People not knowing how to use motorways properly.

harz99

warehouse wrote: »

Is this a joke post? Have I missed something here? Do laws of the road not apply if you are in cruise control?

No joke; but try reading the whole paragraph again and you will see that use of CC was given as a reason without being judgemental.

Selective quoteing is not always helpful...............

harz99

balmk wrote: »

This is why middle-lane hoggers annoy me; by mindlessly droning along in the middle lane because they think that 70mph is the "middle lane speed", think that the middle lane is the "cruising lane", or are just too darn stupid to be on the road, I am having to make additional manoeuvres - from left lane to centre lane to right lane to center lane, and back to left lane - in order to overtake.

Erm, that implies that you are happy to break the current national speed limit of 70mph otherwise you wouldn't catch up with someone doing 70mph..................................

vax2002

harz99 wrote: »

Erm, that implies that you are happy to break the current national speed limit of 70mph otherwise you wouldn't catch up with someone doing 70mph..................................

Anyone travelling faster than 70mph is breaking the law, so by default is the one who does not know how to "use" the motorway.

adouglasmhor

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I suggest it is you who needs to learn to read. I fully quoted two of your posts, so perhaps you can explain how I selectively quoted them? :rotfl:
#88 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49833269&postcount=88
and
#125 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49934819&postcount=125OK I should have said commented on them without understanding context either way you have got it wrong

At the same time as learning to read, you could try learning to drive properly. Middle lane drivers like you force other drivers into the outside lane to overtake, when otherwise they'd be able to do so in the middle and you in the inside. You leave an empty inside lane and cause congestion in the outside lane. No I don't actualy, no one has ever seen me do that because it does not happen, stop making things up - that's called lying when grown ups do it.

The motorways are not designed with an inside lane for HGVs and outside lanes for carsI never said they were, where did you get that from, out your arris?; all traffic keeps left unless overtakingSo if there is debris, potholes or other road damage you drive into it? That isn't too clever.

I told you I only drive in the middle lane where the road is damaged by heavy goods traffic, such as at some busy junctions, it makes handling difficult and could even damage my car, and I also stated I am driving at or near the limit, so how can I be causing congestion in the outside lane? I bet you are one of the people who drive in the left lane at the same constant speed despite what hazards, road features or weather conditions are in front of them. You are a poor troll and that's the end of it.
Learn to read or stop trolling – whichever it takes to get you to shut up.

balmk

harz99 wrote: »

Erm, that implies that you are happy to break the current national speed limit of 70mph otherwise you wouldn't catch up with someone doing 70mph..................................

Erm, no it doesn't. It refers to earlier posts about how people perceive the purpose of the lanes. If someone is driving at 70mph in the middle lane, I have no need to overtake them, would I?

The point I make is that having to negotiate middle lane hoggers increases the risk of accident when manouvering around them.

harz99

balmk wrote: »

Erm, no it doesn't. It refers to earlier posts about how people perceive the purpose of the lanes.

So why not quote them or say that then, instead of mentioning people driving at 70 mph and "middle lane speed" in the same sentence, which can and will be understood the way I took it to be?

balmk

harz99 wrote: »

So why not quote them or say that then, instead of mentioning people driving at 70 mph and "middle lane speed" in the same sentence, which can and will be understood the way I took it to be?

I think that you are over-thinking this somewhat.

Honeydog

stephen77 wrote: »

That must make you feel so good. So earlier on when you said you do not want them to BULLY the next person.
Now they are going to be later and be in a bad mood, thus they will probably drive more quickly and be more impatient with the next person in front.
Thus rather than teaching them a valuable less as you were trying to say earlier, your actually make the issue worse.

Lets add which is based on a true story.
I was not driving FYI.
We were trying to get some one to hospital and it was a two lane motor way. We wanted to get past so they could get to A&E. We flashed them as wanted to get to A&E. Well if it was you, you would not only make them take longer before they could get treatment but also enjoy the fact its take them longer to get their.
This may not be the most common reason, however it does happen. But we obsvisouly needed to be taught a lesson

Couldn't care less.

HTH

HD

Honeydog

hareng wrote: »

That entices road rage, now i am not advocating anything it only takes one person to follow you home, watch what your doing.

You're totally missing the point. These idiots who flash people think they are so very important that they have to be wherever they are going as fast as possible. They are highly unlikely to follow anyone anywere especially someone going as slow as me. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

But your concern for my welfare is touching.

TheGoodKing

Personally I find middle lane hoggers annoying, but equally I find people who zoom up behind you flashing their lights equally so, just a bit more rude.
The ones I find most dangerous though are the undertakers as most of the time there is no need for it and as it is a car coming from where you are not expecting it, easy to not notice when about to pull in. You'd have fun telling your insurance company a collision wasn't your fault because you were annoyed the cars in front were going too slowly.