Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2014, 12:04 AM

I was driving home from a friends unit tonight at approximately 10:45pm and I saw a Police Mitsubishi Pick up (think it was an L200 - the registration plate was 0U10 BGW or BWL or something like that) turn RIGHT out of BP on London Road, which we all know is a NO RIGHT TURN.

Yet I get told off for parking in a car park peacefully with my friends. I have no respect for police officers when they have no respect for the laws they are supposed to uphold!!

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2014, 08:32 AM

Me neither, nasty vindictive people. That's why Raoul Moat had such a big fan base.

Posted by: Claude Feb 18 2014, 08:57 AM

Does anyone know what the official procedure is for reporting things like this?

What I can't fathom is why so many police cars drive around in poor visibility with their parking lights on, rather than headlights.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2014, 09:42 AM

The police are only interested in speeding offences.
Easy pickings and good revenue.
Other motoring offences seem to be mainly ignored until an accident happens.
The new smoking in cars with children offence makes me laugh.
They cannot seem to even enforce the mobile phone in cars offence so what chance do they have?!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2014, 09:47 AM

A year or so ago I 'tailed' a police car without any lights on despite it being dark. This was from Padworth to Thatcham.

Be careful for what you 'wish for'!

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2014, 10:09 AM

Good point!
I'll keep shtum!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2014, 10:51 AM

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2014, 10:57 AM

They probably didn't see you! #Stealthmode

Unfortunately without a full correct registration plate I would not be able to report it. As much as I would like to. It was night time so I did the wank0r sign at him but doubt he saw it

Posted by: JeffG Feb 18 2014, 11:07 AM

Well, I for one didn't know that. But then I don't use that garage. Is there an official No Right Turn sign at the exit?

I have often turned right coming out of Craven Dene after dropping someone off, which is a similar thing - no sign there.

I see this has turned into another anti-police rant, despite the fact it could have been anyone.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 18 2014, 11:42 AM

If a telematics system is used, the whereabouts of the vehicle will be mapped and logged to a database.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2014, 11:48 AM

There is, and I have been pulled for turning right out of there. Also this thread hasn't turned into an anti police rant, it started that way!

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2014, 12:41 PM

There is a no right turn sign clearly marked on the right hand side of the road.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.403529,-1.305766,3a,75y,310.49h,84.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sq5heFGL4Zc3cmnv8w5nNWA!2e0
Where the "NO ENTRY" sign is on the left - The sign next to it that you can't see is the one which has no right turn on it.

Further down the London Road there is a road, Skylings or something.. no right turn again, clearly displayed. People ignore it. and ignorance is no excuse!

It also makes logical sense as seeing oncoming traffic is very difficult. The roundabout is about 75 yards up the road. Pure laziness.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2014, 01:26 PM

But it wasn't; it was the old bill and they should set an example.

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2014, 02:07 PM

It's OK, his observational skills (by not seeing the no-right turn sign) are clear when he can't even notice where I wrote it was a marked police pick up haha

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 18 2014, 06:04 PM

Whilst it is a bit stupid to turn across the A4 from the BP garage especially as there is a roundabout a few feet away, are we sure that the sign is legally enforceable. I know it looks like it is but that doesn't make it so.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 18 2014, 06:47 PM

If that's a go at me - I'd be hard pressed to see the no-right turn sign if I've never been there. I did see what you wrote - the usual poster kicked off in the first reply.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 18 2014, 07:44 PM

I'd be interested to know who pulled you, what for and did you get a ticket or just advice about your driving.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 18 2014, 08:08 PM

I don't believe a word.


...err yeah right... I take it that 'big fan base' you refer to would include pissartists like wor Gazza.... or are you one of the Facebook muppets that push 'like' at any random crap...


It's on private land and is not enforceable. It provides sound advice to motorists and encourages the majority to turn left and use the roundabout but you can't be prosecuted for ignoring it. It has no more meaning than the 'No Entry' signs in the retail park - and I often ignore them as the layout is so daft.... I turn left out of the BP garage anyway but if a police officer tried to enforce he'd be onto a loser if he tried to issue a ticket.


You're referring to Martingale Chase. Ignore this one and you CAN be prosecuted as it's public highway and there will be a traffic order to back it up - which could be used in Court if you decided to fight the charge.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2014, 09:10 PM

Alright 5punk monkey, I'll tell the forum, I got pulled over by the police as I pulled right out of there and it is legally enforceable. I wasn't ticketed, they simply told me not to do it again. It is a private bit of land with public access which means it's a public highway, just as much as martingale chase. If you want to come on and spout the law perhaps you could use the internet to check a few things first next time? Muppet. As for the Raoul Moat thing, I didn't say I liked any of the pages, or him, but it was a huge concern at the time as to how many fan pages had sprung up, and I believe Facebook itself was investigated over these.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2014, 09:13 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295141/Siobhan-ODowd-set-Raoul-Moat-Facebook-tribute-site.html

This is a DM story about one of the tribute pages

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2014, 09:23 PM

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/the-road-user-and-the-law

Linky thing about public access roads

Posted by: nerc Feb 18 2014, 09:29 PM

The No Right Turn from the BP garage is no legal as previously stated as it is private land.
I was stopped not long ago for turning right from the garage and challenged it and was told by pc plod just to be careful in future.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 18 2014, 10:05 PM

Perhaps the copper who pulled you over was as ignorant of traffic law as you are? Just a thought... I can assure you though, it's not 'legally enforceable' and you're talking dribble....

Businesses are quite entitled to stick signs up on their land to encourage drivers to turn right and it may even be a condition of planning approval, but it doesn't make it against the law if you ignored it and turned right anyway. Ill-advised maybe, but not illegal. Looking on the google link the signs are about 2 foot off the ground and so as well as being there for show they can't be seen easily.

Signs like 'No right turn' would need the backing of a traffic order and you wouldn't have one for this type of exit from a private business.

Believe it or not, our Boys in Blue aren't all as bright as they like you to think they are. They can tell you off and give some advice, but if they tried any of that "If I see you do that again I'll give you a ticket" nonsense they would find themselves being given a lesson in traffic law by the Force Solicitor before the case was dropped and an apology was having to be issued...


5punk monkey? Really?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2014, 10:35 PM

Are there not white lines down tha A4 at that point, which traffic law says you aren't supposed to cross?

OK, it might not be enforceable, but the signs weren't put there for a joke. Even if (perhaps more so) compliance is voluntary, the Police driver was not setting a good example. I'd call that an action bringing the Force into disrepute.

I must admit, one thing that gets me big time, are drivers ignoring basic traffic rules and conventions in shop Car Parks. Very dangerous, particularly as kids and distracted pedestrians are wandering about.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 19 2014, 12:56 PM

I don't think "law" and "supposed" go together

You are allowed to cross double white lines to get to somewhere on the other side of the road (for example a garage or, if you must, a Little Chef). Looking at Streetview, there is barely a single white line outside the BP garage - no sign of a double.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 19 2014, 01:35 PM

Yes, would agree with that. However, if I wanted to be particularly difficult (which Thames Valleys finest can be) one could argue that doing so in such circumstances is like doing a u turn! I must admit, turning right at that point isn't straightforward. The type of road would make such a manoeuvre unsafe at anytime. It's the sort of thing the boys in Blue lecture school kids about, road safety isn't about keeping the law it's about being safe. However, if you are above the law, I suppose that doesn't count!

Posted by: motormad Feb 19 2014, 01:45 PM

It makes very little difference really
It is just a simple excuse, like the people who drove over the Bridge and then said they did so because it was unenforceable. It's ignorance, pure and simple. It may be a private piece of land but it has public right of way so I do not see any difference.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2014, 02:34 PM

I know I can get extra points for pedantry here, so here goes..... There is no 'public right of way' or 'right of access' into the BP garage (other garages and fuel suppliers are available and the same argument applies). It's 'private land over which the owners allow access'. Subtle but important difference. (You could still be prosecuted for trespass for instance if they closed it off for some reason)

There's another business access onto London Road within viewing distance of the BP garage which could equally have a turning sign at the entrance (which would have the same 'legality'). Opposite The Skylings there's the entrance/exit from D&J Cole Joinery. If you wanted to turn right out of there you'd present no more of/the same problem than at the garage. You'd be turning across two lanes of traffic on the busy A4 and both are on private land.

The difference is that D&J Cole has been there for years and had no planning officers imposing restrictions on them, but the garage would have had to go through current planning application approval when it was rebuilt and that perhaps dictated that an advisory turning sign should go up.

Posted by: newres Feb 19 2014, 05:08 PM

On the other side of the A4, dead opposite the exit to BP there used to be a no right turn sign. I don't think it is there any more.

But the point is that the police believe they are above the law. I recently complained about a police car driving on the wrong side of the road on Newtown Rd, no lights and narrowly missed a head on collision. I gave make, model, time, location and a partial plate. The police refused to investigate because the plate was only partial, even though it ought to be relatively easy to identify the vehicle.

As above, it is easy to see why so many people involved in the recent riots were able to give hatred of the police as their motivation.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2014, 05:55 PM

You mean a formal complaint was rejected, or the person you spoke to (phone/front desk staff) declined? If the latter, I'd complain about that too.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2014, 06:02 PM

I do not think the signs have any element of 'enforceability', but they make sense. A bit like most of the Highway Code - road users who create a problem by not complying with sound advice usually struggle for excuses. So, while the driver likely did not commit an offence by not following the 'advice', but if he/she caused an accident (or even just avoiding action) then there would be the sign to support any case made.

I'd think the information you have would be sufficient to make a complaint if you wanted. However, if you are just miffed, then you have nothing to be miffed about.

As for your friends - the 'others' that cause the grief are the ones to have a go at......

Posted by: newres Feb 19 2014, 06:05 PM

Yes, a formal complaint was rejected. They said that without a full reg they could not investigate. This was from Professional Standards in response to a formal complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.

Posted by: gel Feb 19 2014, 06:23 PM

I was following a Nuclear Constabulary vehicle heading t/wards W Ilsley off the A34, which braked sharply & then turned left onto the Ridgeway Parking area (no signals);
I guess popped out from Harwell/Culham for a sandwich. I did make a complaint at the poor example shown & initially was asked if it I was sure wasn't a TVP vehicle.

When I pointed out it had distinctly different ( logo below), they followed up thoroughly & some action/training was promised for the officer involved

Again I only had a partial plate.

I gather since they operate within 5km of any nuclear sites, not just on the bases themselves.


They are Headquartered at Culham & are heavily armed at all times.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 19 2014, 06:33 PM

That's interesting gel. Never knew of them.
I thought at first you were being amusing with a derogatory description of the vehicle."Unclear"

Heavily armed at all times ? "Death by Cop" takes on a new meaning.
ce

Posted by: Strafin Feb 19 2014, 08:43 PM

So we can get as drunk as we like and do handbrake turns on the forecourt?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 19 2014, 09:12 PM

A shame, as without any investigation you are left dissatisfied. It can be done, as we both know (unless the bits you had were actually wrong with the part index and therefore no vehicle could be identified).

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2014, 09:46 PM

You could bounce naked across the forecourt on a spacehopper while singing the national anthem if you want, but what that or being drunk or pulling donuts has got to do with ignoring a random sign telling you to turn left has got to with anything beats me....


But in answer, if you found someone pi$$ed in your garden or sat in their car on your driveway revving the car to death and causing a fuss you could call the police. Something to do with trespass laws I believe? And I'm sure the garage owners could do the same if you used the forecourt as a rally track....

Posted by: Strafin Feb 19 2014, 09:53 PM

Driving whilst intoxicated is illegal, you are implying that it is ok on BP's forecourt though as it's private ground. I think you have really shown yourself up on this thread, I don't often get personal on this forum but you are either really thick, really ignorant, or just a ****!

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2014, 10:19 PM

a-mazing?
(I've added some of the asterisks I think you missed off in your post. I don't want to get personal but your spelling is atrocious)

....and regarding being thick or ignorant.. methinks Strafin doth protest too much...

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2014, 10:41 PM

You makes oi larf!

Posted by: motormad Feb 20 2014, 12:10 AM

as I do Urbex I am aware of the law of trespass.
It is a civil matter unless loss of earnings/property is proven.
You can trespass, you will be asked to leave and you must do so in the most direct, safe route. You cannot take anything, break anything, eg if you break a window on an abandoned building to get in you could be criminally charged. Other than that they would need to prove you caused a loss of earnings. Which on an abandoned hospital site is not possible to prove.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 20 2014, 11:14 AM

He does indeed.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 20 2014, 11:57 AM

Motormad,

I can confirm what you saw, as I pulled into the garage en route home from a council meeting and witnessed this transgression.

Although the sign may not be legally enforceable it was out there for a very good reason and it is not only foolish for the officer to ignore the sign, but as we can now see from the response it gave a very negative impression of 'them and us'.

My old sergeant told me when I first joined the service that no matter what the time always adhere to the highway code for you can bet that the day that you do not someone will be looking out of a bedroom window, unless you are obviously responding to an emergency.

From the way that the police car drove off west along the A4, I image that the officers had merely collected their chocolate rations.

Do not get me onto uniformed officers apparent belligerent refusal to wear their caps when out of the vehicle..............

Overall, not a good recommendation for Thames Valley Police.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 20 2014, 12:01 PM

What about the taxis that every day turn R out of Cheap Street so as to avoid going up Market Street & then along Bartholomew St to the market place.......

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 20 2014, 12:14 PM

Such comments re chocolate rations are not very 'Councillorly'. Just a chance an officer was responding to something? Or are you of the fraternity that believes Emergency Services vehicles can only be responding to a call or attending to anything if their A/V systems are all on full blast?
And you saw it was a TVP vehicle?
If you are aggrieved then you should submit a complaint. You may even get a more positive response than those that question the actions of Councillors and Councils......


Interesting comment re enforcement of the Cheap Street/Market Street restriction. I wonder if a motorist pulled up for such a transgression would think it a good use of police time?

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 20 2014, 12:42 PM

NWNREADER

I have been a member of this particular fraternity so I have a little insight.

As for being aggrieved, I am not, merely corroborating Motormad's observations and adding a personal perspective.

Whether one is a police officer or for that matter a councillor perceptions of ones actions can make or break ones credibility.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 20 2014, 01:34 PM

As can jumping to conclusions/making public statements that may prove 'regrettable'?

I never knew you were a member of Thames Valley Police.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 20 2014, 05:51 PM

Not really, the forecourt allows public access so you are in fact liable to arrest if you provide, on the forecourt, a breath sample which is over the limit. Your vehicle is also required to comply with the law with tax, mot and insurance.
Doing donuts is another matter but I'm sure that there will be something that will render it an offence.

Posted by: HJD Feb 20 2014, 07:09 PM

I wonder if they belong to the same company as the one that pulled out of a junction right in front of me when I was on my motorbike a while ago, then sped off completely ignoring a 30mph limit area !!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 20 2014, 07:12 PM

I'm not a taxi driver, but I do the same!

Posted by: spartacus Feb 20 2014, 07:59 PM

Why that turn restriction on Cheap Street is still there beats me. Cyclists (slower moving and more vulnerable) can turn right but vehicles can’t? Where's the sense in that?

Visibility in either direction must be well over 50m and traffic volume is generally low, along with traffic speeds. What is the risk and why is it considered necessary to prevent vehicles turning right?

The turning ban was introduced in the days when ALL of Newbury traffic moved along Cheap Street and Market Street. In the 1960’s/70’s (even 80’s perhaps) it may very well have been a pain to get out from that junction, but since the A34 (now the A339) was introduced through the town it took most of that through traffic away. It seems the Council have never bothered to remove the ban despite the reason for it’s introduction no longer being a problem.

..and yeah, I turn right out of there too. Mostly it's in the evening after visiting the cinema or parking in Cheap St and there's hardly another car to be seen - so why is it illegal?

Posted by: motormad Feb 21 2014, 01:12 AM

So what you're saying is that, basically, the same laws of the "road" apply to "private" land that has public access... eg a petrol station forecourt.
I am not so sure that BP is classed as private land either..... like a footpath to someone's house... implied right of access..

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 21 2014, 06:16 AM

It was introduced a lot later than that I am sure.


So we can choose which road regulations to obey or not to obey depending on whether we think they are relevant or not then?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2014, 01:19 PM

Yes we do; the same's for road speed.

Posted by: Claude Feb 21 2014, 02:48 PM

And it would seem the policeman chose to do the same which resulted in this thread being created.

MM- where do you stand on the relevancy point? Do you ever speed / park on double-yellows for 30 seconds / turn right at the Cheap Street junction / change lanes without indicating or carry out any other manoeuvre that goes against the spirit of the highway code?

Posted by: motormad Feb 21 2014, 03:38 PM

I don't turn right at the cheap street junction.

I speed infrequently. But when I do it's not for any period of time, usually late at night or belting down a slip road onto a motorway. Never in built up areas.
I will park on the double yellows outside the cash point at Sainsburys. Nowhere else.

No-ones perfect

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 21 2014, 03:45 PM

Most of the things you mention here are not just "against the spirit of the Highway Code", they are against the law!

Fair enough, just checking because so do I!

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2014, 05:05 PM

It's also down to perception. I wouldn't eat in a Restaurant where I saw the Chef stand outside having a fag. That's not illegal either. Yes, I know they may well do so 'round the back' where I can't see, but as the saying goes, perception is everything.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 21 2014, 06:22 PM

Pretty much yes. If the public have access. But, and I know that you are hoping that this will make your no right turn sign legal, any signs on that land will only have a legal status if they have been the subject of a traffic regulation order. There are signs on the pumps in some fuel stations telling you to not use your mobile. They also are unenforceable in law.

The land around the BP station has an owner. I'm not sure who, but it isn't common land. If the owner decides to close down the station and develop it for some other purpose, he/she/they have a perfect right to do so. They can also, as their right, exclude the public from whatever they chose to put there. It may be some rich dude who wants to have a private garden alongside the A4 close to his favourite pub.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 21 2014, 10:44 PM

Not only Newbury(ish) residents have an issue with this it seems.

Every point made here has been replicated, and more.

http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/?t=5968

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 09:46 AM

Anyone see Police Interceptors?

A properly sorted Polo on air ride was not only referred to as "Golf GTI 180" which doesn't exist but they referred to the suspension as having "comedy shock absorbers" LOL when anyone knows that it's not shock absorbers which dictate ride height.

I'd love for that to have been me as I would have happily gone to court (and won).

The cops spent nearly an hour waiting for the guy to come back to his car - for a well maintained, almost new Polo GTI, an enthusiast owned car, which was taxed and insured, instead of out there actually policing, no doubt there were 20 or so uninsured drivers in the area that passed through in the time they spent waiting........

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 09:55 AM

So, what was the outcome. Did his insurance cover the modifications.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2014, 09:57 AM

It's just entertainment! A modernised version of Romans throwing Christians to the lions. The public love it, so what's the harm? Any criticism is justified with self righteous comments suggesting the 'perp' deserves what they get.

Not convinced that this is a particularly good advert for the Police at all. In the light of their recent problems, makes them look even more bone headed.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 12:23 PM

They let him go with a warning.
Unlike driving in the middle lane modifying a car isn't against the highway code and fineable.

The police are morons when it comes to things like that.

Entertainment or not Mark - the general public buy into it. I already am accused on here of being a boy racer, driving fast/recklessly. The car enthusiasts in general are tarred enough. Plus it is just more fuel for other coppers to start doing the same - and the waste of resource. That's the harm.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 01:05 PM

No, they didn't, they reported him for the offence of driving the car with the road wheels touching the body.

The highway code is an advisory set of instructions and do not constitute a legal entity although it has its basis in law. Trundling along in the left hand lane at lorry speed and weaving in and out of lanes is dangerous. If the motorway is busy then it is better for all if one is driving at the legal limit to remain in the middle lane and only move to the left when there is a clear heading in that lane. The offence would be considered to be careless driving and unless the driving compromises road safety difficult to enforce.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 25 2014, 01:24 PM

Wrong - the left hand lane is the "driving" lane the other two are overtaking lanes.

I believe the offence of lane hogging is to attract penalty points on the license soon if not already - and about time too!

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 01:30 PM

He got no fines and no points.

Think what you like RE the motorway but you can't sit in the middle lane all day!

I drive (probably) more than you do on the motorways. I can happily sit at 70 on the inside lane for long periods at a time. Even when it is busy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23713732

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2014, 01:43 PM

Quite agree, in effect it's Daily Mail Policing, just pick on the punters that look a bit different, or do things that stand out. What gets me is the making thus all loom exciting and bigged up. The trouble is, the Police then think they have to behave like that normally. In reality, they are nothing like that more Rowan Atkinson in Thin Blue Line!

Half the time, as far as the great British public are concerned, it's jealousy that brings out the bile against enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, but enthusiasts are some of the most cautious drivers I know - simply because they don't want to stress their machines. Fair enough!

Real bad drivers are the likes of me, running late and showing off to the client. Lovely newish Ford, but it ain't mine!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 02:30 PM

You followed through to the magistrates court obviously.

No, you miss the point, You cannot sit in the inside lane at 70mph when it's full of lorries doing 56mph. I would actually shift into that nearside lane if I see a clear lane. I cannot understand why people get so puffed up over motorway driving, most regular drivers go about their business safely and it's only the "self important know it all I'm a perfect driver" who get hot under the collar. I agree that drivers doing 55mph should move over and join the lorry traffic and stay there but then they would get tailgated by the big'uns. Serve them right then.
Driving the M4/M25 to East London through the Blackwall tunnel every day both ways for a couple of years would put some hairs on your chest.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 02:42 PM

I know the guy who owns the car..................

No, not when it's full. When is it ever "full". Or is it that you see a lorry 3/4 of a mile away and think "nah".
If by "regular drivers" you mean "morons" then yes, of course you'd be right

It's not self important at all, it's trying to have a relaxing journey and there's an idiot on the middle of the road.

Maybe each lane should have a "minimum" speed....

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 25 2014, 02:44 PM

I don't think anyone on here endorses that idea. Where the argument starts is when the nearside lane is busy and the vehicles are going slower than 70odd.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 02:52 PM

Sensible quote from somebody...

Surely moving left into a 200m gap then moving right again after about 60m (in order to leave the appropriate 2 second, 70m spacing both sides) is far more dangerous, and leads to far more lane changing than sitting in the middle lane at 70. By definition you can't be holding up any law abiding citizens so what is the problem? Why should I make my and other people's life more dangerous to make it easier for others to break the law? Should we leave our houses unlocked so as not to inconvenience burglars?

or

The bigger problem is presented by the outside lane, and there are major problems with outside lane hogs. In my experience, if the middle lane is full, it's because they are actually overtaking the lorries. The inside lane is usually absolutely chock-a-block with freight traffic, which in practice means that staying on the inside lane for any significant length of time is impractical unless you wish to indefinitely be doing 40mph and stuck behind an HGV. It is indeed frustrating when everyone is overtaking you in the middle lane, and I would agree that it is simple good manners to let someone in who might be stuck behind a lorry, but staying in the middle lane to overtake a never-ending convoy of freight traffic is preferable to - and safer than - weaving in and out constantly to avoid it.

Your turn.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 03:01 PM

Haha! I'm far too busy at work to enter into a debate that you and I have had plenty of times already.
I've never found the inside lane to be chockablock with frieght traffic.. but OK

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 03:04 PM

Forum member ?? .

Try the M4 at 8:00 am then.

I'm OK, it's my day off.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 03:11 PM

Facebook.
I've done that plenty of times mate!
A34 is worse to be honest.

Couldn't tell.... not that replying to my posts within about 3 minutes gave any indication whatsoever!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 03:17 PM

Knew you couldn't resist.

The A34 is dual carriageway so middle lane hogging doesn't apply. M40, like a country motorway so a different kettle of fish.

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2014, 03:27 PM

This is not me having a debate, lol. I'm just keeping you entertained.

Posted by: Claude Feb 25 2014, 04:13 PM

This discussion sounds like it has the makings of the next Newts meet - meet at Chieveley Services for a drive up/down the A34 then along the M4 for a junction and back. Shall we say 8am on Monday morning?

It's subjective isn't it, one man's 'it's perfectly safe to pull over to lane 1 having just overtaken HGV X' is another man's 'it's totally unsafe to pull over when I'll have to pull out again to overtake HGV Y shortly'. Sadly it's too grey an area to be right or wrong.

Posted by: Claude Feb 25 2014, 04:19 PM

Your example doesn't quote how fast each vehicle is actually travelling. An indicated 70mph on your car and a legally limited 56mph for both HGVs may in fact be an actual speed differential of just a couple of mph in reality.

Using your distances argument, you may still be able to revert to lane 1 for a whole minute before needing to pull out again if the speeds are so close. Sitting in lane 2 for 60 seconds while not overtaking anything constitutes lane-hogging in my opinion. But as I said, it's all subjective.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 25 2014, 04:53 PM

They weren't my quotes but it sort of said where I stand. Just being a bit lazy. That's it for me though.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 25 2014, 07:16 PM

I think the young guns with their shiny Corsa's or Fiesta's (or whatever the Wheels of Choice are these days for guns) that sit in their cars alongside each other in the Tesco car park most evenings and chat between taking their wheels out for a timed lap of "Down the A339, Burger King roundabout and back" would probably think of themselves as enthusiasts. Cautious they ain't.

Or are you just referring to 'Classic Car Man'?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2014, 07:35 PM

I doubt if these youths would think of themselves as anything other than youths! Interested in cars? About as interested as we were in bikes....!

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 26 2014, 09:13 AM

I disagree.
To me the procedure and discipline is defined perfectly well in the Highway Code.
What some people need to do is to read it occasionally to re-familiarise themselves with it's contents rather than putting it down after passing the test and never touching it again!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2014, 11:25 AM

Where? Would you point me to the section that does this?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 26 2014, 12:23 PM

Rules 264 - 269.
(I know you will argue to the hilt that they are ambiguous, but to me it is perfectly clear from these rules how one should overtake and stay in the correct lane on a motorway).

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2014, 01:03 PM

Well that is the rub: it contains subjective elements; words like 'safely' and 'clear' are not absolutes. When you have this then you have a space for argument and debate.

"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."

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 26 2014, 06:08 PM

Fairly clear then - once you have overtaken, and allowed for a 2 second reaction time distance for the vehicle you have overtaken, pull back into the nearside lane.

No grey area there then!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2014, 06:24 PM

Why 2 seconds, where does it say that? What if it is wet? What if two cars going slower on the inside lane are four seconds apart; should you pull in or continue on in the middle lane?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2014, 06:47 PM

Another example of the rarity of common sense?
It is a judgement call, varying by the circumstances of the moment.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 26 2014, 08:03 PM

If the two cars a four seconds apart the road isn't clear then is it? Obviously in the wet those distances increase!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2014, 08:06 PM

Yes, and this is where the rules become vague; hence my point. I think the HC should be more clear about when one is entitled to 'stay' in the over taking lanes.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 26 2014, 09:18 PM

Clearly, when you are overtaking, but my point is that if I have passed two lorries and there are one or two more that I will need to overtake within a couple of minutes and I am knocking on 70mph and there is not much behind me and anybody who wants to go by can use the third lane then why dodge into the rutted inside lane. My view is that it is simple common sense driving. If MM wants to throw his car from lane to lane then that's up to him. I look ahead, watch my mirrors and drive intuitively.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2014, 11:26 PM

So your desire is 'You must pull in after x seconds'? Or leave the Highway Code as guidance that expects road users to be able to assess a situation and adapt accordingly? Man cannot live by Law alone

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2014, 11:50 PM

No. The argument I was making is that unless you have black and white rules, you have room for debate and argument (as to what is deemed OK). Biker1 feels 'the procedure and discipline is defined perfectly well in the Highway Code' regards motorway driving; I am refuting that notion.

My view is that someone in the middle lane going less than ~70, and with no intention to yield, is a nuisance; however, if the near side lane is busy with a continuous line of sub 70mph traffic, then I see no issue with proceeding indefinitely in the middle lane provided one is going 70 or more (thus continually overtaking).

Posted by: motormad Feb 27 2014, 12:31 AM

I don't throw my car about at all.



I drive like someone who's capable of, I don't know, driving on the motorway in a correct manner?
You have said before many times that you sit in the middle lane, often irregardless of traffic.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 27 2014, 09:57 AM

Because the HC says "Keep to the inside lane except when overtaking".

My view is that correct lane discipline is "common sense driving".

No one is asking you to "throw your car from lane to lane"

So, when you are middle lane hogging and you see a vehicle coming up behind you, you pull over to the inside lane in plenty of time to let them past?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 27 2014, 12:40 PM

My Dad sits in the middle lane a lot "when there's a slip road coming up"!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2014, 01:07 PM

My driving instructor told me that this should be done for 'on-ramps', when I was on driving lessons.

Posted by: motormad Feb 27 2014, 02:21 PM

My Dad sits in the middle lane most of the time.
I don't like going in the car with him

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 27 2014, 04:45 PM

You must have had a poor driving instructor then! Be prepared to move out if there is traffic wishing to join and it is safe - but not move out regardless.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2014, 06:09 PM

It is not always easy to see if there is traffic merging from the left, so it is sometimes prudent to move over in anticipation, but I realise it might not always be appropriate!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 27 2014, 08:28 PM

I had you down as one of the sensible posters on here.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 27 2014, 08:35 PM

Considerate motorists do this when they can, but like many I get annoyed by the to$$ers who think it's their right of way or something when joining from the slip road and assume everybody should just pull across or slow down and create a gap to let them in, with hardly even a look over their shoulder to see if it's ok to join the motorway..

Posted by: Strafin Feb 27 2014, 09:25 PM

I hate that the most!

Posted by: motormad Feb 27 2014, 09:33 PM

That problem is nearly always people who don't actually build up speed to join the motorway. Don't join the motorway doing 50... many times, especially in peak traffic times, entering a motorway slowly or being hesitant is the worst thing you can do.. the amount of people joining the M4 at both Newbury and Reading who trundle on doing 55... piss off..

Posted by: x2lls Feb 27 2014, 09:59 PM

LOL!! is that AFTER the ones that creep up to traffic lights!!

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 28 2014, 09:13 AM

Thank-you.
It's nice to be recognised!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 28 2014, 05:24 PM

What, more than centre lane users.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2014, 11:29 PM

Mmmmmm not sure, I have so much contempt it's difficult to apportion it sometimes!

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2014, 11:29 PM

Now I hate them more. I'm changeable.

Posted by: motormad Mar 1 2014, 03:59 AM

Quite like the lanes on a motorway, really.

It all comes full circle.