Which is more illegal? Lane Hogging? Or undertaking somebody lane hogging?

takman

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

No -because the unexpected event might not be related to another vehicle (mechanical failure, blowout, debris on road, very uneven road surface, somebody throwing something from a bridge, bird dropping something...)

Well the two I have highlighted are lane related, so if those happen while your in Lane 2 then they would have been avoided if you had stayed in Lane 1!.

The other incidents (some more than others) may require you to stop so being in the first lane and closer to the hard shoulder will mean you can stop more safely and quickly than if you were in the middle lane.

Just admit staying in the middle lane is not a very good idea now that other posters have actually gone into the details of it. In reality there are very few reasons to drive in the middle lane as a default when the road is quite. There are some situations where changing to the middle lane temporarily due to a hazard may be required but staying there is just lazy driving.

Tilt

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

No -because the unexpected event might not be related to another vehicle (mechanical failure, blowout, debris on road, very uneven road surface, somebody throwing something from a bridge, bird dropping something...)

All of which can safely be dealt with in lane 1 of an "empty" motorway. There is simply on credible reason to drive in lane 2 unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1 OR when allowing traffic to join the motorway from a slip road.

GabbaGabbaHey

Tilt wrote: »

Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988; If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence I don't see any exemption in either the RTA or Highway Code that says "except when there is no other traffic".

How, precisely, can you be culpable of driving "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place" when there is "no other traffic"????

Tilt wrote: »

If you really do hold a IAM membership, my opinion of the scheme has just been severely trashed.

As I said, any opinions expressed are my own, and certainly don't represent the IAM's views.

However, I do understand the principles of advanced driving - most notably that of evaluating every hazard according to the circumstances - and have been able to demonstrate my driving to the satisfaction of a police Class 1 examiner.

takman wrote: »

Just admit staying in the middle lane is not a very good idea now that other posters have actually gone into the details of it. In reality there are very few reasons to drive in the middle lane as a default when the road is quite. There are some situations where changing to the middle lane temporarily due to a hazard may be required but staying there is just lazy driving.

You obviously haven't read anything that I've said. I am most certainly not advocating the "lazy driving" of staying in the middle lane as - I am talking about making a deliberate and conscious decision, in particular circumstances, to drive in a particular lane (and to constantly re-evaluate that decision).

GTE_Boy

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

How, precisely, can you be culpable of driving "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place" when there is "no other traffic"????

As I said, any opinions expressed are my own, and certainly don't represent the IAM's views.

However, I do understand the principles of advanced driving - most notably that of evaluating every hazard according to the circumstances - and have been able to demonstrate my driving to the satisfaction of a police Class 1 examiner.

You obviously haven't read anything that I've said. I am most certainly not advocating the "lazy driving" of staying in the middle lane as - I am talking about making a deliberate and conscious decision, in particular circumstances, to drive in a particular lane (and to constantly re-evaluate that decision).

I bet he was well impressed at you sat in lane 2 at 70. :rotfl:

Being in lane one you have the hardshoulder to the left and two lanes to the right.
In lane two you have one lane to the right and a lane and harshoulder to the left.

How is your way any safer than the correct way?

Tilt

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

How, precisely, can you be culpable of driving "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place" when there is "no other traffic"????

I don't know, why don't you ask a policeman. But seriously the above act is now to be used to prosecute drivers who hog the middle lane and/or tailgate on a motorway.

There isn't an exemption to the act that I am aware of that states "except when there is no other traffic present".

GTE_Boy

Tilt wrote: »

I don't know, why don't you ask a policeman. But seriously the above act is now to be used to prosecute drivers who hog the middle lane and/or tailgate on a motorway.

There isn't an exemption to the act that I am aware of that states "except when there is no other traffic present".

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

Section 3 tends to suggest there needs to be someone else present.

pappa_golf

Which is more illegal?

juggling 2 chainsaws whilst drunk on xmas eve , one is not as illigal with children in the room

Tilt

GTE_Boy wrote: »

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

Section 3 tends to suggest there needs to be someone else present.

Hmm, but the first bit; "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention" could apply as driving in the middle lane is surely "without care or attention"?

But then it's unlikely you would get tugged at 3am in the morning when that's probably the time when there would be no other traffic present.

GTE_Boy

Tilt wrote: »

Hmm, but the first bit; "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention" could apply as driving in the middle lane is surely "without care or attention"?

But then it's unlikely you would get tugged at 3am in the morning when that's probably the time when there would be no other traffic present.

Lane 1 is full of trucks then.

ceredigion

It is strange that whilst reading things on the net everyone appears to be a perfect conscientious knowledgeable driver, But whilst driving it is apparent that nearly everyone is deluded.