Motorway Rules Question

[Sputnik]

So you think the way to educate people who don't know the rules of the road is to do some dodgy manoeuvre Yeah, That'll teach them! or maybe it'll teach you if Plod see's you doing it.

[Rave]

If the motorway's empty I move over to the outside lane in one fluid move, overtake, and then move back to the inside lane in one move again. I would only consider undertaking on a two lane road, and only then if a few headlight flashes hadn't persuaded them out of the way.

Really though I would say that middle lane hogging is a 'due care' and I wish the police would start doing something about it.

Dave, that quote is genius, any link? I'd love to read the replies!

[dave87]

If the motorway's empty I move over to the outside lane in one fluid move, overtake, and then move back to the inside lane in one move again. I would only consider undertaking on a two lane road, and only then if a few headlight flashes hadn't persuaded them out of the way.

Really though I would say that middle lane hogging is a 'due care' and I wish the police would start doing something about it.

Dave, that quote is genius, any link? I'd love to read the replies!

Here ya go:

http://www.myroadrage.com/driver_reports/lt08fmu/


and a thread I started regarding an outside lane moron - worth reading:

http://www.civinfo.com/forum/any-non...rsion-2-a.html

[leonkehoe]

So you think the way to educate people who don't know the rules of the road is to do some dodgy manoeuvre Yeah, That'll teach them! or maybe it'll teach you if Plod see's you doing it.

Oh lighten up ya silly sausage, I was only sharing in the jovial spirit of the posts that preceded mine, Christ .

Motorway driving should be a part of the standard driving test. I cannot remember being told by my instructor how the lanes on a motorway work, it just made sense to me the day I eventually ventured onto one. Perhaps that's not the case for some people and they'd benefit from it being explained to them?

[siliveshere]

As far as I know, it's not technically illegal to undertake (only bad practice) as in traffic jams this situation will occur all the time, particularly approaching a junction, and speed related 'tolerance' of this rule would be hard to police.

That said, bar making a point the smart thing to do is to overtake properly before cutting back across to lane 1, in case you happen to be on the receiving end of an unmarked policeman who may be less interested in the technicalities.

[abaxas]

The problem is, can you safely enter the 'Audi/BMW/ lane at speeds less than 120?

[badass]

The problem is, can you safely enter the 'Audi/BMW/ lane at speeds less than 120?

You (or anyone else in a non german car) shouldn't be allowed in my lane at any speed whatsoever. Even if you are going over 120 MPH.

[Zak33]

I know no one wants to hear this.. but the numpty in the middle lane was right to BE in the middle lane UNTIL you arrived in his rear mirror.

then he SHOULD have moved over to the left.. once you were passed, he would have been sensible to move to the centre again.

When, rarely, on a totaly empty motorway, I sit in the middle lane too. But once I see lights behind me, I move to the left.

Animals, weird people, lost cyclists, etc all sit on the hard shoulder or inside lane.. being in the middle lane gives you two directions of escape and normally better visibility, as the lighting in often centre-isle based.

[Smudger]

I don't buy that. Keep left unless overtaking. If there is a hazard in the hard shoulder that you think might spill into the main carriageway, then you move over. You should be looking far enough ahead to be able to react to this anyway. No excuse for being in the middle lane when there's nothing else on the road, it's just selfish.

[Butcher]

I know no one wants to hear this.. but the numpty in the middle lane was right to BE in the middle lane UNTIL you arrived in his rear mirror.

then he SHOULD have moved over to the left.. once you were passed, he would have been sensible to move to the centre again.

When, rarely, on a totaly empty motorway, I sit in the middle lane too. But once I see lights behind me, I move to the left.

Animals, weird people, lost cyclists, etc all sit on the hard shoulder or inside lane.. being in the middle lane gives you two directions of escape and normally better visibility, as the lighting in often centre-isle based.

There's one driving lane and 1-3 overtaking lanes on a motorway. You should be in the driving lane (that would be lane 1) rather than an overtaking lane on an empty motorway.

Also, lane 2 isn't much better than lane 1 for safety - either way you have a clear lane to both sides (hard shoulder + lane 2 or lane 1 + lane 3). In some ways lane 1 is safer - you have a clear 2 lanes on the right, and 1 lane plus the verge of the left. The verge is usually more forgiving than the central reservation.

Visibility is a stretch - lit sections of motorway are adequately lit regardless of lane, and unlit it make no difference. Unlit sections are the places you're more likely to come upon something unawares anyway.

[Biscuit]

Gutted i missed this first time round!

Here ya go:

http://www.myroadrage.com/driver_reports/lt08fmu/

No it’s the middle lane for me every time. Poor lane discipline doesn’t matter, the only thing that is bad is speeding.

Oh dear... hes a self confessed MLM

Why do you so called drivers assume that the near side lane is allways clear. makes no sense at all

Because he got orbited/lapped by someone, how else would it happen?
Idiot :/

and a thread I started regarding an outside lane moron - worth reading:

http://www.civinfo.com/forum/any-non...rsion-2-a.html

I was driving back from Whiteley once and some jackass in a Jag decided he would sit at 65 on the outside lane of dual carriage way when there was nothing infront of him. I waited politely for a while as we had just passed a load of lorrys and such but i got fed up and got up his exhaust... didnt flash. He EVENTUALLY moved into the empty lane (which had been empty for a few miles) so i overtook him and pulled in myself... and he flashed me?! What did he want me to do, make a dangerous undertaking maneuver?

Another time on the M42, some clown in a little 205/106 was in lane 3 driving realy slow when the other lanes where clear. I saw a lod of people just undertake her but i thought... il wait. So i waited for a while, eventually pulled up close to her and she gestured me to undertake her. I didn't and instead gave her a few flashes and she just refused to move and actually slowed down more FORCING me to undertake her... I showed her some gestures of my own on the way round.

Another time, also on the way back from whiteley, i pulled onto the M27 from the slip road with plenty of space and some genius sped up so we nearly crashed. It was quite busy and traffic was moving slowly so instead of letting people off the sliproad he thought it was more important to undertake?
He then proceded to put his full beams on and leave them on... i couldnt see a damn thing even with the auto dimmed rear view so i had to drive really slowly for about 5 miles while he continued to blind both me and everyone else on the road... unbelievable.


Ahhh i feel loads better, i should tell people about my road experiences more often!

I know no one wants to hear this.. but the numpty in the middle lane was right to BE in the middle lane UNTIL you arrived in his rear mirror.

then he SHOULD have moved over to the left.. once you were passed, he would have been sensible to move to the centre again.

When, rarely, on a totaly empty motorway, I sit in the middle lane too. But once I see lights behind me, I move to the left.

Animals, weird people, lost cyclists, etc all sit on the hard shoulder or inside lane.. being in the middle lane gives you two directions of escape and normally better visibility, as the lighting in often centre-isle based.

Yeah i dont buy this, no reason to be in the middle lane if lane one is empty, if your sight/reflexes arent good enough for decent hazard perception in these conditions you shouldn't be driving.

[Larkspeed]

I know no one wants to hear this.. but the numpty in the middle lane was right to BE in the middle lane UNTIL you arrived in his rear mirror.

then he SHOULD have moved over to the left.. once you were passed, he would have been sensible to move to the centre again.

When, rarely, on a totaly empty motorway, I sit in the middle lane too. But once I see lights behind me, I move to the left.

Animals, weird people, lost cyclists, etc all sit on the hard shoulder or inside lane.. being in the middle lane gives you two directions of escape and normally better visibility, as the lighting in often centre-isle based.

Sorry but it is statements like this one and some others in this thread that plainly prove the UK needs to start including motorway driving in the test or do what they do here and make it so that everyone must take professional driving lessons in order to obtain a licence.

The lack of actual knowledge of the highway code or common sense displayed by some in this thread and on that report site is scary considering they are in control of a very large heavy object that can kill people.

Every country has it's morons behind the wheel this goes without saying, but I have have driven in Canada, the US, the UK, France, Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands. And I would have to say there seem to be a lot more in the UK than anywhere else I have driven.

[Biscuit]

Every country has it's morons behind the wheel this goes without saying I have have driven in Canada, the US, the UK, France, Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands. And I would have to say there seem to be a lot more in the UK than anywhere else I have driven.

Utter nonesense. I have driven in a lot of european places and some of them are far worse than we are. Italy, Greece and Spain all spring to mind as having a much worse average of inconsiderate mental drivers.

[Larkspeed]

and did I list those countries? no

read it again I said worse than any of the countries I have driven in I can't comment on places I have never driven as I would have no basis for comparison.

[Saracen]

I know no one wants to hear this.. but the numpty in the middle lane was right to BE in the middle lane UNTIL you arrived in his rear mirror.

then he SHOULD have moved over to the left.. once you were passed, he would have been sensible to move to the centre again.

When, rarely, on a totaly empty motorway, I sit in the middle lane too. But once I see lights behind me, I move to the left.

Animals, weird people, lost cyclists, etc all sit on the hard shoulder or inside lane.. being in the middle lane gives you two directions of escape and normally better visibility, as the lighting in often centre-isle based.

It's been said, but .... not according to the Highway Code. I understand, and agree with, your logic, but the Highway Code is quite clear on this point ....

Lane discipline
264

You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking.

Bold is added by me.

Back to the OP, I had a long discussion with a lawyer friend about this a few years ago. He said (and It may have changed) that the basic position is that there are limited circumstances where passing on the inside is 'legitimate'. Those include (but it may not be an exhaustive list) :-

- in one-way roads (but not motorways or dual carriageways)
- where the car you are passing is queueing to turn right
- where multiple lanes are queueing and yours (the inside) is moving faster
- where you are in a left-hand turn filter lane, like at lights, the rest of which are red.

None of that covers the motorway situation as outlined by the OP.

So, the standard position of the authorities is that while it is not specifically illegal to overtake on the inside, it is likely to be considered either as indicating lack of due care and attention, or possibly, circumstances dependent, dangerous driving. Apparently, it used to be the position of the police that they would charge, on that basis, if they saw you do it.

But .... I was told that a lawyer was spotted doing that, was charged accordingly, fought the case and won, on the basis that :-

1) it is not explicitly illegal
2) it is not necessarily either dangerous, or as a result of due care and attention, and so
3) to achieve a conviction, it would be necessary to demonstrate, and prove, why it was either dangerous, or was the result or a lack of due care and/or attention.

Where that left the situation was that while driving dangerously, or without due care and attention is certainly illegal, the assumption of the police that over-taking on the inside was automatically proof of either was not a valid assumption. Police practices in response to this, therefore, changed.

I was also told, some time later, that the situation had changed again and that the original viewpoint was essentially re-asserted. Why that was, I don't know. Maybe the law was explicitly changed, and I do know that there have been calls for that, and discussions in Parliament about exactly that, but I'm not aware of any such change actually taking place. Or maybe that original case was appealed and the lawyer lost. Or maybe the lawyer that told me about it in the first place was just wrong.


My view is this. Driving in the middle of a deserted three-lane road motorway is wrong. I take Zak's point, but I'd respond that a greater danger, in my view, is the danger presented by some idiot that thinks "educating" people by dangerous manoeuvres, be it lapping or simply over-taking and cutting right across in front to go to the left hand lane, is a bright idea.

There is, however, no real problem with doing it on a deserted road. Therefore, Zak is right. It helps to give the inside lane and especially the hard shoulder a bit of a gap. If nothing else, it gives you a little more warning if something unexpected happens, like the time a Muntjac deer ran out of the woodlands at the side of the motorway right into my path in the middle of the night. As it happens, I was in the left lane, largely because I was about to exit the motorway in a couple of hundred yards. Had I been in the middle lane, I'd have had more warning and might have managed to miss it. As it is, it cost me about £1000 in repairs, and I've no idea if the animal survived. It may have, as it was a glancing blow, and I was already slowing, for the exit.

Second, if I come up behind someone occupying the middle lane of an otherwise-deserted three-lane motorway, then while they should (as Zak suggested) pull over at that point, it's hardly a huge inconvenience to me to pull out to pass.

Getting irate because someone's ion lane 2, when lane 3 is clear is, therefore, being petulant over a technicality which, actually, makes zero real difference. It does not obstruct your progress, it does not slow you down and unless the person getting annoyed over it is absolutely confidence that they never, ever break the highway code, is a bit hypocritical too.

So, for instance, if I'm doing 70 in the middle lane of an empty road and you get irate because I won't move over, then it begs the question .... why is it wrong for me to stay in the middle lane, which is not explicitly illegal, but okay for you to be breaking the speed limit by catching me, let alone passing me, when that is explicitly illegal?

If someone is in middle lane of an empty road, in the middle of the night, then cut them a little slack, and have a little regards for what might be the circumstances of that driver. Just because you're young, got good sight and are confident (or, perhaps, cocky), doesn't mean the other guy is. Give a little credit that it might be an old guy (or lady) with less than perfect night vision, or it might be a youngster with little or no night experience or motorway experience, that's on their first motorway drive having passed their test that afternoon.

It doesn't inconvenience or delay you, so instead of getting would up over their minor infractions, simply indicate, pull out, pass and after a safe distance, indicate and pull back in. It's safer for all, and less harmful to your blood pressure.

And if you get irate about an incident like that, ask not what it says about the other driver, but rather, what it says about your own state of mind. Just why does it irritate you so much, when in fact, it makes no actual difference to you at all?

[redddraggon]

Lane discipline
264

You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear.

Going into the left lane all the time is not always the safest way.

I find the people who insist on being in the left lane when it's clearly going too slow for them more annoying than the middle lane hoggers. I find it highly annoying when I'm driving in the left lane and I'm matching the speed on the car in front, leaving a sensible gap, when a another car comes up behind me decides I'm going too slow, so they pull out pass and dive into my gap, which I then have to reestablish by slowing down. That car of course then decides that the car in front of me is going too slowly and does the same thing again.

I just don't get it. It's easy to judge relative speeds between cars in the same lane while you are in a parallel lane so there's just no need for it.

Personally I stick in the left lane when it's feasible to do so, but when the lorries are backed up in the left lane doing 50mph, I can't see anything other than hogging the middle lane, leaving a decent gap in front, as the way to go.