The OP for starters. He talks about sitting in lane 2 at 70mph regardless of whether there is traffic in lane 1 or not.
Then there's the poster(s) who talk about sitting in lane 2 because they don't have to think about pesky things like lane selection or concerning themselves with what anyone or anything else on the motorway are doing.
That ok for starters.
The OP did not say anything about lane 1 being clear in their first post - they said it was full of trucks. Maybe it was brought up elsewhere in the thread? Do you know where?
I do not remember those other posters you mention. Only someone talking about a relative who is a lane hogger. I think everyone agreed the relative was not driving correctly.
The OP did not say anything about lane 1 being clear in their first post - they said it was full of trucks. Maybe it was brought up elsewhere in the thread? Do you know where?
They said - What is so wrong about driving in the middle lane at 70mph for any length of time on motorways and....
...why should they move over when there are other lanes.....
Another self confessed hogger was Corn%£#&*, they stay out because lane discipline gets tiresome.
OMG, there are some absolute idiots on this thread. Probably the sort of people who have never been in an accident... But have seen an awful lot!
My driving instructor gave me two very good pieces of advise.
1 - drive courteously and treat other road users with respect.
2 - drive with the assumption that every body else on the road is a f'ing idiot.
So middle lane hoggers - imagine this scenario. You are sitting in the middle lane and there are idiots all around you. You could be courteous and move into the left hand lane but you are doing the speed limit so no one should be overtaking you. You decide to stay put. One of these idiots around you decides to make a dangerous manoeuvre, undertakes you, has an accident, hits your car and kills you. Well at least your family can rest assured that you were not at fault because you were driving at the speed limit. That will be such a comfort to them!
Although you could have saved your life, avoided these idiots, and drove in the CORRECT lane.
Although you could have saved your life, avoided these idiots, and drove in the CORRECT lane.
i.e. they are being the idiot.
One of these idiots around you decides to make a dangerous manoeuvre, undertakes you, has an accident, hits your car and kills you
Define what you mean by 'idiot'.
And also how the person undertaking would have an accident and hit your car? Since an undertaker would be doing so because there is enough room to do so and the person in the middle lane obviously isn't going to pull over please give a scenario where the undertaker would have an accident? Undertaking works fine in the US.
Also, undertaking is not a dangerous manoeuvre - any manoeuvre on any road can be a dangerous manoeuvre if not done at a time when it is safe to do so.
2 - drive with the assumption that every body else on the road is a f'ing idiot.
I drive with the assumption that every one else on the road is out to kill me.
What riles me is people doing 40mph on 60mph roads...you catch up with them as you are driving posivitely and to the speed limit - you both get to a 30mph stretch, you drop to 30mph they carry on through at 40mph and by the time you get out of the stretch they are too far ahead again to overtake sensibly because they were breaking the speed limit in a 30mph zone...
Motoways don't need to be clear or even quiet for you to use the left hand lane for considerable distances. I use the M1 daily and the M25 frequently and manage to spend most of my time in the left hand lane, going at a fairly constant 70mph.
Indeed, and if you are driving correctly you probably find yourself in lane 1 without realising it as you've automatically moved over without thinking about it.
Good drivers do not need to think about lane discipline they just do it...poor drivers only realise they need to move over when something wakes them up...like the car behind turning its headlights on to indicate 'hello I'm here'...and no, I do not mean flashing headlights as that is aggressive, merely switching them on can wake someone up.
iAnd also how the person undertaking would have an accident and hit your car? Since an undertaker would be doing so because there is enough room to do so and the person in the middle lane obviously isn't going to pull over please give a scenario where the undertaker would have an accident? Undertaking works fine in the US.
Also, undertaking is not a dangerous manoeuvre - any manoeuvre on any road can be a dangerous manoeuvre if not done at a time when it is safe to do so.
Undertaking is permitted in the US. It is not allowed in the UK. That alone makes it an unexpected manoeuvre and therefore potentially dangerous, surely?
I drive behind someone I know along the A34 the other day, I waved a couple of times to say hello but she was oblivious. I also noted that she drove a little under 65mph for five miles without moving over when she could have done and when she eventually did move over to come off at a junction she did not indicate or appear to even look and as I followed for a mile and half to the same workplace she did not indicate once
So basically, you think it's OK because you don't want to pay attention to signs and lanes etc?
"I can stay in the middle lane because sometimes the left lane goes off and if I am not paying attention I will end up on the wrong road."
You're taking this too seriously. But, yes, one of the minor advantages of spending a big proportion of a motorway journey in the second or third lanes, as can happen with a certain density of traffic, is less need to worry about filter lanes. That fact, combined with a familiar journey, can mean you sometimes get caught out (usually involving a belated lane change, no big deal).
(I know I'm not going to change your opinion that, after driving accident-free for some 400,000 miles, in a dozen or two different countries, I really need to tear up my driving licence and get a bus-pass instead ... because I sometimes miss or ignore a detail of a road sign due to concentrating on actual driving!)
And also how the person undertaking would have an accident and hit your car? Since an undertaker would be doing so because there is enough room to do so and the person in the middle lane obviously isn't going to pull over please give a scenario where the undertaker would have an accident? Undertaking works fine in the US.
Also, undertaking is not a dangerous manoeuvre - any manoeuvre on any road can be a dangerous manoeuvre if not done at a time when it is safe to do so.
I drive with the assumption that every one else on the road is out to kill me.
What riles me is people doing 40mph on 60mph roads...you catch up with them as you are driving posivitely and to the speed limit - you both get to a 30mph stretch, you drop to 30mph they carry on through at 40mph and by the time you get out of the stretch they are too far ahead again to overtake sensibly because they were breaking the speed limit in a 30mph zone...
You're taking this too seriously. But, yes, one of the minor advantages of spending a big proportion of a motorway journey in the second or third lanes, as can happen with a certain density of traffic, is less need to worry about filter lanes. That fact, combined with a familiar journey, can mean you sometimes get caught out (usually involving a belated lane change, no big deal).
(I know I'm not going to change your opinion that, after driving accident-free for some 400,000 miles, in a dozen or two different countries, I really need to tear up my driving licence and get a bus-pass instead ... because I sometimes miss or ignore a detail of a road sign due to concentrating on actual driving!)
You do realise that actual driving involves looking at road signs don't you?
No - read that post again. They describe a motorway where lane 1 is full of trucks.
They don't use that phrase.
They go on to say sitting in the middle lane is the easiest option, pootling along at 70 mph.
They don't like changing lanes and overtaking - it is tiresome.
They don't use that phrase.
They go on to say sitting in the middle lane is the easiest option, pootling along at 70 mph.
They don't like changing lanes and overtaking - it is tiresome.
OK, it literally says:
The trouble with driving in the left hand lane is that it is invariably taken up by significantly slower moving vehicles such as coaches, lorries, caravans and so on. This means that anybody in an average car such as a family saloon, who is using the inside lane and wants to get anywhere quickly, would have to frequently move out into the middle lane, overtake, then move back in again.
My question was: WHO on this thread has said it's a good idea to stay in the middle lane when lane 1 is empty?
Someone on this thread suggested only using the left lane when the traffic density drops to 2 vehicles per mile. This isn't "empty" but it's as good as.
The trouble with driving in the left hand lane is that it is invariably taken up by significantly slower moving vehicles such as coaches, lorries, caravans and so on. This means that anybody in an average car such as a family saloon, who is using the inside lane and wants to get anywhere quickly, would have to frequently move out into the middle lane, overtake, then move back in again.
(bold added by me)
That does not sound like an empty lane 1 to me.
You left out the most important bit...
Sitting in the middle lane is a much easier option. You can pootle along at 70 MPH, which after all, is the legal speed limit. You're going as fast as you're allowed to by law so you're not doing anything illegal (notwithstanding recent legislation) or even, I would argue, antisocial. If everybody in the middle lane was driving within the legal speed limit, you wouldn't be inconveniencing anyone. Where's the problem..?
To me they are saying they can't be arsed to move over regardless how clear the inside lane is.
You do realise that actual driving involves looking at road signs don't you?
Part of driving yes, but not scrutinising the detail of every sign there might be, no matter how irrelevant it is.
The skill is knowing which information to filter out (no pun). Rectangular signs tend to convey information rather than warnings or instructions (triangular and circular), so have a little less priority compared to those which affect safety.
But, sometimes things on information signs can be missed; it's no big deal. Usually they are repeated for exactly that reason, because the mere mortals who comprise the majority of drivers (compared with the never-erring, perfect automatons in this thread) can sometimes forget things as well as miss details.
Part of driving yes, but not scrutinising the detail of every sign there might be, no matter how irrelevant it is.
The skill is knowing which information to filter out (no pun). Rectangular signs tend to convey information rather than warnings or instructions (triangular and circular), so have a little less priority compared to those which affect safety.
But, sometimes things on information signs can be missed; it's no big deal. Usually they are repeated for exactly that reason, because the mere mortals who comprise the majority of drivers (compared with the never-erring, perfect automatons in this thread) can sometimes forget things as well as miss details.
Your job as a driver is to get from A to B safely. That means reading ALL signs to make sure you are in the correct lane for your destination AND the correct lane according to the Highway Code. If you are unable to both then you should not be driving.
Remaining in the incorrect lane so as to avoid reading the directional signs means you have failed in your responsibilities as a driver as you negatively impact the safety of others.
Your job as a driver is to get from A to B safely. That means reading ALL signs to make sure you are in the correct lane for your destination AND the correct lane according to the Highway Code. If you are unable to both then you should not be driving.
Are you serious, or just winding me up?
I can tell you that I've got safely from A to B many thousands of times without having to minutely examine every one of the thousands of information signs along each route. The majority will be utterly irrelevant, so it is just not necessary.
For example, you are traveling along the A5999 on a journey that you know will be another 100 miles, but you come to a roundabout with 4 exits. A cursory glance shows you that it is exit 2 that continues the A5999 towards your destination. Do you bother looking at destinations for exits 1, 3 and 4? Or at the sign for the local destinations that follows? If not, why not? Because according to you, you shouldn't be on the road!
BTW the highway code includes the following advice to do with lane disciple:134 ... In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily....
You're taking this too seriously. But, yes, one of the minor advantages of spending a big proportion of a motorway journey in the second or third lanes, as can happen with a certain density of traffic, is less need to worry about filter lanes. That fact, combined with a familiar journey, can mean you sometimes get caught out (usually involving a belated lane change, no big deal).
(I know I'm not going to change your opinion that, after driving accident-free for some 400,000 miles, in a dozen or two different countries, I really need to tear up my driving licence and get a bus-pass instead ... because I sometimes miss or ignore a detail of a road sign due to concentrating on actual driving!)
A little while back I started a thread entitled "Motorists and Road Signs" in which I illustrated my frustration at those drivers who appeared unable to read road signs.
Now we have bart4858 giving us a near perfect example of what I was talking about. The major flaws in his posts/argument have already been pointed out.
Another thing is, if you ignore signs that don't apply to you, how do you know they don't apply to you?
Now the bit of this post that concerns me - and apologies if I'm reading it wrong - is:
That fact, combined with a familiar journey, can mean you sometimes get caught out (usually involving a belated lane change, no big deal).
That suggests to me the driver hurtling up the outside lane suddenly realising "Ooops, this is my exit" and shoots across three (or more) lanes of traffic with little or no warning. Despite the fact that it's indicated a mile beforehand and then again at half a mile. No big deal, apparently, but I doubt that view is shared by those who've had to clap on to avoid an accident.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but that's how it comes across to me.
Now the bit of this post that concerns me - and apologies if I'm reading it wrong - is:
That suggests to me the driver hurtling up the outside lane suddenly realising "Ooops, this is my exit" and shoots across three (or more) lanes of traffic with little or no warning. Despite the fact that it's indicated a mile beforehand and then again at half a mile. No big deal, apparently, but I doubt that view is shared by those who've had to clap on to avoid an accident.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but that's how it comes across to me.
Unfortunately you've got it completely wrong. Bart's already stated that he never strays out of lane 2 so he'd never shoot across 3 lanes
Another thing is, if you ignore signs that don't apply to you, how do you know they don't apply to you?
Fairly obviously you read every single road sign you encounter process the information it contains then consciously decide that the information is not relevant to your journey.
Now we have bart4858 giving us a near perfect example of what I was talking about. The major flaws in his posts/argument have already been pointed out.
Have they? I don't recall.
Another thing is, if you ignore signs that don't apply to you, how do you know they don't apply to you?
Human visual perception is complex, but it can do marvelous things, such as pick out a face from a crowd, or an 'A5999' designator, on a green destination board on the approach to a roundabout. Or it can be aware of a brown tourist information sign, and knows, since a visit to a zoo is not part of your itinerary at 3am on a December morning, that it doesn't need to read any further.
Come on, just use your common sense and stop trying to win some silly debate.
Now the bit of this post that concerns me - and apologies if I'm reading it wrong - is:
That suggests to me the driver hurtling up the outside lane suddenly realising "Ooops, this is my exit" and shoots across three (or more) lanes of traffic with little or no warning. Despite the fact that it's indicated a mile beforehand and then again at half a mile. No big deal, apparently, but I doubt that view is shared by those who've had to clap on to avoid an accident.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but that's how it comes across to me.
You have got it wrong; that was about what happens if you're in lane one and the motorway narrows to two lanes, you then have to hop over to the next lane sharpishly.
Getting from lane 2 onwards, into lane 1 for your exit, isn't made easier by the queue of HGVs you sometimes get in lane one which seem practically bumper-to-bumper: it can be a struggle to find any sort of gap, no matter how big.
What riles me is people doing 40mph on 60mph roads...you catch up with them as you are driving posivitely and to the speed limit - you both get to a 30mph stretch, you drop to 30mph they carry on through at 40mph and by the time you get out of the stretch they are too far ahead again to overtake sensibly because they were breaking the speed limit in a 30mph zone...
Heh, I know what you mean about the 40mph brigade. It doesn't matter whether the speed limit is 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70mph, they still do 40mph!
Comments
The OP did not say anything about lane 1 being clear in their first post - they said it was full of trucks. Maybe it was brought up elsewhere in the thread? Do you know where?
I do not remember those other posters you mention. Only someone talking about a relative who is a lane hogger. I think everyone agreed the relative was not driving correctly.
They said - What is so wrong about driving in the middle lane at 70mph for any length of time on motorways and....
...why should they move over when there are other lanes.....
Another self confessed hogger was Corn%£#&*, they stay out because lane discipline gets tiresome.
My driving instructor gave me two very good pieces of advise.
1 - drive courteously and treat other road users with respect.
2 - drive with the assumption that every body else on the road is a f'ing idiot.
So middle lane hoggers - imagine this scenario. You are sitting in the middle lane and there are idiots all around you. You could be courteous and move into the left hand lane but you are doing the speed limit so no one should be overtaking you. You decide to stay put. One of these idiots around you decides to make a dangerous manoeuvre, undertakes you, has an accident, hits your car and kills you. Well at least your family can rest assured that you were not at fault because you were driving at the speed limit. That will be such a comfort to them!
Although you could have saved your life, avoided these idiots, and drove in the CORRECT lane.
i.e. they are being the idiot.
Define what you mean by 'idiot'.
And also how the person undertaking would have an accident and hit your car? Since an undertaker would be doing so because there is enough room to do so and the person in the middle lane obviously isn't going to pull over please give a scenario where the undertaker would have an accident? Undertaking works fine in the US.
Also, undertaking is not a dangerous manoeuvre - any manoeuvre on any road can be a dangerous manoeuvre if not done at a time when it is safe to do so.
I drive with the assumption that every one else on the road is out to kill me.
What riles me is people doing 40mph on 60mph roads...you catch up with them as you are driving posivitely and to the speed limit - you both get to a 30mph stretch, you drop to 30mph they carry on through at 40mph and by the time you get out of the stretch they are too far ahead again to overtake sensibly because they were breaking the speed limit in a 30mph zone...
Indeed, and if you are driving correctly you probably find yourself in lane 1 without realising it as you've automatically moved over without thinking about it.
Good drivers do not need to think about lane discipline they just do it...poor drivers only realise they need to move over when something wakes them up...like the car behind turning its headlights on to indicate 'hello I'm here'...and no, I do not mean flashing headlights as that is aggressive, merely switching them on can wake someone up.
Undertaking is permitted in the US. It is not allowed in the UK. That alone makes it an unexpected manoeuvre and therefore potentially dangerous, surely?
You're taking this too seriously. But, yes, one of the minor advantages of spending a big proportion of a motorway journey in the second or third lanes, as can happen with a certain density of traffic, is less need to worry about filter lanes. That fact, combined with a familiar journey, can mean you sometimes get caught out (usually involving a belated lane change, no big deal).
(I know I'm not going to change your opinion that, after driving accident-free for some 400,000 miles, in a dozen or two different countries, I really need to tear up my driving licence and get a bus-pass instead ... because I sometimes miss or ignore a detail of a road sign due to concentrating on actual driving!)
You do realise that actual driving involves looking at road signs don't you?
No - read that post again. They describe a motorway where lane 1 is full of trucks.
In that situation, they consider it to be more sensible to drive at 70 mph in the middle lane.
Naturally, they will be constantly overtaking trucks in lane 1 moving at under 60 mph.
Just try to picture it in your mind.
My question was: WHO on this thread has said it's a good idea to stay in the middle lane when lane 1 is empty?
They go on to say sitting in the middle lane is the easiest option, pootling along at 70 mph.
They don't like changing lanes and overtaking - it is tiresome.
OK, it literally says:
The trouble with driving in the left hand lane is that it is invariably taken up by significantly slower moving vehicles such as coaches, lorries, caravans and so on. This means that anybody in an average car such as a family saloon, who is using the inside lane and wants to get anywhere quickly, would have to frequently move out into the middle lane, overtake, then move back in again.
(bold added by me)
That does not sound like an empty lane 1 to me.
Someone on this thread suggested only using the left lane when the traffic density drops to 2 vehicles per mile. This isn't "empty" but it's as good as.
To me they are saying they can't be arsed to move over regardless how clear the inside lane is.
Part of driving yes, but not scrutinising the detail of every sign there might be, no matter how irrelevant it is.
The skill is knowing which information to filter out (no pun). Rectangular signs tend to convey information rather than warnings or instructions (triangular and circular), so have a little less priority compared to those which affect safety.
But, sometimes things on information signs can be missed; it's no big deal. Usually they are repeated for exactly that reason, because the mere mortals who comprise the majority of drivers (compared with the never-erring, perfect automatons in this thread) can sometimes forget things as well as miss details.
Your job as a driver is to get from A to B safely. That means reading ALL signs to make sure you are in the correct lane for your destination AND the correct lane according to the Highway Code. If you are unable to both then you should not be driving.
Remaining in the incorrect lane so as to avoid reading the directional signs means you have failed in your responsibilities as a driver as you negatively impact the safety of others.
Are you serious, or just winding me up?
I can tell you that I've got safely from A to B many thousands of times without having to minutely examine every one of the thousands of information signs along each route. The majority will be utterly irrelevant, so it is just not necessary.
For example, you are traveling along the A5999 on a journey that you know will be another 100 miles, but you come to a roundabout with 4 exits. A cursory glance shows you that it is exit 2 that continues the A5999 towards your destination. Do you bother looking at destinations for exits 1, 3 and 4? Or at the sign for the local destinations that follows? If not, why not? Because according to you, you shouldn't be on the road!
BTW the highway code includes the following advice to do with lane disciple:134 ... In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily....
A little while back I started a thread entitled "Motorists and Road Signs" in which I illustrated my frustration at those drivers who appeared unable to read road signs.
Now we have bart4858 giving us a near perfect example of what I was talking about. The major flaws in his posts/argument have already been pointed out.
Another thing is, if you ignore signs that don't apply to you, how do you know they don't apply to you?
Now the bit of this post that concerns me - and apologies if I'm reading it wrong - is:
That suggests to me the driver hurtling up the outside lane suddenly realising "Ooops, this is my exit" and shoots across three (or more) lanes of traffic with little or no warning. Despite the fact that it's indicated a mile beforehand and then again at half a mile. No big deal, apparently, but I doubt that view is shared by those who've had to clap on to avoid an accident.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but that's how it comes across to me.
Oh hang on...
Come on, just use your common sense and stop trying to win some silly debate.
You have got it wrong; that was about what happens if you're in lane one and the motorway narrows to two lanes, you then have to hop over to the next lane sharpishly.
Getting from lane 2 onwards, into lane 1 for your exit, isn't made easier by the queue of HGVs you sometimes get in lane one which seem practically bumper-to-bumper: it can be a struggle to find any sort of gap, no matter how big.