Anti-Social Driving/Tailgating fines

Joe_Horner

Retrogamer wrote: »

Often when i drive to work the left lane is empty, the middle lane is filled with people driving about 50ish and the outside lane is filled with people driving around 60mph.

In that case it's right that the car at the front of that middle lane queue should move over. The rest are doing nothing wrong unless they continue the same once he's moved over.

But that's not the usual situation that people complain about, though. It's usually that the left lane has slow traffic (lorries or whatever) and the middle has people doing (indicated) 60 - 65 who are overtaking the 55mph lorries, just not as quickly as the person behind thinks they should.

At that point, the person behind will often start driving aggressively close / flashing lights / whatever in order to try and force the one in front to slot into a space which would (a) reduce the already insufficient safety gaps in the l/h lane and (b) require them to slow down to match the slower moving lane.

At 50mph the minimum "safe" gap to move into is still 90 metre - anything less and you're going to be too close to the vehicle in front or behind according to the minimum recommended separation. That's not "judgement" or "opinion", it's a simple matter of maths.

Regardless of whether or not you want to do a "real life 70" - and most of these drivers actually want to do a real life 80 or 90 - pressurising someone else into changing their speed is inconsiderate, and forcing them into an unsafe gap is dangerous. As is getting so far up their arrse that they feel they need to.

Altarf

Joe_Horner wrote: »

At 50mph the minimum "safe" gap to move into is still 90 metre - anything less and you're going to be too close to the vehicle in front or behind according to the minimum recommended separation. That's not "judgement" or "opinion", it's a simple matter of maths.

If HGVs it is a 4 second rule for the truck, not a 2 second rule (although you would never guess from most HGV drivers), so more like 140 meters, not 90.

And 32 car lengths is quite a long way.

fivetide

Tinks74 wrote: »

I partially accept your point however in that unfortunate circumstance there was something on the road and it wasn't the situation described.

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

ILW

Altarf wrote: »

If HGVs it is a 4 second rule for the truck, not a 2 second rule (although you would never guess from most HGV drivers), so more like 140 meters, not 90.

And 32 car lengths is quite a long way.

Many HGVs slipstream at around 10 feet to save fuel. Also means they are driving virtually blind. Should be an instant ban.

Altarf

ILW wrote: »

Many HGVs slipstream at around 10 feet to save fuel. Also means they are driving virtually blind. Should be an instant ban.

But if these new laws are implemented it will be.

As the cops drive down the motorway with their on-board video camera rolling, it will be going ping, ping, ping and churning out tickets for all the tailgating truck drivers. £100 and 3 points, not long before a ban.

ILW

Altarf wrote: »

But if these new laws are implemented it will be.

As the cops drive down the motorway with their on-board video camera rolling, it will be going ping, ping, ping and churning out tickets for all the tailgating truck drivers. £100 and 3 points, not long before a ban.

Really hope so.

Lum

fivetide wrote: »

See if the money had some kind of ringfence to go back to traffic to help enforce it then it might work better.

They tried that with speed cameras if you remember. It didn't work out so well as the cameras ended up being placed at the sites that would make the most money, rather than the sites that most needed speed enforcement to try and prevent accidents.

That said, there is still going to be a financial feedback loop as these new offences, as with speed offences currently, will also carry the offer of a course. The courses are run by the local council, though often outsourced to companies such as AA DriveTech* or TTC with the profits from the course going to the council, and the council responsible for funding camera partnerships who also do the bureaucracy for this stuff.

*Funny how the AA are 100% in favour of these changes given that they stand to profit financially from them. For an organisation that started out warning drivers of speed traps this is particularly hypocritical.

Idiophreak wrote: »

Not really, two wrongs don't make a right.

People undertaking causes others to cut their stopping distances (to try and stop them cutting in), prevents people moving into the correct lane and can easily cause accidents. Frustrated or not, people shouldn't be doing it.

There is no law against passing on the left in this country.

If they pull in front of someone else at short distance, and then pull out in front of the middle lane user then that's two offences of pulling in front of someone, most likely most likely "driving without due care and attention", and a legitimate use of the middle lane.

If someone is sat doing 60 in the middle lane with no other cars for miles around. I will continue to pass them in the left hand lane, perfectly legally and safely at 70.

alastairq

I read these pages sometimes with amazement.

The fact that so many different theories are put forward, all being made by people who are adamant they are 'good' drivers.

The system is being made easier to manage.

Less long-winded.

It isn't about 'gaining spurious revenue'.....because one only has to comply with the Law, and thus the Highway Code, and there is nothing to fear, nothing to pay.

Perhaps it would be better to sit back, and await the outcome?

If it results in an improvement in overall driving standards, then it must be for the good?

For all those arguing about what to do with each lane of a motorway, then ask yourselves [or...better still, ask someone who actually might know?]....if they had been undergoing a driving test at the time, what would have been the outcome?

For those who advocate regular re-testing [ie, driver assessments]....perhaps this needs considering?

Would any of you actually pass [or meet the minimum standard] of such an assessment?

Given that it wouldn't be a 45 minute drive, with tolerance for inexperience?

Rather, something like a 2 1/2 hour drive, with zero tolerance for lack of experience...and a 'pass' of no more than 7 driving faults? {the sort of thing the DSA uses?}

As for criticising drivers who travel more slowly on motorways?

The reality is, they are not the problem..they are not the danger.

The worry is, the many hundreds of other...apparently competent [or, they think so?] drivers who patently cannot cope with that slow vehicle.

That, for me, is the worry..not the slower vehicle!

So many whizzing along, but in truth, barely able to cope, or...labouring under a misconception?

To my eyes, the frightening thing about driving more slowly on a motorway is the knowledge that so very few drivers charging up behind can actually cope.

Idiophreak

Lum wrote: »

There is no law against passing on the left in this country.

There are a lot of things that aren't against the law that are stupid and dangerous...

Not saying that passing a MLH on the left is either, but when I refer to "undertaking", that's not what I'm talking about...

Lum

Herzlos wrote: »

It's a good point about what counts as middle lane hogging.

I'll often stay out in the middle lane if there's a gap but I'm gaining on the vehicle in the left lane or can see it's going to be slow, on the assumption that I'll be pulling back into the middle lane very shortly and it's safer/easier to just stay in position. I'll do the same if I'm approaching a slip road too, in case anything is about to join.

Presumably both are fine, but where is the line?

I would go with something like:

Drive in whatever lane you like, at whatever speed you like*, however if there is someone approaching from behind you should move as far left as you can without moving into a lane that would immediately slow you down or send you into an exit that you don't want.

If there is someone behind you and a lane further to your left becomes available (and will remain available) then move over.

If there is someone approaching from behind, and you can move over, you need to do so before the car behind has to slow down or change lanes to get past you. This applies even if you believe the car behind is speeding!


There are many legit reasons to sit in the middle lane, things like knowing there is a merge shortly ahead or even not wanting to drive in lorry ruts. I would not want to see anyone prosecuted for these, only if they remain in said lane impeding someone else's progress.

*Within reason