75ZT Community

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34933345

Now I have seen cars hogging the middle lane as this one seems to do with no vehicle in the inside lane and an HGV that is not permitted to use the outside lane trying to get past the car.

I disagree. Had that video been shown in evidence in Court the truck driver would be found guilty of dangerous driving.

If there was any evidence to confirm that he deliberately tried to hit the car, which appears to be the case given the limited amount of evidence we can see, then the charge would be attempted murder.

No Paul, I don't think the car driver got what he deserved. I hope the truck driver does though.

I haven't seen it. However no matter what the provocation, its entirely inexcusable to attempt to kill someone using your 30 odd ton vehicle as a weapon. In fact, it's just inexcusable.

I may be able to help for once. Isn't that the driver who owns a Dash-Cam company? There are aspects to this event that indicate the car driver wanted 'footage' to further his business interests via pics uploaded to his website, allegedly. I'm not falsely claiming credit, see thread on pistonheads.

Yes he does own a dash cam company and what a lot of free publicity he has got.

Now my title may have been a little OTT but, from what I understand some HGV drivers have a set time to deliver. Miss the time slot and the load is either turned away or the driver is made to wait for a very long period of time before being unloaded.

Now, I have seen the car drivers, driving slowly in the middle lane - think it is because only sissies use the inside lane - with an HGV trying to get past. As they are not allowed in the outside lane they are stuck and undertaking is against the law.

From the video it seemed to me that the car was hogging the middle lane with an HGV trying to get by and the only way it could was by using the outside lane.

You and my taxes have paid a vast amount of money to increase parts of the M25 to four lanes. Now I have driven round it at times with heavy traffic but flowing well or at times with hardly any traffic and whatever the situation there are cars driving slowly around in the third lane and that causes problems. To be legal is you are in in the inside lane and want to overtake the slow driver in the third lane then you have to cross right over to the fourth lane to overtake. (I did quite some time ago ask how many people had been prosecuted for hogging the outer lanes and Paul did reply with quite a low number).

I agree with you regarding the antics of car drivers who seem to think that they will catch a disease if they use lane one Paul.

The solution of course, is to report them and allow the authorities to take appropriate action, albeit very unlikely to get to Court. Having said that, I have seen prosecutions recently where the Police were sufficiently motivated to act given dash cam evidence of the offender's behaviour although the dash cam footage itself has not been presented to the Bench. I believe that dash cam evidence is starting to be admitted as evidence in Court cases now though and I cautiously welcome that idea.

I wouldn't say your title was OTT. In fact, on some Rover 75 fora these days it would be considered hysterically funny and not at all vindictive or petty-minded This last in no way directed at you my friend

raistlin wrote:The solution of course, is to report them and allow the authorities to take appropriate action, albeit very unlikely to get to Court.

Is it worth trying? It might just be the media making things up but they have reported that one force was only investigating burglaries where houses had even numbers. Others telling people that they will not handle found items and that it is down to the finder to try to find whose item it is.

However, I presume that you are seeing action being taken due to reports by drivers.

As for dash cams I am going to install one with the rear view camera as well. There are more and more idiots out there -especially tail-gaters.

From other media reports, some from authoritative sources – some from typically sensation seeking media sources, it seems the car driver deliberately adopted the role of agent provocateur although the manoeuverings of the lorry were more difficult to explain. It is also suggested that the lorry's owners also use in-cab cameras so the truth might emerge.

However, it’s plain that work schedules have no compelling relevance here, road safety and traffic law will prevail whatever pressure employers might try to place on employees. Apparently, so I am told, ‘undertaking’ on lane 1 is no longer illegal (since 1972!), certainly in the case of emergencies/traffic density or signage displays on gantrys.

In this particular case the car driver called the emergency number three times and the police failed to respond! One observation might be that if the car driver had the time to call the police three times while the incident was happening: the incident took rather a long time – giving him adequate time to avoid any problem – and, significantly, he broke the law by using his phone whilst in control of his car! This apparent choice of priority might just give cause to consider his motives and mind set at the time. And the likelihood of a prosecution for the phone use. What a twit!
If, of course, the media reports are to be believed. In any event it has been alleged that 'footage' immediately preceding the event had been deleted from the camera prior to loading on to social media. Again, what a twit! So, maybe the OP title was wholly accurate!

Mm, interesting. Apparently, the Highway Code states:

From Highway Code - 268 (2015)
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.

and from my viewing of the clip the motorway was not congested and the car driver was hogging the middle lane - he could have used hands free phone.

But elsewhere on the web, which mentions 1972 but the Highway Code rules above are still current:

Having spent many years booking people for bad driving on the Motorway, and now advising on liability and traffic law after an accident in a civillian capacity, to answer the original point, there is absolutely nothing in law to prevent someone undertaking if lane 2 or 3 is being hogged.

Contrary to popular belief and what many of these fly on the wall TV programmes would have you believe, there is no specific offence of nearside overtake, in fact it was removed from the statute books when the 1972 Road traffic Act was introduced.

In its place is the section 3 offence of careless driving, but to secure a conviction for the offence the prosecution have to prove that the stanndard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. The simple act of a nearside overtake would not be sufficient, but if the undertaking vehicle then weaves from lane to lane, then that would be a different matter.

As far as hogging lanes 2 or 3 are concerned, the law states that the left hand lane is the driving lane and lanes 2 and 3 (or 4 where applicable) are simply overtaking lanes, and unless slower moving vehicles are being passed, then the driver should return to the nearside lane when it is practicable and convenient to do so, despite the fact that many drivers would still have you believe that we have slow, fast and overtaking lanes.

So the issue really arises when there is a clear open stretch of road or where the driver is clearly not gaining on a behicle ahead in lane 1 and the driver chooses to sit in the middle or outside lane.

In this case, then the other part of the section 3 offence comes into play, "Driving without reasonable consideration for other road users" which is just another sub section of careless driving but carries the same penalty.

It used to be common place to report such drivers, especially when we had full time Motorway patrols, but things are somewhat different these days, well in my old force anyway.

In regards to civil claims, the courts are now starting to realise that the nearside overtake is not illegal and finding in favour of the driver who nipped passed on the nearside and got clobbered because of the numpty who sat in the middle lane and then decided to go back to lane 1 without first checking.

I have dealt with about 6 or 7 of these in the past 12 months and won every one (or at least my colleagues have in respect of the civil personal injury cases) and the middle lane hogger has been held 100% liable. The hogger has a statutory duty of care not only to drive in the correct lane, but also ensure it is safe to return back to the nearside lane before he commences changing position.

This type of accident is most common amongst motorcyclists, and whilst every case has to be judged according to the evidence, I have had many where the defendant third party has immediately quoted Powell v Moody (1966) and backed it up with "Of course undertaking is an illegal manouevre" and then get very embarrassed when I go back and ask them to quote act and section for the undertake and counteract Powell v Moody with Davis v Schrogins (2006)

Thanks for that, good to have the chapter and verse, very educational.
It looks as though, if all the reported info is true, the car driver's business will not be getting the boost hoped for, more a backfire. And, usual 'ifs and buts' pertaining, if the lorry driver can be seen to have adversely reacted and taken aggressive action, he too will have his collar felt. The degree of animosity and belligerence from people who should know better, not just on the roads but in many walks of life, is a retrograde step. Why is there always an automatic assumption of challenge?

The only way I disagree with OP's subject, is the car driver did not get what he deserved whatsoever.
To me that video and the comments stink. By not prosecuting that car driver, the law is condoning such driving. So the HGV driver lost his job, I am not condoning what the HGV driver did, he should get what is coming to him, but for the truth, and the whole truth. So should the car driver. A few grand insurance claim reward is what the driver gets for doing what he did.. The evidence on the drivers own video shows the HGV in the nearside lane was also travelling faster than the car in lane 2.

"My life literally rushed before my eyes"
"I can honestly say I have never felt fear like it".
"I honestly thought I was going to die.

As for the 999 operator talking to someone on the phone whose life was rushing before his eyes, actually said he was shaken up/shaking and driving on the motorway while making the phone call, (six phone calls made hands free... like that is possible) the comment by the operator was "superb" WHAT!!!. Superb... really....

I would like to see the whole uncut video, instead of the edited version given to news stations.

As for the police after seeing that video, saying they should have alerted other forces, instead of arresting the car driver is beyond my understanding

I have to praise the system for all the cars that are going to be sitting in lane 2 at 40mph waiting for their injury claim if anyone goes near them. As if it is not bad enough already,

Spot the difference time, no prizes though.(ignore the HGV encroaching to get him to move out the way) With my motorcyclist for 40 years eyes like a hawk, I spotted it on the video straight away,
Still from video at 7 seconds


Still from video at 12 seconds






Did not swear once Mick.

This whole incident is about a possibly biased and edited and unverified video clip supplied by an interested party who was conspicuously involved in the incident. In any other circumstances it would encounter difficulty in passing any standards of credibility (at least as it was presented). It would be good to see any dash-cam evidence from the lorry to corroborate/challenge what has been alleged and, of course, there will also be the tachograph evidence to consider. So, the mystery continues.

There is however another and related aspect to this which provokes thought. There seems to be varying opinions about what is a ‘safe’ or comfortable speed at which to travel on motorways. The national speed limit is a ‘maximum’ rather than a target and then there is the Highway Code’s mention of undue hesitation or failure to make adequate progress. Prosecutions under these Acts have been successful but I wonder if they are brought out of guesswork, arbitrarily, or speculation. Is there a minimum speed limit or not? The ‘reasonableness’ test would be one thing for one driver and maybe quite another thing for another driver. Are we saying that drivers who might want to drive leisurely and within prescribed limits should be banned from motorways? By that reasoning car drivers would presumably be required to drive at the following lorry’s upper limit (60?) to avoid prosecution. A recipe for disaster. Again, the aggression and belligerence are a poor substitute for patience and manners.

Fine if car drivers want to drive at 60 or even 50 but they should as all drivers should drive in the inside lane unless overtaking.

Watched one of those police things on the TV the other night. The officer said I was driving at 80 to keep the traffic flowing (ever noticed how some people will not overtake a police car when it is doing less than the maximum) when he was overtaken by a woman doing 90. She got pulled over and her excuse was that she drove past so that her little boy could wave at the policeman. However, as she did not have a licence she lost her car.

As for the upper limit for HGVs thankfully a number exceed it.The A16 in Lincolnshire has been improved in recent years and follows a new route. It is a red route due to the number of accidents. It is heavily used by HGVs taking the vegetables produced in Lincolnshire all over the country and the main distribution depots are on the A16. So what sort of road did the DoT provide? A single carriageway road with a single lane each way that has various bends in it. If an HGV was travelling at the then maximum of 40mph then very long tailbacks were the norm with the inevitable risky overtake and collision. Some HGVs are driven at 60 that prevents the tailbacks and still reduced tailbacks when driven at the new maximum 50mph. Yes, a dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction would have been a lot safer albeit costing more.

Wow! That's an exciting thought! Our HGV continental cousins exceeding their limits to avoid tailbacks! Novel!
Seriously, if a car in lane 1 is being driven at, say, 60, and a HGV wants to overtake, he exceeds his permitted maximum by a hefty margin and overtakes in lane 2? Doesn't it matter that his Tachograph is evidence of a contravention? Maybe my conservatism (small 'c') is out of date, wouldn't be the only occasion but it's worrying.

Aren't continental HGVs speed restricted then?

I thought they were, but wondered if the restriction was other than mechanical/electrical? If the power was restricted, wouldn't that be risky (say, in emergencies)?

Ref the truck speed limits... Used to be single carriageway 40, dual carriageway 50, motorway 60. Now it's single carriageway 50, motorway 60 (not sure about the middle one). However, for at least 10, possibly more years, there's been speed limiters, which top them out at 56mph, effectively making the motorway top speed redundant. Pretty sure this applies to any EU wagons too - as it was Europe wide before being applied in the UK. The limiters do restrict power. We had these on vans at work before I retired (only 3.5 tonnes) and it was risky, as a driver could be part way through an overtaking manoeuvre, and suddenly "hit a brick wall" (power-wise). Yes, they should have been driving within their limit, but it's always good to have a little power/speed in hand, so you can whizz past something, then pull back in and drop speed once safely round....

Ref speed limiters or governors. So easy to override some of them, its untrue, if you have access to the right kit.

You're probably right there! As I was working for the NHS though, much as we hated the limiters, no way was that going to happen!

Jumper wrote:Wow! That's an exciting thought! Our HGV continental cousins exceeding their limits to avoid tailbacks! Novel!
Seriously, if a car in lane 1 is being driven at, say, 60, and a HGV wants to overtake, he exceeds his permitted maximum by a hefty margin and overtakes in lane 2? Doesn't it matter that his Tachograph is evidence of a contravention? Maybe my conservatism (small 'c') is out of date, wouldn't be the only occasion but it's worrying.

If your comment was about my posting then nothing to do with Continental drivers - companies like Fresh-Lincs etc operate out of Spalding and they are UK HGVs travelling over the UK. If you want fun try the A16 behind a slow moving HGV that you follow for miles and miles. Overtake....no, because there is a slow moving HGV coming the other way with its own tailback.