The Middle Lane Militia

[Alex_225]

Well, we all know the Middle Lane Hoggers the once who mindlessly drift along in the middle lane for mile upon mile without even considering going back into lane one. To the extent that you can be prosecuted for doing so, good times.

I think many of us will have experienced this frustration but it seems there is another group of middle lane mentalists, The Milddle Lane Militia.

These are the people who's job it is to Police the middle lane and make sure everyone is adhering to how they think it should be used.

I only do 500 miles motorway driving a month but I've seen a number of people who will not remain in the middle lane for long than a second. So they'll be in lane one for a short time, then use lane two, then lane three then immediately swerve back across the width of the motorway to lane one.....then they'll be back in lane two and they spend their entire motorway time chopping and changing lanes. I appreciate not sitting in the middle lane all day but changing lanes constantly is not exactly great driving either. It appears as if their soul purpose is to show others how to keep to the left, even if it means leaving lane one every ten seconds. Don't forget though staying in the middle lane for longer than that is hogging it!!

Then the other person I've spotted is the, 'get out of my way' type who knows exactly when every other driver should move back into lane one. Take for example the chap at 6am on the M4 on Saturday. I was doing a steady 70mph passing cars in lane one. I had just passed a car and with another approaching I stayed in the middle lane to pass it but that was not quick enough for Mr van driver who puts his high beam on behind me and keeps it on! He had an empty lane three but no, he wants me to fit into a smaller than necessary gap to facilitate his Policing of the middle lane. Am I wrong for thinking that I'll pass the next car, whilst van drivers uses lane three to pass me, then we all move over to the left accordingly once everyone is past who they want to overtake?! Is that too obvious??

I'm not claiming to be the perfect driver but I have always been of the thinking that if you know you'll be back out into the middle lane to pass another vehicle quite quickly, you're within your rights to stay in that lane until you pass and then move back to lane one. Rather than lane one for 10-20 seconds then back out again. I'm not sure if this is just me that's noticed it and I by no means sit in the middle lane but I will not swerve lane to lane constantly, I plan ahead and keep left.

It just seems that we have middle lane hogger and now people militant about middle lane use who don't seem to quite grasp how to use a motorway safely and that all three lanes can be used when used correctly.

[brrapp]

Alex_225 said:

. Am I wrong for thinking that I'll pass the next car, whilst van drivers uses lane three to pass me, then we all move over to the left accordingly once everyone is past who they want to overtake?! Is that too obvious??

all three lanes can be used when used correctly.

Maybe the van was over 3.5 t or was towing a trailer so couldn't use the third lane? If you're in the middle lane and a car or van is behind you, how do you know from that position if they are towing something and therefore banned from the outside lane?

[Alex_225]

You could be absolutely right, no way to know from him coming up behind me but the speed he approached and the fact that he used lane three a couple of times before he headed off would indicate that he was able to use lane three.

Also, I'm not sure whether that is entirely relevant to the fact that I was doing a steady 70mph and passing cars, nor does it defend putting your high beams on behind someone for no reason other than his own thoughts to push people out of his way. My point is I wasn't hogging the middle lane but this guy decided I should be out of the way.

[otolith]

AKA "driving sarcastically". It may be satisfying, but the MLM won't get the hint.

[Red Devil]

Alex_225 said:

I'm not claiming to be the perfect driver but I have always been of the thinking that if you know you'll be back out into the middle lane to pass another vehicle quite quickly, you're within your rights to stay in that lane until you pass and then move back to lane one. Rather than lane one for 10-20 seconds then back out again. I'm not sure if this is just me that's noticed it and I by no means sit in the middle lane but I will not swerve lane to lane constantly, I plan ahead and keep left.

Are we to equate 10-20 seconds as your definition of 'quite quickly'? If so, please tell the PH readership what time interval you consider to be acceptable before reverting to lane 1. 20 seconds at 70mph is more than one third of a mile (0.39). If you're staying out for that distance when the traffic level is such that you could safely pull back in to lane 1 then maybe you need to have a rethink. If somebody else chooses to exceed the speed limit in lane 2 it doesn't confer on you the right to act as policeman.

As for your use of the word swerving, why the need for hyperbole? Anybody who does that shouldn't be using them as they are an active danger to others.

[M1keH]

The rule of thumb I was always taught on the different advanced courses was to move back to the left-most available lane if you are going to be able to travel in it for 10 seconds or more. As long as any lane changing is smooth and your intentions are clear by signalling where appropriate there should be no issue.

Now, if everyone were to do this.....

[Alex_225]

Red Devil said:

Are we to equate 10-20 seconds as your definition of 'quite quickly'? If so, please tell the PH readership what time interval you consider to be acceptable before reverting to lane 1. 20 seconds at 70mph is more than one third of a mile (0.39). If you're staying out for that distance when the traffic level is such that you could safely pull back in to lane 1 then maybe you need to have a rethink. If somebody else chooses to exceed the speed limit in lane 2 it doesn't confer on you the right to act as policeman.

As for your use of the word swerving, why the need for hyperbole? Anybody who does that shouldn't be using them as they are an active danger to others.

I personally would move back into lane one as soon as I had sufficient space behind me from passing any other vehicles. My point was that 10-20 seconds is not a particularly long time in the scheme of things. In reality I probably plucked that figure from the air and in reality it's 5-10 seconds. Keep in mind that I'm referring to time taken to pass a car and be a sufficient distance ahead before pulling in.

My point is more that with that being a relatively short time in the real world, is 10-20 seconds long enough to then warrant intimidating other drivers into moving? Miles and miles of sitting in lane two, I can understand the frustration but literally seconds different doesn't warrant that in my option.

I suspect that if I'd written my original post from the perspective of someone not moving out of the way quickly enough (albeit moving over) I'd have been berated for not using the entire road and why not just pass and move on with life!

As for my use of the word swerving, it's definition is : change or cause to change direction abruptly.

Swerving dangerously or doing so abruptly, so if pedantry is the order of the day then my use of the term is correct in how I am referring to it. Swerving dangerously is another subject altogether and as you say a danger to others. Some of the manoeuvres I have seen in which someone changes lane quickly, could easily catch other drivers out.

[Garybee]

Alex_225 said:

I personally would move back into lane one as soon as I had sufficient space behind me from passing any other vehicles. My point was that 10-20 seconds is not a particularly long time in the scheme of things. In reality I probably plucked that figure from the air and in reality it's 5-10 seconds. Keep in mind that I'm referring to time taken to pass a car and be a sufficient distance ahead before pulling in.

My point is more that with that being a relatively short time in the real world, is 10-20 seconds long enough to then warrant intimidating other drivers into moving? Miles and miles of sitting in lane two, I can understand the frustration but literally seconds different doesn't warrant that in my option.

I suspect that if I'd written my original post from the perspective of someone not moving out of the way quickly enough (albeit moving over) I'd have been berated for not using the entire road and why not just pass and move on with life!

I'm sure your suspicions are right. Some people on here are so keen to berate the OP that it would be fun to start two threads (with opposing views) a few months apart just to watch them contradict themselves.

As to the OP I don't get why people feel the need to do that either. If I'm lucky enough for the motorway to be that quiet then the 'MLM' does me no harm whatsoever.

In general I believe the problem is caused by the average speed differential between lanes 1 and 2 being so large. With this being the case it's often pointless on a busy motorway to move back into lane 1.

I have no doubt that I will soon be in the wrong for typing the above line.

[Alex_225]

Garybee said:

In general I believe the problem is caused by the average speed differential between lanes 1 and 2 being so large. With this being the case it's often pointless on a busy motorway to move back into lane 1.

I have no doubt that I will soon be in the wrong for typing the above line.

Thanks for that post mate, I must admit there does seem to be a habit of first posts on PH being dissected and then picked apart for some reason whether there is a valid point or otherwise.

As for this point above, I can see exactly what you mean. Lorries doing 55-60mph in lane one, then a lot of drivers at 80mph cruising speed. Unless the motorway is extremely quiet even at 70mph you could end up in lane two simply passing slower moving vehicles the entire time.

I always assumed, that the whole thing of not moving back to lane one was more of a problem with those drivers that sit in the middle lane for no reason. If you are passing vehicles, I've always assumed you were entitled to staying that lane as it is for overtaking and that is what you're doing. If on the other hand you are simply sitting at the same speed as vehicles in that lane or lane one is empty, you should move over.

[66mpg]

If you are travelling at 70 mph in the middle lane, passing slower traffic in lane one, and an impatient van driver is behind you flashing his lights to get you move to lane one rather than overtaking you in lane three you can discount the fact they might be drawing a trailer and thus banned from lane three. The speed limit for a vehicle drawing a trailer is 60 mph. So he can wait until you have a large enough gap in lane one to move into.

[esxste]

Most of my moterway use is outside of peak hours; and usually at very off-peak hours.

Middle lane motorists frustrate me. I will move from lane 1, to lane 3, and then back to lane 1. In a safe manner of course; and where lane 1 is clear ahead.

I really don't understand why people sit in lane 2, when lane 1 is clear.

I do question how you're managing to see the Middle Lane Militia though.

[Alex_225]

esxste said:

I do question how you're managing to see the Middle Lane Militia though.

Just seems to be a small percentage of drivers out there who are intent on being quite the opposite of the middle lane hoggers. As I mentioned Mr Van driver trying to get everyone over to the left whether suitable and other various drivers moving constantly from lane one to two to three etc. Some drivers, again a minority almost drive in such as way as to over emphasise moving back to lane one.

[768]

I've never seen it (well, 10-20 seconds... I do that all the time). It's hardly a militia either if they're just changing lanes quicker than you'd like, rather than affecting everyone else like those who stick to the middle lane.

[mac96]

768 said:

I've never seen it (well, 10-20 seconds... I do that all the time). It's hardly a militia either if they're just changing lanes quicker than you'd like, rather than affecting everyone else like those who stick to the middle lane.

Not really had seen this either. But I have seen a related tactic- the lane three to lane one swoop across the bows of the middle lane hogger.
I can see the point in a way- but really 'making a point ' only causes annoyance-nothing like this actually teaches the incompetent anything- they think the swooper is the maniac- and it runs risk of collision with someone legitimately passing the hogger in lane one.

[Johnnytheboy]

Alex_225 said:

I personally would move back into lane one as soon as I had sufficient space behind me from passing any other vehicles. My point was that 10-20 seconds is not a particularly long time in the scheme of things. In reality I probably plucked that figure from the air and in reality it's 5-10 seconds. Keep in mind that I'm referring to time taken to pass a car and be a sufficient distance ahead before pulling in.

It's funny you should have chosen ten seconds initially, as that's my rule of thumb as to whether it's worth reverting to the lane to my left: if I can spend ten seconds there.

It's plenty of time for something with an adequate speed differential to pass me before I need to come out again or lose speed.

[Red Devil]

Alex_225 said:

Red Devil said:

Are we to equate 10-20 seconds as your definition of 'quite quickly'? If so, please tell the PH readership what time interval you consider to be acceptable before reverting to lane 1. 20 seconds at 70mph is more than one third of a mile (0.39). If you're staying out for that distance when the traffic level is such that you could safely pull back in to lane 1 then maybe you need to have a rethink. If somebody else chooses to exceed the speed limit in lane 2 it doesn't confer on you the right to act as policeman.

As for your use of the word swerving, why the need for hyperbole? Anybody who does that shouldn't be using them as they are an active danger to others.

I personally would move back into lane one as soon as I had sufficient space behind me from passing any other vehicles. My point was that 10-20 seconds is not a particularly long time in the scheme of things. In reality I probably plucked that figure from the air and in reality it's 5-10 seconds. Keep in mind that I'm referring to time taken to pass a car and be a sufficient distance ahead before pulling in.

Hang on a minute, you've just halved the time (and therefore the distance at the same speed). That makes it a quite different proposition!
See the post by M1KeH above yours. That's exactly what I was taught too.

Alex_225 said:

My point is more that with that being a relatively short time in the real world, is 10-20 seconds long enough to then warrant intimidating other drivers into moving? Miles and miles of sitting in lane two, I can understand the frustration but literally seconds different doesn't warrant that in my option.

You're moving the goal posts now. Intimidating other drivers is a completely different point from the one I was responding to above.

Alex_225 said:

I suspect that if I'd written my original post from the perspective of someone not moving out of the way quickly enough (albeit moving over) I'd have been berated for not using the entire road and why not just pass and move on with life!

But you didn't, so I haven't commented on it.

Alex_225 said:

As for my use of the word swerving, it's definition is : change or cause to change direction abruptly.

I don't disagree with that.

Alex_225 said:

Swerving dangerously or doing so abruptly, so if pedantry is the order of the day then my use of the term is correct in how I am referring to it. Swerving dangerously is another subject altogether and as you say a danger to others. Some of the manoeuvres I have seen in which someone changes lane quickly, could easily catch other drivers out.

But I am with this. Swerving (using your definition above) has no place in normal driving on a motorway, especially not when you're travelling at 70mph!
Doing so in an emergency to avoid a collision would be another matter but that is not what we have been discussing.

[esxste]

Alex_225 said:

Just seems to be a small percentage of drivers out there who are intent on being quite the opposite of the middle lane hoggers. As I mentioned Mr Van driver trying to get everyone over to the left whether suitable and other various drivers moving constantly from lane one to two to three etc. Some drivers, again a minority almost drive in such as way as to over emphasise moving back to lane one.

I kind of get the impression that you're a Middle Lane Motorist, and you're overly sensitive to people who drive properly.

[TooMany2cvs]

esxste said:

I kind of get the impression that you're a Middle Lane Motorist, and you're overly sensitive to people who drive properly.

Do you have a dashcam, OP...?

[Alex_225]

Well your impressions would be wholly incorrect I'm afraid I am far from being a middle lane hogger. I do indeed have a dashcam and have done for the last 18 months or so. As much as many on this forum wish to dissect the entirety of someone's post in any given thread, to the point of belittling the original poster and invalidating what they were originally referring to. Users on here have such a way of taking what someone was referring to and criticising it to the point of ridicule. The level of pedantry is staggering and not like any forum I've ever frequented, I'm not sure why this of all car forums has a culture of pushing people into a corner when we're all meant to be car fans.

My original point was merely if anyone had spotted the polar opposite to the middle lane hogger using a couple of examples, that's all. It wasn't a huge, complicated discussion. I experienced a van driver at the weekend who tried to intimidate me out of the way, rather than use lane three, all the while I was gaining speed on a vehicle in lane one so waited to move into that lane myself until I was passed. That's not the same as being in the lane for mile upon mile and never moving back to lane one.

I also pointed out that number of drivers I've witnessed returning to lane one, only to be back out into lane two or then three so spend their entire time swapping lanes.

That's all it was, a few casual observations and wondered if anyone had seen these types of drivers.

esxste said:

I kind of get the impression that you're a Middle Lane Motorist, and you're overly sensitive to people who drive properly.

Just in response to this directly. Do you consider someone not using lane three to overtake a car which is overtaking cars in lane one, coming up too close and flashing their headlights at you to be 'driving properly'? This is what I referred to in my first post.

I was doing 70mph and passing cars on my left, I didn't consider squeezing into a gap to only shorten braking distances on my left a sensible option when within moments I'd have passed the next car and then moved to lane one. All the while van driver at 80mph+ could have simply used lane three and carried on his way. This being a van driver who stayed in lane two the entire time he was in sight.

Red Devil said:

Hang on a minute, you've just halved the time (and therefore the distance at the same speed). That makes it a quite different proposition!
See the post by M1KeH above yours. That's exactly what I was taught too.

To clarify this point. I would say that 10-20 seconds is the amount of time I would consider in my mind reasonable to allow someone to complete an overtake and then move back into lane one. As much as I think people should move back as soon as is safe I don't expect every driver to be that forward thinking, move back immediately or move back at all. It was just my personal thinking on what is a reasonable expectation of others.

Edited by Alex_225 on Wednesday 7th December 13:55

[TooMany2cvs]

Alex_225 said:

Well your impressions would be wholly incorrect I'm afraid I am far from being a middle lane hogger. I do indeed have a dashcam and have done for the last 18 months or so.

So post some of the videos of people doing what you claim...