£940 for lane hogging.

[grumpyoldgit]

I thought for it to be undertake, one has to move to the left first? Otherwise it is not undertaking, just passing on the left?

Technically there is no such thing as 'undertake', it's overtaking on the nearside, which is illegal, except in the circumstances as explained in the following rule.

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.

 

[Blowpipe]

It is illegal. It's an undertake. Undertaking is illegal unless you're in crawling traffic.

What you're saying about not causing anyone any issues is probably correct, but I'm not talking about the shoulds and shouldn'ts, just what the highway code says.

It may be construed as Careless/Dangerous depending on the circumstances, but as I said the act in itself is not illegal. Highway Code isn't legislation - and anyway, the presence of a car dawdling in the middle lane could easily be interpreted as the 'congested circumstances' the Code refers to.

Some more detailed info nicked from an Advanced Drivers' site:

'Having spent many years booking people for bad driving on the Motorway, and now advising on liability and traffic law after an accident in a civillian capacity, to answer the original point, there is absolutely nothing in law to prevent someone undertaking if lane 2 or 3 is being hogged.

Contrary to popular belief and what many of these fly on the wall TV programmes would have you believe, there is no specific offence of nearside overtake, in fact it was removed from the statute books when the 1972 Road traffic Act was introduced.

In its place is the section 3 offence of careless driving, but to secure a conviction for the offence the prosecution have to prove that the stanndard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. The simple act of a nearside overtake would not be sufficient, but if the undertaking vehicle then weaves from lane to lane, then that would be a different matter.

As far as hogging lanes 2 or 3 are concerned, the law states that the left hand lane is the driving lane and lanes 2 and 3 (or 4 where applicable) are simply overtaking lanes, and unless slower moving vehicles are being passed, then the driver should return to the nearside lane when it is practicable and convenient to do so, despite the fact that many drivers would still have you believe that we have slow, fast and overtaking lanes.

So the issue really arises when there is a clear open stretch of road or where the driver is clearly not gaining on a behicle ahead in lane 1 and the driver chooses to sit in the middle or outside lane.

In this case, then the other part of the section 3 offence comes into play, "Driving without reasonable consideration for other road users" which is just another sub section of careless driving but carries the same penalty.

It used to be common place to report such drivers, especially when we had full time Motorway patrols, but things are somewhat different these days, well in my old force anyway.

In regards to civil claims, the courts are now starting to realise that the nearside overtake is not illegal and finding in favour of the driver who nipped passed on the nearside and got clobbered because of the numpty who sat in the middle lane and then decided to go back to lane 1 without first checking.

I have dealt with about 6 or 7 of these in the past 12 months and won every one (or at least my colleagues have in respect of the civil personal injury cases) and the middle lane hogger has been held 100% liable. The hogger has a statutory duty of care not only to drive in the correct lane, but also ensure it is safe to return back to the nearside lane before he commences changing position.

This type of accident is most common amongst motorcyclists, and whilst every case has to be judged according to the evidence, I have had many where the defendant third party has immidiately quoted Powell v Moody (1966) and backed it up with "Of course undertaking is an illegal manouevre" and then get very embarrased when I go back and ask them to quote act and section for the undertake and counteract Powell v Moody with Davis v Schrogins (2006)'

 

[tec]

It is illegal. It's an undertake. Undertaking is illegal unless you're in crawling traffic.

It's not illegal.

There is no specific offence of undertaking.

Just don't do it when the Police are in view, as you could be done for careless driving.

 

[kianok]

Pictured: Painter and decorator who was fined almost £1000 to become the first person in the UK convicted of being a 'middle lane hogger'  | Daily Mail Online

 

[MancMike]

It's not illegal.

Just don't do it when the Police are in view, as you could be done for careless driving.

So the thing you get done for is a catch all that doesn't specifically mention undertaking, but still, do it and get caught and you're in hot water with the law. Sounds illegal enough to me.

 

[219]

Pictured: Painter and decorator who was fined almost £1000 to become the first person in the UK convicted of being a 'middle lane hogger'* | Daily Mail Online

It would be interesting to see the police video of this particular incident .

 

[E55BOF]

I can't help feeling a little sorry for the driver of the Berlingo, though. His stupidity in not taking the fixed penalty, and compounding that by not going to court, has ended up costing him nearly £1000. Am I the only one who feels that that amount is out of all proportion to the offence?

 

[MancMike]

It's nothing to do with the offence.

It's escalated to that figure through him not turning up, adding costs and disobeying the summons to court.

 

[bob6600]

It would be interesting to see the police video of this particular incident .

Agreed. His story sounds like he was very hard done by but without seeing the video it's all speculation.

 

[kianok]

Agreed. His story sounds like he was very hard done by but without seeing the video it's all speculation.

The court will have viewed the footage so not really speculation at all.

That, plus the other factors that i-CONICA has pointed out make if fair enough IMO.

 

[Wheelsnuts]

Sounds like a fair cop and a fair penalty to me. Given the circumstances, it appears he only has himself to blame for the size of the fine. Interesting to read the bit about the tractor driver at the end of the Mail report.

 

[GLK]

I can't help feeling a little sorry for the driver of the Berlingo, though. His stupidity in not taking the fixed penalty, and compounding that by not going to court, has ended up costing him nearly £1000. Am I the only one who feels that that amount is out of all proportion to the offence?

I've no doubt that, at each stage the consequences of "progressing" to the next one were clearly spelled out. His own arrogance and a bad case of dontgivea****itus are to blame.

 

[FaeLLe]

If it's a hard core I'd say it's a pretty sizeable one.

Every time I drive my car I see people using hand held phones, usually within less than 2 minutes of starting my journey. Worse are the texters who you can spot because they are driving too slowly, weaving in their lane (or the adjacent lanes) & constantly looking up & down at the phone & the road.

Hand held phone use is endemic.

That is why they need the Lane Assistance Pack with Cross Traffic Assist

 

[JDL60]

drives a Berlingo, deserves all he got!

 

[E55BOF]

It's nothing to do with the offence.

It's escalated to that figure through him not turning up, adding costs and disobeying the summons to court.

It has everything to do with the offence. His own stupidity has landed him with a bill of nearly £1000 for a simple case of bad lane discipline. That's a high price to pay for being stupid...

 

[stwat]

Allison Pearson: Why I'm proud to be a middle lane hogger - Telegraph

 

[Ted]

Complete drivel.

 

[kianok]

I hope she is next.

 

[Wheelsnuts]

Journalistic twaddle!

 

[E55BOF]

In the absence of traffic rule enforcement by hordes of police patrols rather than cameras (some hope...), the only way to prevent the Cloggers from holding other drivers up is to permit overtaking in any available lane. Some hope...

Thinks: What if motorway Highways Agency Officers dash camera footage could legally be used as evidence to justify issuing fixed penalties for lane hogging? After all, it's not as though calibration was required, as it is for speeding offences. Hmmm...