idiot motorway overtakers who cut in with just 2 car lengths gap

Joe_Horner · 15 August 2014 at 9:58PM

bazzyb wrote: »

Why do you feel that you are so special that you need to try and maintain the traffic speed by having your own slow, middle lane, pity party protest?

Really doesn't look o me like that's what he's saying.

As well as everything else it says, the HC says that you should avoid doing things that force other road users to need to change their speed or direction.

You would say that him doing 70 in the middle lane forces you (coming up behind him at 90) to change direcion, so he should move over. Not doing so may (or may not) breach the HC rule on keeping left, but isn't inherently illegal.

He could equally say that you (coming up behind him at 90) forces him to change direction so you should slow down or use the 3rd lane. Given that you will only be inconvenienced by him if you're breaking the law (regardless of the merit of that law), he wins because the "consideration of other drivers" case cuts both ways but the legal one is on his side

matttye · 15 August 2014 at 10:08PM

malc_b wrote: »

My 2p

I'm surprised at the number of people who think it is ok to cut in front of another car to prove a point. It's not it is dangerous driving worse that middle lane hogging. You should always wait until you can see the other car in the INSIDE mirror, not the side mirrors (assuming this is a car of course). The view angle on the inside mirror is less than the door mirrors so when the rear car appears in the inside you have left a comfortable gap. There should always be a 2 second gap between cars or if the car behind is an idiot 4s in front to compensate for the 0s behind. If a car overtakes and then cuts in front the good driver hits the brakes to restore the 2s gap, which is irritating.

The choice of when to move in is debatable. It will depend on the traffic. If you are doing 70 and the inside lane is doing 56 because of lorries then you'll only want to move in when, a) you'll travel in that lane for a reasonable amount of time, b) when lanes 2 and 3 are reasonable free that you'll be able to get back out again when you want to.

I've met drivers who go lane 2-> lane 3 then lane 3->lane 2 ->lane 1 even though there are lorries in lane 1 and not much traffic in lane 2 and 3. What I do is count the seconds when they try to teach me. If I get to say 20 or 30s then maybe they were right and I have misjudged the relative speeds. Typically I don't get to 5 before the "instructing" car is bouncing out of lane 1 to lane 2 to lane 3 again. I wonder about their fuel costs as they zig-zag all the way to where they are going. They must do more miles that the rest of us. Since changing lanes is more hazardous than staying in one lane then they must also have a higher accident rate too, like for like that is.

I'd also point out that you're not causing an obstruction if you are in lane 2 and doing a good (cough) 70 mph. If someone wants to do 90 then their choice but I don't see that this means I need to get out of their way. I will if I can without causing me issues. I won't if I can see that 5s later I will need to move out for another lorry and there is nothing in lane 3. What's so special about the other driver that I have to move out of his way when lane 3 is clear for him and it would cause excessive lane changing for me?

Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and I'll feel free to ignore you

You'll appreciate the irony that they'd do less "bouncing" if you drove in the correct lane.

I too will stay in the overtaking lane if I can see I'll be overtaking a vehicle imminently. That's a proper use of the lane. But just because you can see a lorry in the distance and know that you will be overtaking it at some point, doesn't mean you should stay in an overtaking lane.

Middle lane hogging is inconsiderate driving - a criminal offence.

Joe_Horner · 15 August 2014 at 10:16PM

matttye wrote: »

Middle lane hogging is inconsiderate driving - a criminal offence.

Except that inconsiderate driving only becomes an offence if it inconveniences someone. See CPS guidance here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a31

Given that he's stated he's doing 70, the only people he might inconvenience are people engaged in breaking the law, which wouldn't amount to an offence if it ever got to court any more than blocking in someone you saw stealing a car would be.

matttye · 15 August 2014 at 10:22PM

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Except that inconsiderate driving only becomes an offence if it inconveniences someone. See CPS guidance here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a31

Given that he's stated he's doing 70, the only people he might inconvenience are people engaged in breaking the law, which wouldn't amount to an offence if it ever got to court any more than blocking in someone you saw stealing a car would be.

Speedos aren't exact. I could be travelling at '70' and be travelling faster than you - with you also travelling at '70.'

Do you go through average speed checks often? You can usually see the rather large differences in speedos in these, as even when I'm travelling at what my car indicates is the speed limit, I see people flying past me.

In addition, you're not telling me he maintains a speed of 70 for the entire motorway. It's only human for speed to vary throughout the journey.

+ what if you inconvenience an emergency vehicle or undercover police officer, which has a legitimate reason for travelling faster than the speed limit?

Joe_Horner · 15 August 2014 at 10:35PM

matttye wrote: »

Speedos aren't exact. I could be travelling at '70' and be travelling faster than you - with you also travelling at '70.'

Do you go through average speed checks often? You can usually see the rather large differences in speedos in these, as even when I'm travelling at what my car indicates is the speed limit, I see people flying past me.

In addition, you're not telling me he maintains a speed of 70 for the entire motorway. It's only human for speed to vary throughout the journey.

+ what if you inconvenience an emergency vehicle or undercover police officer, which has a legitimate reason for travelling faster than the speed limit?

The speedo accuracy argument is a non-starter for this. If he's doing 70 (as indicated by his in-spec speedo) then he won't get convicted.

An emergency vehicle is, curiously enough, easy to spo - they have big flashy lights, funny paint jobs, and wailey sirens to identify themselves. Even undercover police cars have (smaller but still very visible when lit) flashy lights if they need to get past.

He's said nothing to suggest he wouldn't get out of the way for one of those (even if it did mean slowing down), although they tend to sit in the 3rd lane overtaking everyone anyway.

matttye · 15 August 2014 at 10:40PM

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The speedo accuracy argument is a non-starter for this. If he's doing 70 (as indicated by his in-spec speedo) then he won't get convicted.

An emergency vehicle is, curiously enough, easy to spo - they have big flashy lights, funny paint jobs, and wailey sirens to identify themselves. Even undercover police cars have (smaller but still very visible when lit) flashy lights if they need to get past.

He's said nothing to suggest he wouldn't get out of the way for one of those (even if it did mean slowing down), although they tend to sit in the 3rd lane overtaking everyone anyway.

Of course he'll get convicted if he has no reason to be in an overtaking lane. Albeit he is travelling at the speed limit, he is still inconveniencing another person by inconsiderately driving in the wrong lane!

Undercover police cars aren't going to want to use their lights if they're surreptitiously following offenders.

I appreciate inconveniencing an undercover police officer is an unlikely scenario.

Joe_Horner · 15 August 2014 at 10:48PM

matttye wrote: »

Of course he'll get convicted if he has no reason to be in an overtaking lane. Albeit he is travelling at the speed limit, he is still inconveniencing another person by inconsiderately driving in the wrong lane!

If he's only inconveniencing someone because of their intent to commit a crime - like it or not (personally I don't, btw), speeding is a crime.

I'll normally sit beween 80 and 90(ish) on motorways bu, if I come up behind someone doing 70 I'll either use the next lane out or, if I can't for any reason, slow down until I can. It's no hardship and certainly not something to feel all "inconvenienced" over.

If someone's sitting in the middle lane doing 50 or so it's slightly different, but if they're (around) the limit then good luck to them - a few minues here or there really aren't worth the raised blood pressure!

matttye · 15 August 2014 at 10:54PM

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If he's only inconveniencing someone because of their intent to commit a crime - like it or not (personally I don't, btw), speeding is a crime.

I'll normally sit beween 80 and 90(ish) on motorways bu, if I come up behind someone doing 70 I'll either use the next lane out or, if I can't for any reason, slow down until I can. It's no hardship and certainly not something to feel all "inconvenienced" over.

If someone's sitting in the middle lane doing 50 or so it's slightly different, but if they're (around) the limit then good luck to them - a few minues here or there really aren't worth the raised blood pressure!

You said "The speedo accuracy argument is a non-starter for this. If he's doing 70 (as indicated by his in-spec speedo) then he won't get convicted."

That's not right though. Just because he's doing 70 doesn't mean that he can't inconvenience others' who have speedos that measure higher speeds than his as 70.

The problem is driving in the wrong lane - speed is fairly irrelevant.

Joe_Horner · 15 August 2014 at 11:14PM

matttye wrote: »

Just because he's doing 70 doesn't mean that he can't inconvenience others' who have speedos that measure higher speeds than his as 70.

Except that, if both cars have speedos working within spec, the maximum possible difference between the two would be about 9.5mph. In practice it will be more like 2 - 3 mph.

Given that (say) 3mph difference in reading, if you were stuck behind them for a full 70 miles at an indicated 70mph it would hold you up for about 3 minutes. In a more likely scenario of being "stuck" for 5 miles, you'd be delayed for 11.5 seconds.

Even with the maximum possible 9.5mph difference in readings, over 5 miles you'd be delayed by 36.5 seconds, which isn't enough "inconvenience" to amount to a criminal charge.