It's an age thing apparently
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-nor...dlelanehogging
It's an age thing apparently
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-nor...dlelanehogging
No, it isn't that simple. Not in the UK, anyway. And it most definitely isn't lane-hogging just because the guy coming up behind you is moving faster tban you, because it depends on why you're in that lane.
Obviously, if you're currently passing someone, you are not expected to pull over, and equally obviously, if there's no traffic in sight in the left lane, you shouldn't be in the middle or outer lane(s). The problem is, there's a huge range of situations in-between.
For instance, you're doing 70mph, and a little way ahead of you there is a lorry on the inner lane, doing 40mph. So you're gaining on him at a rate of 30mph. Someone coming behing you is doing 71mph, and gaining on you at a rate of 1mph, but still, they're going faster. You, however, will be past the lorry before the guy behind catches you up. But that all depends on the respective distances between you and the lorry, and your relative speeds, and the guy behind you and the relative speeds.
If the lorry is half a mile in front and the guy behind is gaining fast, then move over. If the lorry is 100 feet in front of you, you'll have to break hard if you pull over, because at a 30mph differential, you'll pretty quickly drive into his rear if you don't.
There is a vast array of situations, some close to one extreme and some close to the other. It is not as simple as you state.
One criteria might be that if you're doing the speed limit, and by pulling over you would subsequently have to slow down or break because of traffic in front of you, you should not be expected to pull over, especially when the fast moving traffic behind is breaking the law by moving that fast.
So, whether you will have to brake if you pull over depends on factors like the distance to and speed of the traffic ahead of you that you're about to pass. It may also be that, right now, that lorry is going not much slower than you, but as you've just started up a long, steep incline, you know he's going to slow down. It may be that you can see a speed-restricted vehicle just in front of the lorry, that may have an even bigger problem with the hill.
The Highway Code says, basically, two things on this (re: motorways) :-
1) You should always drive in the left hand lane when the road ahead is clear, and
2) When passing multiple slower moving vehicles, you should move back over to the left 'as soon as it's safe to do.'
Which brings me back to my points .... when is the road "clear"? It's open to interpretation, isn't it? One interpretation would be "no vehicles in sight", but I think most of us would see that as a daft perspective, on most roads, at most times.
Another interpretation would be when doing so would not result in you having to slow down, because if you do have to, then the road ahead is not clear, is it? But in that case, we're back to the distances and relative speeds of you, and the traffic ahead of you, on the left, that means the road is not clear.
You're coming up on two lorries, the first just ahead of you, and the second 100 yards further on. Both are substantially slower than you. You pass the first, and that 100 yards means you could pull over. But should you? Not if you're going to have to slow down for the second one because you got stuck on the left. After all, you were passing multiple vehicles, and the road was not "clear" between, because by pulling in, you'd have to slow down, and even the Highway Code says you pull in, "as soon as you are safely past ". It does not say "at the first conceivable opportunity, even if you then have to brake, because some muppet behind you thinks the speed limit is 120 mph."
Which means it's down to your judgement of when the road is "clear", when you can pull in without then having to slow down, and even to the distances to and speeds of other vehicles, and road conditions, and even, as per the Highway Code, exactly when it's "safe" to pull in.
For instance, if you pass a car trundling along at 50mph, the distance you need to be past it by to pull in will be less than if you just passed a fully loaded 40-ton'er, because in an emergency stop, the 40 ton'er will need more room to stop than the car. But it doesn't stop some idiots tail-gating me the nanosecond there's clear air between me and the artic' I just passed, never mind that dropping in 5 feet in front of one is not "safe" .... and is going to pee off the poor lorry driver, because he knows he stands no chance of stopping quickly enough if I have to brake hard.
We all see people that sit, stubbornly, in the middle lane of an otherwise clear motorway or dual carriageway, and it bugs me as much as it bugs anyone. And if they get a ticket, well, franky, great. But "hogging", short of a clear definition, is a judgement call.
What other traffic offences can get you an endorseable-offence fixed-penalty ticket on a judgement call? I'm struggling to think of many. Typically, it's on absolute matters. Either you were using a phone or you weren't, you either were wearing a seat belt or you weren't, either you were (according to a speed gun, or camera) speeding, or you weren't, either your lights were defective or they weren't.
But here's a safety concern. If we get to the situation where people start pulling in as quickly as possible for fear of getting a ticket for "lane hogging", then we're going to get panicky people pulling in in front of us, perhaps dangerously, so they don't "hog".
So, if we follow the Highway Code, exactly when it is "safe" to pull in depends on the judgement of the driver, and the exact circumstances on the road, including the nature of other vehicles, but also road and weather conditions. Not so simple, then.
Sorry but it is that simple you are just over complicating it by bringing up what ifs and could possibly be's.
Yes all laws have an element of common sense involved in them but when you break it down it is as simple as I stated.
I'm still agreeing with Saracen. Most of the motorway driving I do is with traffic dense enough i'd be busier than a one armed paper hanger if I moved in and out every time.
One dimension not mentioned as much is that to hog the middle lane, there must be an outside lane. So what's the problem with using it?
My theory being if that middle lane hog is doing 50 maybe 60 well then we need to consider them. But if they are doing the limit, 70 then: a) there should be no one with a right to break the law and over take them b) as such why can't they use the next lane c) why didn't the police doing the middle lane hog for speeding not doing them for speeding?
Surely for everyone's good here the idea is to get all the traffic flowing a consistent steady speed. And middle lane hogging done right doesn't hinder that.
Surely what they are aiming for is the extreme, what I used to call the 40mph club on A roads (where they drive at 40 regardless of the speed limit because its a safe average), where no thought is being given to the driving. Careless driving.
As Saracen said though the problem is defining a law that's not open to interpretation and therefore misuse.
Ah but that is the incorrect way of looking at that.
A speed limit is just that a limit there is no law that says you must drive that speed.
You are supposed to drive at a speed within the limit at which you feel safe, if some people only feel safe driving at 40 then so be it, it's not careless driving it is in fact careful driving.
The only time this becomes a problem is if they are doing 40 on the motorway because then they become a hindrance to traffic and can be fined.
Careless driving would be going along right at the speed limit just to keep up with traffic even if you do not feel safe doing it, that is more likely to cause accidents than driving at the slower speed you are comfortable with.
I have just explained why it is not that simple, and you cannot dismiss the problems as "what if's" because sooner or later, one way or another, these things will happen.
It's like murder, isn't it? It's simple, don't kill someone else. Ah, but what if they're attacking you and you have to defend yourself? What if you're a soldier in wartime? What if you're an armed cop and someone is about to kill someone else? What if you've got a brain tumour and don't understand that what you're doing is wrong?
The problem with simply calling it "hogging" is that, in and of itself, it is not defined when you are hogging, and your "breakdown" has exactly the same problem ....First, define "clear". Second, it's when you could move into it safely.And yes this includes staying in the middle lane of the motorway which would force a faster moving vehicle to change lanes to avoid you when you have a clear lane you could move into to clear the way.
The current situation is like saying a policeman can give you a fine for going "too fast" without saying either how fast is too fast, or what criteria apply, but it's just whatever that officer thinks, on that day.
If they can come up with a clear explanation of when "hogging" occurs, and when it doesn't, then I'm all for ticketing the obvious cases of muppetry on our roads. I'm not in favour of handing police the ability to fine people whenever they feel like it without making it clear to people exactly what not to do.
all i see in that post is "what if" again
Again it is simple, if there is enough of a gap in the left lane for you to safely pull in long enough for the person approaching you from behind to pass you before you would have to brake or pull out again then the lane is clear and you should be in it.
If there are no cars approaching you from behind then there is nothing stopping you from pulling in and then back out when you reach that lorry "30 or 60 or 90" seconds up the road since there would be no hindrance to you pulling back out.
So as I have said it's simple common sense, or are you one of these people that constantly needs someone to hold your hand and tell you exactly what you can and can't do so you don't have to think for yourself?
Had a woman this morning hogging the outside lane, looking at herself in the mirror. Made my blood boil.
So, you don't think the gap is safe, but a policeman does, so you get a ticket?
Like I said, a judgement call, and just about every other ticketable offence is a clear case of you did, or didn't, do a clearly defined thing. Those things that are no so clear-cut are dealt with by courts, like careless or dangerous driving.
And Larkspeed, knock off personalising this with remarks like that last paragraph, or you will find yourself suspended. Discuss this with some courtesy, or don't discuss it. There is no need for that, and you know better.
Sorry, I think I didn't explain very well, they do 40mph -everywhere- and that includes through 30mph zones including outside schools and houses. They're not doing 40 because it's safe, but because they can do 40 everywhere because they're not thinking. They've become a little rarer since speed cameras become so widespread
Is it though.... surely it's the same sort of person, both driving without thinking, 40mph or middle lane?
no i meant that it made my post irrelevant because my comments were aimed at a different mind set
So if I had said "Look, I've explained it to you, are you so much of a moron you can't follow", that'd be alright because it's "asking a question", and not a personal jab?
Of course it would be a personal jab, which is why I would not do something like that.
Your "question" asked a simple either/or. Either it's "simple common sense" that I obviously don't get, as I've repeatedly said it's not that simple, or I need "someone to hold my hand, so I don't have to think".
Whether I take that as the first or second alternative, it is directly personalising it, so I'll tell you again, and for the last time, discuss this courteously, or don't discuss it.
As for "abuse of admin power", you are welcome to make that argument. Complain to another admin, or better yet, complain to the board owner. If you're right, I don't deserve to be an admin, or indeed, any sort of a mod.
But, I can tell you now that part of the job is to make exactly that kind of call, to exercise judgement. If you wish to continue unsuspended, you will stop suggesting I'm either too thick too see simple common sense, or need my hand holding as I can't think for myself, and I will tell you, right now, trying to pass of a clear put-down as a question is not going to work.
So complain to DR if you wish, but you can see what my response will be. We'll have to see how he sees it.
Either you discuss this courteously, and without that kind of put-down, or I suggest you don't discuss it at all, because if you repeat that approach, I will suspend you on the spot.
Furthermore, this thread is not going to be further derailed by this, so if you wish to complain, go right ahead, but further discussion of that in this thread is to stop, now.
Last warning.
tell you what go ahead and suspend me.
Better yet delete my account, I have only been a member here for over 10 years (join date is incorrect) and if you want to start throwing threats around because of your interpretation of a question then this board has deteriorated to something I no longer wish to be a part of.
Call it what you like you used threats to push the conversation in the direction you wanted it to take, that is abse of power anyway you look at it.
To everyone else it has been a slice being a part of this community but now I am done.
delete me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)