Fast middle lane hoggers

[Toltec]

NickCQ said:

PixelpeepS3 said:

- if there is a large gap between slower moving objects in lane one, you are in lane two but there is something behind you wanting to get past, return to lane one to allow the object to pass.

What if the guy behind you has got his adaptive cruise control set 1mph faster than yours and will very slowly overtake you if you pull in, thus pinning you when you reach the next obstacle in L1?

Then you will realise that fairly quickly, just accelerate a bit and get back in front or back off a touch and pull in behind, just because they are an idiot does not mean you have to drive like them.

[MrGTI6]

brucezepplin said:

My argument, is that if there are plenty of people swapping between L1 and L2 multiple times per minute then surely that presents some risk?

Lots of us are willing to do that and are perfectly capable of doing so without causing a pile-up. Changing lanes needn't be dangerous or challenging. All you need is half a brain cell and your mirrors.

Someone who is hogging lane two is causing other drivers to change lanes because they won't do so themselves. This is usually down to selfishness or incompetence, or in some cases, a combination of both.

[brucezepplin]

MrGTI6 said:

Lots of us are willing to do that and are perfectly capable of doing so without causing a pile-up. Changing lanes needn't be dangerous or challenging. All you need is half a brain cell and your mirrors.

Someone who is hogging lane two is causing other drivers to change lanes because they won't do so themselves. This is usually down to selfishness or incompetence, or in some cases, a combination of both.

I agree if going too slow this will happen. I'm trying to argue from a nuanced point of view that if speed will never be an issue in terms of causing people to overtake me ( they would exceed 90+ easily if they were to do), then what is the problem. I assure you that I am not causing congestion or people weaving on my account. What is the issue here other than "the rules"?

[DaveCWK]

I sort of agree OP - I mean why bother changing lanes if you're cruising at 95+ in the middle of the night with only the occasional lorry to pass in L1?

[MrGTI6]

brucezepplin said:

What is the issue here other than "the rules"?

The issue is that it's not down to you to decide that you're driving too fast for "the rules" to apply to you. Someone equally stubborn might decide that because they are driving at the national speed limit, they will also refuse to use an empty inside lane. Someone else might decide to do the same at 60 because they deem that to be fast enough.

Whether you like it or not, "the rules" are that you keep left unless overtaking, regardless of your speed. Whether you stick by "the rules" or not is completely up to you, and if you don't you probably won't get pulled over for it because you're just one in a massive flock of sheep.

[vonhosen]

MrGTI6 said:

brucezepplin said:

What is the issue here other than "the rules"?

The issue is that it's not down to you to decide that you're driving too fast for "the rules" to apply to you. Someone equally stubborn might decide that because they are driving at the national speed limit, they will also refuse to use an empty inside lane. Someone else might decide to do the same at 60 because they deem that to be fast enough.

Whether you like it or not, "the rules" are that you keep left unless overtaking, regardless of your speed. Whether you stick by "the rules" or not is completely up to you, and if you don't you probably won't get pulled over for it because you're doing the same as all the other sheep.

He's more likely to get pulled for speeding at the speeds he's doing. That's a substantive offence, merely not keeping left isn't in itself an offence.

[MrGTI6]

vonhosen said:

MrGTI6 said:

brucezepplin said:

What is the issue here other than "the rules"?

The issue is that it's not down to you to decide that you're driving too fast for "the rules" to apply to you. Someone equally stubborn might decide that because they are driving at the national speed limit, they will also refuse to use an empty inside lane. Someone else might decide to do the same at 60 because they deem that to be fast enough.

Whether you like it or not, "the rules" are that you keep left unless overtaking, regardless of your speed. Whether you stick by "the rules" or not is completely up to you, and if you don't you probably won't get pulled over for it because you're doing the same as all the other sheep.

He's more likely to get pulled for speeding at the speeds he's doing. That's a substantive offence, merely not keeping left isn't in itself an offence.

I thought I'd read somewhere that lane-hoggers can receive fines?

[vonhosen]

MrGTI6 said:

vonhosen said:

MrGTI6 said:

brucezepplin said:

What is the issue here other than "the rules"?

The issue is that it's not down to you to decide that you're driving too fast for "the rules" to apply to you. Someone equally stubborn might decide that because they are driving at the national speed limit, they will also refuse to use an empty inside lane. Someone else might decide to do the same at 60 because they deem that to be fast enough.

Whether you like it or not, "the rules" are that you keep left unless overtaking, regardless of your speed. Whether you stick by "the rules" or not is completely up to you, and if you don't you probably won't get pulled over for it because you're doing the same as all the other sheep.

He's more likely to get pulled for speeding at the speeds he's doing. That's a substantive offence, merely not keeping left isn't in itself an offence.

I thought I'd read somewhere that lane-hoggers can receive fines?

There is no specific offence in relation to lane discipline. They would have to be convicted of Sec 3 RTA (inconsiderate driving , which requires evidence of somebody being inconvenienced) & like I said if he is doing 90mph Sec 3 RTA isn't even likely to be on the radar.

[FastDad]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, well tell me the damage done, if there is no one around? I don't hold people up and there is no risk, so what's the big deal beyond "Oh there is a law about this(that only pertains to the UK)"

[vonhosen]

FastDad said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, well tell me the damage done, if there is no one around? I don't hold people up and there is no risk, so what's the big deal beyond "Oh there is a law about this(that only pertains to the UK)"

Not keeping left is not against the law, there is no offence of not keeping left, just as there is no specific offence of undertaking.

[FastDad]

FastDad said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, well tell me the damage done, if there is no one around? I don't hold people up and there is no risk, so what's the big deal beyond "Oh there is a law about this(that only pertains to the UK)"

To prove my point, rules are rules right and never at all pointless...

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/from-urinat...

[FastDad]

vonhosen said:

FastDad said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, well tell me the damage done, if there is no one around? I don't hold people up and there is no risk, so what's the big deal beyond "Oh there is a law about this(that only pertains to the UK)"

Not keeping left is not against the law, there is no offence of not keeping left, just as there is no specific offence of undertaking.

"Part 264 of the Highway Code says: "You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past."

And they fine you a hundred quid, sure sounds like a law to me..

[vonhosen]

FastDad said:

vonhosen said:

FastDad said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, well tell me the damage done, if there is no one around? I don't hold people up and there is no risk, so what's the big deal beyond "Oh there is a law about this(that only pertains to the UK)"

Not keeping left is not against the law, there is no offence of not keeping left, just as there is no specific offence of undertaking.

"Part 264 of the Highway Code says: "You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past."

And they fine you a hundred quid, sure sounds like a law to me..

It's not law, it's Highway Code advice.
Laws referenced in the Highway Code are MUST, not should.
There is no legislated offence of failing to keep in the left hand hand lane if the road is clear.
If you are to be fined it would have to be under Sec 3 RTA (Careless/inconsiderate driving & for inconsiderate there has to be somebody inconvenienced). The Reality is the Police would only prosecute in the extremes for Sec 3, it's mostly ignored because it's not much of a problem for law abiding motorists.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th November 22:10

[FastDad]

So why do you get penalised, you're arguing semantics here

[Harji]

OP is a Road Captain, possibly a Red Bull drinking powerfully built company director as well.

[FastDad]

Harji said:

OP is a Road Captain, possibly a Red Bull drinking powerfully built company director as well.

Totally not stereotyping at all, jesus your like mystic meg

[FastDad]

FastDad said:

Harji said:

OP is a Road Captain, possibly a Red Bull drinking powerfully built company director as well.

Totally not stereotyping at all, jesus you're like mystic meg

[Salmonofdoubt]

I don’t see why with camera technology people incapable of moving left can’t be tracked so a death squad can meet them at their destination.

It’s the only solution.

[brucezepplin]

Salmonofdoubt said:

I don’t see why with camera technology people incapable of moving left can’t be tracked so a death squad can meet them at their destination.

It’s the only solution.

Or perhaps this section of the highway code only applies to people who genuinely abuse L2 and cause congestion. Given that between a third and a half of Brits confess to middle lane hogging, I suspect if half the cars on the road all started using L1 add the highway code says, there will be so much lane swapping going on it will cause even more congestion / accidents. Some rules are better then others. A fine or section of HC saying you must at least ensure you are driving faster than cars in L1 and must always give way to faster cars in L2 would be appropriate.

[untakenname]

I use the middle lane as if I use the slow lane then my car constantly veers left with the camber of the road, don't really see the issue.

Out of habit I cruise at 84mph (just below cutoff limit for speed awareness course) and will move over to the slow lane if someone comes up fast, no one is impacted by my driving.

People doing under 70mph so stay in the slow lane, imo if a trucks are constantly having to overtake a car then the car driver should be done for dwdca.