How's my Driving

First topic message reminder :

Hi Folks.

Just back from a fortnight 'hols' In the South of England.

Have the rules of motorway driving now changed South of Watford?
Is the slow lane now the fast lane and the fast lane now the slow lane?

Maverick wrote:
After surgery spent most time just doing stretches and with my physio these ones were worked out as best for the knee.

Hamstring stretch
Chair Knee Extensions
Heel Slide Knee Extensions
Knee Flexions.

The exercise's I now do in the gym on after doing the above stretches are:

Wall Slides
Bent Leg raises
Straight leg raises
Abductor Raise
Hamstring Curl
Step Ups
Stationary Bike

All done with light weights but more reps, as this helps strengthen and tone the muscles around the knee to prevent further injury. If you do heavy weights low reps your likely to cause more damage. Above all avoid swimming, as it causes stresses on the muscles to the outside of the knees and prevents them healing properly

Cheers Mav, will get right onto them.

Mercurio, I do drive on motorways a lot and I really dont believe it makes that much difference if people prefer the middle lane. Im not saying everyone should drive in the middle lane, Im saying in my experience the whole middle land hogger argument is overblown, much like the women cant drive argument even though statistically they are in the safest groups.
The other weekend I drove an 750 mile round trip and cant say at any stage the phrase middle lane hogger sprang to mind.
There are speed limits on a motorway so if you want to do 85-90 then its not really your place (by that I mean anyones place) to have a go at how somebody else drives.

I couldn't care less if drivers hog the middle lane, as long as they're looking in their mirrors, and have the common sense to move as and when required.

Motorways are dangerous places, and the two things that annoy me more than anything are when a slow car pull out in to a faster lane, causing another car to brake sharply, and when someone undertakes when it's not simply a result of the flow of traffic. Both of these are far more dangerous than hogging a lane.

In terms of the speed limit, I don't see an issue with people going 80, 90 or even 100, as long as they're bright enough to know when and when not to do it.

Marcus wrote:I couldn't care less if drivers hog the middle lane, as long as they're looking in their mirrors, and have the common sense to move as and when required.

Isn't not having the common sense to move as and when required the very definition of hogging the middle lane?

Maybe our definitions differ.

I view a middle lane hogger as someone whose default setting is to drive in the middle lane, regardless of whether the road is busy or not. By the sounds of it, you define them as people who steadfastly refuse to move from that lane, regardless of the circumstances. I can't say I've encountered too many of those in my time.

Fast lane hoggers are far worse, and there are more and more of them about these days.

Marcus wrote:Maybe our definitions differ.

I view a middle lane hogger as someone whose default setting is to drive in the middle lane, regardless of whether the road is busy or not. By the sounds of it, you define them as people who steadfastly refuse to move from that lane, regardless of the circumstances. I can't say I've encountered too many of those in my time.

Fast lane hoggers are far worse, and there are more and more of them about these days.

Don't mean to disagree with you Marcus, and I must be thick because I can't see the difference in your two scenarios. Let's just agree that lanes two and above are overtaking lanes?

Diggers wrote:Mercurio, I do drive on motorways a lot and I really dont believe it makes that much difference if people prefer the middle lane. Im not saying everyone should drive in the middle lane, Im saying in my experience the whole middle land hogger argument is overblown, much like the women cant drive argument even though statistically they are in the safest groups.
The other weekend I drove an 750 mile round trip and cant say at any stage the phrase middle lane hogger sprang to mind.
There are speed limits on a motorway so if you want to do 85-90 then its not really your place (by that I mean anyones place) to have a go at how somebody else drives.

Simply put, if people didn't experience it, they wouldn't comment on.

super_realist wrote:A man should never drive a TT, strictly a ladies car, especially in white.

I ordered a brand new Golf GT TDI in white in 2008. White wasn't an option on that model at the time but I requested it because it was available on the GTI model. The salesman tried to talk me out of it but I insisted. It looked fantastic!

Either VW have now made it a stock colour or loads of people in the Bournemouth saw it and copied it because there are loads around now.

Fortunately, I got rid of mine

I am happy to concur with you on that point.

Sometimes the hard shoulder comes in handy for overtaking too.

If the inside lane is busy and you are generally going faster than the traffic in that lane I dont see the middle lane as purely for overtaking. Id much rather a decent flow at varying speeds in both lanes than a constant overtaking scenario of traffic weaving in and out.

Middle lane hoggers should have their licences revoked and made to use public transport. They cause congestion and they are also the root cause of accidents.

Pity the police don't pull them over and explain the error of their ways.

Diggers wrote:If the inside lane is busy and you are generally going faster than the traffic in that lane I dont see the middle lane as purely for overtaking. Id much rather a decent flow at varying speeds in both lanes than a constant overtaking scenario of traffic weaving in and out.

I agree with that - if the inside lane is busy.

After overtaking, your default thought should be to look to get back into the left lane. If there's a heavy stream of traffic in the left lane and you're going quicker than it, then it's acceptable to stay in the middle lane until such time as the left lane clears a bit.

It is not OK, as I encountered three times last week, to stay in the middle lane when there is not heavy traffic, as supported by the Highway Code.

drive4show wrote:

super_realist wrote:A man should never drive a TT, strictly a ladies car, especially in white.

I ordered a brand new Golf GT TDI in white in 2008. White wasn't an option on that model at the time but I requested it because it was available on the GTI model. The salesman tried to talk me out of it but I insisted. It looked fantastic!

Either VW have now made it a stock colour or loads of people in the Bournemouth saw it and copied it because there are loads around now.

Fortunately, I got rid of mine

You're far too young to be cruising around in Bournmouth. Did you have your Neil Diamond CD turned up to 11?

Such a trendsetter. I am jealous.

Diggers wrote:If the inside lane is busy and you are generally going faster than the traffic in that lane I dont see the middle lane as purely for overtaking. Id much rather a decent flow at varying speeds in both lanes than a constant overtaking scenario of traffic weaving in and out.

The Highway code is quite specific:

The Highway Code General rules (159-161)159
160
Once moving you should

keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road

Looks pretty clear cut to me!

Marcus

I Thought I made this quite clear last night on another thread.....

Barry Manilow is the future!!!

Diggers wrote:If the inside lane is busy and you are generally going faster than the traffic in that lane I dont see the middle lane as purely for overtaking. Id much rather a decent flow at varying speeds in both lanes than a constant overtaking scenario of traffic weaving in and out.

As has been pointed out, if the inside lane is busy, and you are going faster, then you are overtaking. But your second sentence intrigues me; I am genuinely interested as to why you think it's better to stay in the middle lane than pull back to the left when able to do so? Is it better for you because you don't have to move, better for the overall flow of traffic in your perception, better for the environment?

drive4show wrote:

Diggers wrote:If the inside lane is busy and you are generally going faster than the traffic in that lane I dont see the middle lane as purely for overtaking. Id much rather a decent flow at varying speeds in both lanes than a constant overtaking scenario of traffic weaving in and out.

The Highway code is quite specific:

The Highway Code General rules (159-161)159
160
Once moving you should

keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road

Looks pretty clear cut to me!

It's even clearer than that D4S:

Lane discipline

238. You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes. Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you. 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 signs.
Laws MT(E&W)R reg 5 & MT(S)R reg 4

Ok, take the anoraks off.

Marcus wrote:Ok, take the anoraks off.

The response of a defeated man.

Cheers Merc, I think the expression is crystal clear

The highway code is also pretty clear about the speed limits. Yet nobody sees it as an issue to break that element of the Highway Code or even question it.
Smithers Ive already answered that question at least twice, I think constant and often unecessary covertaking between lanes causes more accidents than middle lane hogging.

I commute everyday on a combination of 3 lane motorway which narrows into dual carriageway. It is staggering the number of drivers that sit in the middle lane then carry straight on into what becomes the outside lane of the dual carriageway, totally oblivious to the queue of traffic building up behind them.

Diggers

True about speed limits but it's not your job to enforce them.

Has anyone else ever had the delight of driving on the A2 at rushhour? A few weeks ago I travelled down to Kent, and got stuck behind a lorry on the outside lane of the dual carriageway section. It took 20 minutes, and 17 miles to pass another lorry. Madness.

drive4show wrote:Diggers

True about speed limits but it's not your job to enforce them.

No, bit its a perfectly valid point to make as to how people choose to quote the highway code when it suits them. If you dont follow the code to the letter of the law you are on thin ice when using it in your defence in a particular instance.

Diggers wrote:

drive4show wrote:Diggers

True about speed limits but it's not your job to enforce them.

No, bit its a perfectly valid point to make as to how people choose to quote the highway code when it suits them. If you dont follow the code to the letter of the law you are on thin ice when using it in your defence in a particular instance.

I've not seen anyone saying going over the speed-limit is the correct way to drive.

My first post that you didnt like talked about a scenario of driving at 70-75 in the middle lane. Clearly to overtake a car doing that speed you will be breaking the speed limit.
This is a quote from Smithers hilarious post -
"If someone wants to do 77 they've still got the outside lane, and the 15 drivers behind them who want to do 80 can just wait. "
Seems fairly clear to me that he feels driving at 80 mph is OK. As it goes I dont disagree with that and the law may well change but as it stands driving at 80 mph (or indeed 75mph in the middle lane) is against the highway code.
The vast majority of people IMO and in my experience who ""hog" the middle lane will still be doing 70 so to overtake them any other driver will also be breaking the highway code.

Diggers, I don't see anything wrong with speeding (within reason), It's not dangerous, it's only inappropriate speeding which is dangerous.

It's pretty certain that everyone who drives, breaks the law every time they drive by exceeding speed limits, even for a second or two.

super_realist wrote:Diggers, I don't see anything wrong with speeding (within reason), It's not dangerous, it's only inappropriate speeding which is dangerous.

It's pretty certain that everyone who drives, breaks the law every time they drive by exceeding speed limits, even for a second or two.

A lot of people would disagree with you on that statement Super. One thing is clear though, the faster the speed when an accident happens the more chance there is of serious injury or death and the faster a driver is going the less time they have to respond to an incident.

Has anyone else noticed the advert banner that pops up at the top of this thread for driving lessons??

It's a sign I tell you!!

Diggers wrote:

drive4show wrote:Diggers

True about speed limits but it's not your job to enforce them.

No, bit its a perfectly valid point to make as to how people choose to quote the highway code when it suits them. If you dont follow the code to the letter of the law you are on thin ice when using it in your defence in a particular instance.

I'm a terrible driver, I rarely if ever obey the speed limit on a motorway and I'm the sort of confident, perhaps even arrogant driver that most people hate. But my speeding doesn't prevent other road users from using the road as they wish to. I'm bad, but I'm at least considerate in my bad driving, and I'm constantly aware of what other cars are doing since my own driving is too erratic for me to expect anyone else to be able to predict my next move. I don't think it's much to ask to take up as little space as possible on the road and keep out of the way of others as much as possible.

I've not seen anyone saying going over the speed-limit is the correct way to drive.

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Diggers, I don't see anything wrong with speeding (within reason), It's not dangerous, it's only inappropriate speeding which is dangerous.

It's pretty certain that everyone who drives, breaks the law every time they drive by exceeding speed limits, even for a second or two.

A lot of people would disagree with you on that statement Super. One thing is clear though, the faster the speed when an accident happens the more chance there is of serious injury or death and the faster a driver is going the less time they have to respond to an incident.

Accidents are in the main caused by bad driving, lack of awareness, poor anticipation, lack of patience and a whole load of other reasons. Speed is seldom the cause of accidents.

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:Diggers, I don't see anything wrong with speeding (within reason), It's not dangerous, it's only inappropriate speeding which is dangerous.

It's pretty certain that everyone who drives, breaks the law every time they drive by exceeding speed limits, even for a second or two.

A lot of people would disagree with you on that statement Super. One thing is clear though, the faster the speed when an accident happens the more chance there is of serious injury or death and the faster a driver is going the less time they have to respond to an incident.

True, but i'm talking about context. If for example you are doing 80 on a dry , empty motorway at 2am you are still speeding, but it's not inappropriate speeding, if however you are doing 40 past a primary school at 3:30 pm then it is inappropriate and should be treated much more harshly.

Anyway, most accidents aren't speed related, they are a result of driver error.

Speed may not be the cause but if you drive faster all the variables mentioned are more likely to happen.

Not necessarily Diggers,
someone driving up the motorway at 30mph is more likely to cause an accident than someone travelling at 71mph.

Speed camera's in most places don't actually reduce accidents, because most accidents are not speed related.

Diggers wrote:

drive4show wrote:Diggers

True about speed limits but it's not your job to enforce them.

No, bit its a perfectly valid point to make as to how people choose to quote the highway code when it suits them. If you dont follow the code to the letter of the law you are on thin ice when using it in your defence in a particular instance.

The point is that people sat in the middle lane aren't just being a nuisance for speeding drivers. They force speeding drivers to either a) slow down rapidly or b) pull out to overtake, which in turn makes the motorway more dangerous for people driving sensibly at 70. You could say that it's the fault of the speeding drivers, but if other people were more sensible and got out of their way rather than sitting in the middle of the road, it wouldn't be an issue.

Driving at 30 on a motorway in normal conditions is I think an offence, just as driving at 80 is.
If you have a set number of accidents that happen at 70mph, say 100 a year, you may well carry on only having a 100 accidents if the speed limit was at 90 mph (personally I think there would be more but for arguments sake lets agree it stays the same) but there will be more casualties/fatalities because the impacts will be at a greater speed.

Germany has fewer accidents but has unlimited speed on certain sections of autobahn, however the severity of accidents in Germany naturally tends to be more severe, but it doesn't follow that speed leads to more accidents.

So you think more severe accidents are a good thing ?

No, there are fewer accidents, but those that do occur are often more severe that occur at lower speeds.

Do I think having accidents that are more severe are a good thing? No of course not, but it doesn't mean that it was the speed that caused the accident. That's all i'm saying.

drive4show wrote:I'm just back from the States, if you think our driving is bad.......

I think drivers around the states are far more sedate than the English counterparts... Unless you were driving in New York city in which case all bets are off.

I actually get the impression when driving that motorways are about as safe as it gets.... certainly they feel like there's far less risk of an accident than city centres or 2 lane country roads. Dunno if the stats back that up.

Ned, they do, long straight roads with people doing a largely uniform speed are inherently safer than lots of cars on narrow, twisty roads where there is always the danger of a child running into the road.

Most accidents are in towns and B-roads.

super_realist wrote:Ned, they do, long straight roads with people doing a largely uniform speed are inherently safer than lots of cars on narrow, twisty roads where there is always the danger of a child running into the road.

Most accidents are in towns and B-roads.

Yeah, as I thought

As a fairly recently qualified driver (about 18 months) I can't understand why some people are terrified of motorway driving, I find it the easiest form of driving.

NedB-H wrote:

super_realist wrote:Ned, they do, long straight roads with people doing a largely uniform speed are inherently safer than lots of cars on narrow, twisty roads where there is always the danger of a child running into the road.

Most accidents are in towns and B-roads.

Yeah, as I thought

As a fairly recently qualified driver (about 18 months) I can't understand why some people are terrified of motorway driving, I find it the easiest form of driving.

You should be more worried about a 17 year old chav in a sooped up Vauxhall Nova coming at you on the wrong side of the urban road you are on than any motorway.

It may be of interest to golfing tourists that if the Welsh and English parliament decide to up the motorway speed limit to 80 mph Lord Soapy and his cronies will still keep Scotland at 70 mph max.

Another reason to hate the fat b******d

Id be quite happy to trade free university tuition for an 80 mph speed limit.

I used to do quite a lot of driving "and at times still do" but on the motorways would drive at between 80-85 miles an hour and in 20 years I have never been stopped, or booked for speeding, if the speed limit goes up to 80, do not think, it will make me drive any faster, as most experienced drivers, drive at a speed they are comfortable with.