Motorway Madness

nearlyrich

Kite2010 wrote: »

Just a quick moan about the idiots driving without lights on in torrential rain. Idiots.

Last week people on here were moaning about people driving with lights on you can't win;)

Rolandtheroadie

I think this thread would be much more fun on the motoring board.

Can someone get it moved?

Kite2010

nearlyrich wrote: »

Last week people on here were moaning about people driving with lights on you can't win;)

I did see someone going at 30 mph, holding up a queue of traffic, I wonder if he was trying to say to the driver behind that he had his lights on.;)

stephen77

scotsman4th wrote: »

I think this thread would be much more fun on the motoring board.

Can someone get it moved?

keep it here. its good fun and on page 4 so not doing bad.

smashingyour...

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Traffic police are paid for by local government as well as national, as they are local police authorities. And when they cut them back it is called 'cut backs'... get it????

The main cut backs are happening right now.

Police authorities no longer exist and if you bothered to do some research you'd find it's central and not local funds that pay for the motorways.

HATOs came in around 2004 and took on the lower end jobs. Less work for the police means less funds. It's been going on for 9 plus years so nothing to do with the recent cut backs.;)

Jamie_Carter

smashingyour... wrote: »

Police authorities no longer exist and if you bothered to do some research you'd find it's central and not local funds that pay for the motorways.

HATOs came in around 2004 and took on the lower end jobs. Less work for the police means less funds. It's been going on for 9 plus years so nothing to do with the recent cut backs.;)

Traffic police are part of county police forces, although some have teamed together, like Herts, Beds, and Cambs for example.

HATOs are part of the Highways Agency, who are national.

The big cut backs have only really started with the current cutbacks, although some counties did start reducing traffic police when HATOs took some of their work load off them.

Now I'm not interested in arguing with a troll who continuously demonstrates that all they are interested in is trolling.

smashingyour...

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Traffic police are part of county police forces, although some have teamed together, like Herts, Beds, and Cambs for example.

HATOs are part of the Highways Agency, who are national.

The big cut backs have only really started with the current cutbacks, although some counties did start reducing traffic police when HATOs took some of their work load off them.

Now I'm not interested in arguing with a troll who continuously demonstrates that all they are interested in is trolling.

This is in relation to motorway policing which is funded differently. Yet again something you clearly don't understand but are intent on arguing the toss for the sake of it.

Chickabiddybex

Why would you want more traffic police? They make everyone slam on their breaks.

It is funny though. Recently I was stuck behind one and some fool shot past us thinking he was amazing and then saw it and slammed on his breaks so hard XD I can imagine what he would be thinking!! I'll give you a clue:
&@£?!£&!?

NBLondon

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it is a specific offence or not. If you can be fined or prosecuted for doing it, then it is illegal.

I agree with !!!!!! and antrobus. The point is that it is legal under certain circumstances (vehicle you are passing is turning right {not applicable on motorway}, traffic moving in queues and your lane is moving faster than the lane to your right) and illegal in other circumstances (you have moved to the leftmost lane to carry out the manoeuvre, you have not done so with due care and attention).

The last condition being subject to interpretation by traffic police and/or courts.

For example: I drove from North Kent to London on the M2 and A2 late on Sunday night. For much of the journey I was cruising in Lane 1 with cc set at 70mph. When I saw a car in L2 at less than 70 and there was plenty of space in L1 ahead, I merely continued in the lane I was in and thus passed that car on the left. I didn't change lanes; I watched for any signs of the MLM drifting or lurching left. That was due care and attention in my book. I did it 3 times in 70 miles...

Jamie_Carter

NBLondon wrote: »

I agree with !!!!!! and antrobus. The point is that it is legal under certain circumstances (vehicle you are passing is turning right {not applicable on motorway}, traffic moving in queues and your lane is moving faster than the lane to your right) and illegal in other circumstances (you have moved to the leftmost lane to carry out the manoeuvre, you have not done so with due care and attention).

The last condition being subject to interpretation by traffic police and/or courts.

Yes it is legal under certain circumstances, but that has already been covered earlier in the thread.

NBLondon wrote: »

For example: I drove from North Kent to London on the M2 and A2 late on Sunday night. For much of the journey I was cruising in Lane 1 with cc set at 70mph. When I saw a car in L2 at less than 70 and there was plenty of space in L1 ahead, I merely continued in the lane I was in and thus passed that car on the left. I didn't change lanes; I watched for any signs of the MLM drifting or lurching left. That was due care and attention in my book. I did it 3 times in 70 miles...

What you did isn't legal. Both you and the lane hogger could have been prosecuted (or received an on the spot penalty with the new procedures) for either dangerous driving, careless driving, or driving without due care and attention.

The circumstances where you undertook are not circumstances where it is legal. If the road had been congested, with all lanes moving at similar speeds, and lane one was moving slightly quicker than lane two, then that would have been legal.