Middle Lane Hogging - North/South divide..

robbies_gal

5am down the a13 guaranteed middle lane hoggers they wont budge-hardly any vehicles even on the road but they belive theyre doig the right thing

Bonniepurple

The 2 things which I try to abide by are "drive according to the conditons" and "if you're not keeping up with lane X, move into the slower lane". I try to read the road ahead to judge which lane I should be in - busy junction ahead = move over if safe; my exit coming up = head into LH lane and merge with traffic. If I'm on a long journey in my van, especially at night, I *might* be regarded as a mid lane hog - simply because I am aware that it is harder to judge speeds, distances and spaces in the dark when relying on wing mirrors.

The worst drivers I feel are those who go from slip road to lane 3 and vice versa without reading the road around them.

jase1

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There's a problem with that. By just about everyone on here's opinion, the MLM is driving in a sort of coma, not aware of his surroundings. That's exactly the sort of driver you don't want to be coming up the left side of, where he won't expect you, when he does decide to move over.

It's all well and good to say that it'd be his responsibility to check the lane's clear, but he's shown he's not paying attention by hogging the middle in the first place and "it was his fault" will be little comfort when you're hanging upside-down in a smoking wreck on the shoulder!

You could make the same argument about overtaking the MLM though. The only difference would be who is at fault. I have seen, on a number of occasions, MLMs randomly moving into the outside lane without indicating and with nothing in front of them.

I would tend to agree that passing on the left, without changing lanes should be allowable, if the vehicle doing the passing exercises due care (so passing on the left near a slip road would still be bad form, for example). Weaving to pass on the left is a different matter.

almillar

only to come out again maybe 15 seconds later,

Just wanted to pick up on this. 15 seconds is actually a really long time! Nothing wrong with being in a lane for only 15 seconds. Remember that when overtaking on a single carraigeway, you're trying change lane (from the right hand side of the road to the left!) as quickly as possible. Driving on a dual carraigeway is the same, just without the risk of oncoming traffic.
If you're driving at 60 and I come up behind you at 70, you can pull in for 15 secs and back out, and I'll be past.

dannyrst

jase1 wrote: »

You could make the same argument about overtaking the MLM though. The only difference would be who is at fault. I have seen, on a number of occasions, MLMs randomly moving into the outside lane without indicating and with nothing in front of them.

I would tend to agree that passing on the left, without changing lanes should be allowable, if the vehicle doing the passing exercises due care (so passing on the left near a slip road would still be bad form, for example). Weaving to pass on the left is a different matter.

It is allowable.

jase1

dannyrst wrote: »

It is allowable.

Is it? I was under the impression that, although people do it all the time it still falls under the general careless driving category.

MoneySavingNovice

dannyrst wrote: »

It is allowable.

Not according to the highway code rule 267

......Overtake only on the right......

and rule 268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Link for full rule:-
https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

dannyrst

jase1 wrote: »

Is it? I was under the impression that, although people do it all the time it still falls under the general careless driving category.

"The specific offence of undertaking (or nearside undertake) was actually removed from the statute books with the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic Act, and although the Highway Code advises against it, there is no specific law that prevents it.

The reason for this is in part due to the poor lane discipline experienced on Motorways. There are often many oaccisons (which many of you have probably experienced yourself) when lane 3 is stationary but lanes 1 and 2 are clear and so it is often easier to continue in the inside lanes and keep traffic flowing.

On other occasions drivers will catch up a vehicle doing say 50mph but remains in lane 2 whilst lane 1 is empty (late at night for example) and to go from lane 1 acrosss to lane 3 is potentially just as dangerous, whereas remaining in lane 1 allows the vehicle to pass quite safely (I hope I explained that OK?)

However, whilst there is no specific offence of undertaking, we still have careless driving under section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, and a driver who undertakes dangerously or badly will find themselves before the court for either careless or in the worst cases dangerous (section 2 of the same act)

But, to obtain a conviction, the prosecution has to show that the standard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver, and the act of the nearside overtake would not in itself be sufficient to secure a conviction.

However, if as I saw yesterday, a vehicle shoots past in lane 2 on the undertake, then into lane 1, undertakes and then shoots out to lane 3 and then back to lane 3 (if you like, weaving from lane to lane) then that would probably be sufficient to get the conviction.

If like me on the same route, I had a vehicle doing 45 - 50 in lane 2 in an empty motorway, I went past at around 60 and a Police car followed me and then pulled over the centre lane hogger, then you know that the hogger is going to get done for driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (which is a sub section of careless driving).

I hope I explained that OK.

The other question I get asked a lot is what if the centre lane hogger then moves back to lane 1 as you are undertaking and a colision occurs?

Well, then centre lane hogger has a statutory duty of care to ensure it is safe to move back in just as much as they do when moving to an outside lane, and there have been a few cases in civil law where the hogger has been held 100% liable on the basis that withthe evidence available they could have been in lane 1 in the first place, and so they commmitted the section 3 offence, and then failed to check it was safe to return to lane 1, and that the undertaking driver was acting perfectly reasonably for the circumstances.

So, in short, there is no offence, or specific offence, and if it is done sensibly, then nothing to worry about, but just be aware of the possiblity of the hogger moving across back into the nearside lane."

TAKEN FROM http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?13698-Undertaking

Credit goes to user - TC1474

jase1

dannyrst wrote: »

Well, then centre lane hogger has a statutory duty of care to ensure it is safe to move back in just as much as they do when moving to an outside lane

I have always felt this to be the case (the general point of principle being that the driver moving lanes has the responsibility to do so with due care).

However you frequently read MLMs on the internet (and occasionally stating face-to-face) that if they were passed on the left they'd deliberately shunt the other driver off the road, and that this would be to other driver's fault.

Dangerous nonsense, of course, but it seems to be a prevailing view among MLMs.

jase1

Just as an aside, why is it that there are so many drivers who, having driven in the middle lane on the motorway, will then happily go right on a roundabout in the left-hand lane?

Just what thought processes lead to that being consistent or acceptable?