This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Roundabout
- A Quiet Place to Study in London: Middle Temple
- My dad stresses me out so much when driving
- Wrongly failed driving test
- Roundabouts
- Judge Business School: How Do I get There?
- Driving test moving ahead tools that are working now?
- Like to marriage relationship with white woman
- Mock tests fail
- Fashion from yesteryear
- Make it More Crime-ey !!
- 4th attempt for driving
- Can I drive alongside lorry during a 2 lane roundabout?
- still no girlfriend
- Driving instructor on your test with you??
- Most embarrassing thing you ever did when drunk?
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- London Accomondation Needed
- Parked unmarked police car on bridge
- Are there hobbies or interests that make men more interesting
Why Do Women Sit In The Middle Lane?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Inersha
This happens all the time when I'm driving, especially when the motorway is quiet. You'll often find that women just sit in the middle lane when the slow lane is completely empty, forcing you to cross over two lanes and back to overtake.
Why do women do this?
I normally drive up right behind them and get inside their "personal space" so they feel uncomfortable and pull over to where they should be, but there's always more.
I just want to understand why women drive in the middle lane. I think it's dangerous and you should get points for doing it.
Discuss.
Why do women do this?
I normally drive up right behind them and get inside their "personal space" so they feel uncomfortable and pull over to where they should be, but there's always more.
I just want to understand why women drive in the middle lane. I think it's dangerous and you should get points for doing it.
Discuss.
lol why dont you just stay driving on the outside lane then, i wouldnt be suprised if they slam on then LOL at you
So many people do it now, you can't really make sweeping statements about it anymore.
Sitting in lane 2 doing 69 mph forcing people into lane 3 (outside lane) making it much more busy and much more dangerous than it needs to be, since boy racers and chavs get pissed off, feeling the need to speed up to 90 to get past them quickly.
Give the English 20 lanes of motorway and 90% of people will sit in lane 19 doing 69 mph. Then of course there's lane 1 which is completely populated by lorries and old people.
Sitting in lane 2 doing 69 mph forcing people into lane 3 (outside lane) making it much more busy and much more dangerous than it needs to be, since boy racers and chavs get pissed off, feeling the need to speed up to 90 to get past them quickly.
Give the English 20 lanes of motorway and 90% of people will sit in lane 19 doing 69 mph. Then of course there's lane 1 which is completely populated by lorries and old people.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by zippyRN
no it is not 'more safe' ...
Yes it is, by staying put other drivers can see where you are, whereas if you are weaving in and out of lanes they may not notice you pull out/back in. Being seen and predictable is always safer than to not be.
the law , 'normal' , 'advanced' and 'emergency driving instructors / trainers do not advocate it on safety grounds
On my pass plus my driving instructor specifically told me to do it. She said the above about it being safer to stay put so other drivers can see and know where you are. I know many family members and friends (both male and female) who have either said or done the same thing. My Dad normally drives when we go long-distance on motorways and I don't think we've ever been in the inside lane. I personally have been once - when there were was no traffic in sight in that lane, meaning once I moved to the inside lane I could actually stay there.
you create an impediment to the flow of traffic
No, you do that by constantly switching lanes because you keep moving to the inside lane, only to have to move out again 2 minutes later because there's a lorry/slow driver in front. If there's quite a lot of traffic (e.g. enough to 'create an impediment') then if you move back to the inside lane you'll find yourself closed in when you reach slower traffic up ahead and there isn't enough room in the middle lane to move across. Then when you do get a gap you temporarily hold up the traffic coming up behind because you have to get back up to 70mph from whatever speed you had to do on the inside. This is what creates 'an impediment to the flow of traffic'.
There is a 3rd lane remember, so any cars who want to speed have the option to overtake you there.
and if you cannot change lanes easily i'd suggest some coaching to improve your basic driving skills
Where did I say I found changing lanes difficult? I didn't, because I don't. However, that doesn't mean I should weave in and out of them just "because I can do it so easily", that's called dangerous driving and rightly so.
no, lane 2 and any subsequent lanes are for passing , you return to lane 1 after passing - if there are a lot of LGVs on a stretch of road you may well remain in lane 2 in a car or light commercial becasue you can travel at 70 mph rather than the 56 mph that some >3.5 t vehicles and the vastest majority of >7.5 t vehicles are limited to
You're contradicting yourself, first you say that the middle lane is only for overtaking, and then you say that actually you can remain in the middle lane if there are lots of LGVs because you can travel at 70mph. And why only LGVs, out of interest?
if you are not actively passing you should not be in lane 2 - you should only stay in lane 2 if returning to lane 1 would put you in a position where you'd be looking to pull out again to pass the next vehicle in lane 1
Again you're contradicting yourself, first you say "actively passing" - meaning there is a vehicle to your left which you are currently overtaking - and then you say that if returning to the inside lane means you'll be pulling out again then just stay in the middle lane, which is what I was saying in the first place. Very rarely does a motorway not have that lorry up ahead, so very rarely should you expect someone doing 70mph to stick to the inside lane.
Original post by Drunk Punx
So you've never taken drugs, drunk/smoked whilst underaged, or illegally downloaded music I take it?
Digressions aside, it's safer to go past them whilst in the wrong lane than it is to cut across two lanes on a busy motorway.
Digressions aside, it's safer to go past them whilst in the wrong lane than it is to cut across two lanes on a busy motorway.
I actually haven't.
And sure, it might be a stupid law to have - there are many like them - but at the same time, it's not something that you should actively encourage just because you happen to think it's the best way forward.
Original post by StacFace
Yes it is, by staying put other drivers can see where you are, whereas if you are weaving in and out of lanes they may not notice you pull out/back in. Being seen and predictable is always safer than to not be.
ah i see we fall back to the usual fallacy of the inadequate driver that correct lane discipline is weaving in and out ...
On my pass plus my driving instructor specifically told me to do it. She said the above about it being safer to stay put so other drivers can see and know where you are. I know many family members and friends (both male and female) who have either said or done the same thing. My Dad normally drives when we go long-distance on motorways and I don't think we've ever been in the inside lane. I personally have been once - when there were was no traffic in sight in that lane, meaning once I moved to the inside lane I could actually stay there.
I find it really rather hard to beleive that any Driving instructor would blatantly encourage souch ppor driving technique.
No, you do that by constantly switching lanes because you keep moving to the inside lane, only to have to move out again 2 minutes later because there's a lorry/slow driver in front.
on a motorway '2 minutes' represents a distance of approximately 2 miles , and if you cannot safely return to lane 1 and then prepare to pass a vehicle 2 miles distant you really need to consider whether you should be driving at all.
If there's quite a lot of traffic (e.g. enough to 'create an impediment') then if you move back to the inside lane you'll find yourself closed in when you reach slower traffic up ahead and there isn't enough room in the middle lane to move across. Then when you do get a gap you temporarily hold up the traffic coming up behind because you have to get back up to 70mph from whatever speed you had to do on the inside. This is what creates 'an impediment to the flow of traffic'.
so the fact other people have poor lane discipline makes it legal for you do that, and there is no consideration of the fact the only fins yourself in these problematic scenarios thanks to your utter lack of observation, anticipation and palnning ?
There is a 3rd lane remember, so any cars who want to speed have the option to overtake you there.
thus creating yet more impediment to the free flow of traffic ... while you continue to merrily pootle along in lane 2 despite the fact there are miles or free carriageway in lane 1 - and blithely ignorant of the building traffic behind in lanes 2 and 3
Where did I say I found changing lanes difficult? I didn't, because I don't. However, that doesn't mean I should weave in and out of them just "because I can do it so easily", that's called dangerous driving and rightly so.
see aobve with reference to you stating that you would not return to lane 1 if there was a vehicle in lane 1 in the next 2 miles as you consider changing lanes in less than 2 minutes to be 'weaving in and out'
You're contradicting yourself, first you say that the middle lane is only for overtaking, and then you say that actually you can remain in the middle lane if there are lots of LGVs because you can travel at 70mph. And why only LGVs, out of interest?
LGVs ( large goods vehicles ) are restricted by law to 56 mph,some operators restrict further to 52 or 54 mph - therefore if you are in a car , light van , camper, minibus or on a motorcycle which is subject to a 70 mph limit by law and generally not fitted with a speed limiter you can easily maintain a 15 + mph speed differential over the LGVs - which means you are actively passing them simply by being in lane 2 and driving at or around 70 mph
Again you're contradicting yourself, first you say "actively passing" - meaning there is a vehicle to your left which you are currently overtaking - and then you say that if returning to the inside lane means you'll be pulling out again then just stay in the middle lane, which is what I was saying in the first place. Very rarely does a motorway not have that lorry up ahead, so very rarely should you expect someone doing 70mph to stick to the inside lane.
if I am doing 70 mph and can return to lane 1 , spend some time in lane 1 before having to move out to safely pass the slower traffic then this is what the law says I should do - if I can't safely pull in and then move out again then it's perfectly acceptable to stay in lane 2 - we are talking aobut perhaps 10 -15 seconds which at 60 -70 miles an hour represents 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile (400 - 600 metres approximately 100 -150 car lengths )
Original post by zippyRN
ah i see we fall back to the usual fallacy of the inadequate driver that correct lane discipline is weaving in and out ...
I find it really rather hard to beleive that any Driving instructor would blatantly encourage souch ppor driving technique.
on a motorway '2 minutes' represents a distance of approximately 2 miles , and if you cannot safely return to lane 1 and then prepare to pass a vehicle 2 miles distant you really need to consider whether you should be driving at all.
so the fact other people have poor lane discipline makes it legal for you do that, and there is no consideration of the fact the only fins yourself in these problematic scenarios thanks to your utter lack of observation, anticipation and palnning ?
thus creating yet more impediment to the free flow of traffic ... while you continue to merrily pootle along in lane 2 despite the fact there are miles or free carriageway in lane 1 - and blithely ignorant of the building traffic behind in lanes 2 and 3
see aobve with reference to you stating that you would not return to lane 1 if there was a vehicle in lane 1 in the next 2 miles as you consider changing lanes in less than 2 minutes to be 'weaving in and out'
LGVs ( large goods vehicles ) are restricted by law to 56 mph,some operators restrict further to 52 or 54 mph - therefore if you are in a car , light van , camper, minibus or on a motorcycle which is subject to a 70 mph limit by law and generally not fitted with a speed limiter you can easily maintain a 15 + mph speed differential over the LGVs - which means you are actively passing them simply by being in lane 2 and driving at or around 70 mph
if I am doing 70 mph and can return to lane 1 , spend some time in lane 1 before having to move out to safely pass the slower traffic then this is what the law says I should do - if I can't safely pull in and then move out again then it's perfectly acceptable to stay in lane 2 - we are talking aobut perhaps 10 -15 seconds which at 60 -70 miles an hour represents 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile (400 - 600 metres approximately 100 -150 car lengths )
I find it really rather hard to beleive that any Driving instructor would blatantly encourage souch ppor driving technique.
on a motorway '2 minutes' represents a distance of approximately 2 miles , and if you cannot safely return to lane 1 and then prepare to pass a vehicle 2 miles distant you really need to consider whether you should be driving at all.
so the fact other people have poor lane discipline makes it legal for you do that, and there is no consideration of the fact the only fins yourself in these problematic scenarios thanks to your utter lack of observation, anticipation and palnning ?
thus creating yet more impediment to the free flow of traffic ... while you continue to merrily pootle along in lane 2 despite the fact there are miles or free carriageway in lane 1 - and blithely ignorant of the building traffic behind in lanes 2 and 3
see aobve with reference to you stating that you would not return to lane 1 if there was a vehicle in lane 1 in the next 2 miles as you consider changing lanes in less than 2 minutes to be 'weaving in and out'
LGVs ( large goods vehicles ) are restricted by law to 56 mph,some operators restrict further to 52 or 54 mph - therefore if you are in a car , light van , camper, minibus or on a motorcycle which is subject to a 70 mph limit by law and generally not fitted with a speed limiter you can easily maintain a 15 + mph speed differential over the LGVs - which means you are actively passing them simply by being in lane 2 and driving at or around 70 mph
if I am doing 70 mph and can return to lane 1 , spend some time in lane 1 before having to move out to safely pass the slower traffic then this is what the law says I should do - if I can't safely pull in and then move out again then it's perfectly acceptable to stay in lane 2 - we are talking aobut perhaps 10 -15 seconds which at 60 -70 miles an hour represents 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile (400 - 600 metres approximately 100 -150 car lengths )
I agree with most of this, but would say 30-60 seconds would be the time I would expect to spend in lane 1 if I moved into it (unless I saw someone coming up behind me faster, in which case I would move over to let them pass).
Completely agree but it's not always women. You should drive in the left lane whenever possible...simple motorway rules..
I'm not a driver (yet) but yesterday we had a motorway trip - dad was moaning that on the new 4-lane stretches of the M1 he was in lane 1 doing 70mph (not many lorries about on Boxing Day), lane 2 was empty, while lanes 3&4 were the ones being used most with traffic continually slowing down... the "slow lane" was at times the fastest! We were wondering why they bothered building the extra lane 
It is unclear to me why this thread has kept on going when it is blatantly obvious we have a much more serious problem in the number of people who do not indicate of roundabouts. If every motorway only went at 40mph and everyone indicated off roundabouts, I would be a much happier driver.
It's not just women, there are men who do it too.
It's laziness in my view.
It's laziness in my view.
Original post by internet tough guy
Lanes? How big is this kitchen?
...and the internet tough guy, strikes again
Original post by zippyRN
ah i see we fall back to the usual fallacy of the inadequate driver that correct lane discipline is weaving in and out ...
I was saying weaving in and out would be incorrect, you're the one who seems to think it's correct.
I find it really rather hard to beleive that any Driving instructor would blatantly encourage souch ppor driving technique.
As the dual carriageway became motorway I was told to move across to overtake some lorries and a couple of cars going slow on the inside. I went to move back to the inside afterwards and was told not to because there was another lorry in that lane in the distance. I remained in the middle lane for at least another minute before beginning to overtake this lorry. I was told if I could see another vehicle in the distance on the inside to stay in the middle because it is safer than moving in and then back out again a couple of minutes or so later, unless it is clearly travelling at the same speed (e.g. I'm not getting any closer to it). I stayed in the middle lane for the remainder of my time on the motorway for the pass plus.
on a motorway '2 minutes' represents a distance of approximately 2 miles , and if you cannot safely return to lane 1 and then prepare to pass a vehicle 2 miles distant you really need to consider whether you should be driving at all.
Firstly it is the time, not the distance, you should be considering as it is clearly more safe at a slower speed, so I don't know why you've brought in "2 minutes is 2 miles". And the 2 minutes isn't meant to be the defining point as to whether you move back in or not, it's a rough estimate of a time. I go by the rule of whether you can see another vehicle in that lane in the distance or not. If it's close enough to see, then it's better to stay put because it is clear you will soon be overtaking it. That can sometimes be up to about 2 minutes.
so the fact other people have poor lane discipline makes it legal for you do that, and there is no consideration of the fact the only fins yourself in these problematic scenarios thanks to your utter lack of observation, anticipation and palnning ?
What poor lane discipline? When there is enough traffic to 'cause an impediment to the free flow of traffic' then it would be ridiculous to suggest that everyone tries to stick to the inside lane. It makes much more sense for the people going slower to have their lane, the people faster to have theirs, and there is still a lane spare for people who want to drive above the speed limit by overtaking those who are doing it. By doing this the traffic will actually flow more smoothly.
And how am I showing lack of observation, anticipation and planning by not moving back to the inside lane? I have actually shown observation by seeing the vehicle ahead in the inside lane going slower than me, anticipation that if I move across to that lane I am going to get blocked in, and planning by staying put in order to not get blocked in. Whereas you are not showing any of these by moving across regardless, and will be the one finding yourself blocked in (unless you cut in front of the cars in the middle lane, which is dangerous).
thus creating yet more impediment to the free flow of traffic ... while you continue to merrily pootle along in lane 2 despite the fact there are miles or free carriageway in lane 1 - and blithely ignorant of the building traffic behind in lanes 2 and 3
70mph is not 'merrily pootling along', as I said before I agreed with you if they were doing under the speed limit. I also said that if there is nothing in the inside lane then it makes sense to move over, so if there actually was "miles of free carriageway in lane 1" then I would move across, but not when there's a bit of it, and then some lorries.
see aobve with reference to you stating that you would not return to lane 1 if there was a vehicle in lane 1 in the next 2 miles as you consider changing lanes in less than 2 minutes to be 'weaving in and out'
You still haven't pointed out where I said that I found changing lanes difficult, all you've done is point out where I've explained why I don't change lanes more often.
LGVs ( large goods vehicles ) are restricted by law to 56 mph,some operators restrict further to 52 or 54 mph - therefore if you are in a car , light van , camper, minibus or on a motorcycle which is subject to a 70 mph limit by law and generally not fitted with a speed limiter you can easily maintain a 15 + mph speed differential over the LGVs - which means you are actively passing them simply by being in lane 2 and driving at or around 70 mph
And what about cars doing 50mph? That doesn't answer why you specifically think it's OK if there's an LGV ahead in the distance, but not if there are some cars there. And whilst you are actively passing them if they are actually on your left, you're not if they're a bit further ahead.
if I am doing 70 mph and can return to lane 1 , spend some time in lane 1 before having to move out to safely pass the slower traffic then this is what the law says I should do - if I can't safely pull in and then move out again then it's perfectly acceptable to stay in lane 2 - we are talking aobut perhaps 10 -15 seconds which at 60 -70 miles an hour represents 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile (400 - 600 metres approximately 100 -150 car lengths )
I said that I agree with moving across to the inside lane if you can actually spend a reasonable length of time there before having to move back out, but I don't understand how anyone can think 10-15 seconds is a reasonable length of time. How on Earth can swapping lanes every 10 seconds be safe!?
Stacface
please do us all a favour and hand in your licence
and as for where i got 2 minutes is 2 miles from, at 60 miles per hour you travel 1 mile in 1/60 th of an hour 1;/60th of an hour is 1 minute .
the point you seem to miss is that just becasue you can see a vehicle ahead in lane 1 that might be travelling slower than you it does not give good reason to remain in lane 2 unless you would not be able to safely return to lane 1 and move backj out to pass by teh time you reached the decision point.
please do us all a favour and hand in your licence
and as for where i got 2 minutes is 2 miles from, at 60 miles per hour you travel 1 mile in 1/60 th of an hour 1;/60th of an hour is 1 minute .
the point you seem to miss is that just becasue you can see a vehicle ahead in lane 1 that might be travelling slower than you it does not give good reason to remain in lane 2 unless you would not be able to safely return to lane 1 and move backj out to pass by teh time you reached the decision point.
Original post by Rascacielos
I actually haven't.
And sure, it might be a stupid law to have - there are many like them - but at the same time, it's not something that you should actively encourage just because you happen to think it's the best way forward.
And sure, it might be a stupid law to have - there are many like them - but at the same time, it's not something that you should actively encourage just because you happen to think it's the best way forward.
Not necessarily actively encourage; I just see it as the safer option as opposed to crossing two lanes.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Not necessarily actively encourage; I just see it as the safer option as opposed to crossing two lanes.
And if everyone did something just because they thought it was the better option, things could get a bit messy!
Original post by Rascacielos
And if everyone did something just because they thought it was the better option, things could get a bit messy!
I'd agree with you if I said "better", but I didn't; I said "safer".
Original post by Drunk Punx
I'd agree with you if I said "better", but I didn't; I said "safer".
My use of 'better' was meant to cover various options, including 'safer'. Just because you think something's safer, doesn't mean it is. If nobody else shares your opinion, then what you perceive to be safe can actually become very dangerous (e.g. undertaking).
Original post by Rascacielos
My use of 'better' was meant to cover various options, including 'safer'. Just because you think something's safer, doesn't mean it is. If nobody else shares your opinion, then what you perceive to be safe can actually become very dangerous (e.g. undertaking).
Logically, it's safer to stay on the same lane than it is to cross two just for the purpose of overtaking someone. People have to look in their wing-mirrors before changing lanes anyway, so whoever you're undertaking will see you coming up behind them at obvious speed. There's no danger there.
That would be needless if people didn't go at a stupidly slow speed in the middle lane anyway.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Logically, it's safer to stay on the same lane than it is to cross two just for the purpose of overtaking someone. People have to look in their wing-mirrors before changing lanes anyway, so whoever you're undertaking will see you coming up behind them at obvious speed. There's no danger there.
That would be needless if people didn't go at a stupidly slow speed in the middle lane anyway.
That would be needless if people didn't go at a stupidly slow speed in the middle lane anyway.
Yes, and I agree that it's safer. But because pretty much every road user doesn't agree with you (or even if they do theoretically) and thus will abide by the law - or at least what they perceive it to be - you're creating a danger on the road by going against the status quo. Not only will other drivers not be prepared for you to undertake (thus creating a danger), but you also know how drivers react to what they see as bad driving... for want of a better word, angrily. And angry drivers often = unsafe drivers.
So sure, whilst I agree with you in theory that undertaking is safer and we should do what the Americans do (I'm not sure what the state of the law is over there, but from my experience at least, road users think undertaking is fine), I don't think the road is the best place to rebel against something just because you don't agree with it.
I have a bit of a crap car so I don't really go much over 75 when I am motorway driving, so I am predominantly in the inside lane. What I find more dangerous, obnoxious and worthy of penalty like the OP suggests is overcompensating boy-racer ego-complex idiots who speed up behind me WHILE I AM OVERTAKING A LORRY and start tailgating, swerving all over the road, putting their full beams on so I can't see anything in my mirrors, etc.
Guess what dickhead, if I was in the inside lane I would be INSIDE the vehicle I am currently overtaking. Some people are so enraged by anybody but themselves (because apparently that's allowed) being in the middle lane, they will act aggressively towards people simply overtaking. In the past I have had to move into the "fast lane" just to let someone speed off in the middle lane while I was overtaking a lorry. What the actual ****.
Guess what dickhead, if I was in the inside lane I would be INSIDE the vehicle I am currently overtaking. Some people are so enraged by anybody but themselves (because apparently that's allowed) being in the middle lane, they will act aggressively towards people simply overtaking. In the past I have had to move into the "fast lane" just to let someone speed off in the middle lane while I was overtaking a lorry. What the actual ****.
Related discussions
- Roundabout
- A Quiet Place to Study in London: Middle Temple
- My dad stresses me out so much when driving
- Wrongly failed driving test
- Roundabouts
- Judge Business School: How Do I get There?
- Driving test moving ahead tools that are working now?
- Like to marriage relationship with white woman
- Mock tests fail
- Fashion from yesteryear
- Make it More Crime-ey !!
- 4th attempt for driving
- Can I drive alongside lorry during a 2 lane roundabout?
- still no girlfriend
- Driving instructor on your test with you??
- Most embarrassing thing you ever did when drunk?
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- London Accomondation Needed
- Parked unmarked police car on bridge
- Are there hobbies or interests that make men more interesting
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?
