Anti-Social Driving/Tailgating fines

tight_scotsman

Hear is my take on it. As a coach driver my coach is electronicaly limited by law to 100kph (62mph) It is also banned from using the outside lane of a 3 or 4 lane motorway so also HGVs are limited to 90 kph or 56mph i usually spend a lot of time in the middle lane overtaking HGVs then move in to lane 1 so i dont hog the middle lane.

so when a car sits in lane 2 at say 57 mph there is no way i can legally pass either on the inside or the outside.

Tinks74

fivetide wrote: »

Pretty sure it was as described.

Doing 60mph in the outside lane on a dark but empty motorway and texting, yes texting, not even on the phone just 2 minutes before the smash.

Tragic yes. Preventable yes. If he'd been driving on the left, he'd never have hit a car "embedded in the central reservation"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/03/lord-ahmed-crash-gombar-alcohol

Allowing for the fact I misread the inital post and taking my response as a seperate issue.

How is this "As described"?

Tinks74 wrote: »

If you find yourself on a motorway with nothing for a mile in front or behind does it really matter what lane you are in? You would not be causing an obstruction, annoyance or danger to any other vehicle.

I never referred to the Lord Ahmed incident and I never mentioned being on the phone texting?

And this article states "The court heard another car clipped its wing mirror and a further vehicle had taken such drastic avoiding action that it also collided with the central reservation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4804702/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-for-motorway-texting.html
So the motorway was quiet but not empty.


However in this case the car ricocheted off the central reservation and ended up straddling the outside lane of the motorway, equally the car could have impacted the barrier on the left hand side of the motorway and ricocheted to end up straddling the hard shoulder and/or lanes one or two, all things being equal and assuming that he would have been unable to avoid the car in lane one in the same way he was unable to avoid the car in lane three, the lane he was driving in is irrelevant.
The fact that he was driving and was unable, for whatever reason, to take evasive action is not irrelevant.

Tinks74

I accept that it is not impossible to misread someone's post, we have all done it.

What I said is that in the event you find yourself on a clear motorway, with no cars ahead or behind, then it is irrelevant what lane you are driving in.
A statement in the same vein as if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?

That does in no way advocate hogging the middle lane when there is other traffic.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

As you say a) is the correct legal choice. But it is also the only choice. If you go from option b) then you become the one who is driving dangerously... two wrongs don't make a right.

But b) results in less overall danger for everyone, and the law often allows for exceptions like that, e.g. briefly exceeding the speed limit to avoid a collision.

Each case is different, and dangerous driving would be the most serious. So the police officer needs to consider what charge they would stand the best chance of getting a conviction on. Obviously the officer you spoke to got it wrong, and the bad driver got away with it.

It wasn't the charge that was the issue. They were going for one of the lower ones IIRC. They were explicitly told by the court that they should have pulled over the MLM. You are correct that the bad driver got away with it... because they were never pulled over.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Is this a wind up?

With any luck you will get a speeding ticket.

You can say many things about Strider's posts, people on this forum regularly do. But I assure you he is not a wind-up merchant.

That said, why would he get a speeding ticket for doing 70 in a 70 limit just because some other people are braking to 50 unnecessarily. He might get one for changing lanes to pass on the left, however.

NBLondon

Tinks74 wrote: »

What I said is that in the event you find yourself on a clear motorway, with no cars ahead or behind, then it is irrelevant what lane you are driving in.

If there is no other traffic about, then true you are not inconveniencing anyone - just disregarding the rule to drive in the leftmost lane.

However, if you are doing 60mph in Lane 2 and a driver doing 70mph in Lane 1 catches up to you; you are now inconveniencing them because they must either a) make multiple lane changes to pass you 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 1 or b) carry on past you in Lane 1 but with extra caution.

I do b) just as Lum does - I did it 3 times on Sunday night on the M2:) with cruise control set at 70mph and the MLM at 60ish.

fivetide

Tinks74 wrote: »

I accept that it is not impossible to misread someone's post, we have all done it.

What I said is that in the event you find yourself on a clear motorway, with no cars ahead or behind, then it is irrelevant what lane you are driving in.
.

My point was it isn't irrelevant. Driving on the left in the incident i referenced would have saved a life.

Even if the motorway is empty, without a crystal ball, it is impossible to know what is happening a mile down the road and generally, being on the left would be safer as, any car that goes off the left is going to end up either on a banking or onthe hard shoulder whilst anything to the right is likely to be in lane three with debris spreading to the middle lane.

As Joe Horner and NB London said, just because you assume the road to be clear doesn't mean it is and doesn't preclude you from driving as you should.

I accept you misread the initial post but you specifically said you agreed in part with what I was saying and said the inident hadn't happened as I described when in fact, it did. Hope that answers your questions.

Jamie_Carter

paddedjohn wrote: »

What bugs me is when drivers get annoyed when 3 lanes become 2 and try blocking the 3rd lane hundreds of yards away from the end.

What annoys most people is when they are politely filtering from two lanes into one in turn, and then some idiots come flying past to try and queue jump, and then force their way in. That is why people will block you.

Jamie_Carter

roddydogs wrote: »

Lets look at say the M25 if everyone stuck to the rules-the inside lane will be "Chocka" so their will be no room to "Pull over" anyway, the second lane will be doing 70, & the outside Lane(s) will be empty cause you cant do more than 70.
Great Idea. By the way my speedo is accurate before some pedant posts "you may think your doing 70 but only doing 65.

But that wouldn't happen would it?

HGVs can only do 60mph (most are actually limited to 56mph), and they can only use the first two lanes. When traffic is busy there will always be vehicles travelling slightly faster, but may not be doing 70. And then the outside could still be doing 70. So all three lanes could have lines of traffic doing different speeds. However if all three lanes are doing the same speed, that isn't a problem. What is a problem is when middle lane hoggers poodle along, meaning that traffic has to cross three lanes and back again to overtake them.

Jamie_Carter

Tinks74 wrote: »

I accept that it is not impossible to misread someone's post, we have all done it.

What I said is that in the event you find yourself on a clear motorway, with no cars ahead or behind, then it is irrelevant what lane you are driving in.
A statement in the same vein as if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?

That does in no way advocate hogging the middle lane when there is other traffic.

I understand what you are saying. In the situation you describe you wouldn't be causing an inconvenience to other road users. But you wouldn't get fined either because there would be no police cars to pull you over if the motorway was empty apart from you.

However, what you need to consider is how quickly a traffic police car could catch up with you when they are doing 120mph+. It could be quite easy to be caught by surprise, even if you check your mirror every 20 seconds or so.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

But b) results in less overall danger for everyone, and the law often allows for exceptions like that, e.g. briefly exceeding the speed limit to avoid a collision.

No, with option a) only one person is driving dangerously. With option b) then two people are driving dangerously.

Lum wrote: »

It wasn't the charge that was the issue. They were going for one of the lower ones IIRC. They were explicitly told by the court that they should have pulled over the MLM. You are correct that the bad driver got away with it... because they were never pulled over.

Why didn't they pull him over? (I was under the impression that they did).

Lum wrote: »

You can say many things about Strider's posts, people on this forum regularly do. But I assure you he is not a wind-up merchant.

That said, why would he get a speeding ticket for doing 70 in a 70 limit just because some other people are braking to 50 unnecessarily. He might get one for changing lanes to pass on the left, however.

The impression I got from their post was that there was a 50mph limit in force. And that they ignored it and did 70.