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

GabbaGabbaHey

takman wrote: »

But then lane 1 is even safer because you still have a lane either side of you for 90% of the time plus you have the added benefit of the lane to the left of you being completely free of cars where you can stop if necessary without any risk (the hard shoulder).

Not necessarily true. Apart from the increasing number of "smart" motorway sections with no hard shoulders, you are more likely to encounter a stopped vehicle on the hard shoulder than in any of the driving lanes.

Statistically, the hard shoulder is the most dangerous place to be on a motorway. There have been numerous occasions where emergency or breakdown vehicles - with full lights - have been hit when stopped on the hard shoulder. (Hence the advice that, if you ever have to stop on the hard shoulder, you should ensure that all passengers exit the car - by the nearside doors - and remain behind the armco barriers).

GTE_Boy

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Not necessarily true. Apart from the increasing number of "smart" motorway sections with no hard shoulders, you are more likely to encounter a stopped vehicle on the hard shoulder than in any of the driving lanes.

Statistically, the hard shoulder is the most dangerous place to be on a motorway. There have been numerous occasions where emergency or breakdown vehicles - with full lights - have been hit when stopped on the hard shoulder. (Hence the advice that, if you ever have to stop on the hard shoulder, you should ensure that all passengers exit the car - by the nearside doors - and remain behind the armco barriers).

But if you're talking about a smart motorway then the hardshoulder is lane 1.

takman

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Not necessarily true. Apart from the increasing number of "smart" motorway sections with no hard shoulders, you are more likely to encounter a stopped vehicle on the hard shoulder than in any of the driving lanes.

Statistically, the hard shoulder is the most dangerous place to be on a motorway. There have been numerous occasions where emergency or breakdown vehicles - with full lights - have been hit when stopped on the hard shoulder. (Hence the advice that, if you ever have to stop on the hard shoulder, you should ensure that all passengers exit the car - by the nearside doors - and remain behind the armco barriers).

But if something goes wrong with your car and your in the middle lane and can't make it to the hard shoulder you will be far more likely to be hit if you stop in any other lane on the motorway!. If you have to stop anywhere then the hard shoulder is obviously the safest of the four lanes.

On smart motorways if your cars breaks down and you stop they will immediately close that lane to prevent cars hitting you. So again if your in the left hand lane then that is the best lane to stop in so cars are not passing you on two sides.

Joe_Horner

As others have pointed out, "more illegal" makes no sense. But "more serious offence" does. Assuming that's what the OP was meaning then it's quite simple. Passing on the left is (potentially) a more serious offence than lane hogging:

Lane hogging will only ever land you with a careless / inconsiderate driving charge because it passively inconveniences others but doesn't, in itself, cause danger.

Passing on the left can (and has) led to dangerous driving convictions because it can be an actively dangerous manouevre.

Tilt

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

I would have thought that it is entirely self evident - on an empty-ish 3-lane motorway, you have a greater margin of safety by driving in Lane 2, as you then have a lane on either side into which you can drive should something untoward occur.

What part of that don't you understand?

Well in all my years of motorway driving (bot car and PCV), i have never heard of this "advice" before. Quite frankly I don't think many professional drivers would agree with your attempt to justify using the middle lane in this way. In fact if you follow this "advice", you could be guilty of an offence under the new rules. I certainly cannot see any mention of this "advice" in the Highway Code (see rule 264 which is relevant).

So no, it's certainly not "entirely self evident".

kazmeister

Jlawson118 wrote: »

So both are classed as illegal now but there's a stretch of motorway that I use pretty much everyday that goes from three lanes, to two and back to three quite a lot, and there's so many drivers who hog the second lane and I have no choice but to undertake them somehow..

So I've been curious, as both of us would be breaking the law, but who is actually more in the wrong?

If it is queuing or very slow moving traffic and the nearside lane is moving faster I don't think it's classed as undertaking.

GabbaGabbaHey

Tilt wrote: »

Well in all my years of motorway driving (bot car and PCV), i have never heard of this "advice" before. Quite frankly I don't think many professional drivers would agree with your attempt to justify using the middle lane in this way. In fact if you follow this "advice", you could be guilty of an offence under the new rules. I certainly cannot see any mention of this "advice" in the Highway Code (see rule 264 which is relevant).

So no, it's certainly not "entirely self evident".

I was referring to advanced driving techniques, whereby a driver constantly evaluates a number of factors - including visibility, traffic density, weather conditions, etc - and then makes decisions regarding their speed, acceleration, braking, gear selection, road positioning, etc.

In certain circumstances, driving in the middle lane of a motorway (when there is no impact on other traffic) may be the most appropriate and safest choice of road positioning.

The Highway Code, while admirable, is a set of guidance which by its very nature will try to cover a multitude of circumstances and will not provide the optimal advice in every possible circumstance.

I'm curious as to what "offence" you think that one might be culpable of, if one were driving in the middle lane of a section of motorway with no other traffic on it?

GTE_Boy

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

I was referring to advanced driving techniques, whereby a driver constantly evaluates a number of factors - including visibility, traffic density, weather conditions, etc - and then makes decisions regarding their speed, acceleration, braking, gear selection, road positioning, etc.

In certain circumstances, driving in the middle lane of a motorway (when there is no impact on other traffic) may be the most appropriate and safest choice of road positioning.

The Highway Code, while admirable, is a set of guidance which by its very nature will try to cover a multitude of circumstances and will not provide the optimal advice in every possible circumstance.

I'm curious as to what "offence" you think that one might be culpable of, if one were driving in the middle lane of a section of motorway with no other traffic on it?

You're just making this up as you go along.

What experience of advanced driving do you have?

Cornucopia

kazmeister wrote: »

If it is queuing or very slow moving traffic and the nearside lane is moving faster I don't think it's classed as undertaking.

It's not.

There are a number of circumstances in which undertaking is permitted:-

- In one-way systems.
- When the other vehicle(s) are turning right.
- When traffic is in slow moving queues.

GabbaGabbaHey

GTE_Boy wrote: »

What experience of advanced driving do you have?

I have been a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists since 1990 (not that I'm suggesting that - other than the concept of constantly evaluating hazards - this is IAM policy).

Anyway, "advanced driving" is much more about a state of mind, and always thinking about what the optimal way of driving, rather than just observing a set of "rules" which may not be optimal in every circumstance.