pinned against the central reservation if someone doesn't see me when they move out.

When the traffic clears I resume the speed at which I overtook Angry Dad, but he still has to pass me to try and prove I was holding him up. I move to the middle lane and he sits in the outside lane behind me like my wingman until a van moves out in front of me and he uses a downhill stretch to get past. Once in front he slows because he doesn't like going that fast and I pass him again.

Further on, I move over to exit the motorway and, just to get in front again, he passes me and cuts through a closely packed line of traffic straight from the middle lane to the sliproad. Everyone else is driving safely and making allowances for other traffic and he's greatly increasing his speed, sitting in the outside lane when he can't overtake, taking risks with his family and conflicting with other drivers because he thinks people have passed him and slowed down just to annoy him and a bit of a slow down in the progress of traffic is justification for him to aggressively police his idea of lane discipline which involves everyone else having to part like the Red Sea for him.
Angry Dad must be the same chap who, when driving his company's speed-limited van, becomes the outside lane hogger maintaining a steady 68mph with a mile of traffic backed up behind him, all trying to pass the 65mph MLHs on cruise! (On almost any m-way you care to mention but especially M27 Portsmouth area every day of the week!). Although I do feel sorry for those who have to suffer these working conditions.

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
See, your value is inconvenience & you think that should be the universal priority.
It may not be their priority (as we have to put up with a degree of inconvenience anyway).
Your priority doesn't trump theirs, although of course in your head it will.
Nice way to twist what I was saying biggrin
I have still not said that my priority trumps theirs.
I have said that they inconvenience me when it is not at all necessary to do so. If I am in the way of someone who wants to go faster than me then I get out of their way as soon as possible and safe, as I am not an inconsiderate asshat.

vonhosen said:
Speed tends to increase risk (risk being a function of both the likelihood of the adverse outcome & also the severity of it should it happen)
What you may be happy to accept (even if it's minimally more), others may not be happy for you to in their presence.
You don't care about actions affecting their values as long as it's not causing inconvenience which is your value.
Which is why I drive well within the capabilities of my car, the conditions, visibility, etc... I don't speed through blind bends, don't drive at a speed in which I can't stop before an actual or potential hazard, don't speed past blind junctions, and I do not carry excess speed near other road users. I actively ensure that my decisions don't impact on others. If I was a muppet who blindly speeds regardless of conditions and hazards you might have a better point to make.
I said I do not pass with big speed differentials, which shows I do care about them and their values. Maybe because I am not an inconsiderate asshat.

vonhosen said:
Of course I don't behave in a manner that accommodates everybody's or societal values. I break rules. I just get less wound up than you about other's failings because I accept we all have them..
You're blinded to it by self import filtering.
Reality is that your values/views are of no more import than theirs, except to you of course, but that's a narrow field.
I'm not wound up. I am trying to make you see the absurdity of not realising this isn't about relative values, it is about people stating they are happy to inconvenience others when they do not need to. That is plain inconsiderate.

Perhaps a better way to express the view of the MLM is "It is too much hard work, to pull in to sizeable gaps in lane 1 and pull out only to overtake, so I will knowingly get in the way of many other cars and clog the motorway network because I am too selfish/lazy/inconsiderate/slow".

vonhosen said:
You are going a bit Goodwin with the murder bit.
We are looking at relatively minor traffic matters V relatively minor traffic matters.
The societal outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, lane discipline isn't.
On that basis the societal view is that compliance with the limit is more important & your values by placing lane discipline above it are more out of kilter.
I'll assume you mean "Godwin"?
No, you might need to look at what Godwin's law is. I am making an extreme example to highlight what you seem to be failing to comprehend. You are equating two things as relative because they both break rules. I agree they are both breaking rules, but the impact and necessity is different in each case.

The *legal* outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, don't equate legal with societal they really are not the same thing. I'd wager that most people think the speed limits are ridiculous outside urban areas, with no coherence, and no relevance.
Motorways are limited to 70mph and I can't be trusted to decide appropriate speed... then I can go on an unclassified road not wide enough for 2 cars and it is a 60mph NSL where I could have a 120mph head on collision without either car breaking the speed limit.

How about you go and put a poll on the main page of general gassing and ask which people find more acceptable. Driving at 65mph in the 2nd lane and never moving, or exceeding the speed limit on a motorway, lets call it 85mph to give you a fighting chance.

MLMs and the congestion they cause means we'll all end paying more tax to build wider/more roads to keep traffic moving. or we face gridlock. None of the European countries seem to have a problem with pulling back in, so why do we have MLMs and not them? Is it a uniquely British thing?