Monkey241:
It seems you write one offence off that you view as a triviality and complain old bill are chasing revenue, whilst moaning they aren’t chasing this particular revenue source.
I’m sure you’ll claim you weren’t criticising old bill, despite any reader of an average comprehension seeing the criticism in black and white. [emoji16]
The HA option is interesting…but potentially full of problems.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Why would you even say that’?
I’ve never denied criticising the Police,.and I’ll carry on doing so until I’m proved wrong,.and let’s be fair they continue to supply ne with plenty of reason to do so.
So your prediction of ‘‘surity’’ is a tad misguided at the best, and totally wrong at worst.
Typical copper first thought that springs to mind is revenue raising when it comes to any issue needing attention.
Some of us think different you know.
I was not coming at it from that angle, I consider middle lane hogging to be dangerous, frustrating to others, and a display of incompetent driving.
Fyi If and when the police do anything towards me that is helpful or an indication that they are not taking their usual ‘‘■■■■ poor easy target’’ policy, I’ll be the first to congratulate them…as I did in fact on here a couple of years ago over an incident.
Monkey241:
Oh bless you’re held up in roadworks… and you now want the police to intervene■■? [emoji6][emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Oh right, ok, so you want ANOTHER ‘Usefulness of the Police’’ debate?
Btw…Not held up as such, just making a comment on an observation, but thanks for the kind words anyway.
To answer your question…my suggestion of intervention was HATO tbf.
(Police are obviously too busy with more important stuff. [emoji38] )
Is that not what the police are paid for?
Whenever I compare their money making excercises with doing proper crime addressing police work…(do you remember those days Mr Monkey? ) I get the ‘‘Different departments’’ chestnut.
Surely traffic division IS actually traffic, including where there is no use of revenue cameras or have I missed something??
You do realise lane hogging can be dealt with via FPN?
In the same way that your chav plate can be? But a £1000 max fine appears to vindicate your argument and is just so much more…dramatic [emoji6]
But a quick Google search reveals loads of headlines about plod dealing with such transgressions.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[emoji38]
Ffs are you still on about and trying to defend your ‘‘Purge on number plates’’
Let it go man, …(or at least respond on the CORRECT thread. )
Loving the ‘‘Chav plate’’ reference btw,
Have you been waiting for the opportunity to shoe horn that one in?..a bit late of thinking of it? Bothered with after thought? [emoji38] [emoji38]
Anyway, back on thread middle lane hogging…
'‘LOADS’ of examples ?
Not nearly enough I’d reckon.
Chav plate? Used on the other thread.
Keep up [emoji6]
Monkey241:
It seems you write one offence off that you view as a triviality and complain old bill are chasing revenue, whilst moaning they aren’t chasing this particular revenue source.
I’m sure you’ll claim you weren’t criticising old bill, despite any reader of an average comprehension seeing the criticism in black and white. [emoji16]
The HA option is interesting…but potentially full of problems.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Why would you even say that’?
I’ve never denied criticising the Police,.and I’ll carry on doing so until I’m proved wrong,.and let’s be fair they continue to supply ne with plenty of reason to do so.
So your prediction of ‘‘surity’’ is a tad misguided at the best, and totally wrong at worst.
Typical copper first thought that springs to mind is revenue raising when it comes to any issue needing attention.
Some of us think different you know.
I was not coming at it from that angle, I consider middle lane hogging to be dangerous, frustrating to others, and a display of incompetent driving.
Fyi If and when the police do anything towards me that is helpful or an indication that they are not taking their usual ‘‘■■■■ poor easy target’’ policy, I’ll be the first to congratulate them…as I did in fact on here a couple of years ago over an incident.
You clearly were coming at it from the revenue angle.
Perhaps you need to read your previous posts again?
Monkey241:
It seems you write one offence off that you view as a triviality and complain old bill are chasing revenue, whilst moaning they aren’t chasing this particular revenue source.
I’m sure you’ll claim you weren’t criticising old bill, despite any reader of an average comprehension seeing the criticism in black and white. [emoji16]
The HA option is interesting…but potentially full of problems.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Why would you even say that’?
I’ve never denied criticising the Police,.and I’ll carry on doing so until I’m proved wrong,.and let’s be fair they continue to supply ne with plenty of reason to do so.
So your prediction of ‘‘surity’’ is a tad misguided at the best, and totally wrong at worst.
Typical copper first thought that springs to mind is revenue raising when it comes to any issue needing attention.
Some of us think different you know.
I was not coming at it from that angle, I consider middle lane hogging to be dangerous, frustrating to others, and a display of incompetent driving.
Fyi If and when the police do anything towards me that is helpful or an indication that they are not taking their usual ‘‘■■■■ poor easy target’’ policy, I’ll be the first to congratulate them…as I did in fact on here a couple of years ago over an incident.
You clearly were coming at it from the revenue angle.
Perhaps you need to read your previous posts again?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I just have…the only reference to revenue in my o/p on this was me pointing out the Old Bill had missed a trick…(not like them to be backwards at coming forward when it comes to their main role as tax collectors in uniform.)
If you want yo interpret it that way it’s up to you, but as I said…'‘dangerous, annoying and frustrating’ and should be addressed.
Monkey241:
It seems you write one offence off that you view as a triviality and complain old bill are chasing revenue, whilst moaning they aren’t chasing this particular revenue source.
I’m sure you’ll claim you weren’t criticising old bill, despite any reader of an average comprehension seeing the criticism in black and white. [emoji16]
The HA option is interesting…but potentially full of problems.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Why would you even say that’?
I’ve never denied criticising the Police,.and I’ll carry on doing so until I’m proved wrong,.and let’s be fair they continue to supply ne with plenty of reason to do so.
So your prediction of ‘‘surity’’ is a tad misguided at the best, and totally wrong at worst.
Typical copper first thought that springs to mind is revenue raising when it comes to any issue needing attention.
Some of us think different you know.
I was not coming at it from that angle, I consider middle lane hogging to be dangerous, frustrating to others, and a display of incompetent driving.
Fyi If and when the police do anything towards me that is helpful or an indication that they are not taking their usual ‘‘■■■■ poor easy target’’ policy, I’ll be the first to congratulate them…as I did in fact on here a couple of years ago over an incident.
You clearly were coming at it from the revenue angle.
Perhaps you need to read your previous posts again?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I just have…the only reference to revenue in my o/p on this was me pointing out the Old Bill had missed a trick…(not like them to be backwards at coming forward when it comes to their main role as tax collectors in uniform.)
If you want yo interpret it that way it’s up to you, but as I said…'‘dangerous, annoying and frustrating’ and should be addressed.
If it were dangerous in most cases…guess what the offence would be? [emoji6]
Glad you accepted it was you who brought revenue into it. Incidentally police don’t keep the fines - nor do they set the penalties.
Ffs mate, you are allowed to be wrong you know, you should be a politician…(not meant as a compliment btw. by any means)
I never denied mentioning revenue first,.what I did refute was you implying the revenue was my main concern, and that was the angle I was approaching my post from…but I think you know that in your efforts never to be proven wrong.
And wtf exactly has the fact that the police don’t keep the fines nor set the penalties to do with anything??
And did you REALLY think I was ignorant of that fact?
Is this some tactic you have learned as a copper to try and ■■■■ me off?
Nah, not working, slightly irritating maybe, but that’s as far as it goes.
What is it they say in the 50s ‘b’ movies.
Ok guvnor, it’s a fair cop…I’m banged to rights, cuff me’'…I genuinely thought coppers kept the money they screw out of you (not referring to brown envelopes in back pockets that they have been guilty of in the past btw ) and that they made the laws up…not.
robroy:
I think the deterioration of lane discipline is a result of,.and down to lack of Poice patrol cars on the motorway nowadays, in comparison to how it once was.
More an issue of traffic density and speed limits and especially lower truck speeds.
At what point do you call it lane hogging or just staying out in lane 2 because you can see the inevitable next plodding truck well ahead in lane 1.
The rule is you can use lane 2 etc for ‘over taking’ it doesn’t say you must return to lane 1 just because there is space between slower traffic in lane 1.
So long as you’re running at the 70 mph speed limit what’s the problem with being in lane 2 of a 3 or 4 lane motorway anyway.The fact is there is usually too much slower moving traffic in lane 1 to make it usable for continuous 70 mph running.
While there’s a good case for 4 lane motorways to ban trucks of 7.5t and over from lanes 3 and 4 and cars from lanes 1 and 2 except to exit and enter. Also might as well put the priority on traffic entering from a slip road.
Which just leaves the issue of traffic travelling too slow for the conditions.That is an issue of not making progress for whatever reason not an issue of lane discipline.Very likely to be caused by drunk driving or driving without a licence or driving while tired nothing to do with lane discipline at all.
While the law are more interested in nicking people for driving at 80 mph + in lane 3 or 4 for political reasons not safety.
In the nicest possible sense are you mental with this suggestion?
So you are going to have in your suggestion cars whizzing from lanes 3 and 4 to lane 1 and back again with trucks constantly giving way to ‘joiners’. Bloody hell, glad you didn’t take up traffic management. You’d have the motorways permanently gummed up with trucks in lanes 1 and 2.
No it just needs a great big sign on all slip roads saying ‘Give way to traffic already on the motorway’. Not hard but most drivers today are stupid and dont get it. Sometimes wish I had bull bars all the way round so I could just smash the selfish ■■■■■■■■ out the way.
Sand Fisher:
No it just needs a great big sign on all slip roads saying ‘Give way to traffic already on the motorway’. Not hard but most drivers today are stupid and dont get it. Sometimes wish I had bull bars all the way round so I could just smash the selfish [zb] out the way.
friend of mine has always sworn blind that if he ever wins the lottey or some money on the horses he would buy an old transit put a couple of v8’s in the back and fill the engine compartment with concreat and reinforcing rods then let them try and cut him up and pull out infront of him etc.
back to the origonal post i came back from wales to kent today … m54 m6 toll m42 m40 m25 m26 m20… i did most of it in the inside lane unless overtaking or if the inside lane became the sliproadat 65 -70 but the majority of people were in lanes 2 and 3 going at the same speed as me or slower up each others rears brakeing and accelerating constantly. Absoloutly pathetic
robroy:
I think the deterioration of lane discipline is a result of,.and down to lack of Poice patrol cars on the motorway nowadays, in comparison to how it once was.
More an issue of traffic density and speed limits and especially lower truck speeds.
At what point do you call it lane hogging or just staying out in lane 2 because you can see the inevitable next plodding truck well ahead in lane 1.
The rule is you can use lane 2 etc for ‘over taking’ it doesn’t say you must return to lane 1 just because there is space between slower traffic in lane 1.
So long as you’re running at the 70 mph speed limit what’s the problem with being in lane 2 of a 3 or 4 lane motorway anyway.The fact is there is usually too much slower moving traffic in lane 1 to make it usable for continuous 70 mph running.
While there’s a good case for 4 lane motorways to ban trucks of 7.5t and over from lanes 3 and 4 and cars from lanes 1 and 2 except to exit and enter. Also might as well put the priority on traffic entering from a slip road.
Which just leaves the issue of traffic travelling too slow for the conditions.That is an issue of not making progress for whatever reason not an issue of lane discipline.Very likely to be caused by drunk driving or driving without a licence or driving while tired nothing to do with lane discipline at all.
While the law are more interested in nicking people for driving at 80 mph + in lane 3 or 4 for political reasons not safety.
In the nicest possible sense are you mental with this suggestion?
So you are going to have in your suggestion cars whizzing from lanes 3 and 4 to lane 1 and back again with trucks constantly giving way to ‘joiners’. Bloody hell, glad you didn’t take up traffic management. You’d have the motorways permanently gummed up with trucks in lanes 1 and 2.
No it just needs a great big sign on all slip roads saying ‘Give way to traffic already on the motorway’. Not hard but most drivers today are stupid and dont get it. Sometimes wish I had bull bars all the way round so I could just smash the selfish [zb] out the way.
Trucks can only use lanes 1 and 2 of a 3 lane motorway so why the big problem in the case of a 4 lane motorway.
So what’s the big difference v what happens now in the case of vehicles entering or exitting the same 3 or 4 lane motorway.
As for entry sliproads priority doesn’t provide carte blanche to not attempt avoid a collision.It’s easier to back off to allow accelerating traffic to enter than for accelerating traffic to lose that acceleration and then try to enter at a slower speed.
Or moving over to lane 2 wherever possible.
I did that routinely to help merging traffic even when running without limiters at 60 mph.
How could a car possibly hold up a truck in lane 2 unless the car is running far below the 70 mph limit.
In which case why would that be other than possibly/probably drunk or can’t drive and that’s what they should be pulled over for.If not then just nick em for driving without consideration for other road users by not making progress.
It’s the speed which they are running at which causes the problems not just being in lane 2.
robroy:
There should be more powers given to HATO, to maintain lane discipline, I ain’t saying make them into the ‘new traffic police’, but even if they kitted their cars out with a camera., and give them authorisation to stop cars to give them warnings in severe cases where they are acting as a danger. would be a deterrent.
first thought that springs to mind is revenue raising when it comes to any issue needing attention. 
