Motorways, "middle lane hoggers" ?

If it makes you feel better. Personally, that statement just reinforces my belief that too few people know how to drive properly on multilane highways in this country

 

I won't have any issue using the ex-hard shoulder if it is the leftmost lane in use and there is no other traffic in sight.

 

But then, the intention is to only use the hard shoulder as a lane when traffic is heavy (that's the "smart" bit, see? ) and...

...whenever there's any traffic to overtake, and because I tend to drive mostly at times at which when traffic is heavy indeed, practically speaking I'm quasi-always (one could say semi-permanently) in the rightmost lane*, gently waiting (at a safe distance) for the driver ahead to pull over and then charging on

 

So, errr...right you are, I'll just carry on, if you don't mind

[* Most "middle laners" are in the middle lane "because there`s traffic to overtake".]

The above is a quote (my bold) from a different thread [on the M1 (not so) "smart motorway]. What is interesting is not what it says, but the fact that the Motoring Mafia * never mentioned it at all, much less criticise it, on any post for at least the next two pages of that particular motoring thread. If they decide to go back and do so after this post appears it doesn`t count, so check the dates of any posting !

Let us just clarify that :

The Motoring Mafia considerate it a unpardonable offence, possibly the motoring habit they hate the most, to drive in the middle lane "semi permanently" even if driving at the speed limit. Apparently, amongst other things, they (wrongly) think it turns the 3 lane motorway into a 2 lane motorway.

On the other hand, the Motoring Mafia appear to think it acceptable, certainly not worth criticising, for someone to drive "semi permanently" in the outside lane, and with the implication that the driver then breaks the speed limit as soon as he gets a chance.

Incidentally using the Motorway Mafia`s own (incorrect) logic, that would be turning a 3 lane motorway into a 1 lane motorway....

* who would immediately criticise someone who admitted they "semi permanently" stayed in the middle lane, on any thread, certainly a motoring thread, and particularly one about driving on the motorway. I`m 100% certain of that (or 110% if I was a Premier League Footballer).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, on this and other forums, I have noticed that generally it`s the same people who :

1 Dislike middle laners with a passion (even if they`re driving the speed limit).

2 Have no problem with 4 lane 70mph running (i.e. getting rid of the hard shoulder on motorways).

3 Dislike speed cameras.

4 Think drivers should be able to break the speed limit if they want.

The theme here is they`re more bothered about getting to their destination a bit quicker and/or enjoying themselves doing it, than they are about safety. The problem being that it isn`t just their own safety is it ? That`s what the Motoring Mafia will never comprehend........

If you're trying, yet unable to overtake a car that is in front, that is travelling slower than you wish to travel, then you are not in the wrong lane are you.

That's self evident.

If you are in the middle lane, you cannot be in that situation, as you would pull out to overtake if the car in front were travelling slower than you wanted to go.

If you're trying, yet unable to overtake a car that is in front, that is travelling slower than you wish to travel, then you are not in the wrong lane are you.

 

That's self evident.

If you are in the middle lane, you cannot be in that situation, as you would pull out to overtake if the car in front were travelling slower than you wanted to go.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive

You know as well as I do Cyclone that what the Motoring Mafia despise about "middle lane drivers" is that they don`t drive in the inside lane, i.e. the left most lane. That is so that they, the Motoring Mafia, can get past even more easily than they otherwise could, even if they`re actually breaking the law by speeding whilst doing so. It`s got nothing to do with the rather convoluted logic you`ve just come up with. The most significant point here is that most of the Motoring Mafia expect "middle laners" to get over into the inside lane even if they may only be there for 10 to 15 seconds *. Yet, apparently, just so long as the driver is exceeding the speed limit, preferably by a significant margin, they don`t care which lane, including the outside lane, they`re "semi permanently" in.

So :

If the river is doing 70mph in the middle lane it`s all of a sudden only a 2 lane road.

But if they`re in the outside lane, exceeding the speed limit, it`s still a 3 lane road.

If you can`t see the inconsistency in that then you`re not tying very hard......

* Actually they don`t care how short a time they`re in the inside lane, 5 seconds would be fine for them because it`s not them who has to pull back out again. In fact the Motoring Mafia don't care even if the driver they consider is a "middle laner" has to try and move back into a busy traffic lane straight away. Just so long as the Motoring Mafia can get past with the minimum of inconvenience, even if they`re actually breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit.

Can I just emphasise, yet again, that I personally actually prefer to drive in the inside lane, provided I`m going to be there for a reasonable length of time, at least 20 seconds.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive

 

You know as well as I do Cyclone that what the Motoring Mafia despise about "middle lane drivers" is that they don`t drive in the inside lane, i.e. the left most lane. That is so that they, the Motoring Mafia, can get past even more easily than they otherwise could, even if they`re actually breaking the law by speeding whilst doing so. It`s got nothing to do with the rather convoluted logic you`ve just come up with. The most significant point here is that most of the Motoring Mafia expect "middle laners" to get over into the inside lane even if they may only be there for 10 to 15 seconds.

I've come to this discussion late so excuse me, but I want to understand the point. Why should someone be in the middle lane if they're not overtaking?

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive

 

You know as well as I do Cyclone that what the Motoring Mafia despise about "middle lane drivers" is that they don`t drive in the inside lane, i.e. the left most lane.

But you don't finish the statement.

They don't drive in the left most lane WHEN THEY SHOULD. Which is when they are not overtaking.

That is so that they, the Motoring Mafia, can get past even more easily than they otherwise could, even if they`re actually breaking the law by speeding whilst doing so.

Irrelevant.

It`s got nothing to do with the rather convoluted logic you`ve just come up with.

Nothing convoluted about it, it's about as simple as it can be.

Keep left, unless overtaking, or waiting to overtake.

The most significant point here is that most of the Motoring Mafia expect "middle laners" to get over into the inside lane even if they may only be there for 10 to 15 seconds *.

Not true, although the exact length of time varies depending on opinion.[q[uote] Yet, apparently, just so long as the driver is exceeding the speed limit, preferably by a significant margin, they don`t care which lane, including the outside lane, they`re "semi permanently" in.

No, nobody said that except you.

It's not wrong to be in an over taking lane, if you are waiting for the car in front to pull over. The specific speed is irrelevant, but in the rush hour it's likely to be well below the speed limit.

---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 20:46 ----------

I've come to this discussion late so excuse me, but I want to understand the point. Why should someone be in the middle lane if they're not overtaking?

In Justin's case, it's because 3 miles ahead he can see a truck, which in 5 minutes he will overtake. And changing lanes is dangerous. So he'll stay in the middle lane until he's passed that truck (by which point he can probably see another).

The above is a quote (my bold) from a different thread [on the M1 (not so) "smart motorway]. What is interesting is not what it says, but the fact that the Motoring Mafia * never mentioned it at all, much less criticise it, on any post for at least the next two pages of that particular motoring thread. If they decide to go back and do so after this post appears it doesn`t count, so check the dates of any posting !

 

Let us just clarify that :

 

The Motoring Mafia considerate it a unpardonable offence, possibly the motoring habit they hate the most, to drive in the middle lane "semi permanently" even if driving at the speed limit. Apparently, amongst other things, they (wrongly) think it turns the 3 lane motorway into a 2 lane motorway.

 

On the other hand, the Motoring Mafia appear to think it acceptable, certainly not worth criticising, for someone to drive "semi permanently" in the outside lane, and with the implication that the driver then breaks the speed limit as soon as he gets a chance.

Incidentally using the Motorway Mafia`s own (incorrect) logic, that would be turning a 3 lane motorway into a 1 lane motorway....

 

* who would immediately criticise someone who admitted they "semi permanently" stayed in the middle lane, on any thread, much less a motoring one. I`m 100% certain of that (or 110% if I was a Premier League Footballer).

I was getting bored and a little premature Monday morning blues. Thank you so much for cheering me up with this bizarre, convoluted logic. It's superb.

BTW if safety is so important to you, why don't you buy a car that has a lane-change, blind-spot warning like they do on the Range Rover? That way you could change lanes much more often and not hold up the rest of the traffic trying to get where they are going?

---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 22:04 ----------

I've just driven down the M1. A blue Ford (wait for it) Focus was in lane 3 driving at 67 mph. Nothing in lane 2 except for the 2 cars which decided to undertake her briefly. I followed for a several seconds, decided not to undertake gave it the briefest of flashes, at which point the driver eventually wakes up and moves over, I pass and she flicks a middle finger at me.

I nearly lost it. But she was obviously an inadequate driving like that and then gesticulating. What a turkey.

---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 22:33 ----------

http://newsroom.jaguarlandrover.com/en-in/land-rover/news/2014/06/rr_evq_awardwinningtechnology_300614/

The above is a quote (my bold) from a different thread [on the M1 (not so) "smart motorway]. What is interesting is not what it says, but the fact that the Motoring Mafia * never mentioned it at all, much less criticise it, on any post for at least the next two pages of that particular motoring thread. If they decide to go back and do so after this post appears it doesn`t count, so check the dates of any posting !

 

Let us just clarify that :

 

The Motoring Mafia considerate it a unpardonable offence, possibly the motoring habit they hate the most, to drive in the middle lane "semi permanently" even if driving at the speed limit. Apparently, amongst other things, they (wrongly) think it turns the 3 lane motorway into a 2 lane motorway.

 

On the other hand, the Motoring Mafia appear to think it acceptable, certainly not worth criticising, for someone to drive "semi permanently" in the outside lane, and with the implication that the driver then breaks the speed limit as soon as he gets a chance.

Incidentally using the Motorway Mafia`s own (incorrect) logic, that would be turning a 3 lane motorway into a 1 lane motorway....

 

* who would immediately criticise someone who admitted they "semi permanently" stayed in the middle lane, on any thread, certainly a motoring thread, and particularly one about driving on the motorway. I`m 100% certain of that (or 110% if I was a Premier League Footballer).

Genuinely hadn't seen it. And I dislike people who stay in the fuethermost right hand lane as much as middle lane hoggers. Both stop ME getting where I want to go at a speed I wish to go at and that's just not on. I will happily undertake with glee anyone who sits in that outside lane at the earliest opportunity.

JFK, I'd already added NSL dual carriageways for this reason.

NSL dual carriageways do differ from motorways though. Their junctions can be very different, they can have things like petrol stations turning directly onto them and they don't have hard shoulders.

NSL dual carriageways do differ from motorways though. Their junctions can be very different, they can have things like petrol stations turning directly onto them and they don't have hard shoulders.

I know, but still better than nothing.

---------- Post added 11-01-2016 at 10:01 ----------

And I will spend probably 50% of my motorway driving time in the left hand lane undertaking all the idiots who sit on the middle lane. Is it not undertaking unless you make a specific lane change to do so. If I'm in the CORRECT left hand lane as I'm not overtaking and my natural speed is faster than those in the middle lane, then I'll just sail right on past them.

I know, but still better than nothing.

 

---------- Post added 11-01-2016 at 10:01 ----------

 

And I will spend probably 50% of my motorway driving time in the left hand lane undertaking all the idiots who sit on the middle lane. Is it not undertaking unless you make a specific lane change to do so. If I'm in the CORRECT left hand lane as I'm not overtaking and my natural speed is faster than those in the middle lane, then I'll just sail right on past them.

And that would be driving without due care and consideration.

If someones going slower than you on the right, unless the traffic "is moving in queues" then you need to pass them on their right hadn side.

It's perfectly permissible to sound horn and flash lights as you do so in order to alert the dozy prat to your presence as they are clearly oblivious to everything going on around them.