The problem with lorries overtaking each other is due to slipstream. When behind another, they will naturally be faster, but as they get about 2 thirds past them, they lose that advantage. The thing is, they all know they're restricted to the same speed limit (56mph I think) yet somehow think they have more in them than the one they're overtaking. What would be good is if they could come up with a system on the limiter that allowed them a 10 second 'boost' allowing them to get past, before dropping back to the normal limit.
I'd say my biggest gripe with motorway driving however is these f**k-wits I encounter on a daily basis who think it's fine to drive along the slip-road to join the motorway at a speed of about 30-40 mph, then wonder why they're finding it hard to find a gap to merge into. Many ocassions I've had cars in front that have done this and actually stopped at the end of the slip-road, as they can't get in. I then have to do the same, which puts me, my passengers and approaching drivers in a potentially life threatening situation and forcing me to enter the hard should and using it as a 'runway' to build my speed up so I can merge safely.
One possible cause to bad motorway driving is that, as learners, we're not allowed on motorways, yet (without any form of training) we're expected to know how to drive on them. I know in this area, this isn't so much of a problem, as they can legally use the A2, but many areas don't have access to major A roads for instructors to take their pupils onto, meaning that when they pass their test and encounter a motorway for the first time, they're doing so with no form of training whatsoever.................
Perhaps it's just me but, irrespective of the offence, giving police or anybody else the power to fine people without trial is totalitarian, an affront to the supposed presumption of innocence until proven guilty and not what I expect to see in a supposed democracy.
However, judging by the orgasms of delight above, I realise I am probably in a minority of one.
That is a total distortion of what has been said.
If you go looking for threats to our "supposed democracy" with your mind already made up then you are going to find them.
It says quite clearly in the reports that members of the public can still opt to go to court and contest the case if they wish.
So you CAN NOT BE FINED WITHOUT TRIAL if you want a trial.
There is NO THREAT to democracy
There is NO THREAT of a totalitarian state.
It is a traffic fine.
The reason you are in a majority of one is everyone else doesn't go looking for signs of state oppression in every single change in the law.
Much more annoying is this guy "Hmm, I'm guessing my lorry is one mile an hour faster than the one in front so I'll overtake" Brmmm, Brmmm "I'm nearly past him and it's only taken half an hour...Wow that's a big queue behind me"
Does HE get fined?
Fined? HE should get shot! Always up a bloody hill too!
Lets face it. Its the only language they understand.
I would also extend the fines to those apologists for middle lane driving (incitement), those meeting to discuss middle lane driving (conspiracy) and those found guilty of looking at images of middle lane driving on their computers (perves).
We have to crack down to defend our way of life. If these people can't even understand the basic laws of this country they should be deported (after they have been shot, obviously).
Imagine you are in an underpowered car that can get to 80+ but accelerates poorly. You can cruise comfortably at 70 but if traffic is reasonably busy and get caught behind a lorry, you don't have the acceleration to get into the middle lane without delaying others. Do you stay in the left lane doing 60 or come out when you can - taking your time to get to 70 and potentially delaying others!!!! Most people will say th eformer as the basic driver is a decent person until he/she gets into a car, then he/she is the best driver in the world and a selfish git!
I am not a middle lane hogger - but as long as they aren't doing a silly speed - I'll just overtake them. Can't see how it is dangerous or impacts on congestion. But things that actually do imapct are ignored.
I do wonder how many such fines will be issued? It's amazing how much comment it has generated on here - I suspect it's a storm in a teacup.
Having said that, the one thing I really don't like is undertaking - if I am in the inside lane and want to overtake the person in the middle lane I pull out to the outside (3rd lane), then back to the inside lane - hopefully they get the hint. The reason, apart from making a point, is that people in the UK don't expect a car on their inside to go past them and if they're not that savvy who knows what they will do when this happens?
I do wonder how many such fines will be issued? It's amazing how much comment it has generated on here - I suspect it's a storm in a teacup.
Having said that, the one thing I really don't like is undertaking - if I am in the inside lane and want to overtake the person in the middle lane I pull out to the outside (3rd lane), then back to the inside lane - hopefully they get the hint. The reason, apart from making a point, is that people in the UK don't expect a car on their inside to go past them and if they're not that savvy who knows what they will do when this happens?
At the very least it has brought the problem out and is being discussed more. Hopefully at least some of those people who don't know that they are driving incorrectly by 'sitting' in lanes other than lane 1, when they could pull in, are now aware of it.
From a few comments on this site and other sites there appear to be a lot of people who are totally unaware that what they are doing is wrong.
I have 'undertaken' but am vary wary of doing it and usually do as you do i.e. make a point of driving from lane 1 to 3 and back to lane 1 in front of the lane hogger.
Perhaps it's just me but, irrespective of the offence, giving police or anybody else the power to fine people without trial is totalitarian, an affront to the supposed presumption of innocence until proven guilty and not what I expect to see in a supposed democracy.
However, judging by the orgasms of delight above, I realise I am probably in a minority of one.
That is a total distortion of what has been said.
If you go looking for threats to our "supposed democracy" with your mind already made up then you are going to find them.
It says quite clearly in the reports that members of the public can still opt to go to court and contest the case if they wish.
So you CAN NOT BE FINED WITHOUT TRIAL if you want a trial.
There is NO THREAT to democracy
There is NO THREAT of a totalitarian state.
It is a traffic fine.
The reason you are in a majority of one is everyone else doesn't go looking for signs of state oppression in every single change in the law.
I just expressed a general opinion of principle and expressed my surprise that more people are not similarly concerned by an erosion of individual rights. Maybe I have more in common with Shami Chakiarbarti (?spelling) than I thought!
As regards not being fined without trial well that might be true in theory but the reality is that many people struggle just to survive financially. As legal aid gets flushed down the toilet they will not be able to fight where fines are draconian and unjust and will just have to swallow them. That is not healthy for society in my humble opinion.
If you want to defend oppression Henry carry on old bean however I do not and will speak where I think it occurs or there is a danger of it occurring.
As regards not being fined without trial well that might be true in theory but the reality is that many people struggle just to survive financially. As legal aid gets flushed down the toilet they will not be able to fight where fines are draconian and unjust and will just have to swallow them. That is not healthy for society in my humble opinion.
These fines fall under something called "strict liability" which is extensively used in motoring offences. Usually in order to convict someone of a criminal offence the prosecution has to demonstrate intent - i.e. that the offender must know they were breaking the law (and/or be reckless to the extent that they would know that they are breaking the law). In the case of motoring offences this would mean proving that the speeding motorist knew that they were exceeding the speed limit, however without proof of intent you cannot have a conviction - all a speeding motorist would need to say was that they thought that they were inside the speed limit and therefore not breaking the law and that would be that. In such cases the courts generally take the view that whether the motorist knew they were breaking the law or not is irrelevant, as long as the evidence exists that they were then they are guilty.
However the motorist still has the option of going to court to dispute the charge. In this case of middle of the road lane hogging there needs to be a specific piece of legislation which allows the police to levy on the spot fines and that would also offer the option of going to court. But...this seems to me to be difficult to prove - defining and proving it will be very difficult.
FYI - failure to offer a going to court option would be a direct contravention of the ECHR/HRA and Article 6 ECHR guarantees a right to a free trial*.
But I also know how much you dislike the HRA and ECHR...
* It's also this article that is preventing Abu Qatada from being deported to Jordan (that and the Jordanian's failure to promise that they won't use evidence gained by torture) - but that's another matter.
The problem with lorries overtaking each other is due to slipstream. When behind another, they will naturally be faster, but as they get about 2 thirds past them, they lose that advantage. The thing is, they all know they're restricted to the same speed limit (56mph I think) yet somehow think they have more in them than the one they're overtaking. What would be good is if they could come up with a system on the limiter that allowed them a 10 second 'boost' allowing them to get past, before dropping back to the normal limit.
I'd say my biggest gripe with motorway driving however is these f**k-wits I encounter on a daily basis who think it's fine to drive along the slip-road to join the motorway at a speed of about 30-40 mph, then wonder why they're finding it hard to find a gap to merge into. Many ocassions I've had cars in front that have done this and actually stopped at the end of the slip-road, as they can't get in. I then have to do the same, which puts me, my passengers and approaching drivers in a potentially life threatening situation and forcing me to enter the hard should and using it as a 'runway' to build my speed up so I can merge safely.
One possible cause to bad motorway driving is that, as learners, we're not allowed on motorways, yet (without any form of training) we're expected to know how to drive on them. I know in this area, this isn't so much of a problem, as they can legally use the A2, but many areas don't have access to major A roads for instructors to take their pupils onto, meaning that when they pass their test and encounter a motorway for the first time, they're doing so with no form of training whatsoever.................
Make pass plus compulsory. Don't know why it isnt already. I learnt fairly late on in life (as a youth I just drove without a licence having been taught by my dad on a disused airfield) and am very glad I did the PP as it taught me what you need to do. It's actually quite a tricky skill, joining a busy motorway at 70mph.
Comments
I'd say my biggest gripe with motorway driving however is these f**k-wits I encounter on a daily basis who think it's fine to drive along the slip-road to join the motorway at a speed of about 30-40 mph, then wonder why they're finding it hard to find a gap to merge into. Many ocassions I've had cars in front that have done this and actually stopped at the end of the slip-road, as they can't get in. I then have to do the same, which puts me, my passengers and approaching drivers in a potentially life threatening situation and forcing me to enter the hard should and using it as a 'runway' to build my speed up so I can merge safely.
One possible cause to bad motorway driving is that, as learners, we're not allowed on motorways, yet (without any form of training) we're expected to know how to drive on them. I know in this area, this isn't so much of a problem, as they can legally use the A2, but many areas don't have access to major A roads for instructors to take their pupils onto, meaning that when they pass their test and encounter a motorway for the first time, they're doing so with no form of training whatsoever.................
If you go looking for threats to our "supposed democracy" with your mind already made up then you are going to find them.
It says quite clearly in the reports that members of the public can still opt to go to court and contest the case if they wish.
So you CAN NOT BE FINED WITHOUT TRIAL if you want a trial.
There is NO THREAT to democracy
There is NO THREAT of a totalitarian state.
It is a traffic fine.
The reason you are in a majority of one is everyone else doesn't go looking for signs of state oppression in every single change in the law.
I would also extend the fines to those apologists for middle lane driving (incitement), those meeting to discuss middle lane driving (conspiracy) and those found guilty of looking at images of middle lane driving on their computers (perves).
We have to crack down to defend our way of life. If these people can't even understand the basic laws of this country they should be deported (after they have been shot, obviously).
Having said that, the one thing I really don't like is undertaking - if I am in the inside lane and want to overtake the person in the middle lane I pull out to the outside (3rd lane), then back to the inside lane - hopefully they get the hint. The reason, apart from making a point, is that people in the UK don't expect a car on their inside to go past them and if they're not that savvy who knows what they will do when this happens?
From a few comments on this site and other sites there appear to be a lot of people who are totally unaware that what they are doing is wrong.
I have 'undertaken' but am vary wary of doing it and usually do as you do i.e. make a point of driving from lane 1 to 3 and back to lane 1 in front of the lane hogger.
As regards not being fined without trial well that might be true in theory but the reality is that many people struggle just to survive financially. As legal aid gets flushed down the toilet they will not be able to fight where fines are draconian and unjust and will just have to swallow them. That is not healthy for society in my humble opinion.
If you want to defend oppression Henry carry on old bean however I do not and will speak where I think it occurs or there is a danger of it occurring.
Have a nice day!
As regards not being fined without trial well that might be true in theory but the reality is that many people struggle just to survive financially. As legal aid gets flushed down the toilet they will not be able to fight where fines are draconian and unjust and will just have to swallow them. That is not healthy for society in my humble opinion.
These fines fall under something called "strict liability" which is extensively used in motoring offences. Usually in order to convict someone of a criminal offence the prosecution has to demonstrate intent - i.e. that the offender must know they were breaking the law (and/or be reckless to the extent that they would know that they are breaking the law). In the case of motoring offences this would mean proving that the speeding motorist knew that they were exceeding the speed limit, however without proof of intent you cannot have a conviction - all a speeding motorist would need to say was that they thought that they were inside the speed limit and therefore not breaking the law and that would be that. In such cases the courts generally take the view that whether the motorist knew they were breaking the law or not is irrelevant, as long as the evidence exists that they were then they are guilty.
However the motorist still has the option of going to court to dispute the charge. In this case of middle of the road lane hogging there needs to be a specific piece of legislation which allows the police to levy on the spot fines and that would also offer the option of going to court. But...this seems to me to be difficult to prove - defining and proving it will be very difficult.
FYI - failure to offer a going to court option would be a direct contravention of the ECHR/HRA and Article 6 ECHR guarantees a right to a free trial*.
But I also know how much you dislike the HRA and ECHR...
* It's also this article that is preventing Abu Qatada from being deported to Jordan (that and the Jordanian's failure to promise that they won't use evidence gained by torture) - but that's another matter.