First UK driver convicted for ‘middle lane hogging’

12.00 | 23 June 2015 | | 8 comments

A van driver has been fined almost £1,000 and given five penalty points in what is believed to be the first conviction for ‘middle lane hogging’ (Transport Network).

Under new measures introduced in August 2013, police were given the power to issue fixed penalty notices for careless driving offences such as tailgating or middle lane hogging. This is thought to be the first such conviction since the law was changed.

The driver was stopped by police on the M62 near Huddersfield in August 2014. Police officers said the driver persistently refused to move out of the middle lane of the motorway, and that other drivers were forced to swerve to overtake the vehicle.

The driver failed to turn up to court and was fined £500, ordered to pay £400 in costs with a £40 victim surcharge.

PC Nigel Fawcett-Jones from West Yorkshire Police said: “Members of the public regularly tell the Road Policing Unit that lane hogging and tailgating are real problems on our roads and this conviction shows that the police and the courts understand the public’s concerns and take this offence seriously.”

A spokesman for the AA told Transport Network: “Drivers will be saying ‘Hallelujah’ that finally someone has been prosecuted because lane hogging causes a huge amount of frustration.”

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    No post I have read on this subject has considered coaches. These vehicles are not allowed in lane 3 but are capable of speeds of up to 100kph. Please, would someone explain how to overtake an inconsiderate ‘Wally’ travelling at a lower speed in lane 2 when lane 1 is empty!


    James – Nottinghamshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Bottom line is this guy was driving in the middle lane. He had ample opportunity to move into the left hand lane so he got all he deserved. The Highway Code is there for a reason.


    Richard. Sheffield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    What is more likely is that some drivers approached at a higher speed on the inside lane and then….at the last moment…. veered over to the third lane, overtook, and then veered back to the inside lane close to the front of the apparently offending driver. That’s what most drivers do. We do not know what speed the offender was doing but can presume it was below the speed limit. If he had been doing 70 mph would any action be taken against him because any vehicle that veered to overtake would in fact have been braking the law? I wonder.

    As regards tailgating, what is the magical distance that determines whether a driver is too close to the vehicle in front? Is it merely at the discretion of the police officer? Would he not give in evidence that it would have been too close and unable to stop in the event of an emergency. If that was the case then any vehicle less than the recommended full stopping distance should be guilty of an offence. In the event of a speed of 70 mph on a motorway or dual carriageway that is 315ft, or 100 mtrs approx. One distance marker to the next.

    Just as a bye the bye the picture above shows clearly several cases of tailgating. I count about 9 and possibly some more. That stretch would have been much safer if vehicles were that 100mtrs apart.


    bob craven Lancs…Space is Safe Campaigner.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    According to the news story, I think it was the Police who actually used the word ‘swerve’. Middle lane ‘hogging’ – however defined or assessed – is not the most heinous of offences seen on a motorway anyway. One can simply overtake, without swerving obviously.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Agree with the previous posts about the sensationalist use of the word “swerve” which is probably down to the reporter BUT really glad to see some action by the police against lane hogging motorists.


    Pat, Wales
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I’d be more worried about the drivers who were ‘forced to swerve to overtake the vehicle’ – isn’t that driving without due care and attention? It is a motorway after all. I could understand it if the van was stopped or even coming towards them, but I presume it was travelling in the same direction up ahead and noticeable – why ‘swerve’. I wonder if there’s more to this story than meets the eye.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    This story doesn’t make sense. How can other drivers be “forced to swerve” by someone middle lane hogging? Being “forced to swerve” normally involves the offender cutting someone up (perhaps by changing lanes, rather than staying in the wrong lane), or suddenly braking without reason (ie erratic driving, or perhaps crash-for-cash). The details as presented suggest there may be a far more interesting story beneath the surface!


    Dave Finney, Slough
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Reports suggest 10,000 fixed penalties have been issued for inconsiderate driving since the change in 2013. It would appear this driver was the first to opt to have his case heard in court. So this driver is not really the first.


    Chris Gloucestershire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close