Some feggin sense, at last!

[vetran]

hardly terrible from his side.

Driver who was first in UK convicted of being a 'middle lane hogger' speaks out | Daily Mail Online

Ian Stephens, 42, was fined £500 and ordered to pay £440 costs after he was pulled over in his Citroen Berlingo.

Police say he caused six other vehicles to swerve while missing several opportunities to use the inside lane.

Painter and decorator Ian Stephens, who has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of 'hogging' the middle lane of a motorway.

Painter and decorator Ian Stephens, who has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of 'hogging' the middle lane of a motorway.

But the self-employed painter and decorator said he was stunned by the ‘extortionate’ fine.

‘The motorway was absolutely packed with cars, lorries and vans and everyone was going 60mph,’ he said.

‘I was simply one of dozens of vehicles using the middle lane because we were all going up a hill and overtaking some slow-moving lorries.

[VectraMan]

Weird. Section 267 of the Highway Code says "overtake only on the right".

Is it overtaking if your lane is clear and you simply carry on?

What if the traffic to the right of you slows down? Are you meant to brake even though there's nobody in front of you?

Round Heathrow the M25 has 5 lanes, which means the middle laners go into lane 4. If you're in lane 1, then that means there's two entirely empty lanes between you and them. Is passing them with two empty lanes between you really more dangerous than you swerving across 4 lanes to go round them on the right?

[I just need to test it]

Replies embedded

Is it overtaking if your lane is clear and you simply carry on?

yes


What if the traffic to the right of you slows down? Are you meant to brake even though there's nobody in front of you?
no :-)

Round Heathrow the M25 has 5 lanes, which means the middle laners go into lane 4. If you're in lane 1, then that means there's two entirely empty lanes between you and them. Is passing them with two empty lanes between you really more dangerous than you swerving across 4 lanes to go round them on the right?

i agree with you. I'd do it and hope I wasn't being observed by a cop who needed to up his quota

[meridian]

The Highway Code is a little ambiguous on what "overtaking" actually is.

Section 163 mentions moving out, passing, and then moving back, which is not what happens if you are simply staying in your lane and going faster than another lane.

Section 267 again mentions "the lane that you will be joining", implying that you will be changing lane to move past the vehicle in front.

Section 268, though, says "do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on the left to overtake", which implies that you don't need to change lanes for it to be "undertaking".

The ambiguity is compounded by the HC clearly stating in the introduction that criminal offence rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT, and those specific words are absent from s268, so it looks like undertaking is not a criminal offence (but may still fall under Careless Driving or a civil offence if an accident occurs and you are at fault or contribute).

IANAL....

[rl4engc]

(but may still fall under Careless Driving or a civil offence if an accident occurs and you are at fault or contribute).
IANAL....

It'd be a good test case:

Car A driving along at 70 in lane one, Car B doing 55 in lane 2 (or 3,4,5).
Car A continues at 70 in lane 1, optionally flashing main beam to alert driver of car B of their presence.
Car B manouvers into lane 1, causing Car B to rear end into it.

I'd argue Car B at fault (Careless driving) as they failed to check in their wing mirror that it was safe to effect the manouevre.

[DimPrawn]

It'd be a good test case:

Car A driving along at 70 in lane one, Car B doing 55 in lane 2 (or 3,4,5).
Car A continues at 70 in lane 1, optionally flashing main beam to alert driver of car B of their presence.
Car B manouvers into lane 1, causing Car B to rear end into it.

I'd argue Car B at fault (Careless driving) as they failed to check in their wing mirror that it was safe to effect the manouevre.

More like, car A is in lane 2 doing 70, and car B is an Audi with an Audi driver. Car B is doing 105mph and accelerates to 140 mph with main beam on, swerves into lane 1 when it is 15 cm from the rear of Car A, then sounds horn whilst undertaking and making hand gesture from drivers window.



Car A then arrives only 45 minutes late to meet with the the other recruitment agent attendees, at the annual recruitment agents conference in Slough.

[BrilloPad]

Car A is driving down a street. They run over a cyclist or pedestrian and kill them. Its the car driver's fault. Do they get 3 points or 4 points on their licence?

[DimPrawn]

Car A is driving down a street. They run over a cyclist or pedestrian and kill them. Its the car driver's fault. Do they get 3 points or 4 points on their licence?

I would suggest a huge fine, like over £300, and perhaps 2 hrs community service.

[BrilloPad]

I would suggest a huge fine, like over £300, and perhaps 2 hrs community service.

You are a :nazi: . Ever thought of voting UKIP?

[RetSet]

It'd be a good test case:

Car A driving along at 70 in lane one, Car B doing 55 in lane 2 (or 3,4,5).
Car A continues at 70 in lane 1, optionally flashing main beam to alert driver of car B of their presence.
Car B manouvers into lane 1, causing Car B to rear end into it.

I'd argue Car B at fault (Careless driving) as they failed to check in their wing mirror that it was safe to effect the manouevre.

Top tip.

If you're going to maintain progress in lane 1 always make sure the hard shoulder is clear in case Car B does something ****witted.

That's happened to me just once. Said ****wit pretty much shat himself when I went on the horn.