[eye30]

One in three motorists admit they hog the middle lane on motorways - but just 135 fines have been issued

A third of drivers admit they don't move over to lane one when it's clear

Some 37% said they didn't know they could be fined £100 if caught hogging the middle lane

Half of the drivers quizzed believed the action was 'selfish' and that it caused congestion when other motorists do it


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3792498/Just-135-fines-issued-middle-lane-hogging.html

[rustynutz]

I nearly always drive in the middle lane on our motorways....Makes sense too, I reckon.
Keeping out of the left lane keeps it clearer for those exiting and entering the motorway.
If drivers need to overtake they can use the right lane.

Oh, and driving in the middle lane is not illegal here in Australia... 

[AlanHo]

The problem in the UK is that it is illegal to "undertake" - that is to use the 1st lane to overtake someone in the middle lane.  Thus the only lane available for safe and legal overtaking is the third lane on a 3 lane motorway

Hence stupid middle lane huggers reduce traffic flow by halving the number of lanes available for overtaking.

[rustynutz]

Thankfully we have no undertaking law here! 

Perhaps the UK needs to follow our lead!     

[xiziz]

Same problem here in Sweden, unfortunately we don't have a lot of 3 lane motorways, which solves the problem in all but our three larges cities. They do fine frequently, 500SEK, which should be somewhere around 35-40GBP. Undertaking is illegal here too, but only on roads with a speed limit at or above 70kph.

[The Gonz]

Back in 2002 on the A4 at 2am coming back from weekends in Barcelona, I saw no such difficulties. It seemed quite orderly to me. Whingers.

[bumpkin]

I really don't get this law.

Can somebody explain to me how sitting at 70mph (which is the maximum allowable speed in the UK) in the middle lane is classed as "hogging"?

Just who are you holding up if your are sitting at max speed and why do the police think it is more important to charge you for sitting safely at 70 and not constantly having to dodge in and out of the left lane to pass trucks/buses/Sunday drivers (which is their right) and people entering/exiting the route against the Audiot who has just shot past at a hundred and plenty?  Just who is the bigger danger here?

As for undertaking being illegal it happens all the time and nothing is ever done about it, so I guess to answer my own question sitting at max allowable speed in the middle lane is perhaps hazardous to health as the Audiots spill down your left and right without a care in the world.

[Shambles]

But if you're doing 65 mph in the middle lane, you should get left, in my book.

[bumpkin]

I agree Steve, the problem is that the law dictates you should NEVER sit in the middle lane unless overtaking

I think that is wrong, if you are at max permissible speed your are doing nothing wrong.

[AlanHo]

The question then becomes - what is the maximum permissible speed.

Is it 70 mph

Or is it 70 +10% + 2mph which is the generally accepted speed above which the police can nick you.

I am a stickler for the rules and don't hog the middle lane - unless there is a junction imminent where traffic will feed onto the motorway (Frequently without adjusting their speed or looking!!)

[bumpkin]

The signs say 70, a "generally accepted rule" will always fall foul of that one police officer who decides they ain't playing "generally acceptable" that day, a mate of mine recently got nicked for 33 in a 30 so they don't always go with "generally acceptable".

If "generally acceptable" is genuine, then they should just change the signs to 80 and then people know where the line is again.  Then you can sit in the middle lane at 80 and still not be hogging (but you would be at 75).

[The Gonz]

  Give me black and white anytime, especially in legal and financial matters!

[Lakes]

I think, you use different term's there. like i was thinking, middle lane, three lanes , like Left lane, middle lane, right lane.
here in this state anyway, they say or sign reads, keep left unless overtaking! so if three lanes the middle lane ok as others have right lane to overtake. if two lanes only well keep in left lane so right lane open for overtaking, i don't care what the speed limit is or how fast i'm going ( on speed limit or below speed limit ) i will keep left so others can pass if they want. thats how i see it.

[bumpkin]

I agree John, but they are charging people here for using the middle lane constantly even though the right lane is still available for overtaking.  Madness.

[FatBoy]

I used to believe that if I was doing the speed limit, then I could be in any lane.  I know this isn't the rule, but my belief was that anybody overtaking me had to be breaking the speed limit.  My thoughts have changed on this.  We don't know why the person screaming up behind us is speeding, it might be a legitimate reason.  They could have received a phone call from the hospital (I know I have received it), "You had best get in here to say goodbye, your (insert loved ones name) has taken a turn and won't last much longer."  Maybe they are taking a child to the doctor or hospital as they couldn't or wouldn't wait for an ambulance.

My other thought is, "Two wrongs don't make a right".  If somebody breaks the road rules, then that isn't my problem.  I wasn't designated a highway vigilante.

Obey the rules.  In Australia at least, the rule is (and I am paraphrasing), "if the speed limit is more than 80km/h, or there are signs stating, then in a multi lane road you must keep left unless overtaking."  There are exceptions to this rule, for example, if there is congestion on the road, you are turning right, etc.  Driving into Hobart from the south, as the speed limit reduces from 100km/h to 80km/h there is a sign that says "End of keep left" or words to that effect.

[Shambles]

On the days when I could actually be arsed to drive into work I travel between 65 and 68 mph on the three motorways I use, from around 06:30 to 07:15.

Lost track of the number of times I've been at that speed in lane 1 slowly approaching someone going slower and "hogging" lane 2. On a few occasions I've performed an exaggerated maneouvre to overtake them then swiftly returned to lane 1. Rarely do I see them take the hint. Gets my goat.

[Doggie 1]

Gets my goat.

I'm really hoping that your goat is OK. 
And I'm not kidding, Steve.

[bumpkin]

The scenario you paint Steve is what the charge is all about.  No problem with that (if there are enough police to actually monitor and police it appropriately!)

My point is if the ones in the middle lane were doing 70, they would not be in your way doing 65-68 in the left lane and they are not preventing something faster from going past in the right lane, so just what is the problem?

In response to Jamie, a situation as you describe where a hospital urgency is involved for example is still a position where somebody is taking the decision to act illegally (no matter the intention) and as such if caught can and will be charged as there is no such thing in UK law as a legitimate reason for speeding.  Leniency can be applied later once the case is heard but that can be and is variable.  Again taking my point above, I would not be road vigilante about it, but if lane 3 is available then they can speed past should the feeling take them.

My original post still applies without being vigilante about it, if I am obeying the speed limit in the middle lane why is that a bigger offence than the speeder going past on the right (or indeed left), is it just becuse I am easier to catch?

[FatBoy]

Totally understand and agree with you, Brian.  My point was more for blocking the "go fast" lane.  In your case, and please correct me if I am wrong, there was still space for the car to go around in the right hand lane. 

Speeding, as is like most laws in aviation, are what we call, "strict liability".  It doesn't matter if you had a reason for it, you still broke the law.  Guilty as charged.  Mitigation should be considered only for sentencing and or the fine.

[bumpkin]

Yep, the hogging debate at the moment is all about "hogging" the middle lane, the faster but not the fastest lane if you will.

I am not necessarily questioning the application of the law, more asking if the law is indeed correct in the first place.

There are far worse real infractions taking place daily on our roads and a blind eye turned every time, mobile phones being by far the worst culprit that I see along with speeding.

[FatBoy]

C'mon Brian, you only need one more post!!

Understood and agree with your comments.

[bumpkin]

 

I hadn't even noticed that!  Oh well here it is! 8000 statements of.........something

[eye30]

My original post still applies without being vigilante about it, if I am obeying the speed limit in the middle lane why is that a bigger offence than the speeder going past on the right (or indeed left), is it just becuse I am easier to catch?

My undertanding of the law is that you could be charged with hogging the middle lane if the left lane was empty of traffic

[eye30]

There are far worse real infractions taking place daily on our roads and a blind eye turned every time, mobile phones being by far the worst culprit that I see along with speeding.

Not only driver ....... i nearly hit a cyclist this morning as they wobbled and came out into the centre of the road.

When he returned to the left and i got along side him he was texting on his mobile!

Lucky i was of the mind of a cyclist and anticipated him movements but was not expecting texting.

Also, he had no helmet!
And who would have been blamed if an incident had occured.............. yes of course the motorist!

[Doggie 1]

There are far worse real infractions taking place daily on our roads and a blind eye turned every time, mobile phones being by far the worst culprit that I see along with speeding.

Not only driver ....... i nearly hit a cyclist this morning as they wobbled and came out into the centre of the road.

When he returned to the left and i got along side him he was texting on his mobile!

Lucky i was of the mind of a cyclist and anticipated him movements but was not expecting texting.

Also, he had no helmet!

But does no helmet place him at any more risk?   

[rustynutz]

And I thought helmets weren't compulsory in the Old Dart?