You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Driving without due care. Evidence of this would be that you ignored Rule 268 of the Highway code.
It [i]could [/i]be construed as driving without due care, but that's subjective. If you hurtled past traffic at Mach 1 whilst weaving in and out of traffic then probably. Passing a slower-moving vehicle whilst otherwise travelling safely and obeying the speed limit, I very much doubt it.
If you don't believe me, pick a police car in the middle lane of the DC & then undertake it. See what happens.
Unlikely to happen as highway patrol vehicles tend not to hog the middle lane at 60. Should the situation ever occur I'd be happy to find out for you.
The point is, me old Puma concolor, if you sit on a DC, unless the traffic slows in the outside lane, we quite clearly do not have a road system where you can use any lane to overtake. The situation you see in the US with cars cruising in, and overtaking in, any lane is not meant to exist here. The rule is: Overtake on the right. Otherwise why prosecute people for sitting in the middle lane. It wouldn't matter if you sat in the middle lane would it, if overtaking on the left is ok ?
It wouldn't matter if you sat in the middle lane would it, if overtaking on the left is ok?
Bingo. They could have just scrubbed 268.
Funnily enough, I was thinking the other day, whilst on the motorway, what had happened to the witch-hunt over this. Of all the things I've seen people do on the roads, this has to rank quite low down in terms of dangerous activities. It ranks as an annoyance for me, rather than something to get all Daily Mail over.
What is more dangerous is how other drivers react to lane hoggers e.g. those who like to make their feelings known by speeding right up to the bumper and staying there until they move; those who don't know how to use their brakes properly and swerve to other lanes at the last minute without looking properly; those who like to overtake and pull back in only a metre or two from the front of the "offending" car etc etc
The fact is that the "slow" lane is perma-clogged by heavy goods vehicles, while the "fast" lane requires a minimum speed of 90 mph, unless you run the risk of an Audi up your a**e. If you just want to drive normally, you are often left little choice but to stay in the middle lane. I'm not excusing it, and it's not something I do, but I can understand why people do do it.
Whatever you do, don't let the fact that you clearly don't understand the topic, stop you from ranting about it.
Feel free to enlighten me...
It's already been covered in the thread.
It's OK, He sat in lane 2 because it was windy
😯
The fact is that the "slow" lane is perma-clogged by heavy goods vehicles, while the "fast" lane requires a minimum speed of 90 mph, unless you run the risk of an Audi up your a**e. If you just want to drive normally, you are often left little choice but to stay in the middle lane. I'm not excusing it, and it's not something I do, but I can understand why people do do it.
Which isn't what happened in this case, lane 1 was empty.
Undertaking is legal in the sense that it was removed from the statute books about 40odd years ago, the manner in which you do it is more important than the act.
From an accident investigator:
The specific offence of undertaking (or nearside undertake) was actually removed from the statute books with the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic Act, and although the Highway Code advises against it, there is no specific law that prevents it.The reason for this is in part due to the poor lane discipline experienced on Motorways. There are often many oaccisons (which many of you have probably experienced yourself) when lane 3 is stationary but lanes 1 and 2 are clear and so it is often easier to continue in the inside lanes and keep traffic flowing.
On other occasions drivers will catch up a vehicle doing say 50mph but remains in lane 2 whilst lane 1 is empty (late at night for example) and to go from lane 1 acrosss to lane 3 is potentially just as dangerous, whereas remaining in lane 1 allows the vehicle to pass quite safely (I hope I explained that OK?)
However, whilst there is no specific offence of undertaking, we still have careless driving under section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, and a driver who undertakes dangerously or badly will find themselves before the court for either careless or in the worst cases dangerous (section 2 of the same act)
But, to obtain a conviction, the prosecution has to show that the standard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver, and the act of the nearside overtake would not in itself be sufficient to secure a conviction.
However, if as I saw yesterday, a vehicle shoots past in lane 2 on the undertake, then into lane 1, undertakes and then shoots out to lane 3 and then back to lane 3 (if you like, weaving from lane to lane) then that would probably be sufficient to get the conviction.
If like me on the same route, I had a vehicle doing 45 - 50 in lane 2 in an empty motorway, I went past at around 60 and a Police car followed me and then pulled over the centre lane hogger, then you know that the hogger is going to get done for driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (which is a sub section of careless driving).
I hope I explained that OK.
The other question I get asked a lot is what if the centre lane hogger then moves back to lane 1 as you are undertaking and a colision occurs?
Well, then centre lane hogger has a statutory duty of care to ensure it is safe to move back in just as much as they do when moving to an outside lane, and there have been a few cases in civil law where the hogger has been held 100% liable on the basis that withthe evidence available they could have been in lane 1 in the first place, and so they commmitted the section 3 offence, and then failed to check it was safe to return to lane 1, and that the undertaking driver was acting perfectly reasonably for the circumstances.
So, in short, there is no offence, or specific offence, and if it is done sensibly, then nothing to worry about, but just be aware of the possiblity of the hogger moving across back into the nearside lane.
I hope that answers the question for you?
http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?13698-Undertaking
From my long trips up and down the nations motorways before escaping it is a problem.
In this case sitting at 60mph in the middle lane means a steady stream of cars sitting at 70mph in the outside to get past, people in the middle doing 60mph trying to slot into gaps on what appears to be a quiet bit of motorway. It concentrates cars into a space, blocks the flow of traffic and increases the risk to those that are there. Also if you have no understanding of how a motorway should work you present a danger to those around you.
I knew of some people who explained middle lane driving as a fear of changing lanes - join head to middle, stay there till exit, avoid having to pass truck etc. again if you can't change lanes on the motorway without being scared stay off them.
I knew of some people who explained middle lane driving as a fear of changing lanes
Yeah, I see that fairly often. Join the motorway, carve straight into the second lane without the slightest consideration for the existing motorway conditions, then stay there until the exit where they once again dive straight across the first lane onto the slip in one movement. Woe betide anyone who happens to be in lane 1 at the time. Madness.
It is really noticeable where there are 4 lanes and they carve straight across to the third lane.
These are the same people who don't reduce their speed when driving into a low sun or other poor visibility conditions, who overtake cyclists and then turn left across the cyclists path and all the other shit poor driving habits that they usually get away with because of circumstance rather than skill. I would rather they be penalised for their bad driving before they kill someone instead of waiting until it is too late.
One thing the French are better at than the Brits...driving on motorways
Ignoring Paris I'd say that the French are better drivers in general these days 😯
I recently spent a week in France and unless I was just lucky I found driving around over there quite pleasant. Driving standards in the Uk must be that bad now to make France feel like a civilised place to drive in 😆
Join the motorway, carve straight into the second lane without the slightest consideration for the existing motorway conditions, then stay there until the exit where they once again dive straight across the first lane onto the slip in one movement.
What baffles me about the stereotypical dogmatic middle lane sitter is that they'll do 80 down the middle lane until they come up behind something doing 65, then they'll just sit at 65 even though the outside lane is completely clear. When the car in front is eventually removed from their path, it's back up to 80 again.
I mean, if you're so keen to do 80, surely a simple overtake is more appealing than sitting up someone's arse at 65? Unless of course you're a complete moro—oh wait
I mean, if you're so keen to do 80, surely a simple overtake is more appealing than sitting up someone's arse at 65? Unless of course you're a complete moro—oh wait
as I said
some people who explained middle lane driving as a fear of changing lanes
If there's one thing I've learned, it's not to try to understand WHY people drive like they drive. Doesn't stop me getting wound up by it, of course.
It's odd how the people who are supposedly too scared of changing lanes to change lanes aren't so scared of changing into the middle lane, though, isn't it? 🙂
Ignoring Paris I'd say that the French are better drivers in general these daysI recently spent a week in France and unless I was just lucky I found driving around over there quite pleasant. Driving standards in the Uk must be that bad now to make France feel like a civilised place to drive in
I did too, and noted a few stark differences between there and the UK. (Warning, the following post is anecdotal based on the area I was driving around, and may contain rash generalisations and confirmation bias.)
1) Lane discipline is much, much better than the UK. People will generally pull out to overtake and then pull back in again. Bliss.
2) Most cars travel at or near the speed limits, so most of your overtaking is slower-moving traffic like lorries or caravans.
3) Those who choose to speed, really choose to speed. They'll come screaming up behind you and sit millimetres from your back bumper until you get out of the way. Quite a few times I thought I was towing another car.
4) The drag-racing lorries really do not give a shit. They'll sit side-by-side on a two lane carriageway for miles, then once the nominally faster one finally clears the other and pulls in, the one behind will [i]immediately[/i] - like, before the first one has even completed the lane change - pull out and the whole bloody procedure repeats. Bastards.
5) The nearer you get to Paris, the worse the driving gets. Probably true of any big city I guess.
6) And perhaps the most pertinent; the roads are considerably quieter than the UK. The 'motorways' look like the photos of the ones here in the 1960s.
It's odd how the people who are supposedly too scared of changing lanes to change lanes aren't so scared of changing into the middle lane, though, isn't it?
Ah, but apparently the middle lane is the "cruising lane." God knows where they've got that from but I've heard it more than once.
Glad someone has been convicted / got points for this. Hogging the middle lane narrows a 3/4 lane road to 2 lanes, causes congestion as traffic backs up and encourages people to undertake.
Specifically on @Bills point below
One thing the French are better at than the Brits...driving on motorways.*If you see someone hogging the middle lane on an Autoroute, it's invariably a Brit.
* = Unless you're driving around the peripherique on the outskirts of Paris, when it's every man for himself.
Yes the French are much much more disciplined about moving over on the autoroutes and dual carriageways, they'll get back in even if it's for just a 100m before they need to move back out. Germans likewise. With Mrs Jambalaya being French and Parisienne (note correct male/female as I was correct ted on STW before 😳 ) yes the Periph is madness but even there people move back in and there is plenty of undertaking but it's understood those are the rules if you don't move over. Was in Paris and on the Periph this weekend/yesterday and the Mrs doesn't like me driving (like a Grandmother she says) there as I am not nearly aggressive enough, allegedly by changing lane every 30 seconds and undertaking people you can save many seconds on a 45 min drive round the totally congested rush hour Periph 😯
Ah, but apparently the middle lane is the "cruising lane." God knows where they've got that from but I've heard it more than once.
"The 'slow' lane is just for lorries, isn't it?"
is one I've heard more than once too
Cougar - ModeratorAh, but apparently the middle lane is the "cruising lane." God knows where they've got that from but I've heard it more than once.
Stupid isn't it, it's a terrible place to pick up guys.
Had a thought riding home last night. There was a cycle lane on the pavement which I avoid because it crosses side turnings etc. Also, once you are on it, you normally can't easily get back on the road without having to give way. So I stay on the road.
Will I be viewed as a kind of middle lane hogger to a driver behind. I do feel guilty sometimes and pick my speed up a bit.
You're not, but you likely will
"The 'slow' lane is just for lorries, isn't it?"
...and also to be left free for drivers joining from the slip lane.
Don't see as many middle lane hogs these days, as they seem to have upgraded to an Audi and now hog the outside lane.
It's not uncommon on the M5 for the outside lane to be parked or rolling at 20mph and the other two lanes to be empty as everyone wants to go in the 'fast' lane. At this point I normally sit at 70 in lane 1 with 3 or for other cars and undertake them with the buffer of a completely empty middle lane.
God knows where they've got that from
Perhaps part of the problem is that, for some bizarre reason, drivers pass a driving test without ever actually driving on a motorway - the road where many will spend the majority of their driving?
A two-stage test might be a sensible approach.
GrahamS - MemberPerhaps part of the problem is that, for some bizarre reason, drivers pass a driving test without ever actually driving on a motorway - the road where many will spend the majority of their driving?
Not everyone has access to a motorway, there's none north of Perth or west of Exeter so it could never be part of the main test. And making it a standalone would be impractical
And in today's news the driver...
[i]said he plans to appeal after claiming he was victimised because he drives a white van.
Decorator Ian Stephens, from Wigan, was fined £940 and given five penalty points after being caught driving his Citroen Berlingo van in the middle lane of the M62 in West Yorkshire. [/i]
... he also said he was too busy working to attend the court originally. Berlingo drivers eh, salt of the earth.
Does 'Passed Plus' still happen, taking newbie drivers onto a motorway under supervision?
That's why I said two stage test Northwind.
Those people could be allowed to drive on non-motorway roads but they wouldn't be allowed to drive on motorways till they pass their Motorway Test.
Or maybe driving simulators could be used?
said he plans to appeal after claiming he was victimised because he drives a white van.
Double the fine and points for not knowing how motorways work even after being taken to court
Does 'Passed Plus' still happen, taking newbie drivers onto a motorway under supervision?
Yep, but it is optional and many folk can't afford it, especially after potentially shelling out thousands for lessons, a test, tax and insurance.
It's not uncommon on the M5 for the outside lane to be parked or rolling at 20mph and the other two lanes to be empty as everyone wants to go in the 'fast' lane. At this point I normally sit at 70 in lane 1 with 3 or for other cars and undertake them with the buffer of a completely empty middle lane.
+1.
Managed motorways with the "use hard shoulder" lane lit is another good example. Set cruise to whatever's on the gantry and enjoy miles and miles of free-flowing, empty motorway whilst the lanes to your right are nose-to-nose. Happy days.
Perhaps part of the problem is that, for some bizarre reason, drivers pass a driving test without ever actually driving on a motorway - the road where many will spend the majority of their driving?A two-stage test might be a sensible approach.
Yeah, mental isn't it. Practicalities aside, I'm wholly with you on the 'motorway test' idea. There needs to be something more than just a couple of theory questions, certainly.
Late to this one. Instead of worrying about middle lane hoggers, surely the instruments of the law and state would be much better utilised to properly penalise the incompetent drivers on motorways who cannot drive in a straight line without driving into the car in front of them? I've lost count of the number of accidents I've seen where someone went into the back of someone else because they failed to leave enough braking distance or simply weren't looking where they were going. It seems to me these people are far more dangerous than those doing 60 in the middle lane.
dazh probably true but it isn't a binary choice the police could always prosecute both forms of bad driving.
except I keep seeing more and more stories where running into the back of a vehicle in front of you is not considered dangerous driving. So even when they are occasionally prosecuted it's becoming accepted behaviour.dazh probably true but it isn't a binary choice the police could always prosecute both forms of bad driving.
I'm all for prosecuting middle lane idiots but the system as a whole needs looking at, as bez stated way back it's same penalty for inconveniencing a few drivers and court as for wilfully endangering people around you.
The main problem is that there are not enough police on the motorways to police the traffic. Started commuting on the M1 in 99 and I'd see 1 or 2 cops both ways and people pulled every morning and evening. I left the UK in 2012 and I reckon I could go Lakes to Birmingham without seeing a single one.
If they could police the space it would be great, enforcing the simple driving without due care and attention which should cover tailgating, middle lane driving, mobile phones and eating breakfast on the commute.
GrahamS - MemberThat's why I said two stage test Northwind.
Those people could be allowed to drive on non-motorway roads but they wouldn't be allowed to drive on motorways till they pass their Motorway Test.
How's that ever going to work? You're planning a trip so you stop halfway to do a driving test? Or you drive for 8 hours from John O Groats to get to the nearest motorway just to do your motorway test, then drive back after? Just impractical
more troublesome for a limited number of prospective driver but not unworkable. It's not unreasonable to suggest people should get some practice and take a test before using a markedly different road system to the one they're used to.Just impractical
And while we're at it can we get some regular retests aswell
Both those options seem better than just allowing people to do something life-threatening to others without any training purely because getting training would be too much trouble.
Those who don't live within an hour or two of a motorway, but still want to qualify to drive on one, could do the test in a simulator. In fact simulator tests may actually be better as many road conditions could be simulated (heavy traffic, a crash scene, rain, night driving etc).
Going to the old metaphor: in what other situation would untrained people be allowed to operate multi-ton high-speed machinery in situations where tens of thousands of people are seriously injured or killed every year?
more troublesome for a limited number of prospective driver but not unworkable.
Motorways stop at Newcastle on the East coast and Carlisle on the West, little bit round Glasgow and Edinburgh and that's it from there up, we struggled with dual carrigeways and roundabouts when I was a kid. No motorways north of the M4 for Wales either and great chunks of yorkshire.
I agree with more training but sometimes bits are impractical.
Edit to reply to GrahamS's last post good skills on a Dual Carrigeway should be a good starting point for motorway driving. with all those cars going in the same direction it's a much safer place to be.
Given Motorways have by far the lowest accident rates (per mile driven), they're way down the priority list for addressing driving issues.
Overall, most road casualties (i.e. fatal and non-fatal) tend to occur on built-up roads. In
2012, 71% of casualties occurred on built-up roads compared to 24% on non built-up roads
and 5% on motorways (see Table 2).
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn02198.pdf
A two-stage test might be a sensible approach.
Paying attention to what you've been taught might be a good idea. I didn't "just know" you were supposed to drive in the left lane unless overtaking, that information was supplied to me. I expect it still is but there are always people who think this sort of trivia doesn't apply to them. What else is taught and then summarily ignored as soon as the test is passed?
yeah I know that (even if you adjust for per journey, per mile is cheating 🙂 ), it's just curious that most people learn to drive and are tested on 30mph urban streets then 10mins after they pass can tear arse down motorways they've never been supervised on, let alone tested.Given Motorways have by far the lowest accident rates
footflaps: yep motorways are statistically safer but I'm not convinced middle lane driving is actually much of a safety issue to be honest
BTW are those stats for ALL casualties or just vehicle casualties?
What else is taught and then summarily ignored as soon as the test is passed?
Quite a lot really. And of course there are also changes in laws and road regulations, new markings introduced etc
All good reasons for regular re-tests (which might also provide an opportunity to test motorway driving).
Paying attention to what you've been taught might be a good idea. I didn't "just know" you were supposed to drive in the left lane unless overtaking, that information was supplied to me.
Driving tests change over time, too. What the previous generation was taught might not be in line with what I was taught, or what they currently teach.
I do wonder whether, with older drivers at least, they simply don't know any better because they were never told.
What else is taught and then summarily ignored as soon as the test is passed?
The trouble is that passing the driving test is seen as the lowest common denominator in driving ability, rather than a gold standard. I distinctly remember my driving instructor (back in 1991) telling me after I'd passed that my 'education starts now'. Whilst this is true, most people seem to take this advice as meaning 'forget about what you've just learned, that was to get you through the test, now you have to learn how to drive properly'. There's a very simple solution to this, regular repeat tests.
I do wonder whether, with older drivers at least, they simply don't know any better because they were never told
How old? I might well be getting there but I reckon I know how to behave on the roads. To be honest I think the real issue isn't ignorance, it's arrogance.
yeah I know that (even if you adjust for per journey, per mile is cheating )
You don't even have to adjust, even in absolute terms they get 5% of casualties.
BTW are those stats for ALL casualties or just vehicle casualties?
Statistically speaking, a motorway is the safest place to cycle 😉