Options
Police definition of middle lane driving
Justin Aerial
Posts: 5,710 Forum Member
✭
Could we please restrict this thread to the actual definition of "middle lane driving", as opposed to whether you think middle lane hoggers are the bane of the roads or, on the other hand, avoiding excessive lane changing is actually safer driving.
With the recent announcement that middle lane drivers are to be subject to on the spot fines it made me wonder what the definition of middle lane driving is.
I phoned South Yorks Police (traffic) and they said they couldn`t give me an exact definition it was up to the "highly trained traffic officers" to define it. The offence would generally be considered to be staying in the middle lane (with an empty inside lane) "for a considerable length of time". They did go a little further and say that if you`ve just overtaken a truck and can see another one in the inside lane a few hundred yards ahead you would not be prosecuted for staying in the middle lane (so as to avoid having to come back out again to overtake the second truck).
If you know you`ll have to pull back out again this raises the issue for what length of time are you expected to return to the inside lane. 5 seconds ? 10 seconds ? 30 seconds ?
Relevant statistics are :
Required 2 second gap at 70mph = 63 m. But this is front and rear, i.e. the gap between two vehicles must be at least 126m before you move into it (even if all three vehicles are doing exactly the same speed).
If you`re doing 70mph and the vehicles on the inside lane are doing 50mph that`s a 20mph closing speed, which is 9m per second. So if you want to be in the inside lane for at least 20 seconds (to make lane changing worthwhile), the gap would have to be 20 x 9m (180m) plus 126m = 306m
Hopefully my maths is correct, but if it isn`t I`m sure someone will point this out.....
With the recent announcement that middle lane drivers are to be subject to on the spot fines it made me wonder what the definition of middle lane driving is.
I phoned South Yorks Police (traffic) and they said they couldn`t give me an exact definition it was up to the "highly trained traffic officers" to define it. The offence would generally be considered to be staying in the middle lane (with an empty inside lane) "for a considerable length of time". They did go a little further and say that if you`ve just overtaken a truck and can see another one in the inside lane a few hundred yards ahead you would not be prosecuted for staying in the middle lane (so as to avoid having to come back out again to overtake the second truck).
If you know you`ll have to pull back out again this raises the issue for what length of time are you expected to return to the inside lane. 5 seconds ? 10 seconds ? 30 seconds ?
Relevant statistics are :
Required 2 second gap at 70mph = 63 m. But this is front and rear, i.e. the gap between two vehicles must be at least 126m before you move into it (even if all three vehicles are doing exactly the same speed).
If you`re doing 70mph and the vehicles on the inside lane are doing 50mph that`s a 20mph closing speed, which is 9m per second. So if you want to be in the inside lane for at least 20 seconds (to make lane changing worthwhile), the gap would have to be 20 x 9m (180m) plus 126m = 306m
Hopefully my maths is correct, but if it isn`t I`m sure someone will point this out.....
0
Comments
I don't think there's any point in trying to work out the exact meterage you'll need to drive in an overtaking lane when your outside lane is empty. One officer's criteria will differ from the next. However, I would imagine you would really need to have stayed in the overtaking lane for some considerable time before the decision was taken that it was worth pulling you over.
Slower vehicles, such as lorries, shouldn't be allowed to overtake (at all!!)
Lorries shouldn't be able to overtake in *any* circumstances? Are you sure you're thought this through?
It comes down to the opinion of the officer or, if you disagree with that opinion, a magistrate or jury.
Generally, a "reasonable [driver]" argument is applied
In any case, what needs to be made clear is, [highlight]the law has not changed[/highlight].
The only difference is now that more offences can be dealt with by ways of a fixed penalty notice rather than going to court.
so you have a huge line of lorries miles long unable to go faster than the lead lorry and unable to overtake, what then happens when the line of lorries move on to a A or B road?
Also how do the cars and vans get to the left hand exit with the miles of lorries there, and do cars enter the motorway with a blockade of lorries there?.
would be chaos IMO.
Absolutely agree. I can't see how this can stand up when there is no measurable infringement. I can see this being challenged in courts many times.
Imagine that you've just overtaken a slow moving vehicle, then see slow moving cars and a series lorries on the inside lane for the next half mile. If there is nobody coming up behind you, what is the sense and logic in pulling back into the inside lane, only so that you can pull out again a few seconds later?
Every lane change has the potential to cause an accident, so in cases like this, staying in the middle lane is far more sensible and also safer.
I definitely agree that all uphill gradients should be marked as no overtaking zones for vehicles over a certain weight.
To be fair, I think every traffic officer who has commented on this topic has explained that the above scenario would not be considered to be lane hogging.
Hmm the exiting of motorway did go through my mind but it didnt stay there.
I'll keep with my main suggestion, that lorries shouldn't be able to overtake on or near hills.
If driving amounts to careless or not having reasonable consideration for other road users, then it becomes an offence, same as it has always been.
It is not a new offence. It is merely a new way of dealing with an old one.
There is no offence of being in the middle lane, unless it has an affect on other drivers, and is classed as careless, or not having reasonable consideration for others.
This! I would challenge any fine the Police gave out concerning "hogging the middle lane". Surely your defence would be that you didn't think it would be safe to pull into the inside lane and being a responsible motorist you didn't want to cause an accident and endanger lifes.
If your doing 70 mph in the middle lane, how can you be in the wrong? Are we being encouraged to break the speed limit to get out of the way of other speeders?
Middle lane hogging is not an offence.
There is no time limit, or distance limit. If the driving is careless, or is not having reasonable consideration for other road users, it becomes an offence.
*Sigh*
"To be fair, I think every traffic officer who has commented on this topic has explained that the above scenario would not be considered to be lane hogging. "
You are in the wrong, as you should be driving in the leftmost lane so long as it is clear for a reasonable distance, no matter what speed you are driving. Speed is nothing to do with it.
It is those who sit in the middle lane who create congestion in the outside lane.
There was (unusually) a traffic cop on the M11 this morning, and everyone was behaving themselves, including myself.
I was ready, had he have pulled me up, to ask him the last time he'd read the Highway Code. It states that in conditions of poor visibility, such as heavy rain, dipped headlights should be used.
That's what I'd call inconsiderate.
You exit a roundabout at the bottom of a steep hill and pull out to overtake another HGV as you start to climb
Maybe not so much inconsiderate as malicious :mad:
(It's steeper than it looks here)
* Driving too close to the vehicle in front.
* Failing to give way at a junction (not requiring evasive action by another driver)
* Overtaking and pushing into a queue of traffic
* Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout
* Wheel-spins, handbrake turns and other careless manoeuvres
I would rather the police concentrate on this behaviour, than worry about the slow guys in the fast lane causing me to use an extra lane to overtake!
All those examples can come within the same range of offences that this story covers.
The offences have always been there.
It's not unnecessary & is enforceable i suggest you read the highway code which is clear on this issue, & says that only use the middle lane for overtaking only. Persistently driving in the middle lane when the inside lane is clear to move into, & is selfish.