What Does A Vegetarian Christmas Lunch...
Christmas3 mins ago
Middle Lane Hogger Fined
149 Answers
wigan decorator ian stephens believes he's been picked on because he drives a white van
http://
but he didn't go to court to argue his case -
//I can’t afford nearly £1,000. I didn’t go to court because I have to go to work.//
white van man arrogance? or pragmatism borne of police harrassment?
http://
but he didn't go to court to argue his case -
//I can’t afford nearly £1,000. I didn’t go to court because I have to go to work.//
white van man arrogance? or pragmatism borne of police harrassment?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rule 264
You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.
Laws:
MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9 & 16(1)(a)
MT(S)R regs 4, 8 & 14(1)(a)
RTA 1988 , sects 35 & 186, as amended by TMA 2004 sect 6
TTT,
The Highway Code IS backed up by Laws.
You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.
Laws:
MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9 & 16(1)(a)
MT(S)R regs 4, 8 & 14(1)(a)
RTA 1988 , sects 35 & 186, as amended by TMA 2004 sect 6
TTT,
The Highway Code IS backed up by Laws.
TTT...I agree that not over-taking is probably safer than overtaking but by hogging the middle lane, you are forcing people behind you to overtake.
Its quite clear in the Highway Code, part 268 ::::
"Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake"
Can you not see this ?
Its quite clear in the Highway Code, part 268 ::::
"Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake"
Can you not see this ?
The guy was breaking the law & is therefore guilty, and why are you so arrogant TTT //
ToraToraTora
no I don't do a lot of milage but if I did, I'll be doing 80 in the middle lane. However show me an empty motorway! // The maximum speed on UK motorways is 70 Mph. If you do drive at 80Mph I hope YOU soon get nicked.
ToraToraTora
no I don't do a lot of milage but if I did, I'll be doing 80 in the middle lane. However show me an empty motorway! // The maximum speed on UK motorways is 70 Mph. If you do drive at 80Mph I hope YOU soon get nicked.
I was under the impression the HC isnt law just guidance.
"White man van" under the speed limit is pretty impressive in itself on a motorway...im my experience they usally come screaming up behind me or cut in without signalling from wherever whatever lane I happen to be in.
More often than not if theyre under the limit a look in my mirror as I pass them theyre usually on their phones....and its not just on M/ways
"White man van" under the speed limit is pretty impressive in itself on a motorway...im my experience they usally come screaming up behind me or cut in without signalling from wherever whatever lane I happen to be in.
More often than not if theyre under the limit a look in my mirror as I pass them theyre usually on their phones....and its not just on M/ways
I did read your post at 09:44 and I have read it again TTT !
By sticking in the middle lane, you are forcing the driver behind you to overtake you, in the outside or overtaking lane, before continuing his journey in the left hand lane.
Others have pointed this out to you, as well as me, so I still don't understand why you would stick to the middle of the road under these circumstances.
If the road is empty, or not very busy, the HC says that your should keep to the inside lane if at all possible. Anyway, your personal view of what is legal and what isn't is neither here nor there. Your middle-lane hogging is now illegal, and its illegal because it can be dangerous
By the way, there is no need to keep telling people to read your posts again. When you giving confusing answers, is it any wonder that we need to ask the same question again !
Why not just admit you are wrong ! We are all wrong from time to time TTT, even you and I !
By sticking in the middle lane, you are forcing the driver behind you to overtake you, in the outside or overtaking lane, before continuing his journey in the left hand lane.
Others have pointed this out to you, as well as me, so I still don't understand why you would stick to the middle of the road under these circumstances.
If the road is empty, or not very busy, the HC says that your should keep to the inside lane if at all possible. Anyway, your personal view of what is legal and what isn't is neither here nor there. Your middle-lane hogging is now illegal, and its illegal because it can be dangerous
By the way, there is no need to keep telling people to read your posts again. When you giving confusing answers, is it any wonder that we need to ask the same question again !
Why not just admit you are wrong ! We are all wrong from time to time TTT, even you and I !
-- answer removed --
I cannot believe what I am reading.//
divebuddy
TTT isn't "wrong", it just depends how you look at it. Anybody who regularly uses motorways knows that effectively the limit is 80. It's only people who insist on driving in the middle lane at 50 - 60, when there is no need to, that cause problems. That seems to be what this van driver was doing. // As mikey says I GIVE UP.
divebuddy
TTT isn't "wrong", it just depends how you look at it. Anybody who regularly uses motorways knows that effectively the limit is 80. It's only people who insist on driving in the middle lane at 50 - 60, when there is no need to, that cause problems. That seems to be what this van driver was doing. // As mikey says I GIVE UP.
I have not read all of this but some clarification is needed on the penalties levied.
First of all he had the opportunity to pay a fixed penalty of £100, which he declined.
Then he was summonsed to court for a full hearing, which he failed to attend. Had he attended he could have pleaded guilty and his fines and costs would have been considerably reduced. As it was, a not guilty plea would have been entered in his absence and he would have been found guilty by way of a “Section 9” trial (where statements are read to the court).
When determining the fine Magistrates use the defendant’s income to calculate the amount. Since he was not there to provide information they assume an income of £400 per week. Careless driving attracts a fine of between 50% and 150% of that amount. It also attracts between 3 and nine penalty points, or an immediate disqualification. The driver in this case was fined £500 (within the £200 to £600 range I mentioned above and had five points imposed. The rest was prosecution costs (£400 which would have been about £85 had he turned up and pleaded guilty) and a Victim Surcharge. He is fortunate that the offence did not take place after April 13th this year. If it had, as well as the above he would also have been hit with a £520 “Criminal Court Charge”.
The man is an idiot. Presumably in refusing a fixed penalty he disagreed that he was guilty and planned to contest the matter in court. He chose not to and the matter was heard in his absence.
It has always been an offence to drive carelessly (which is the charge under which this was brought). The only change recently was that in 2013 police were give the power to offer a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) instead of a full prosecution. It has always been open to police to prosecute for “middle lane hogging” under the careless driving law.
Finally a couple of points of clarification:
“Anybody who regularly uses motorways knows that effectively the limit is 80.”
No it is not, ron. It is 70.
It is quite true, baz, that the Highway Code itself is not law. But in providing guidance it refers to law. In this case the guidance to drive in the nearside lane whenever possible is backed up by the law on Careless Driving.
First of all he had the opportunity to pay a fixed penalty of £100, which he declined.
Then he was summonsed to court for a full hearing, which he failed to attend. Had he attended he could have pleaded guilty and his fines and costs would have been considerably reduced. As it was, a not guilty plea would have been entered in his absence and he would have been found guilty by way of a “Section 9” trial (where statements are read to the court).
When determining the fine Magistrates use the defendant’s income to calculate the amount. Since he was not there to provide information they assume an income of £400 per week. Careless driving attracts a fine of between 50% and 150% of that amount. It also attracts between 3 and nine penalty points, or an immediate disqualification. The driver in this case was fined £500 (within the £200 to £600 range I mentioned above and had five points imposed. The rest was prosecution costs (£400 which would have been about £85 had he turned up and pleaded guilty) and a Victim Surcharge. He is fortunate that the offence did not take place after April 13th this year. If it had, as well as the above he would also have been hit with a £520 “Criminal Court Charge”.
The man is an idiot. Presumably in refusing a fixed penalty he disagreed that he was guilty and planned to contest the matter in court. He chose not to and the matter was heard in his absence.
It has always been an offence to drive carelessly (which is the charge under which this was brought). The only change recently was that in 2013 police were give the power to offer a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) instead of a full prosecution. It has always been open to police to prosecute for “middle lane hogging” under the careless driving law.
Finally a couple of points of clarification:
“Anybody who regularly uses motorways knows that effectively the limit is 80.”
No it is not, ron. It is 70.
It is quite true, baz, that the Highway Code itself is not law. But in providing guidance it refers to law. In this case the guidance to drive in the nearside lane whenever possible is backed up by the law on Careless Driving.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
mikey: "By sticking in the middle lane, you are forcing the driver behind you to overtake you, in the outside or overtaking lane, before continuing his journey in the left hand lane." -only f a) he is in the middle lane too and b) he want to go faster than 80. did you readf that bit? You do not have to go long way round. Yes I agree if we are talking about dawdlers.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Family Life17 mins ago
I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture39 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.