# Lane Discipline



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

All right, since it keeps coming up in thread after thread, usually in the context of how awful other countries' drivers are, let's talk about lane discipline.

Two posts from the Dutch thread.



ChrisZwolle said:


> A28 Zeist-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr





Road_UK said:


> I thought they were going to remove that silly thing?
> 
> Edit: Looking at that picture on the right, you have to admire the lane discipline in the Netherlands, in comparison to a lot of other European nations, including Germany.


----------

Could someone please explain to me what is wrong, when there are three lanes, particularly on an urban freeway with lots of exits and entrances (I don't know that that's the case with the Dutch road pictured), with using the center lane as a matter of course, providing you're doing it at a reasonable speed? I've done so as long as I've been driving, just because it makes sense. You're letting people pass you to the left, as you should, and *reducing the potential for conflict* with traffic entering the freeway (not to mention making it easier for them to enter). Frankly, I see that picture and the voice of Jeremy Clarkson pops into my head talking about "not using the motorway network to its full potential."

All right, let's have at it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Penn's Woods said:


> Could someone please explain to me what is wrong, when there are three lanes, particularly on an urban freeway with lots of exits and entrances (I don't know that that's the case with the Dutch road pictured), with using the center lane as a matter of course, providing you're doing it at a reasonable speed? I've done so as long as I've been driving, just because it makes sense. You're letting people pass you to the left, as you should, and *reducing the potential for conflict* with traffic entering the freeway (not to mention making it easier for them to enter).


In my opinion, that depends on traffic density. If traffic is heavy, it makes little sense to move in and out of the right lane all the time.

On the other hand, it's evident in many Youtube videos that many U.S. drivers keep out of the right lane even if there is no traffic in sight at all. That's just poor discipline. Driving without thinking. 

I've also seen in many U.S. videos that people just continuously drive in the left lane (out of two lanes) in rural areas where traffic is light and exits are spaced miles apart, and get passed on the right by other traffic. That's an absolute no-go in Europe. While middle lane sticking is common on 3-lane roadways, driving in the left lane for no reason at all is heavily frowned upon in European driving-etiquette. Some U.S. states specifically forbid this, others are less clear about it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Driving like this would be considered very poor in Europe. A police car will most likely pull you over if they are around.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> In my opinion, that depends on traffic density. If traffic is heavy, it makes little sense to move in and out of the right lane all the time.


I do most of my driving in and around Northeastern cities, so most of the time, traffic density is a given. If a road has three lanes, there's probably a reason for that.




ChrisZwolle said:


> On the other hand, it's evident in many Youtube videos that many U.S. drivers keep out of the right lane even if there is no traffic in sight at all. That's just poor discipline. Driving without thinking.


Here's where we disagree. 
Not about the existence of the phenomenon, but whether it's undisciplined or unthinking (and if there's no traffic in sight, doesn't that mean it doesn't matter?)




ChrisZwolle said:


> I've also seen in many U.S. videos that people just continuously drive in the left lane (out of two lanes) in rural areas where traffic is light and exits are spaced miles apart, and get passed on the right by other traffic. That's an absolute no-go in Europe. While middle lane sticking is common on 3-lane roadways, driving in the left lane for no reason at all is heavily frowned upon in European driving-etiquette. Some U.S. states specifically forbid this, others are less clear about it.


Here, I agree with you 100 percent.
:cheers:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Penn's Woods said:


> Could someone please explain to me what is wrong, when there are three lanes, particularly on an urban freeway with lots of exits and entrances (I don't know that that's the case with the Dutch road pictured), with using the center lane as a matter of course, providing you're doing it at a reasonable speed? I've done so as long as I've been driving, just because it makes sense. You're letting people pass you to the left, as you should, and *reducing the potential for conflict* with traffic entering the freeway (not to mention making it easier for them to enter). Frankly, I see that picture and the voice of Jeremy Clarkson pops into my head talking about "not using the motorway network to its full potential."
> 
> All right, let's have at it.


By sticking to lane 2 you block one more lane than necessary. Hence you need a good reason. Merging traffic is only a good reason at merges and only when there really is traffic joining. Keeping off lane 1 preventively, however, is no good reason. It is just a waste of road space and you should ask yourself why lane 1 was built at all.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Driving like this would be considered very poor in Europe. A police car will most likely pull you over if they are around.


"In Europe" is a bit generic. In Italy you can drive like that for thousands of km and never be bothered by police.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

flierfy said:


> By sticking to lane 2 you block one more lane than necessary. Hence you need a good reason. *Merging traffic is only a good reason at merges and only when there really is traffic joining. *Keeping off lane 1 preventively, however, is no good reason. It is just a waste of road space and you should ask yourself why lane 1 was built at all.


So then you're making a lot of lane changes, some of them at the last minute (because you should only get out of the right lane when you see that someone wants to merge), for no good reason I can see. And if you're driving in the center lane a bit above the speed limit, you're hardly "blocking" it....


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

I agree with Fliery. There is no excuse for lane hogging. Lane two and three are overtaking lanes only. The picture in post 1 is perfect. it's quiet, nobody feels the need to overtake, and everybody sticks with lane 1. 

In many countries in Europe, especially in the UK, Italy and more and more in Germany, people find it acceptable to keep driving in lane two, regardless whether they're overtaking or not. That is NOT acceptable, but lazy, or hitting the road with little or no knowledge. In the UK they are now trying to do something about it, and from time to time you get matrix signs displaying warnings to keep left unless overtaking, or not to hog the middle lane. 

When you get three lanes of solid traffic, of course you do not keep on switching lanes all the time. But when there is room to move back after overtaking without you having to slow down, you will use that space, as the the space that you will leave behind will be used for others to overtake you. 

Always keep overtaking lanes clear for overtaking. No matter at what speed. It will keep the traffic flow in motion, and it avoids road rage.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> So then you're making a lot of lane changes, some of them at the last minute (because you should only get out of the right lane when you see that someone wants to merge), for no good reason I can see. And if you're driving in the center lane a bit above the speed limit, you're hardly "blocking" it....


There is nothing wrong with changing from lane 1 to lane 2, if someone is merging. After you have passed you move back to lane 1 if there is nobody else to overtake.

You are not under any obligation to move lanes if someone is merging. If you are on the main carriageway, you have the right of way at all times, and merging traffic should let you pass first. But it's of course more polite to make way for merging traffic, as long as you are not hindering overtaking traffic on lane 2.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

Europe should get american rule.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

hofburg said:


> Europe should get american rule.


Which American rule? And why? Are you a middle lane driver?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

I wonder if speed limits are a factor: in this country, if you try to do 70 (mph) in the right lane, sooner or later (sooner, probably) you'll come across a little old lady who's used to doing 55. So it's not just yielding to entering traffic....


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> I wonder if speed limits are a factor: in this country, if you try to do 70 (mph) in the right lane, sooner or later (sooner, probably) you'll come across a little old lady who's used to doing 55. So it's not just yielding to entering traffic....


... Or a truck, and in Europe they are limited to 56 mph. So you overtake, and when there is nobody else to overtake, you move back. When this old lady is driving in lane 2 or 3, you will give her enough space and patience, to let her do the overtaking. If she's still there, but not overtaking, you will let your mood change in white rage, get right up her ass, and start honking and flashing your lights aggressively, until she has moved.

To avoid road rage, it is always best to keep to the right unless overtaking.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

All right, I'm leaving for my mother's now, and I'll try the following experiment:

I'll keep strictly to the right, on freeways with three lanes going my way, except (1) when I'm approaching an on-ramp and see someone wants to merge and (2) when someone in front of me is going too slowly and I want to pass.

In those instances - several times a mile, probably - I'll switch into the center lane (which will have plenty of "lazy", "unthinking" center-lane hogs in it) and then immediately switch back once the obstacle is passed.

When (if) the police tell me off for dangerous weaving, I'll give them a lecture about proper lane discipline.

I'm being facetious, but seriously, in a country where people routinely distribute themselves (according to speed, hopefully) across the two non-passing lanes of a three-lane freeway, insisting on doing it the "right" way seems more dangerous than going with the flow.

À bientôt/bis bald/tot ziens.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

Road_UK said:


> Which American rule? And why? Are you a middle lane driver?


no. are you?

I was thinking about the rule where all lanes are equal. why? because I see no way people will change their bad driving habbits.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

They will when it's enforced properly. Look at the Netherlands...


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

hofburg said:


> no. are you?
> 
> I was thinking about the rule where all lanes are equal. why? because I see no way people will change their bad driving habbits.


That's a dangerous thing, abolishing laws that are not enforced. Many unauthorized houses are built? Change the law so that they become legal. Too many inmates in prisons? Let's free some of them, free of charge, instead of building more prisons. Many people do financial frauds? Let's change the law so that it's not a crime any more.

All of these happen, needless to say, in Italy.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

yeah that's a problem. but is no so much abolishing the law, as changing it. people today respect 'lane' law only partially. they respect overtaking on the left, but not keeping right.

also on 4x4+ the 'left' rule kinda looses its sense.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Enforce it, impose fines and get them to keep to the right. It worked in the Netherlands, which used to be the worst country in Europe when it came to lane discipline. Ask the older generation Germans. Now they have become one of the best. (and Germany is becoming more and more lacks)


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

On rural highways when traffic is light most people stay in the right lane when they aren't passing here in the midwest(US). A major problem we have with highway design here in Kansas City is that there are a lot of left hand exits and lanes will split, etc so the slower traffic has to cut across just to make their turns. When you know you have to be in the left lane for your exit in 2 miles you just get over early so you dont have to worry about missing your exit so the design of the highways here really screws up the slower traffic keeping right rule.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

hofburg said:


> yeah that's a problem. but is no so much abolishing the law, as changing it. people today respect 'lane' law only partially. they respect overtaking on the left, but not keeping right.
> 
> also on 4x4+ the 'left' rule kinda looses its sense.


It has perfect sense. People hogging in the central lane at, say 120 km/h, force me, traveling in the right lane at 130 km/h, either to overtake them on the right or cutting all three lanes to overtake and then go back in the right lane. Either solution is not very safe...


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Road_UK said:


> In many countries in Europe, especially in the UK, Italy and more and more in *Germany, people find it acceptable to keep driving in lane two, regardless whether they're overtaking or not.* (..)


I noticed it too. It's hard to believe how driving in Germany differs today and 20 years ago. Looks like lane discipline has been forgotten there. 

If it comes to the UK, they probably never cared about the lane discipline, proper merging and leaving motorway. I found a picture which may kind of prove my 'historical' based lack of lane discipline assumptions. I think the main reason for not using motorway properly there, is a poor knowledge of traffic code and the way drivers are taught driving by parents, siblings, neighbours or other incompetent people, who do not know the rules.

Picture captured in late sixties or early seventies in Britain:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Penn's Woods said:


> So it's not just yielding to entering traffic....


Wait a minute. You give way to merging traffic, is that true?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

hofburg said:


> I was thinking about the rule where all lanes are equal.


Doesn't that force you to change lanes all the time, if you wanna drive fast? If all lanes were allowed to overtake on, the left lane(s) should remain overtake-only.

As for lane-hogging, it's most annoying in heavy traffic. If you overtake someone only once in a while, you're clearly lane-hogging. When there's low traffic, it's easiest to go back to the right lane, but lane-hogging is also the least annoying (in the middle lane, not leftmost).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Verso said:


> Doesn't that force you to change lanes all the time, if you wanna drive fast?


It appears that's the case in the U.S. on wide freeways. You have to be over all lanes even to maintain the speed limit.


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

Penn's Woods said:


> (because you should only get out of the right lane when you see that someone wants to merge


Nou, you should NOT. You should STAY in the right lane. It's up to the entering merger to search for his place and adjust his speed to merge before or behind someone, in such a way that no one is being hindered.

Driving in the second lane is simply reducing road capacity, just as making way bij going to the left lane is.

Take a situation with someone driving 100 at the 2nd lane. Two cars approach from behind. One in lane 2 with 120, one in lane 3 with 130 km/h. Two things can happen: the one in lane 2 has to brake because there is som slow idiot in lane 2, and someone is too near in lane 3. Other option is that the car coming from behind in lane 2 switches to lane 3, thus forcing te faster car to brake. All unnecessairy, because if the idiot in lane 2 driving 100 had just kept right, all traffic would have run smoothly without any interference or braking.

So please keep right. 

(If you don't and you would encounter me, I will cut you sharp after having overtaken you, and after that showing my right flasher for a very long time to you!)


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

aswnl said:


> Nou, you should NOT. You should STAY in the right lane. It's up to the entering merger to search for his place and adjust his speed to merge before or behind someone, in such a way that no one is being hindered.


It is not always possible, because of short ramps, for example. A little bit co-operation and flexibility, please.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

aswnl said:


> Nou, you should NOT. You should STAY in the right lane. It's up to the entering merger to search for his place and adjust his speed to merge before or behind someone, in such a way that no one is being hindered.


You may be technically right. Yet, it is good driving behaviour and probably better for everyone to make way for merging vehicles by changing the lane if possible.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

ALWAYS assume there will be someone faster you wanting to overtake you when you are not overtaking anyone else. This way you are not forcing other drivers to change lanes, or you are not constantly checking the rear-view mirror.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I move over to let people in, especially if a short ramp would force them to stop otherwise, it doesn't cost me anything to do so


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

^that's the rule


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

aswnl said:


> All unnecessairy, because if the idiot in lane 2 driving 100 had just kept right, all traffic would have run smoothly without any interference or braking.


Except that you forgot something: the "idiot" has to brake, if someone is merging with 80 km/h. That of course doesn't mean he can just move left without watching, if anyone is approaching.


----------



## Broccolli (May 30, 2010)

Thats how we roll in Slovenia :lol:


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Broccolli said:


> Thats how we roll in Slovenia :lol:


Do you realize the language spoken in the video is Russian? :lol: Oh, and where in Slovenia do we have such a wide road?


----------



## Broccolli (May 30, 2010)

Verso said:


> Do you realize the language spoken in the video is Russian? :lol: Oh, and where in Slovenia do we have such a wide road?


It was a joke, but now you ruined it, this guys here dont know the difference between slovenian and russian language i assume (except slavic forumers) but ok what is done is done 

Well we dont have such a wide road thats for sure but driving style is very similar in general i can say that we slovenians are bad drivers hno:


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

You'd just ruin our image with that video. :lol: Our drivers are bad, but I've never seen anything like that here.


----------



## makaveli6 (Aug 25, 2009)

Nice vocabulary @ that video.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

speaking of realizing, Verso do you realize your avatar doesn't work anymore?


----------



## riiga (Nov 2, 2009)

aswnl said:


> Nou, you should NOT. You should STAY in the right lane. It's up to the entering merger to search for his place and adjust his speed to merge before or behind someone, in such a way that no one is being hindered.


Yes, you should. Different places have different rules, and where I live the law states that it is a mutual effort, hence none of the vehicles have right of way. If I see an entering merger I change to the left lane, allow him to merge and then change back.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

hofburg said:


> speaking of realizing, Verso do you realize your avatar doesn't work anymore?


I'm not the only one. It'll probably be back soon. Do you _realize_ you're OT?


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

hofburg said:


> ^that's the rule


No it's not.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

Verso said:


> I'm not the only one. It'll probably be back soon. Do you _realize_ you're OT?


yes.  this forum is becoming more and more OT anyway. I was just looking trough old forum pages. those were the times!



Road_UK said:


> No it's not.


I was thought so when passing driving licence. maybe this rule doesn't apply to UK registered vans. :troll:


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

???


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

are we talking about the same rule? that if you see vehicles joining the motorway you move to the left if the left lane is empty?


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

hofburg said:


> are we talking about the same rule? that if you see vehicles joining the motorway you move to the left if the left lane is empty?


Yes, we are talking about the same rule, and merging traffic onto the main carriageway do not have the right of way. Ever! They need to let all traffic pass. Of course, out of politeness, if possible, you move a lane or slow down to let them in, but this is not obligatory.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

ok then, politeness.

(except Paris peripherique, there merging vehicles have a right )


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

No they don't. They make themselves give the right, but the signs are still there. Does Cedez le passage ring a bell?


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

I hate people not keeping to the right, will often make a point by overtaking them on the right and aggressively moving into their lane afterwards or giving them the angry look ''wtf are you doing driving there blocking traffic ?''.

If I was a traffic cop, I'd be fining people not keeping to the right all day long. There are moments on the A12 between Gouda and Utrecht, the most right lane is completely free with all traffic in the 3 left lanes, it's ridiculous imho, **** off to the right! I usually end up driving faster in lane 1 than people in lane 4... ( where lane 1 is the right lane and lane 4 the most left lane).

Not keeping to the right = blocking traffic in my book... Since overtaking on the right is illegal...And if there is 1 thing anti social in traffic, it it to purposely block someone else's progress imho. I can't remember myself blocking anyone access ever on purpose, but some people do it all the time.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Road_UK said:


> No they don't. They make themselves give the right, but the signs are still there. Does Cedez le passage ring a bell?





> Due to the road's legal status, circulating traffic yields priority to entering vehicles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_Périphérique


Traffic from the right has priority.


----------



## Jschmuck (May 27, 2008)

> Yes, you should. Different places have different rules, and where I live the law states that it is a mutual effort, hence none of the vehicles have right of way. If I see an entering merger I change to the left lane, allow him to merge and then change back


American rule states that those already on the freeway/limited access highway have the right-of-way, while those on the ramp entering on to the freeway must yield right-of-way. however, those on already on the freeway can show common courtesy and move over, slow down, OR what i do speed up if and or when possible.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm baaaack



flierfy said:


> Wait a minute. You give way to merging traffic, is that true?


I'm not talking about priorité à droite, but letting people in if they're a bit ahead of me. It's not a rule, but good manners.



ChrisZwolle said:


> It appears that's the case in the U.S. on wide freeways. You have to be over all lanes even to maintain the speed limit.


Chris, I've asked you this before and you haven't answered: have you ever driven (or even been) in North America?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

aswnl said:


> Nou, you should NOT. You should STAY in the right lane. It's up to the entering merger to search for his place and adjust his speed to merge before or behind someone, in such a way that no one is being hindered.
> 
> Driving in the second lane is simply reducing road capacity, just as making way bij going to the left lane is.
> 
> ...


Can you please restate that, talking of slow, middle and fast lanes rather than numbering them? I don't know which is meant to be 1....

Please also note that I've said - more than once - that I'm assuming the people in the middle lane are moving a bit faster than the people in the right lane.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

snowdog said:


> I hate people not keeping to the right, will often make a point by overtaking them on the right and aggressively moving into their lane afterwards or giving them the angry look ''wtf are you doing driving there blocking traffic ?''.


And after that, you have the nerve to call anyone else antisocial?

It is not your place to enforce traffic rules (especially only enforcing the ones you like). Passing on the right and giving rude gestures is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a line of Americans in the next-to-right lane, *when there's another lane (or more*) available for passing*, traveling 10 mph faster than the people to their right.

Actually, being the only one on the road obeying the European rule falls in the same field of arguably creating danger by being the only one following rules no one else is. Another example would be resolutely sticking to the speed limit in the passing lane. (While ignoring the fact that it's a passing lane.)

Maybe it comes down to local custom. Americans given three or more lanes distribute themselves across them, slowest traffic to the right, fastest to the left. Because I sure as hell can't see any self-evident logic to the only-use-one-lane-when-there-are-three-or-more-available rule. (And if, say, 50 cars are in the same one-mile stretch of three-lane freeway at a given moment, doesn't having them spread across two lanes, with the fast cars in the passing lane being outliers, make 50-car pileups less likely when one of them needs to stop suddenly than if they're all tailgating each other?)

Local custom. Sort of like bike helmets in Holland. ;-)


*I was paying attention to lane counts on my drive to Mom's. There are places on 95 in Philadelphia where there are four lanes each direction. Treating three of those four as for-passing-only would be absurd.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> And after that, you have the nerve to call anyone else antisocial?
> 
> It is not your place to enforce traffic rules (especially only enforcing the ones you like). Passing on the right and giving rude gestures is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a line of Americans in the next-to-right lane


It's not about the rules/laws. It's about 1 person blocking someone else's progress unnecessarily. I don't block anyone's progress or affect their journey in any negative way with what I do. They do, they cost not only me, but everyone stuck behind them, time and thus money...


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Penn's Woods said:


> And after that, you have the nerve to call anyone else antisocial?
> 
> It is not your place to enforce traffic rules (especially only enforcing the ones you like). Passing on the right and giving rude gestures is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a line of Americans in the next-to-right lane,


In Italy it is possible to do so, and in fact I do that all the time (without the aggressive thing etc etc). They allow passing on the right because so many people drive in the middle lane...


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^Welcome to my ignore list.


Good idea. I'll put him on mine as well.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

I think in the US it's not so much a problem that there're plenty of drivers lane-hogging in middle lanes, but even the leftmost lane, which is unheard of in Europe particularly on wide motorways. In America it seems to be the other way around, drivers drive better on 4-lane motorways (2 lanes each direction).


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

From Pennsylvania's traffic regulations...



> THE VEHICLE CODE (TITLE 75)
> 
> PART III. OPERATION OF VEHICLES
> 
> ...


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

No real lane discipline rules in CT, US. But it works out fine most of the time as people follow other's people behavior usually. China is far worse with people driving however they like on any road and with any type of vehicle.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

if there is a 2x4, that means huge traffic, so the rightmost lane is probably loaded with trucs, so you are at least on lane 2 all the time anyway. but yes, in theory, keep right whatever speed 

but no one keeps right on some specific urban motorways. A4 in Paris, when it is 2x5, all lanes are equal.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Exactly. But what I wanna say is that if there's a truck to overtake every minute, you'll go back to the right lane on 2×2, but you'll keep driving on 2×4. On 2×3 it's not so easy to say, but I try to go back to the rightmost lane, if it doesn't become too much of a hassle.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

yeah, all depends on the density of the right lane.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

hofburg said:


> *if there is a 2x4, that means huge traffic*, so the rightmost lane is probably loaded with trucs, so you are at least on lane 2 all the time anyway. but yes, in theory, keep right whatever speed  (..)


Hmmm....

Any justification for those who do not keep to the the left?




























I had to make a detour from lane 1 through lane 3 to get back to the lane 1. Why?









Blue A6!


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

I wouldn't have bothered. Is that the M6Toll/M42 interchange?


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

piotr71 said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> Any justification for those who do not keep to the the left?


of course not


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

M1, Hemel Hempsted.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

piotr71 said:


> Blue A6!


What's a blue A6?

-----

Now, on the topic at hand, I've decided that it must be a cultural difference. Reserving three lanes out of four for passing on roads like the one pictured, and constantly weaving in and out of the one permissible driving lane, makes sense to Europeans. And when I drive there, I promise to behave accordingly. No matter how daft it seems to me. Europeans driving here should likewise adjust, to sensible lane use. 

:cheers:


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

1000's of Americans who are using the motorways around Kaiserslautern in Germany everyday seem to have adapted well...


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^I'm glad to hear it.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Penn's Woods said:


> What's a blue A6?


Blue car on lane 3 (Audi A6). It should not be there.



> Now, on the topic at hand, I've decided that it must be a cultural difference. Reserving three lanes out of four for passing on roads like the one pictured, and constantly weaving in and out of the one permissible driving lane, makes sense to *Europeans*.(..)


Actually, most of continental Europeans. British do not mind keep to the right at any time for no obvious reason.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^I thought you meant *route* A6 and that it was marked in blue (either by mistake or because it's an A6(M))! But I wasn't seeing any such markings.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

From the UK thread, where there's been an outbreak of Continental lane-discipline fetishism.  



geogregor said:


> I honestly don't see the point of closing lanes off peak. Going further, should we close third lane on 3-lane motorways at night? There would be enough capacity on 2 lanes at night.
> Do it just because some people don't stick to the left? It doesn't make any sense. This is not the best way do educate drivers.





Penn's Woods said:


> See my Lane Discipline thread.
> 
> (Briefly...if anyone wants to go on with it, they can do it there...I don't see what is wrong with traffic distributing itself *according to speed* across all lanes but the one closest to the center of the road on freeways with three or more lanes each way. The idea that, if there are four lanes in a given direction, three are for passing only seems just barmy to me.)





mcarling said:


> That's because it is barmy. The rule was invented when no roads had more than 2 lanes in any direction.





piotr71 said:


> IMGP4529 by 71piotr, on Flickr
> 
> 
> IMGP4531 by 71piotr, on Flickr


I'm not sure why one of the so-called passing lanes has a "slow" in it.

[EDIT, I picked up the wrong two pics, but you get the point....]


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

But that's an urban road with lots of driveway accesses and on/off-ramps, so it's most probably not possible to stick to the leftmost lane if you're not turning off the road or merging to it. So it is wise to slow down when driving on that lane.

I don't know how it works in other countries, but in Spanish urban, non-motorway roads (this includes roads going through villages or industrial parks), you may drive on the lane you wish and overtake on both the left and the right.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> I'm not sure why one of the so-called passing lanes has a "slow" in it.
> 
> [EDIT, I picked up the wrong two pics, but you get the point....]


It's standardish in the UK and Ireland to do so before a lot of things which might make people who are probably going too fast to slow down like a bend or something. Ireland also has 'very slow' and 'dead slow'.

The North Circular road is too busy and urban for intercity motorway lane discipline really anyway, parts of it are a normal 30mph single carriageway.

And to be honest, I can understand why people are complaining about lane discipline around London (which is worse than in the rest of the UK) but everyone drives like that around here. If I was half way up the M1 I might go around the blue A6 but on the M25 I would just undertake it, especially in the M25's wider and busier sections. I don't really think that it's possible to apply lane discipline in a city the size of London, it's to busy and there are too many exits for anyone to be arsed to do so. If it's not busy then I'll stick to the left (in fact I do most of the time) but if it's busy I won't, there's not much point. I understand that there's no justification sometimes, but most people in London don't care, and this probably applies to most if not all other major cities.

Perhaps I wouldn't undertake all the cars in the picture with several cars in the distance in the second to left lane but the blue A6 I would have. Not going 3 lanes across the M25 to overtake a car.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

At last!



> People who "hog" the middle lane on the motorway could *now* be fined £100 and given points on their licence. But why is staying in the middle lane a bad thing?
> 
> Middle-lane "hogging" has gone on for years. It's common to see a situation where the left-hand lane is relatively empty but cars are still sitting in the middle lane instead of just using it for overtaking.
> 
> ...





> Now the government has outlined its latest attempt to tackle this seemingly perennial problem. *People who hog the middle lane will be subject to spot fines of £100 and points on their licence*.


*More.*


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Yes! Finally!


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Might be interesting:


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

^old. also, british and their teeth :nuts:


----------



## Schweden (Jan 5, 2008)

Just drove from Arlanda to Örebro via Eskilstuna. On my way through Stockholm, I noticed that Swedish drivers can't drive when there's more than two lanes in each direction. I was in the rightmost lane for 20 km and it was the fastest lane. However, on 2+2 motorways, almost everyone keeps to the right.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

but in urban areas all lanes are equal on the streets.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

hofburg said:


> but in urban areas all lanes are equal on the streets.


No not always. Depends where you are.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

I still prefer, if people don't drive below the speed limit on the left lane.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

What do you actually prefer, Verso?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ What do you mean? I'm saying that the left lane should be seen as overtaking in cities as well, although not as strictly as outside cities (meaning you don't have to go back to the right lane when you overtake someone, but don't drive slowly).


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Sorry, I got confused with that left lane you mentioned. Just too much time spent in a country, where people are pretty certain about superiority of the left hand side traffic over the side of the road we drive in Continental Europe.


----------



## Nils de Gothia (Mar 11, 2013)

Schweden said:


> Just drove from Arlanda to Örebro via Eskilstuna. On my way through Stockholm, I noticed that Swedish drivers can't drive when there's more than two lanes in each direction. I was in the rightmost lane for 20 km and it was the fastest lane. However, on 2+2 motorways, almost everyone keeps to the right.


Not just in Sweden. I live in the the Czech Republic, every time I travel to the Wechsel area to ski, the rightmost lane is the speed lane. I am regularly able to use the rightmost lane at 130km/h, 4+4 Wien-Guntramsdorf. No passing needed. Not to the left I mean. As I am keeping my lane, this kind of driving cannot be considered as overtaking. I case of fining I´d argue that what I did was not an overtaking by definition, only a passing by. And should I be fined, should this be an overtaking by definition, then the vehicles using 50 or 75% of the motorway must be just as punished. An overtaking meneuvre from lane 1 to 3 or even 1 to 4, provoked by such reckless drivers, is much more dangerous. Also, drivers who dont know the constituton of right-hand traffic (keeping right) are to be excempt from the so called Vertrauensgrundsatz. That means that every driver has to expect every other driver to follow the general rules of traffic. If somebody does not so, he coud basically do any crazy thing anywhere, and you have to choose the safest way to pass this ureliable driver.


----------



## sirfreelancealot (Jul 26, 2010)

Verso said:


> ^ What do you mean? I'm saying that the left lane should be seen as overtaking in cities as well, although not as strictly as outside cities (meaning you don't have to go back to the right lane when you overtake someone, but don't drive slowly).


In the UK the Highway Code says that passing either side is permitted on one-way streets, as the keep left rule does not apply on them.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

It's the same here.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

Nils de Gothia said:


> Not just in Sweden. I live in the the Czech Republic, every time I travel to the Wechsel area to ski, the rightmost lane is the speed lane. I am regularly able to use the rightmost lane at 130km/h, 4+4 Wien-Guntramsdorf. No passing needed. Not to the left I mean. As I am keeping my lane, this kind of driving cannot be considered as overtaking. I case of fining I´d argue that what I did was not an overtaking by definition, only a passing by. And should I be fined, should this be an overtaking by definition, then the vehicles using 50 or 75% of the motorway must be just as punished. An overtaking meneuvre from lane 1 to 3 or even 1 to 4, provoked by such reckless drivers, is much more dangerous. Also, drivers who dont know the constituton of right-hand traffic (keeping right) are to be excempt from the so called Vertrauensgrundsatz. That means that every driver has to expect every other driver to follow the general rules of traffic. If somebody does not so, he coud basically do any crazy thing anywhere, and you have to choose the safest way to pass this ureliable driver.


This not considered overtaking under Austrian traffic law, so you'll be fine.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong but:
Is it a universal custom that:

Inner most lane is for overtaking and faster vehicles
while
Outer lane(s) is for slower vehicles

?

P.S.
By the way:
More than 90% of Philippine drivers have ZERO lane discipline

Heck, some drivers even stay in the middle of two lanes..........as if they think that lanes don't exist :nuts:


----------



## Nils de Gothia (Mar 11, 2013)

Blackraven said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but:
> Is it a universal custom that:
> 
> Inner most lane is for overtaking and faster vehicles
> ...


If there is enough space in the outer lane, this is the lane that should be used. What are slower vehicles? What are faster vehicles? If the outermost lane is busy enough, "slower" vehicles are indeed allowed to make use of further lanes. But using inner lanes despite having enough space in the outer lane de facto means using two (or more) lanes, regardless of speed. A nasty habit.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Blackraven said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but:
> Is it a universal custom that:
> 
> Inner most lane is for overtaking and faster vehicles
> ...


By law: Keep to the right unless overtaking...


----------



## Morsue (Mar 28, 2008)

Schweden said:


> Just drove from Arlanda to Örebro via Eskilstuna. On my way through Stockholm, I noticed that Swedish drivers can't drive when there's more than two lanes in each direction. I was in the rightmost lane for 20 km and it was the fastest lane. However, on 2+2 motorways, almost everyone keeps to the right.


In Sweden, on roads with a 70 kph speed limit or lower, you are allowed to stay in the lane which suits your planned itinerary the best. That includes much of the passage through Stockholm. Passing on the right in other circumstances is illegal.


----------



## Nils de Gothia (Mar 11, 2013)

Morsue said:


> In Sweden, on roads with a 70 kph speed limit or lower, you are allowed to stay in the lane which suits your planned itinerary the best. That includes much of the passage through Stockholm. Passing on the right in other circumstances is illegal.


...which in the latter case makes it just as illegal to use two ore more lanes just for your own, which is what you are doing when you e.g. choose the middle lane just out of lazyness. Overtaking (omkörning) to right is illegal, yes. Passing by (att passera) not. Passing by an obstacle continuously using the middle lane for no obvious reason is not to consider as overtaking by definition. Unless you drive "slalom", that is.


----------



## Morsue (Mar 28, 2008)

I agree that these lazy people who use the middle lane when the right lane is empty should be penalized, as they are in Germany. But I think, without being able to prove it, that passing (just like overtaking) is considered illegal except in congested traffic.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Some more (as I am aware of Daniel and Road_Uk posts in another thread) about new law in Britain.

*Lane hogging and tailgating on-the-spot fines in force*



> Among the offences police are expected to focus on are:
> 
> •	Driving too close to the vehicle in front
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23713732


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

I like that new British law. Some of the manoeuvres above (especially tailgating and pushing into a queue after overtaking) are quite dangerous, more than a little speeding on an empty road, but virtually never punished.
The problem of fining for tailgating is that you cannot measure on the spot the distance between two vehicles and that the "safe distance" varies directly proportionally with the speed.


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

^^ A distance too short is clearly visible. You don't need measuring equipment to realize that one car is too close to the next one, and the police don't need it either.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

verreme said:


> ^^ A distance too short is clearly visible. You don't need measuring equipment to realize that one car is too close to the next one, and the police don't need it either.


Yes, but fines involving arbitrary valutations are easily disputable in court.


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

italystf said:


> Yes, but fines involving arbitrary valutations are easily disputable in court.


In my country, if there's no measuring equipment the police are always right in court. So if they say you were driving too close to the car in front of you, there's no way to prove them wrong.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

verreme said:


> In my country, if there's no measuring equipment the police are always right in court. So if they say you were driving too close to the car in front of you, there's no way to prove them wrong.


It's not the case of Italy, where many people go to the court ("Giudice di Pace", "Peace Judge", a court that usually solves petty controversies like disputes between neighbours) to protest against a fine because regarded unfair. And if you can prove that you was fined for breaking a rule that wasn't clear signposted (ambiguous or missing road signs and no general rule that forbid it), you may win.

The fine for "guida pericolosa" (reckless driving) is one of the most commonly disputed, because, unlikely speeding, parking violations, forbidden overtaking, etc... it's not objectively determinable but it depend by the subjective valutation of the cop.

The art. 141 Codice della Strada says that drivers must regulate their speed according to traffic conditions, road conditions, weather, visibility, etc... So if you drive at 40kph on a narrow urban alley full of pedestrians (general s.l. 50) or at 80kph on a snowy country road (general s.l. 90) you can get a ticket for reckless driving b\c your speed, albeit below the posted speed limit, isn't appropriate to the conditions. Useless to say that isn't easy to determine who respect that rule and who doesn't and there are many borderline situations where a fine can be debateable.


----------



## Kirov88 (Jan 12, 2013)

italystf said:


> Yes, but fines involving arbitrary valutations are easily disputable in court.


You can easily validate it with the camera in the police car.


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

italystf said:


> It's not the case of Italy, where many people go to the court ("Giudice di Pace", "Peace Judge", a court that usually solves petty controversies like disputes between neighbours) to protest against a fine because regarded unfair. And if you can prove that you was fined for breaking a rule that wasn't clear signposted (ambiguous or missing road signs and no general rule that forbid it), you may win.
> 
> The fine for "guida pericolosa" (reckless driving) is one of the most commonly disputed, because, unlikely speeding, parking violations, forbidden overtaking, etc... it's not objectively determinable but it depend by the subjective valutation of the cop.
> 
> The art. 141 Codice della Strada says that drivers must regulate their speed according to traffic conditions, road conditions, weather, visibility, etc... So if you drive at 40kph on a narrow urban alley full of pedestrians (general s.l. 50) or at 80kph on a snowy country road (general s.l. 90) you can get a ticket for reckless driving b\c your speed, albeit below the posted speed limit, isn't appropriate to the conditions. Useless to say that isn't easy to determine who respect that rule and who doesn't and there are many borderline situations where a fine can be debateable.


I didn't know that. In Spain, policemen are always right, so there's no way to dispute their decision.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

verreme said:


> I didn't know that. In Spain, policemen are always right, so there's no way to dispute their decision.


Way too much power.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> Way too much power.


What is it like in Bella Italia? Can you argue with a police officer?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Road_UK said:


> What is it like in Bella Italia? Can you argue with a police officer?


Of course you can, they're not gods. But as italystf said you can challenge their decisions in court, and you can win.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Ok. German police officers for example think they're gods. You can say anything to a UK officer... They're there to provide you a service.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

I've never been stopped by police while I was living in Germany, so I have no experience in that sense. And that's odd, because I heard they have a thing for Italian-plated cars


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

I mean that you can challenge a fine in court but if you use a rude language towards a cop you can be arrested for "oltraggio a pubblico officiale" (outrage towards a member of a police force).


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

^^ And you can challenge that in court, too.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> I've never been stopped by police while I was living in Germany, so I have no experience in that sense. And that's odd, because I heard they have a thing for Italian-plated cars


... And British plates. (as well as easter European). They've pulled me over loads of times. They're usually out here in unmarked cars at Rosenheim, where the motorways from Innsbruck and Salzburg come together. I do see a lot of Italians being pulled over. 
You cannot argue with Germans, they're always right anyway. Arguing with French law enforcement officers is fun. At least they'll do their best to explain themselves, and it'll always end up in shaking hands after. I love the French


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

I've been stopped by the Italian police once. And they fined me for driving my 7.5 metre van in Portofino, where only 7 metres is allowed. 70 euro on the spot fine. I told them what I thought of them, and I got away with it. Got banned here last week for a lesser offence :lol:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Road_UK said:


> You can say anything to a UK officer....


Within reason.

They are not going to appreciate it if you are aggressive or hurl insults at them!


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Of course not...


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

*"Class I Lane hogger"*

I filmed this video couple of days ago on M1 near Luton. I posted it in real speed so it might be a little boring, however, it shows highest possible level of ignorance for one of the most basic traffic rule (we all know what rule I mean) It's, with no doubts, "class I lane hogging", sadly it's not anything I would have called exeptional, I've seen many truckers driving like here. 






Music track will be added soon.


----------



## Colin145 (Nov 2, 2014)

Genuinely can't stand people that lane hog and there arguments too.

"i'am doing the speed limit so I don't need to move into the 'slow' lane"

How do you even know you are going the speed limit?
Your speedometer could say your doing 70mph (113km/h) but you're actually only doing 68mph (109km/h) then someone who thinks there doing the speed limit comes behind you and is actually doing 73mph (117km/h). That's a difference of 5mph (8km/h). So why should you get to use lanes 2,3,4 ect when you're not even overtaking?

We spend billions of pounds widening motorways only to have people sit in the overtaking lanes meaning no one can overtake you. Ok ill admit that it can be hard on some urban motorways like the M8 where the exit is on the outside but apart from that you should be using the inside lane when the road ahead is clear and only use the other lanes if you need to overtake then move straight back in. Don't see what's so difficult about this.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

People are lazy. More and more people can't even be bothered to indicate anymore...


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Oy. Who started this thread?

Oh, right....


----------



## Colin145 (Nov 2, 2014)

Road_UK said:


> People are lazy. More and more people can't even be bothered to indicate anymore...


Tbh I don't mind if people don't indicate when there moving back into the left or right because it should be an extremely obvious manoeuvre but if your moving out to overtake then you should definitely indicate because that can be much less obvious manoeuvre.


----------



## Colin145 (Nov 2, 2014)

Penn's Woods said:


> Incidentally, if you Google either "Wikipedia lane discipline" or "lane discipline definition," you come upon this very thread before you've hit post 50. (In the former case, before post 25.) That's one indication of how universally known the lane discipline purist's rule really is.


Actually it doesn't show anything. Most people don't bother searching specific things like lane discipline,most people would search how to drive on the motorway. From there they would go to any website but mostly the highway code and yahoo are popular and people are informed there as how to drive on the motorway.

Actually most people in the Uk, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria and many other European countries know the law. And it is actually the law in Canada and many Us states, it's just the Police let you away with it.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Penn's Woods said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_in_the_United_Kingdom#Lane_discipline:
> (..)On the UK's busiest roads, where there may be four or more lanes in each direction, there is often a situation where overtaking becomes continual as each successive lane moves at a slightly faster speed than that to its left."
> 
> *Which is exactly what I've been advocating since Post One of this thread.*


Well, in reality (reality based on my experience and observations) there is more often a situation where: 

lane 1 - mostly occupied by lorries (occupied but not congested - no comparison to that amount of trucks on Dutch or Belgian motorways) and saving fuel minicabs literally stuck to their bumpers. There are also some cars driven by reasonable drivers, aware of one of the two most basic motorway traffic rules - keep left and 70 mph limit, who just pulled over after overtaking.
lane 2 - an Irish lorry with over-scaled velocity limiter, coach, then clear for 3/4 mile.
lane 3 - full of white vans (morning and late afternoon) driving well over speed limit or cars (all other periods of the day) constantly accelerating, decelerating and even braking for no obvious reason. 
lane 4 - twice as much more vehicles than on lane 3, actually moving slower than vans on lane 3, coaches on lane 2 and minicabs on lane 1.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

You`re talking UK here. Nothing makes sense in the UK, whether it's lane discipline, health and safety or politicall correctness. They completley lost the plot.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

^^ It could be worse. You could be France


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

France is the best. Also when it comes to lane discipline.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

^^ You're joking, right? Maybe it appears that they are, since traffic on most autoroutes are relatively light, but as traffic gets heavier, lane discipline gets horrible, especially around Paris. Not to mention Parisian motorcyclists who feel the suicidal need to overtake by driving between two trucks (on the already very narrow lanes) at 90km/h in fluent traffic. hno:

The most dreadfull country in the western world when it comes to lane discipline must be Italy. I've seen people going from the merging lane to lane 2 or even lane 3 at 50 - 60 km/h without using indicators, crossing solid lines and without any traffic on the right lanes. This is pure insanity. At the same time some people will aggressively beam you, horn you or tailgate you away when you dare to drive eg 100km/h on the left lane in a 80km/h work area... hno:


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

^^ But that's Italy... why would you even go there if not for that. It would be like Italy without Italian food or without shouting :lol:


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Indeed, it is. Italy is a wonderful country in many different ways, but unfortunately they have about the worst drivers of europe.


----------



## Alceunetto (May 6, 2015)

Europe should get american rule.


----------



## MrAronymous (Aug 7, 2011)

Thank you for your well-founded and well-argumented opinion. We can all learn from this.


----------



## Colin145 (Nov 2, 2014)

Alceunetto said:


> Europe should get american rule.


Why?


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Almost a year passed since it happened...



> *A motorist has been convicted of careless driving for ‘hogging’ the middle motorway lane*, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind.
> 
> The offence took place on the M62 near Huddersfield on *August 25 last year*.
> 
> ...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/first-ever-motorist-convicted-for-lane-hogging-10335040.html


----------



## sirfreelancealot (Jul 26, 2010)

piotr71 said:


> Almost a year passed since it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/first-ever-motorist-convicted-for-lane-hogging-10335040.html


The offence is normally a standard fixed penalty - £100 and 3 points, issued by a Notice of Intended Prosecution which gives you the chance to pay the fine and get the points before it goes to court. If it goes to court, as in this case, then the fine and points are greater. 

Hence I reckon that there will be many more who have been fined who have taken the option to take it on the chin and pay up. This will be the first case that actually went to court.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

*Trucks Overtaking Trucks*

I recently returned from a two-week trip to Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. What always surprises me, is the repeating event of a truck overtaking another one on a two-lane carriageway. The difference of the speed is always less than 1 kilometer per hour. Thus, the overtaking driver blocks the road for several kilometers. Most of the shock waves of the traffic are results from these heroic actions. The gained time saving might be even some 30 seconds per 100 kilometers. 

My non-scientific observation is interesting: 75 per cent of these hero-driven trucks were pulled by a tractor registered in Poland. Is this ill-behavior a reflection of a medieval Polish traffic culture or is there an obligation to be a moron in order to get a truck driver's license in Poland?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

^^ On the Italian A21 Turin-Piacenza there are a lot of these events, but the nationality of the drivers is not an issue. Everyone does that, and it is allowed (except for some short sections near steeper inclines).


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

In Italy, of course, yes, but why?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

MattiG said:


> In Italy, of course, yes, but why?


What do you mean, why? Because. You are telling me an empty truck must endure hundreds of km behind a full loaded one with no possibility to overtake?

I don't like them when they overtake each other, of course, but me not liking it is not a sufficient reason to ban the overtake altogether.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

^^ just ban the 90 km/h speed limiters and the problem wouldn't be so bad.


----------



## Jschmuck (May 27, 2008)

When I drove tractor trailer in the US, my employer had its trucks set at 60mph cruise, but if you pushed on the foot-pedal you could accelerate to 63mph for passing. The downside was that holding down the accelerator past the cruise speed, one would slowly erode at their quarterly bonus. Believe me, even though my cruise was maxed at 60mph, I still had to pass some others on the road, especially campers. 

Something similar could be applied across the pond; If the employer doesn't offer bonuses, set the cruise at one speed and the accelerator at a few kph higher. To thwart anyone who might merely hold down the cruise the whole time of driving, an employer could institute time limits on the maxed accelerator. Example, a driver can only hold down the accelerator beyond the cruise speed for only 180 seconds before the vehicle resumes cruise speed, and will not allow extra-acceleration for 5 minutes. Then said driver may resume maxed accerlerator beyond cruise speed, again for only 180 seconds.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2...ls-over-driver-going-too-slowly-in-left-lane/


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Versailles :lol:


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Pronounced, I would guess, “Ver-SALES.”


----------

