Oh really ? - New Fines for Motorists

[E55BOF]

"There was a school of thought in the old days that on an empty motorway your best chance of survival in the event of a blow out was if you were travelling in the middle lane and to some extent I can actually see the logic in this."

About a year ago, I was on my way home, on one of my bikes, at night on the deserted M40 just off the M25. The overhead gantry signs suddenly lit up with 40 mph limits, and the warning "Oncoming Vehicle". There was a strong smell of adrenalin for a moment....

Middle of the carriageway (four-lane), to keep options open? If not, what? I thought about it, and opted to go really slowly in the left-hand lane, and if necessary ride up the embankment and take my chances when I fell off.

No car appeared, and the signs went off, but that was a REALLY scary couple of miles!

E55BOF

 

[E55BOF]

"What bothers me is that the man (presumably, Husband) appears to have decided he is the motorway Police and will probably go an create a stink to said establishment."

Let him; the police just LOVE self-appointed law enforcers on the road.....

 

[neilrr]

Please learn how to use the quote function, it'll make your postings easier to understand.

 

[E55BOF]

Tel me where the Idiot's Guide is, and I'll be glad to read it and do so if it helps.

 

[neilrr]

See the 'Quote' button in the bottom right hand corner of every post?

 

[cinek]

"There was a school of thought in the old days that on an empty motorway your best chance of survival in the event of a blow out was if you were travelling in the middle lane and to some extent I can actually see the logic in this."

About a year ago, I was on my way home, on one of my bikes, at night on the deserted M40 just off the M25. The overhead gantry signs suddenly lit up with 40 mph limits, and the warning "Oncoming Vehicle". There was a strong smell of adrenalin for a moment....

Middle of the carriageway (four-lane), to keep options open? If not, what? I thought about it, and opted to go really slowly in the left-hand lane, and if necessary ride up the embankment and take my chances when I fell off.

No car appeared, and the signs went off, but that was a REALLY scary couple of miles!

E55BOF

Yes, but this was an extreme circumstances.

When there is a high volume of traffic in lane 1 (HGVs), waving in and out nearside to middle lane might not be the best practice.
However, an empty nearside lane demands that you should use it, irrespective of speed you are currently driving at.

Forcing other drivers to interchanging from lane 1 to lane 3 (just because somebody is ignorant enough and they consistently remain in the lane 2) is dangerous, regardless how well you think you know your surroundings.

Same goes for HGV drivers, who quite happily will utilise to use the width of the motorway for their overtaking, offside lane excluded.
In my view, there should be two offside lanes not just one, which are restricted for HGVs use.

We might have 4, 5 or even 6 lanes on certain sections of motorways, where all lanes apart from the offside one are blocked with lorries.

 

[BigSilverEstate]

I don't have any hesitation at all in using Lane 1 when traffic is relatively light.
When Lane 1 is heavy with below 70m/h drivers, I will continue in Lane 2 rather than repeatedly enter and leave Lane 1 in order to overtake and maintain my speed. Same applies when I need to use Lane 3.

I agree with this, and 90% of the time this seems to be the situation, I.e. the relative speeds of traffic in the respective lanes and the density of traffic mean you are effectively always overtaking. When you do pull into a gap in the nearside lane you usually have to slow down as a stream of traffic to your right means you have to wait to overtake the next HGV. I actually think the blind middle lane hogger attitude is fairly unusual (though it does exist): it's more the case that nobody wants to be the one who gets stuck behind a lorry for 20 minutes while everybody else makes progress, and nobody dares undertake because it's illegal, so traffic tends to bunch up in the two outer lanes. It is the prisoner's dilemma type scenario where the best option for the group is not the best option for any one individual so you end up with less than optimal traffic flow overall.

Also pretty sure the Highway Code or else the road craft book say you should not weave between lanes making multiple overtaking manoeuvres unnecessarily (as seems to be the practice in many places on the continent).

 

[peter49]

I'm not sure that true lane hogging occurs that often really, that's why we remember the occassions when it does.
I recall driving on the M1 in the mid-1960's behind a woman driver in a Mini in Lane 2.
Traffic was no where near the density that you would see these days so wasn't causing a problem. She suddenly had a front tyre blow-out and did a 720 degree spin across all 3 lanes right in front of me. I managed to swerve by in Lane 1 but she was very lucky. There were no central barriers in those days so she could have crossed the central reservation if travelling in Lane 3.

 

[Sp!ke]

I see lane hogging all the time on uk motorways..a complete contrast to driving on the continent where such lack of lane discipline would result in very overt responses.

 

[219]

IMHO, they should make the most serious offences endorseable - driving whilst using a handheld phone for example - that'd put a stop to some of it.

Driving whilst using a handheld phone has earned you a fine and three points with a CU18 endorsement for quite a while now .

 

[219]

Talking last night to my mate who's a traffic cop and he was saying 2 flaws with the new laws traffic cops spend 90% of their time OFF motorways. Motorways are too heavily congested to spot offenders unless they are blatant on an empty motorway or tailgaters and using the phone. The central lane occupiers club will be very difficult to police.

It would not be too difficult to re-task some of the camera vans which sit on motorway bridges monitoring speeds to look out for those who fail to use proper lane discipline and issue FPN's for this offence based on video evidence .

 

[219]

Duplicate post

 

[E55BOF]

Yes, but this was an extreme circumstances.

When there is a high volume of traffic in lane 1 (HGVs), waving in and out nearside to middle lane might not be the best practice.
However, an empty nearside lane demands that you should use it, irrespective of speed you are currently driving at.

Forcing other drivers to interchanging from lane 1 to lane 3 (just because somebody is ignorant enough and they consistently remain in the lane 2) is dangerous, regardless how well you think you know your surroundings.

Same goes for HGV drivers, who quite happily will utilise to use the width of the motorway for their overtaking, offside lane excluded.
In my view, there should be two offside lanes not just one, which are restricted for HGVs use.

We might have 4, 5 or even 6 lanes on certain sections of motorways, where all lanes apart from the offside one are blocked with lorries.

Agreed; I don't do that. If you had formed the impression that I did, or was advocating it, perhaps you should read my posts again. The whole object of the exercise is to hinder no-one's progress, including my own.

E55BOF

 

[m1br]

You may not fit into this characterisation but from what I've seen of people who drive for a living (most HGV drivers excluded) they tend to be the worst offenders of the middle & fast lane hog rule, driving to rules they have established to suit their own convenience with a '**** you, I'm all right Jack' attitude to any other road user - see my earlier dig at Addison Lee whose drivers always make a beeline for the middle or fast lane & stay there regardless of empty lanes on their L. or the tailback they cause.

It's really simple. The onus is on every driver to move to the L. after overtaking, not on the overtaking driver to move to the R. to overtake cars reluctant to obey that rule.

If you are being tailgated then look to your own driving to see if you are in the wrong lane. Similarly with people cutting your nose off.

P.S. The law has always been on their side, I believe this recent change is in the enforcement of the law, not the law itself.

Correct I do not fit in to your characterisation.

My experience of decades of high mile driving is the opposite to yours. (And I was a transport manager once too)

The occupiers of middle lanes are abundant during the commute and particularly obvious during school holidays and Sundays.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And regardless of what the other idiots are doing, tailgating of cutting up is simply another example of poor and dangerous driving.

A professional would rise above it

 

[Clkrichard]

So many tailgaters are clinging to your rear in lane two or three on a busy road when you are in traffic maintaining the appropriate distance between yourself and the car in front.
They are just trying to bully you into moving into the slower lane to your left. Often doing so can make you cut too close to cars in that lane. The tailgater then moves on to repeat the process with the car that was in front of you.
I am not sure that I need to look to my own driving style in that situation but I do sometimes pull over if the moron behind has closed to a few feet so I cant see their numberplate or grille ! I may well have the moral high ground but have no wish to be involved in their accident. I drive an SL500 so rarely need to prove who has the faster car and therefore the bigger ***** !

 

[Dryce]

Tailgating and middle-lane hogging will now incur fixed penalties
Motorists across Britain who put others at risk through careless driving face on-the-spot fixed penalties under new measures announced by the government.

From July police will be able to issue £100 fines and three points for offences such as tailgating or middle-lane hogging that used to go to court.

The idea is to free up the police from spending time on court cases.

Sounds good.



Except that FPNs work for speeding because it is measurable.

For other stuff things work less measurably. I've seen a number of claims by individuals that they have been pushed quite hard by officers who believe they were on their phone when they were not.

And how do you define tailgating such that it's actually measurable.

And herein lies the problem with the nanny state. You get pulled over by two officers who took a dislike to something you did. Currently they get to politely and assertively lecture you and make a decision as to whether to escalate it or not in the knowledge that if they decide to pursue it then courts will be involved. That acts a drag on the system and is also a form of safety net.

Now we're heading in the direction where said officers can decide to go for a FPN. Now at that point the perpetrator is left with a decision - to go with the 'easy' way out and take the FPN or to decline and go to court.

The balance of power is shifted slightly but with some significance. Faced with the FPN how many drivers will decide to go to court even if they are innocent. Not many I suspect.

Unless the FPN has to be backed by some sort of evidence such as a camera the lone motorist is left to consider that their opinion will be worth less than that of the two officers on something that may be just that - a matter of opinion.

The AA said responsible drivers would welcome the changes.

Be careful what you wish for ....

I'm also inclined to support extending FPNs to these sorts of offences. But only with a great deal of care in terms of implementation.

 

[BTB 500]

And how do you define tailgating such that it's actually measurable.

In Germany it's done with a mobile device set up on a bridge that measures the gap between vehicles (my father-in-law got caught by one ).

 

[jacksona]

My issue with these offences is what exactly is the definition of 'lane hogging' and 'tailgating'?

Potentially subjective, and therefore inconsistent!

How much room in the inside lane means I MUST pull in before pulling back out to overtake? How close is too close? If I leave what I consider to be a reasonable gap, and someone pulls into it, am I tailgating?

Hmmm...

AJ

Sent from my iPad using MBClub UK

 

[C240Sport97]

worse thing is that Police is now judge and jury ..

this is the sort of nonsense that Police states have, no need for any court process, just trust the police ..

 

[davidjpowell]

worse thing is that Police is now judge and jury ..

this is the sort of nonsense that Police states have, no need for any court process, just trust the police ..

Not really. As with any Fixed Penalty you can opt to go to court