How Wireless EV Charging Works

[fixitflav]

I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as that .....

If, as is often the case, the traffic in the left-hand lane is already doing something like 70 mph, then your logic would mean that no-one could use (at a legal speed) any of the other 2 or 3 lanes (which would hardly improve "the capacity of the motorway ), wouldn't it?

In that situation, it's less of an issue, but there are plenty of occasions when there is light to moderate traffic in the left lane but still many drivers, who are going no faster than the left lane traffic, fail to use it. Why do you think signs saying "Don't hog the middle lane" are displayed?

 

[JohnW2]

In that situation, it's less of an issue ...

Not really just 'less of an issue' but, rather, a major issue, but in the opposite direction from what you suggested. To have vehicles only able to (legally) use one of the three or four lanes in a motorway would result in a ridiculous and unnecessary reduction in the capacity of the motorway!

a, but there are plenty of occasions when there is light to moderate traffic in the left lane but still many drivers, who are going no faster than the left lane traffic, fail to use it.

Sure, that can happen. However, particularly when a road is busy, it is common for there to be a lot of traffic in all three or four lanes, all travelling at roughly the same speed. In that situation, your approach would, again, say that they should all move into the left-hand laning, leave the other two or three lanes empty!

Why do you think signs saying "Don't hog the middle lane" are displayed?

Good question. Perhaps because some people are obsessed with the concept but haven't thought it through properly?

Another consideration, which I confess very much influences my driving practices is that, if you think about it, a high proportion of serious accidents result, in one way or another, from 'lane changing' - which means that it is safer to stay in one lane (any lane), rather than dart backwards and forwards between them all of the time.

 

[fixitflav]

Not really just 'less of an issue' but, rather, a major issue, but in the opposite direction from what you suggested. To have vehicles only able to (legally) use one of the three or four lanes in a motorway would result in a ridiculous and unnecessary reduction in the capacity of the motorway!

Sure, that can happen. However, particularly when a road is busy, it is common for there to be a lot of traffic in all three or four lanes, all travelling at roughly the same speed. In that situation, your approach would, again, say that they should all move into the left-hand laning, leave the other two or three lanes empty!

Good question. Perhaps because some people are obsessed with the concept but haven't thought it through properly?

Another consideration, which I confess very much influences my driving practices is that, if you think about it, a high proportion of serious accidents result, in one way or another, from 'lane changing' - which means that it is safer to stay in one lane (any lane), rather than dart backwards and forwards between them all of the time.

Have it your way. I take it you're a middle lane hogger. I'm out of here.

 

[morqthana]

Anybody who isn't overtaking a slower vehicle, or will need to in a short time.

OK.

What's your definition of "short"?

Note - I'm not picking away at you, or this - that concept, "or will need to in a short time", is important, but how much consensus is there in what the minimum is, is there widespread agreement that "if you'd need to pull out again in X seconds, stay out"?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Another consideration, which I confess very much influences my driving practices is that, if you think about it, a high proportion of serious accidents result, in one way or another, from 'lane changing'

Careless lane changing, perhaps. I don't ever recall one of my personal changes of lane, ever endangering anyone else, though I have suffered a few..

which means that it is safer to stay in one lane (any lane), rather than dart backwards and forwards between them all of the time.

Which causes endless frustration to other drivers, often leaving them little choice, except to undertake, as I risked doing yesterday....

Little red car, pulls off the roundabout, into L2 of a 40 limit, doing a steady 30. nothing ahead of her at all, just me behind in L1. I followed her for well over a mile, leaving her plenty of space to move to L1 ahead of me, finally flashed my headlights a few times, then eventually giving up I sounded my horns and resorted to under-taking.

 

[morqthana]

Have it your way. I take it you're a middle lane hogger. I'm out of here.

Middle lane hogger, or someone who's with you on this:

Anybody who isn't overtaking a slower vehicle, or will need to in a short time.

but just has a different opinion on what a "short time" is?

Hence my post earlier....

 

[morqthana]

.

 

[JohnW2]

Have it your way. I take it you're a middle lane hogger.

Not as such, but I don't like constantly jumping backwards and forwards between lanes (or others who do that). Drivers who jump out in front of me for a few seconds very frequently do tend to drive me mad

Perhaps more to the point, I was talking about what one can do 'legally'. I would generally drive faster than that in lane(s) to my left (hence consistent with your view but if, as is commonly the case, traffic in those other lines is already drive at, or close to, 70 mph, that means that I would be travelling at an illegal speed.

If all vehicles (even those in the right-hand lane) stuck to the speed limit, and if they all only 'moved to the right' if they wanted to travel faster than traffic in their current lane, then I doubt that there would be much, if any, traffic in the right-hand two lanes of a 4-lane motorway

 

[JohnW2]

Careless lane changing, perhaps. I don't ever recall one of my personal changes of lane, ever endangering anyone else, though I have suffered a few..

There are obviously plenty of exceptions but, in general, traffic in a particular lane will all be travelling at roughly the same speed (even during period when 'everyone is braking hard'), so if one stays in that lane, the worst that can happen is a 'nose-to-tail' impact of relatively little differential speed - hence relatively unlikley to result in a 'serious accident'.

Which causes endless frustration to other drivers, often leaving them little choice, except to undertake, as I risked doing yesterday....

I can't see why it should cause frustration to others if one is travelling (and wants to travel) faster than traffic in the lane to the left of therm, particularly if it really is a 'middle' lane (i.e with at least one more lane to the right (in which case 'undertaking' is totally unnecessary and unjustified).

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Perhaps more to the point, I was talking about what one can do 'legally'. I would generally drive faster than that in lane(s) to my left (hence consistent with your view but if, as is commonly the case, traffic in those other lines is already drive at, or close to, 70 mph, that means that I would be travelling at an illegal speed.

On many motorways, the standard speed in L1 is a fairly precise 56mph, if it is occupied by trucks, simply because their limiters are set for 56mph.

 

[Why Not Indeed]

On many motorways, the standard speed in L1 is a fairly precise 56mph, if it is occupied by trucks, simply because their limiters are set for 56mph.

Which makes L1 the de-facto "lorry lane", and L2 becomes "L1" for cars. Or, "middle lane hoggers", if you prefer.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

There are obviously plenty of exceptions but, in general, traffic in a particular lane will all be travelling at roughly the same speed (even during period when 'everyone is braking hard'), so if one stays in that lane, the worst that can happen is a 'nose-to-tail' impact of relatively little differential speed - hence relatively unlikley to result in a 'serious accident'.

Unfortunately, some drivers leave inadequate space to brake, and rather than hit the vehicle ahead, they swerve into other lanes, then it can become really messy.

I can't see why it should cause frustration to others if one is travelling (and wants to travel) faster than traffic in the lane to the left of therm, particularly if it really is a 'middle' lane (i.e with at least one more lane to the right (in which case 'undertaking' is totally unnecessary and unjustified).

Forcing a driver, in L1, to have to cross three lanes to overtake you, hogging L2, then having to cross all the way back to L1, is, believe me, very frustrating, unnecessary, as well as reducing the capacity of a road. All lanes of a motorway (normally), have the same speed limit.

I have been known to play an amusing game with such drivers, when the road is less busy... I overtake L1, L2, L3/ L3, L2, L1. then ease off, let them overtake, then circle round again. Repeat as many times as necessary, see how it takes them to twig..

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Which makes L1 the de-facto "lorry lane", and L2 becomes "L1" for cars. Or, "middle lane hoggers", if you prefer.

Rubbish, there are no lorry lanes, or car lanes! There are times, when L1 really is full of trucks, stuck at 56mph, but there are always gaps, where it is worth moving to the left.

 

[Why Not Indeed]

Don't expect sympathy if you come a cropper playing silly games - your epitaph could well be some variant on "But he had the right of way".

 

[fixitflav]

but just has a different opinion on what a "short time" is?

That's deliberately vague as there is no specific time, it depends on the circumstances.

Interesting how much debate (and acrimony) this has caused. Of course there is a huge range of situatiions that can occur, in some of which middle lane hogging is more blatant than others, but nobody can seriously claim it doestn't happen.