to expect people to stay in the left hand lane unless they're overtaking?

[spiralqueen]

Had several long drives this last week and am getting increasing irritated by the numpties who insist on getting into the middle lane as soon as they get on the motorway (or even worse the outside lane) and resolutely stay there even though it would take them a month of sundays to reach the nearest car in the inside lane let alone overtake it.

Having to go right out to the outside lane and back to the left hand lane time and time again to get past them is such a pain.

Wish I could have an electronic sign I could flash up in my rear window saying "who the feck are you overtaking?" but no doubt it wouldn't make any difference.

grrr

Sot if you're going along at 70 in the inside lane and someone in the middle lane is sitting on 50, you're supposed to move in the fast lane at say 80 in order to get around them?

My reading of the law suggests undertaking in the slow lane is only an offence if you move back into the middle lane afterwards. If you remain in the slow lane, it seems no offene has been committed.

Dem's the rules - daft innit? I think most police forces would be happier for m'ways to have a max speed of 80 - you're guaranteed their attention if you're over 90. I think it was government who said no last time 80 was discussed. Modern cars can do those kind of speeds safely (without the engines falling apart) its just a case of whether the drivers could

i'd be very suprised if that is true but i'll hold my hands up if i stand corrected.
so if the inside lane and midle lane are congested, and the inside lane just happens to be moving 5 mph faster. technically every car on the inside lane would have to move across two lanes to the outside lane and then back across the two lanes for it not to be illegal undertaking? i know that it's an extreme but surely the law has to apply to all situations.
i'm genuinely interested as you seem quite confident you are right, and i'm quite confident i am right, so i'm intrigued as to which one of us is wrong.

although i think the terms we are using are what might be causing confusion. first of all i should not have used the term "legal undertaking" or "illegal undertakin" as i don't think there is an actual law about it. i think it's part of the highway code and constitutes dangerous driving.
secondly what i was describing should not be termed as undertaking, it should be termed as "passing on the left" as you don't change lanes to do it and you don't pull out in front of the car once it is completed.
however when another poster described this someone replied "but you are still undertaking" and i kind of went from there without re-defining the term and what i was trying to describe.

Middle Laning is annoying and yes these people should be educated. Most middle laners are misguided I guess and think that the inside lane is for slow vehicles, the middle for driving and the outside is for overtaking. I don't think they are setting out to make a point to anyone - they are just driving how thy think a motorway should be used.

Some daft person undertaking them is hardly going to make them change their ways - they probably think they are driving safely and will just make comments about the "undertaker" as they zoom past.

Middle laners are a pain BUT undertakers are a danger.

Why on earth would any of you put yours, your family or other roads users at risk when undertaking. Yes pulling to the outside lane to overtake may be an inconvenience - but not bothering to make that lane change surely makes you no better and just as lazy as the middle laner who can't be bothered to change lanes either.

Roads would be so much safer if we ALL took more responsibility for our own actions.

But the people in their middle lane should always check their mirrors before moving to the inside lade just like any lane change on a motorway. A car may of course be travelling at a similar speed in the inside line and so it's exactly the same process as someone moving from the fast lane to the middle lane.

Middle laners don't really bother me. It's the ones who keep pulling in and out that do my head in.

They drive for 30 seconds in the inside lane, then pull out to the middle lane to overtake, then pull to the inside lane again, then 30 seconds later pull out again... i just wanna scream "Stay in the middle lane you knob head!"

I don't mean people who stay in the inside lane for a mile then pull out to overtake and move back to the inside lane again for another mile. I mean the ones who are in, out, in, out, constantly.

Then there are those who don't pull out the the empty middle lane when coming up to an on bound slip way with cars coming onto the carraigeway. They just sit on the inside lane and let all the cars back up trying to enter onto the carraigeway because they won't move over

But you should only be in anything other than the inside lane unless you are actually overtaking. Aggree though that you should pull over to let cars from the slip road join.

MQ my reading of you two out three lanes being congested is why aren't the numpties in the middle lane using the outside lane to overtake past the middle lane chappie?! My interpretation was based on yes, if circumstances dictate that the other lane/s are queuing then yes, the law says carry on as you were. If however there's only one middle lane sitter going at 60 (for example, and remember that 70 is the max, not the dictated speed) then you should really be pulling round him/her. Otherwise we'd be overtaking on any side all the time based on the idea that we couldn't possibly change lanes....

I'm intrigued what 'undertakers' for want of a better word, do when the motorway is 4 lanes wide as it is on some parts of the M1 and the proverbial middle laner is in the lane next to the outside lane but they happen to be in the far inside?

I suspect some people might be Middle Laners as they don't like shifting lanes at the approach of junctions and they prefer to stick in one lane which indicates perhaps better (or even some) motorway training to give them confidence would be in order.

but BTB the lane-changers are in the right - you should only pull right to overtake, then when you have completed your maneuvre you should move back to the left.

I can't see why it would bother you that someone changes lanes - if they are doing it safely then it's their business, isn't it?

Whereas someone who hogs the middle lane is forcing everyone else to move over a lane to the right to overtake them, which is how you get those ridiculous situations where the left hand lane is completely empty and the middle and right lane are congested - all because of some plonker sitting there going "I'm doing 69 miles per hour and that's good enough for anyone, if they want to pass me they are breaking the law so I won't pull over, me"

I agree you should pull over to let cars enter though - but there you are effectively overtaking the entering car anyway.

But surely if you can see that you will be overtaking 30 seconds later, it would be more wise to stay in the middle lane and overtake rather than pulling in and out, in and out constantly.

When i learnt to drive 6 years ago, my instructor taught me to pull over to the next lane (if possible) when you are coming up to an on bound slip with cars entering the carraigeway. I don't think it's in the highway code? But she was teaching me to drive consideratly (ie;letting other drivers enter on to the carraigeway) as well as following the highway code. Plus it's common sense. Why would you selfishly sit there on the inside lane watching all the cars entering on all trying to squeeze in around you and having to slow down to almost stopping?

well it might be less effort for the driver to stay in the middle lane and therefore make more sense - but it doesn't annoy me if they choose to make more work for themselves. The lane changer isn't harming anyone else (as long, as I say, as they do the maneuver safely each time).

Whereas the middle-laner is deliberately inconveniencing everyone else in order to make less work for themselves.

I suspect the people who drive like this are uncomfortable changing lanes on the motorway because they know their driving skills are not up to motorway driving, in which case they really shouldn't be on there. That's the main reason I (almost) never undertake in fact - I feel if someone is oblivious enough to be cruising along in the middle lane ignoring all the cross drivers queuing being them then they are probably oblivious enough to pull left without checking and crash into the undertaker.

But it does make it my business when i am behind someone overtaking too, they pull in to the inside lane, i don't because i can see i will be pulling in and then out again more or less straight away. Then they pull out again right in front of me (you know the one flick of the indicator and pull out stunt without breaking at all) causing me to brake heavily and causing a ripple effect of everyone else breaking behind.

What I am saying is that I think the knob-heads are selfish and aggressive drivers - not just people who drive in a different style to me.

To me, middle-laning is selfish. Changing lanes safely, even if it's more frequently than I would do it, is not, so I don't mind them.

I think the one thing everyone seems to agree on is there's a whole host of drivers out there who quite possibly need (re?)-training. Most hgv drivers think it's all the car drivers who are at fault... I guess it just depends on your perspective.

Yes by the way, to anticipating people pulling onto the motorway

sorry - x-posted.

Well what you are objecting to there is the style in which they change lanes. Which is different.

it would be just as bad if they pulled out without warning once during a long drive really, wouldn't it?

I am not just trying to be difficult but i do find constant lane changers dangerous because they always end up pulling out suddenly in front of me with one lttle flash of the indicator.

By tattifer on Tue 24-Mar-09 12:51:09
I think the one thing everyone seems to agree on is there's a whole host of drivers out there who quite possibly need (re?)-training.

Actually I think the driving license should be a ten-yearly test.

it scares me witless that there are people out there who took their test 50 years ago and have never been assessed since. SOOOO much has changed since then!

"it would be just as bad if they pulled out without warning once during a long drive really, wouldn't it?"

True, but the difference is, they wouldn't have to pull out in front of me if they just used some common sense and thought, i won't pull in just yet because i will be over taking that lorry in 30 seconds.

yes but what I'm saying is that it's not the frequency of lane-changing that's the problem, it's the fact that they are changing lanes inconsiderately. Which is a different problem. What you are objecting to is the fact that they are changing lanes rudely and without warning.

The solution to this is to teach people to change lanes considerately, not to encourage people to ignore the highway code and hog the middle lane just because some people are bad at changing lanes.

A frequent lane-changer is not necessarily a bad lane-changer, and an infrequent lane-changer is not necessarily a good lane-changer. Quite the reverse in fact - as I said before, I think middle-laners usually stick to the middle because they are scared to pull out.

TYV absolutely - the chilling stories of 80 year olds creating havoc driving the wrong way down the dual carriageway

I also find it shocking that there isn't a separate motorway test.

By BackToBasics
"....causing me to brake heavily and causing a ripple effect of everyone else breaking behind. "

The ripple effect is caused because those behind you are travelling too damn close.