PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Middle lane hogging - careless?
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 12:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



What do we think?

Some observations:

For it to be careless, it has to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

For it to be without reasonable consideration, some other person actually has to be inconvenienced.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 12:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:26
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 21:36) *
IIRC, the standard is a question of law. Whether the standard was met is a question of fact. The first is open to appeal, the second would be very difficult.

Is there an authority on what the standard actually is, as a matter of law, in these circumstances?



I believe I normally refer to “trite law” but if you really want an authority that the legal standard is that of a competent and careful driver I’d imagine there is one in Wilkinson’s.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:56
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



I loathe MLOC members at most times, however I personally don't have an issue with them on an empty Mway. The driver in question may well have been aware of the Bib car and if it was making no attempt to pass i dont see an issse. Who is inconvenienced? An easy point scored to appease the pollsters? Where is Bib on a busy Mway when MLOC are abundant?
on a busy road if you are the lead vehicle of even a small que you are not driving at an acceptable standard imho.
I have been known to "hog" lane 2 when towing a vehicle laden trailer as the wheel track difference between tow car and trailer can cause significant problems if the road is rutted by HGVs.
Another issuse which i find just as frustrating is HGVs being allowed to use lane 3 on a 4 lane Mway. Prime example M1 north j9 -10. (Incl the very long entry slip from j9 itz actually 5 lanes for some distance) all up hill. Numerous times ive seen HGVs 3 abreast for the whole assent effectively becoming a 2 lane road.

This post has been edited by mickR: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:16
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:56) *
………….
on a busy road if you are the lead vehicle of even a small que you are not driving at an acceptable standard imho...……...


At the risk of being blunt, b0llocks.
If a driver is overtaking and maintaining a reasonable speed, they are doing all that is expected by the law and the Highway Code.
TBH, many instances of people getting upset with MLOC is not simply because they are hogging the middle lane but that they are in front, in the way and not going as fast as the driver behinds thinks they should be.
If the left lane is clear, the MLOC should pull over, many don't.
But if the left lane is busy and the MLOC is overtaking, the issue is not being in the wrong lane.
And much as it may irritate, you cannot prosecute someone for doing 65 in a 70 limit.

Changes somewhat when they are not overtaking, simply traveling at the same speed as the vehicle(s) to the left.
Them are true MLOC, probably with Mabel in the passenger seat keeping an eagle eye on the speedo to warn George if he drifts anywhere near the speed limit.
Never gets out of the middle lane, never bothered that anyone else is on the road or who they are holding up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:39
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:56) *
………….
on a busy road if you are the lead vehicle of even a small que you are not driving at an acceptable standard imho...……...


At the risk of being blunt, b0llocks.


Changes somewhat when they are not overtaking, simply traveling at the same speed as the vehicle(s) to the left.
Them are true MLOC, probably with Mabel in the passenger seat keeping an eagle eye on the speedo to warn George if he drifts anywhere near the speed limit.
Never gets out of the middle lane, never bothered that anyone else is on the road or who they are holding up.


So not "b0llocks" then wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:00
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 21:36) *
IIRC, the standard is a question of law. Whether the standard was met is a question of fact. The first is open to appeal, the second would be very difficult.

Is there an authority on what the standard actually is, as a matter of law, in these circumstances?



I believe I normally refer to “trite law” but if you really want an authority that the legal standard is that of a competent and careful driver I’d imagine there is one in Wilkinson’s.

The government publish a "National standards for driving, riding and cycling ", which "set out what it takes to be a safe and responsible driver, rider or cyclist, and to provide training to drivers, riders and cyclists."

Its supporting documents include the HC and "Driving: the Essential Skills", and it is the basis for all driver tuition and testing. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/n...iding-standards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:42
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:26) *
I believe I normally refer to “trite law” but if you really want an authority that the legal standard is that of a competent and careful driver I’d imagine there is one in Wilkinson’s.

You know me well enough to know that I know the standard is that of competent and careful driver, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to show some concern that I might have had a knock on the head if I were to say otherwise. The issue here is what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is.

So, is there any precedent specifically on the point of whether driving down lane 2 of any empty motorway, and in the absence of any explanation for such conduct (potholes, ice snow or whatever else), falls short of that objective standard? Because this is the point on which reasonable people on here seem to have differing views.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 16:49
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:42) *
……….....The issue here is what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is...….


Surely the issue of what is competent comes to the fore?
I think we must accept that someone toddling along in the middle lane is probably being careful, likely too careful but that is another matter.
However can any driver be regarded as competent when they don't know basic rules that the Highway Code spells out?
Or if they do know them, disregard them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 17:08
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:42) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 13:26) *
I believe I normally refer to “trite law” but if you really want an authority that the legal standard is that of a competent and careful driver I’d imagine there is one in Wilkinson’s.

You know me well enough to know that I know the standard is that of competent and careful driver, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to show some concern that I might have had a knock on the head if I were to say otherwise. The issue here is what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is.

So, is there any precedent specifically on the point of whether driving down lane 2 of any empty motorway, and in the absence of any explanation for such conduct (potholes, ice snow or whatever else), falls short of that objective standard? Because this is the point on which reasonable people on here seem to have differing views.

Indeed. I don’t see why the standard would be any different (the same legislation applies). So, really, it’s a question of fact as to whether that standard has been met (or the reverse).


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 18:30
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 17:08) *
So, really, it’s a question of fact as to whether that standard has been met (or the reverse).

It seems more like a question of law. In the case in the article you linked, the defendant would presumably argue that the facts are agree but as a matter of law, the standard of a competent and careful driver was met. The CPS would argue that on the agreed facts, the defendant's driving fell below the standard of a competent and careful driver. So really the question is not what factually happened, the question is whether on those facts the defendant's driving fell below that standard. So there's no need for a court to make any findings of fact at all, it's purely a question of law.

Of course once the court has determined what the objective standard is, that finding of law must be applied to the facts of the case, but that only comes later and may well be wholly uncontroversial.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:09
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 18:30) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 17:08) *
So, really, it’s a question of fact as to whether that standard has been met (or the reverse).

It seems more like a question of law.

I don't see how the question of whether a standard has been met is a question of law - it's a question of fact. Having directed itself as to the correct standard in law, the court must then apply the facts to that standard and determine whether the driver met them or not.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:54
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:09) *
I don't see how the question of whether a standard has been met is a question of law - it's a question of fact. Having directed itself as to the correct standard in law, the court must then apply the facts to that standard and determine whether the driver met them or not.

But what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is depends on the circumstances of the case. The court must ask itself what our hypothetical competent and careful driver would have done, or at most if more than one option is open to him, which options he might have taken, if he had found himself in the defendants shoes. These are all hypothetical consideration a la Clapham Omnibus, they're a mental exercise the court undertakes in asking itself what a hypothetical driver (who doesn't exist and is merely a legal fiction) would do. That is a finding of law, surely.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:07
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The standard is a question of law, as I’ve already said. Can you produce an authority for your proposition?

A question - when the bench retires, would you expect the legal adviser to then advise them as to what a competent careful driver would do in the circumstances? If so, what circumstances, bearing in mind the bench has made no findings of fact yet? Also, would the advisor’s advice be based on his or her own subjective opinion or something else?

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:12


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:11
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:07) *
The standard is a question of law, as I’ve already said. Can you produce an authority for your proposition?

So as a question of law, what does the standard say about driving down lane 2 of an empty motorway?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:13
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:11) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:07) *
The standard is a question of law, as I’ve already said. Can you produce an authority for your proposition?

So as a question of law, what does the standard say about driving down lane 2 of an empty motorway?

See my addendum above.

The standard simply says that the standard is that of a competent and careful driver. It says nothing about driving in lane two.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 09:17
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:42) *
……….....The issue here is what the standard of a competent and careful driver actually is...….


Surely the issue of what is competent comes to the fore?
I think we must accept that someone toddling along in the middle lane is probably being careful, likely too careful but that is another matter.
However can any driver be regarded as competent when they don't know basic rules that the Highway Code spells out?
Or if they do know them, disregard them?


It could be argued that a competant driver would assess the traffic and driving conditions and decide driving in lane two to be wholly acceptable in that instance. I would argue disregarding the HC in certain instances does not make one incompetant. As is frequently pointed out on the forum the rules of the HC are not law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 10:51
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (mickR @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 09:17) *
……….
It could be argued that a competant driver would assess the traffic and driving conditions and decide driving in lane two to be wholly acceptable in that instance. I would argue disregarding the HC in certain instances does not make one incompetant. As is frequently pointed out on the forum the rules of the HC are not law.


It could and that comes into the point that HC makes, what is it that makes this act lower then the standard expected?
Or as CP says, there may be a decent reason, Lane 1 being that riddled with potholes that the driver did not feel safe using it.
But what they cannot do is arbitrarily decide that lane 2 is the place to be, stuff the HC or convention.

Personal opinions will come into play
I fully admit I am biased, if I were the decision maker, I would be miffed that I could not sentence them to a day in the stocks, even penal transport to Australia is no longer allowed. Just not right that.
Or maybe the magistrates will be fully paid up members of the MLOC and as such regard this as perfectly normal and acceptable behavior.

I've said it before as have others. While the highway code is not law, it is an official publication of what rules, what standards are expected.
To me, staying in lane 2 without reason, for significant distance is way below. It ignores a basic rule, totally.
And if I am correct in my assumption that the guy didn't have a clue it was wrong, that is further evidence that his knowledge was lower then the standards expected and therefore he could not be a competent driver.

Being able to turn on the oven does not make someone a competent cook.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 13:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 13:08
Post #57


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The most obvious issue with middle lane hoggers is inconveniencing other motorists. The other issue is that they often get into lane 2 and stay there because they are either unable or unwilling to drive diligently.

The IAM approach to any manoeuvre, including road positioning, is summarised in the partial acronym - "SLAP ME" - is it Safe, Legal, give an Advantage and (not) create a negative Perception among other road users? Obviously this approach differs substantially from that of the MLOC, but sometimes overlaps. In either case, stay in the left most lane unless overtaking.

I find the argument that obstructing speeding motorists is not an offence because they are speeding to be somewhat troubling. Whilst it speaks to the construction of the offence rather than a defence, it resembles the defence of duress of necessity with most of the requirements removed. Also, to take it too its logical conclusion, if the argument is "I am doing the speed limit, therefore anyone who might want to pass me must be illegally exceeding the speed limit" (ignoring that the 'speeder' might potentially have a lawful excuse for doing so), the obstructor would have to be travelling at exactly the speed limit.



--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 15:56
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 23:13) *
See my addendum above.

The standard simply says that the standard is that of a competent and careful driver. It says nothing about driving in lane two.

Exactly, and what would be expected of a competent and careful driver in the circumstances is a question of law.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 13:08) *
I find the argument that obstructing speeding motorists is not an offence because they are speeding to be somewhat troubling. Whilst it speaks to the construction of the offence rather than a defence, it resembles the defence of duress of necessity with most of the requirements removed. Also, to take it too its logical conclusion, if the argument is "I am doing the speed limit, therefore anyone who might want to pass me must be illegally exceeding the speed limit" (ignoring that the 'speeder' might potentially have a lawful excuse for doing so), the obstructor would have to be travelling at exactly the speed limit.

As ever it depends on the circumstances. Deliberately holding someone up may itself amount to an offence, but on the other hand if I'm doing *exactly* 70 mph and I'm overtaking slow moving traffic, I don't see why I should move into a gap on the left between two lorries and delay my own journey just because Mr White Van man wants to go flying past at 90. As long as I'm doing no less than 70 and there's slower moving traffic on the left, I'm entitled to maintain my speed and lane unless a blue lights vehicles comes up behind me.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 16:08
Post #59


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The highway code says that the outside lanes are for overtaking. If you are actively overtaking a discernibly slower moving vehicle on your immediate left, then no rational person would say that you were lane hogging, or driving without due consideration, merely because white van man would prefer that you got out of his effing way. What speed you were doing or quite how you propose to drive at exactly 70mph are neither here nor there.

Obviously, if you caused another vehicle to slow down or otherwise change course by pulling out in front of him, or were participating in some variation of the sport of elephant racing (nominally 'overtaking' a vehicle which to all intents and purposes is travelling at the same speed as you), that would be a different story.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 16:37
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 16:08) *
What speed you were doing or quite how you propose to drive at exactly 70mph are neither here nor there.

Cruise control & stanav speedo, it's not hard. I know that in my car, if I set the CC to 73, I'll actually be doing 70.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. What I would add is if for some reason I had to drive slower than the maximum permitted speed, for example due to having a spare tyre with a 50 mph limit, then while I wouldn't be required to get out of anyone's way as long as I'm overtaking slower moving traffic, as a matter of common courtesy I would do so anyway.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:12
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here