Fined for hogging the middle of the road

[Over The Hill]

Thank you mybike! Exactly the issue. The speeder makes the lane hogging an issue. Someone sitting in the middle lane is not a problem if everyone in that lane is sticking to 70.

I think User is in the group that want two lanes reserved for them to tank along at 80 or 90 and see no wrong in that.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

[QUOTE 3761874, member: 45"]Well no, it's not really is it? It's in the press this week because of the first conviction, so someone mentioned it on here.

We can talk about habitual speeding, or lorry killings if you think that they've not been discussed in other threads.[/QUOTE]

Lorry killings? Bit dramatic.

It's taken 10 months to secure the first conviction for something so commonly seen. I'm not being critical of the OP, I'm being critical of an enforcement system that so ineffective and invisible that one conviction has to be so noteworthy and has taken so long.

 

[Over The Hill]

[QUOTE 3763676, member: 45"]Don't be silly.

Speeding wouldn't be an issue were it not for the idiots who are too lazy to use the default lane.

See what I did there?[/QUOTE]
Yes you just looked at one side. Like you have all through this.

The point you seem unable to grasp is that you have spent 20 posts waving the highway code at us pointing to one rule (lane discipline) and ignoring another (speeding).
I am just pointing out that the problem is in about 90% of cases a consequence of both drivers doing something wrong.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 3763758, member: 9609"]If a driver was hogging the outside lane travelling at 85mph with another car tailgating him and clearly held up by the selfish lane hogger - If the traffic cop only had one FPN left in his book, who would he be most likely to hand it to ?[/QUOTE]
The cyclist jumping a red light at a deserted pelican crossing

 

[mybike]

[QUOTE 3763670, member: 45"]10 second rule.

Why is it that so many people don't seem to understand the rules of the road and good practise?[/QUOTE]

What 10 second rule.

[QUOTE 3763773, member: 45"]Again, no you're not 'just". You're blaming speeding drivers for the problem of lane hoggers. It's like blaming road-crossing pedestrians for red light jumping.[/QUOTE]

No he isn't, he's saying that being in the second lane at 70 is acceptable when the nearside lane is occupied by vehicles doing 60.

 

[mybike]

What you don't seem to see though is that is no real connection between those things. If no one were speeding, the lane hogging would still not be right.

The fact is that expecting everyone to use the LH lane with the normal occupancy level of the motorways is simply nonsense.

 

[fimm]

I'd never come across the "10 second rule" before. If I have understood correctly, if, as you pass a slower vehicle and think about returning to the inside lane, you see that there is another slower vehicle ahead such that you would be in the inside lane for less than 10 seconds before you would want to move out again in order to pass that vehicle, then you are probably better off staying in lane 2. A rule of thumb. I like it and will try putting it into practice next time I drive on a motorway.

Note that I see it as a rule of thumb. If I'm being tailgated in the second lane of two, then I'm better moving over. If the car behind me is still getting off the ferry at Dover as I pass Gretna Green then 15 seconds in the middle lane of 3 isn't doing anyone any harm.

(Note that my irritation in my previous post was of the "grumpy old lady muttering into her cornflakes" kind. I reserve full on, give me my machine gun now, road rage for people who endanger my life when I'm riding my bicycle... I do think that a desire not to be thought to be hogging the middle lane is one of the reasons people don't leave enough space in front of the vehicle they've just passed. I try to start indicating left the moment I get past the slower vehicle, but only move left when I think I've left enough space.)

 

[mybike]

The subject we are discussing is failing to use it when it is free to use.

The question is 'when is it free to use'. If I were to see a lorry up ahead, even if it were well ahead of any 10 second count, I'd tend to stay in the middle lane because changing lanes creates a hazard. Unless I was clearly holding up those behind on a two lane carriageway.

 

[mybike]

I do think that a desire not to be thought to be hogging the middle lane is one of the reasons people don't leave enough space in front of the vehicle they've just passed. I try to start indicating left the moment I get past the slower vehicle, but only move left when I think I've left enough space.)

You should be at least a car length in front of the car behind, preferably able to see the whole vehicle in the mirror. And you should signal your intention first. Funny how Audis & BMWs seem to lack a LH indicator.

 

[mybike]

How does changing lanes create a hazard?

Why do you look behind when changing lanes if it doesn't create a hazard?

 

[mybike]

OK, let's try that again. Having passed the lorry and are now well clear of it, checked your mirrors etc etc. What is the hazard that makes it unsafe to change lanes?

You, changing lanes.

 

[mybike]

That appears to be a pretty weak rationalisation for laziness

Every time you deviate from straight ahead you create a hazard, for yourself and those around you. They have to take account of what you are doing and you have to look around you. The hazard may be minor but it still exists.

When I am driving in any lane I am constantly assessing what is going on around me, considering if where I am is the best place. If you think that laziness, so be it.

 

[mybike]

[QUOTE 3763934, member: 45"]If you're likely to be in the default lane for 10 seconds or more get over there. If not, stay out and move in when you are.[/QUOTE]

That's simply nonsense except on limited occasions.

[QUOTE 3763936, member: 45"]That's not the expectation.

You do know what lane hogging is? It's when someone is in the first overtaking lane when they could be in the default lane.[/QUOTE]

It certainly seems to be a matter of some dispute. I'm not sure lane hogging is particularly well defined.

[QUOTE 3763946, member: 45"]Ahh, you're talking about level of risk, not hazard/no hazard.

What is the increase in level of risk presented by you changing lanes properly? You need to stick a value on it.[/QUOTE]

A level of risk is a hazard. If you need to take care over something it is clear that it is hazardous. Since we can't agree what lane hogging is it is clear we're not going to to be able 'to stick a value on it'.

 

[mybike]

[QUOTE 3763950, member: 45"]Why would you think that?[/QUOTE]

Because there are occasions on a motorway when the vehicle might be more than 10sec in front of you and it would be foolish to pull in. You cannot drive with that sort of strict rule.

[QUOTE 3763950, member: 45"]It's very clear. It only remains undefined by those who are too lazy to move left when they can.[/QUOTE]

No it's when you bring up daft ideas like the 10 second rule.

[QUOTE 3763951, member: 45"]So why don't you stay in the nearside lane, if it's a hazard for you to change lanes?[/QUOTE]

Because I want to go faster than the vehicles in that lane.

 

[DaveReading]

You should be at least a car length in front of the car behind, preferably able to see the whole vehicle in the mirror. And you should signal your intention first. Funny how Audis & BMWs seem to lack a LH indicator.

Not that it's really relevant to the thread topic, but there is no requirement to signal your intention to return to the original lane after overtaking.