Lane hogger fined and endorsed.

[Kimosabe]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -lane.html

£1,000 and 5 points? Doesn't address the issue. I wonder what his defence was?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

It says this is the first conviction, but there is also the possibility of on-the-spot fines*, which I would hope have been deployed rather more than once. I imagine this individual chose to challenge the charge in court as opposed to just taking their fine and going on their way. Not sure there's a way of finding out though, short of a batch of FOI requests.

Edit: Auto Express already did this...

* more correctly - fixed penalties.

[martine]

Absolutely right Nick.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996009/End-middle-lane-hogs-Police-handing-thousands-100-fines-anti-social-drivers-slow-traffic-splash-walkers.html

[MGF]

The Police do not issue "on-the-spot-fines".

Only a court can fine as only a court can decide on guilt. Introducing fixed penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving substitutes justice for expedience.

[dvenman]

And the most interesting quote from the Telegraph article is "six drivers were forced to brake and swerve to overtake the vehicle".

Says something about *their* driving skills and observation too.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The Police do not issue "on-the-spot-fines".

Only a court can fine ...

Strictly, of course, you're right. In this country we don't hand over any money to the Police and there's always the option to defend the charge in court, but I think my meaning was reasonably clear.

[MGF]

Not strictly incorrect. Wholly incorrect. We don't talk of "on-the-spot-fines" when given a NIP by Police officers for speeding. Drivers may not get a choice as to whether or not they go to court.

Better to avoid journalistic terms. Fixed penalties are widely understood and often no the decision of the Police officer who reports the driver.

Isn't that the wrong way round?

Yes

[MGF]

Not strictly incorrect. We don't talk of "on-the-spot-fines" when given a NIP by Police officers for speeding. Drivers may not get a choice as to whether or not they go to court.

Better to avoid journalistic terms. Fixed penalties are widely understood and often not the decision of the Police officer who reports the driver.

Isn't that the wrong way round?

Yes

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Not strictly incorrect. Wholly incorrect. We don't talk of "on-the-spot-fines" when given a NIP by Police officers for speeding. Drivers may not get a choice as to whether or not they go to court.

Better to avoid journalistic terms. Fixed penalties are widely understood and often no the decision of the Police officer who reports the driver.

It's fairly obvious from the very subject of this thread, that 99.999% of the public regard a fixed penalty as an on-the-spot fine. They pay up and don't argue. The only difference is they have to send their money off to a clerk of the court somewhere, rather than handing it over on the spot.

I know exactly where you're coming from, and maybe "on-the-spot fine" is a journalistic term, but in practical terms, that's exactly what it is.

[Kimosabe]

Absolutely right Nick.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996009/End-middle-lane-hogs-Police-handing-thousands-100-fines-anti-social-drivers-slow-traffic-splash-walkers.html

"RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said he was happy to see the powers being used but hoped they would be used consistently across the country.
He said: 'As with using mobiles at the wheel and drink-driving, it is not enough to outlaw anti-social behaviour on the roads. People need to believe they will get caught. These figures suggest in several areas they won’t."

"People need to believe they will get caught". Good lord! Is that acceptable? Daft and narrow-brained 'fear' mentality to take with such a serious issue, especially from an RAC Foundation director. Of course paying money will solve the issue of people driving as they are .

Surely those people who do these things need to be forced into taking a driving course that educates and retests them at their own expense and if they don't pass that course, only then will they will attract a further fine and endorsement? So 'no' to further driver education and 'yes' to fines? Well that works, doesn't it? Sheeesh! I think i'm becoming a hippie

[revian]

The telegraph linked it to 60mph... Which isn't the issue... Or is it? Suppose he was driving at 70mph.

He'd still be 'middle lane hogging' or would he be as no one should be attempting to overtake him? Nothing hogged and nothing baulked?

(I know what the Highway Code says and I follow it...)

Ian

[Kimosabe]

The telegraph linked it to 60mph... Which isn't the issue... Or is it? Suppose he was driving at 70mph.

He'd still be 'middle lane hogging' or would he be as no one should be attempting to overtake him? Nothing hogged and nothing baulked?

(I know what the Highway Code says and I follow it...)

Ian

+1

That sort of thinking is what causes the 10% +2mph drivers all manner of angst.

So what about lorries slowing traffic in lanes 2 and 3 every time they come to a slight incline with another lorry that's doing it's legal limit -2mph in Lane 1? Is that deemed acceptable as they're 'overtaking', albeit at speeds which register in nanometers per mile rather than mph, while causing all hell to break loose in L3?

So what if lorries had to maintain a radar controlled minimum double stopping distance between eachother and were consigned to use Lane 1. There I go again, thinking.

[Ancient]

The deliveries you rely on would get slower and more expensive.

[revian]

So what about lorries slowing traffic in lanes 2 and 3 every time they come to a slight incline with another lorry that's doing it's legal limit -2mph in Lane 1? Is that deemed acceptable as they're 'overtaking'...

Hogging I'd say... Seeing one booked for it seems perfectly reasonable (not holding my breath you understand) though I'd feel bad if the driver lost their job 'as an example to others'.

While space is shared with them I'm not sure what the alternative is.

Ian

[jont]

The deliveries you rely on would get slower and more expensive.

Would they? I thought fuel costs predominate over salary now (hence some trucks having 52 or even 50mph limiters). And I'm sure in other threads people have said there isn't much time really gained by cars overtaking cars, so why should it be any different for trucks?