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 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 12:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:25
Post #2


Member


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



Just reading that.
My immediate reaction, yes, one down, 15m more to go.

To me if they canna be bovvered to move into lane 1 on an empty motorway, it is below the standard expected.
Not to mention that MLOC are total pains who effectively reduce motorway widths to two lane.
It can be a difficult judgement on a relatively busy motorway, pop in and out of lane one or stay in lane two to overtake the next lorry.
But on an empty motorway, no excuse, lane one is the only place they should be.

I noted one of the comments, if they were doing the speed limit they don't need to move over cos no one should be overtaking anyway.
That's the MLOC mindset, I'm doing the limit so stuff you.
Even worse when they venture into lane 3.... and there they will sit at 68mph while overtaking the MLOC in lane 2 who is doing 67mph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



I've frequently been in lane 1 doing 70(ish) and having to move to lane 3 to overtake someone doing 68 - and then moving back to lane 1... (but they rarely get the message - and carry on in their own little world)

I too think it falls below the standard expected - but a quiet word is probably more appropriate...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:32


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 14:56
Post #4


Member


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



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:31) *
I too think it falls below the standard expected - but a quiet word is probably more appropriate...


Reading between the lines and that the driver would not accept they were doing anything wrong, attitude test?
A quiet word may have been the initial intent of the cops.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:10
Post #5


Member


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



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:25) *
I noted one of the comments, if they were doing the speed limit they don't need to move over cos no one should be overtaking anyway.
That's the MLOC mindset, I'm doing the limit so stuff you.
Even worse when they venture into lane 3.... and there they will sit at 68mph while overtaking the MLOC in lane 2 who is doing 67mph.

Possibly an interesting legal question. What is the position where the driver inconvenienced is themselves breaking the law? Or, to put it in context, can one lawfully inconvenience a driver wanting to overtake in excess of the speed limit if one is driving at the speed limit?


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:47
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:25) *
I noted one of the comments, if they were doing the speed limit they don't need to move over cos no one should be overtaking anyway.
That's the MLOC mindset, I'm doing the limit so stuff you.
Even worse when they venture into lane 3.... and there they will sit at 68mph while overtaking the MLOC in lane 2 who is doing 67mph.

Possibly an interesting legal question. What is the position where the driver inconvenienced is themselves breaking the law? Or, to put it in context, can one lawfully inconvenience a driver wanting to overtake in excess of the speed limit if one is driving at the speed limit?

Would not that come down to both parties would be in the wrong?
Two wrongs don't make a right, is that a legal concept?

But even if the speeding driver was not deemed to have been inconvenienced because they were outside of the law, the MLOC could still be below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
There is also the question of is the overtaking driver actually speeding?
I know that my speedo reads high, if I am toddling at 75 indicated speed while the MLOC I am closing on is doing 68 indicated speed on his clock, what is the true situation?
If they are doing 68 against my clock, I know they under the limit, at least 5mph under the limit.
I am being inconvenienced at least up to 70mph true speed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50
Post #7


Member


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



Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard. I would be slow to say that a speeding driver is inconvenienced by someone travelling at the speed limit. Two wrongs don’t make a right doesn’t come into it at all.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:56
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:31) *
I've frequently been in lane 1 doing 70(ish) and having to move to lane 3 to overtake someone doing 68 - and then moving back to lane 1... (but they rarely get the message - and carry on in their own little world)

I too think it falls below the standard expected - but a quiet word is probably more appropriate...


absolute +1 certainly below the standard that should be expected. They would not pass their test with that type of poor lane discipline


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:02
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50) *
Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard.

But not a very good argument. The relevant rule in the HC says "always drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear". (My emphasis).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:05
Post #10


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:56) *
They would not pass their test with that type of poor lane discipline

They almost certainly would, because motorway and dual carriageway driving isn't part of the practical driving test.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:08
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:56) *
They would not pass their test with that type of poor lane discipline

They almost certainly would, because motorway and dual carriageway driving isn't part of the practical driving test.


Lane discipline is though, and I know my wife's test involved quite a section of DC


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:13
Post #12


Member


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



QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:02) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50) *
Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard.

But not a very good argument. The relevant rule in the HC says "always drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear". (My emphasis).

And as we know, the HC is guidance, not law. Breach of guidance in the HC may indicate driving below the standard but isn’t determinative of it. Is driving along in the middle lane of an empty motorway something worthy of criminalisation?

This seems to be a subject like cyclists, where strong views become entrenched and any indication of MLOC-ery should be punished. It’s interesting.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:16
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:13) *
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:02) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50) *
Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard.

But not a very good argument. The relevant rule in the HC says "always drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear". (My emphasis).

And as we know, the HC is guidance, not law. Breach of guidance in the HC may indicate driving below the standard but isn’t determinative of it. Is driving along in the middle lane of an empty motorway something worthy of criminalisation?

This seems to be a subject like cyclists, where strong views become entrenched and any indication of MLOC-ery should be punished. It’s interesting.


Its a mind set that ought to be discouraged (MLOC) not moaning about them


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:22
Post #14


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:08) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:56) *
They would not pass their test with that type of poor lane discipline

They almost certainly would, because motorway and dual carriageway driving isn't part of the practical driving test.


Lane discipline is though, and I know my wife's test involved quite a section of DC

Yes, but that's only if the test route happens to include dual carriageway - many, if not most, don't.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:23
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,825
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



The cop was around for 3 miles. Not only horrible lane discipline, horrible awareness of what's around them.

There is also the issue of queues building up and emergency vehicles then getting delayed. 1 minute could be life or death.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:49
Post #16


Member


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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:13) *
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:02) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50) *
Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard.

But not a very good argument. The relevant rule in the HC says "always drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear". (My emphasis).

And as we know, the HC is guidance, not law. Breach of guidance in the HC may indicate driving below the standard but isn’t determinative of it. Is driving along in the middle lane of an empty motorway something worthy of criminalisation?

This seems to be a subject like cyclists, where strong views become entrenched and any indication of MLOC-ery should be punished. It’s interesting.


While I fully accept that HC is guidance and that only those parts that are entrenched in law are actually illegal/unlawful, surely failing to follow the guidance within it is not only an indication but can be a very strong one of falling below a reasonable standard?
Especially when it is not a minor breach but three miles of couldn't give a damn.

And yes, mea culpa, to me there are far too many who sit in the middle lane without reason.
Punishment, in some form of absolute, thou should only be out there for 50 yards before and 50 yards after an overtake, nah.
But more of the absolute examples plus retraining, public service broadcasts etc would do no harm.
There are far too many poor drivers on the roads, MLOC, Zero Stopping distance, inappropriate speed, both high and low, late exits or silly methods of entry.
All contribute towards accidents, even if they are not directly involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomic Tomato
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 17:17
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,209
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,356



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:56) *
They would not pass their test with that type of poor lane discipline


My eldest failed their first test by being undertaken whilst in lane 2.

A friends sister once told me that she always drove in the outer lanes, but did pull over to let faster traffic by!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 17:33
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:13) *
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:02) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:50) *
Who knows? One argument is that driving in the middle lane when there is no other traffic isn’t careless because it don’t fall below the standard.

But not a very good argument. The relevant rule in the HC says "always drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear". (My emphasis).

And as we know, the HC is guidance, not law. Breach of guidance in the HC may indicate driving below the standard but isn’t determinative of it.

True. But if the HC does not define "the standard expected of a competent and careful driver" what does?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 19:17
Post #19


Member


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



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 12:34) *
For it to be careless, it has to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

I would not expect a competent and careful driver to drive in this manner.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 16:13) *
And as we know, the HC is guidance, not law. Breach of guidance in the HC may indicate driving below the standard but isn’t determinative of it. Is driving along in the middle lane of an empty motorway something worthy of criminalisation?

Depends on the reasons for it. In torrential lane of biblical proportions, I've stuck to the middle lane on an empty-ish motorway because lane 1, while not impassible, had significantly more standing water than lane 2 and I made a judgment that this was minimising the chances of me losing control of the vehicle. The same might apply for example if lane 1 were covered with deposits of ice or snow.

There's a section of the A12 in Essex where for half a mile lane 1 is so full of holes that it makes my car rattle. If I ever got pulled over, I certainly wouldn't give any attitude but I would calmly explain that I've had a snapped suspension due to potholes in the past, I don't wish to damage my vehicle and until Highway England gets round to resurfacing the road I shouldn't be required to risk damaging my vehicle, after all if this happens neither Highways England nor Essex Police are going to compensate me.

In either scenario I'd be more than happy to take my chances in court.

But if someone's just driving down the middle lane for no reason at all, i.e. it hasn't even occurred to them that they should not do so, I think the police should take them to the cleaners.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 15:47) *
I am being inconvenienced at least up to 70mph true speed

I know when I'm doing dead on 70. If I'm doing 69 and you want to go past, I'm obstructing traffic and I will get out of your way as soon as it safe to do so. If I'm doing 70 and you're driving up my arse, the rear-facing dash-cam video is going to the local constabulary for processing. Simples.


--------------------
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
mike5100
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 19:24
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,319



Great thread Southpaw, and I'm surprised that there seems to be 100% anger towards the middle lane hogger.
The problem is that it is down to subjective judgement in the end and often impatient drivers see 'lane hoggers' when what those drivers are actually doing is 'queuing' (as in waiting in Lane 2 or lane 3 in close proximity behind several other vehicles waiting for a slow vehicle at the front to pull in).
In this case that does not apply of course as in the police's own words "'This driver was stopped having driven for a colossal 3.050 miles in Lane 2 of the M20 without any other vehicles about.". So let's assume he's doing 70 and stays in the middle lane because he has taken note that there are few vehicles about and he is not going to inconvenience other drivers coming up behind even if they are speeding (they can use Lane 3). He, on the other hand, may well be inconvenienced if he moves in to Lane 1 and me with my cruise control set at 75mph traps him behind a lorry so that he has to brake then accelerate. In the interests of fuel economy and life of tyres it makes perfect sense to remain travelling in a straight line rather than weaving in and out.
And before anyone says obey the HC. It too is subjective - what does 'clear' mean. (as in Drive in the LH lane when the road ahead is clear). Does it mean when there is not another car in the left lane for another 5 miles. Or does it mean (say) the stopping distance for a car at 70mph which is about 100meters? If you were in Lane 2 at 70 and a lorry doing 60 in Lane 1 was 100meters ahead would you pull in to let someone travelling faster in Lane 2 pass you without them having to move into Lane 3 - I wouldn't.

To go back to Southpaw's questions:
For it to be careless, it has to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.
To me the guy was not necessarily being careless. But if the police officer AND everyone on here are so vehement, then I guess they would class him as NOT being a typical competent and careful driver.

For it to be without reasonable consideration, some other person actually has to be inconvenienced.
And the only person who seems to have been inconvenienced is the bored police officer with nothing else to do on an empty motorway. And then the only inconvenience to the officer is that he would have to consider using lane 3 if he had wanted to pass .... and of course the inconvenience of actually having to stop the driver.
Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:16
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