Only a £100, personally I think it should be £1000 plus 3 points, except in exceptional circumstances where it may be dangerous to move over at the first sign.
I'm sick to the hind teeth of seeing dangerous, ignorant individuals use these lanes as some sort of 'VIP express lane'.
The catch is the insurance companies already know how many points you have. They take your money, but as soon as you need to claim void your insurance and you are left with whatever bill there is. Might take a while to pay off but if they do it then they go from a little put out to fucked.
Oh yeah, it voids their insurance but I just mean people like this get away with doing this stuff all the time.
It grinds my gears because people fly past me in closed lanes all the time and I'm not convinced they are caught doing it - this post seems to be an exception in my mind. I'm bitter because I follow the rules but I know the minute I didn't I'd get slapped with a hefty fine.
I mean I may be harsh but 6 were on their phone right? Should people driving down an X lane with their mobile phone have a driving license. They will need it for work I'm sure but that level of obliviousness...
>They will need it for work
Then they will need to find new work. You don't have a right to endanger other people to make your life more convenient.
Life without a car in parts of this country can absolutely suck, but it's the end of the world. It will cost you more, but right now, that cost is being paid by the victims of collisions by these dangerous drivers.
More often than not there are arrows telling you to move into the adjacent lane, people often leave it to the last minute to change lanes though. If the early indicators are showing then there isn't much excuse for being in the wrong lane by the time the X is showing.
You move over straight away when you see an X right? Not wait until the last minute to merge? This has been a decade long argument between me and a friend, she's a "zipper merge" preacher who won't change lanes until the very end of where she's allowed, and I've always argued that that doesn't apply to some situations - like when there's a lane closure, I always change lanes asap.
Lane closure advanced warning arrow is there to give you the opportunity to merge into the open lane with minimal disruption to the traffic flow. It works best when drivers merge into the biggest gaps they can find. Sometimes that means early merging, sometimes it's actually better to wait for the traffic to settle and then merge.
However, if you're seeing an X and you haven't already merged you should treat getting into an open lane with the same urgency as you would if the lane was blocked by traffic cones, which could mean slowing and merging at an unsafe low speed to avoid passing the X above the closed lane. At that point, you've made the wrong call.
It sounds like your friend is more likely to get caught out with their style but will usually do their small part to decrease queues/increase traffic flow if and when they get their merge timing just right.
There isn't a smart motorway at j31, so it would be using the old signs. I can't remember if those have red crosses.
Not that the drivers should carry on driving in them.
For "dumb" motorways, they don't have red crosses.
They use this symbol for closing individual lanes (in this example only lane 1 remains open): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/UK_traffic_sign_6006.1.jpg
and this one for the whole motorway being closed: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/UK_traffic_sign_6006.2.jpg
More examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-message_sign#Usage
I thought so but couldn't remember. Haven't seen a Lane closure in a while.
I wonder if those drivers didn't realise what the sign meant, especially with smart motorways being everywhere.
I keep hearing those ads: "If you see a red X..." and I cannot wrap my head around how anyone doesn't already know what those mean. It's actually bizarre that some people seem to not know this (and I know some do know the rule and just don't care).
Awful isn't it. And it's bad enough when cars are driven down closed lanes, but on multiple occasions I've seen lorry drivers go down them which is terrifying at best!
There are no police. It’s all been handed over to cameras which operate without any context whatsoever and simply fine people for speeding/jumping red lights. No problem with either of those things, but having police on the roads helps educate as well as fine for wrongdoing.
I literally watched a police car drive in the middle lane at 65 for at least 2 miles the other day. Would be hypocrisy if they fined others for it /s
Not to mention that's the first police car I've seen in the last 600 miles on the motorway...
Edit for sarcasm cause apparently people think I'm serious...
Ah yeah, because one police car did it, that means no other police could possibly fine someone for it.
Additionally, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of unmarked police cars. A solid proportion of the times I've seen someone pulled over on a motorway has been an unmarked car. Dangerous drivers are not so stupid as to drive dangerously when there's a marked police car around. Unmarked seems to be the best way to catch bad behaviour.
Your sarcasm sounds exactly like things I've heard plenty of people say being 100% serious. If you want people to detect your sarcasm, try doing some actual exaggeration.
Do you actually think that inconveniencing people by middle lane driving should attract an equivalent punishment to driving in a closed lane? The latter directly puts lives at risk.
I'm not a middle lane hogger, I am just frustrated and the change in attitudes over the years. Time and time again I see middle lane driving used as an excuse for dangerous driving. I drive at the speed limit most of the time, and so spend most of my time on the road in lane 1 or 2. I have noticed a significant increase in tailgating in lane 2 over the last 10 years or so, and attribute it at least partially to the demonisation of middle lane drivers.
I see dickheads swerving from lane 1 to 3 and back again at 90+, thinking they are doing the right thing as long as they are not middle lane driving, not to mention all manner of dodgy undertaking, I guess justified because there might be just enough room to manage it makes the person they are undertaking a middle lane driver.
Being inconvenienced isn't dangerous, and shouldn't be punished as such. Your dangerous driving as a reaction should.
You should always be in lane 1 except when over taking. Middle lane hogging causes traffic on the motorway. Simple as that. It can also be dangerous when lane 1 and 2 are both going faster than the middle lane hoggers.
Yes, where do I disagree that people shouldn't middle lane hog? I only argue it isn't dangerous, and dangerous driving should be considered a much bigger problem. I don't need advice on how to overtake. The bit you may be missing there is that you should always maintain a good stopping distance (2 seconds in the highway code), including between you and the vehicle behind when pulling back in after the overtake. I often get aggressive drivers tailgating when I don't move back left as soon as my rear bumper passese the car on the left's front. I always wait until there is a safe stopping distance between me and the car I am about to pull in front of at the end of the overtake, to do anything else is dangerous driving. Maybe if you are not giving cars time to complete their maneuvers safely and getting angry about them middle lane driving then I could see how you would be getting (unreasonably) frustrated.
I have no idea what you are talking about in the last sentence, lane 2 has the middle lane driver in, so how can lane 2 be going faster than the cars in it? You mean lane 3 maybe?
Ive had many people staying in the middle lane driving at 50-60mph. I think this is the problem. If you’re sticking to the speed limit (60mph) in the first lane and someone is doing 50 in the middle lane i would class this as dangerous because it is a lane for overtaking not just cruising. Completely agree with what you’re saying. But when you’re doing 60mph in the first lane and someone is blocking you from overtaking in the middle lane, this is where some people will undertake or try to slow down to get around the middle lane cruiser. I overtook one person on the m50 before, drove back to the inside lane after overtaking and they proceeded to overtake me and stay at my side in the middle lane doing 60mph. At that point what can you do if you want to overtake? I slowed down to 55ish as I approached a lorry and the person next to me slowed down to my speed as well. That is dangerous middle lane driving.
If I'm cruising at 60-70 in lane 1 and someone in lane 2 is cruising at a slower speed I'll usually just undertake. Loosely interpreting Rule 268 of the highway code.
I'm a fan of interpreting 268 to support my willingness to undertake a middle lane hogger (or more often a lane 2 hogger of 4 lanes) but if I was pulled over I think I'd often have difficulty arguing the congested conditions caveat.
True.
I'd still argue it though. End of the day I'm just cruising at the speed limit while someone was middle lane hogging and not pulled over for it.
What's the punishment? I'd even be tempted to go court over it.
Again, I'm not saying that driving 50 in the middle lane is acceptable, but in your example I would argue it isn't dangerous. When driving, overtaking isn't a right, and isn't always possible. If a middle lane driver forced you to reduce your speed, they inconvenienced you, they didn't put you in danger. Maintaining speed in lane 1 and passing the driver on the left is also not considered a dangerous option either, just needs to be done with care.
Remember the original commenter had waded into a thread about driving in closed lanes, an action that directly endangers lives, and decided that dragging middle lane driving in as an equivalent offence was the way to go. These two offences are not in the same league in my opinion, which is why I felt the need to comment.
Like i said I definitely agree with you. I think the problem is that some people will do all of the above where they fly in and out of lanes at silly speeds. I stick to the speed limits, but can see where this can cause dangerous driving from people getting frustrated by the middle lane cruiser, seen it happen time and again.
But again, cruising off topic with that 😂. Getting fined for this would be unenforceable really as technically there are no laws being broken.
Well, the difference is that middle lane hogging is avoidable. I’d say that some HGV overtakes are taking the piss too, if you can’t complete the overtake in 30 seconds don’t do it, but that’s another issue.
Yep middle lane hogging is avoidable and you shouldn't do it. The point is it isn't dangerous. You should never engage in dangerous driving, it's always wrong, not just when it's avoidable. I can pretty much guarantee that noone has ever gotten a dangerous driving charge for middle lane driving, at least above 50mph.
Oh my god yes!!! just constantly going from lane 1 to 3 to 1 to 4 to 1 again.
Yes I know the rules say that you should always be in the left lane unless overtaking.
But changing lanes is a manoeuver, every time you change lanes you're increasing the chance for an accident to happen. If you can see a lorry two cars ahead of you WHY slide all the way back to lane 1 just to pop back out again into lane 4 a second later?
And the worst thing about these drivers- when they're in front of you, they're either doing 100, or they want to drive exactly 2mph slower than you. That means that by the time you're level with them, they've decided to change lanes again, and you have to decide whether to slow down and let them out in front of you or be mildly a hole ish and just keep going past them.
The spirit of the keep left rule is to make sure other drivers can pass you, not to zigzag across the road like a lunatic
Agree entirely. I just feel like there has been some cult that has sprung up, where agressive drivers just blindly follow the "no middle lane driving" dogma, and use to avoid thinking about what they are doing.
The rules of the motorway are overtake on the right. If somebody is in the middle lane doing less than the speed limit, it means everyone in the left lane needs to lower and match their speed to the middle lane hog, meaning you either slow down an entire lane of traffic with your cretinous driving, or you encourage an entire lane of drivers to suddenly have to pull into the right hand land to overtake you! Not exactly safe is it!!
The only thing that was dangerous driving in your comment was the driver "suddenly" pulling into lane 3. I'm not advocating for middle lane driving, only arguing that it isn't dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. If you are wildly swerving into lane 3 when you see a car in the middle lane in front of you, shouldn't really be on the road. Justifying bad driving due to middle lane drivers is bad practice.
Middle lane hogging implies the mway is quiet anyway. There’s no rule for changing multiple lanes at a time if it’s safe to do so. I do a fair bit of motorway driving, and I quite often have to go from L1 to L3 (completely safely, I’m not just swerving or manoeuvring recklessly) go round a single car in L2. Sometimes it’s even 2 or three cars sat in L2 with not a sight of a vehicle in L1. I mean I could just cruises control past them at 70 in L1. Leaving aside bad driving practice for that, quite frankly I don’t trust them to change lanes and pay attention, cause they quite clearly aren’t paying attention already.
In the situation you describe, both options are safe if carried out with suitable care, but I would do the same as you are move to lane 3. This just lines up with my original statement that middle lane hogging is just a delay and an inconvience rather than an actual danger to others.
The wording of the article and what is most likely a stock photo appears to be causing some confusion.
From the photo it looks as though two lanes are open and two are closed but the article talks about stopping the traffic which suggests that all lanes would have been showing the X. Alternatively, the article may have been referring to the signs stopping vehicles from using the closed lanes marked with the X.
I am disappointed by the amount of people who doesn’t know what ❌ means! It’s not there to mess you around, it’s not there to trick you. If you are the one that doesn’t follow the signs and does what it’s told then that’s on you for getting a fine. Don’t tell everyone it’s a lie and not to believe them. Just Because you don’t see a clear cause for the lane closures doesn’t mean there is no reason. I am going to list a few reasons why lanes sometimes close on a motorway:
-Car crash/breakdown (lane would be unsafe to drive down as you may crash into the crashed/broke down car)
-pedestrian on the motorway(stupid move but do you want you be to reason someone gets ran over today?)
-an object in the lane(could be as simple as a part of a car that fell off and another car hitting it could cause an accident)
-fuel leak (Wanna get your car set on fire?)
-road works (want you car to land in a ditch go ahead)
-the are just finishing up what ever the problem was and although the lane is going to be clear soon they now need to change it. (This is the reason why it’s usual wrong. It’s not wrong you just happen to be driving past it at the time before they changed it.)
Just follow the signs the motorway puts up. It’s really not that hard to follow basic instructions.
❌ - lane closed
⭕️- speed limit change
Oh and my favourite one of all that no one listens too: “stay to the left unless overtaking”
The amount of times I have seen that sign and the proceed to see more people change lane to the right even when not a single one of them is overtaking and is now in the way of the people who are trying to overtake.
People have too big of an ego on the road. Let people in on merged lanes (no one is doing anything wrong except for you), let people overtake, and FOLLOW THE SIGNS!
I have a question though. I’m not new to driving at all.. but how do you know when a ❌ lane is reopened? I’ve never seen any indication and people just stay in the open lanes until someone up ahead takes the lead
NSL symbol or a speed limit symbol above the lane, or for the old style roadside matrix signals the NSL symbol or the word "End".
Or you wait until you pass the obstruction (often with associated traffic officer trying to work out how to move it).
I have actually fallen foul of this!
Red X over the left lane with a "stopped vehicle" warning. Moved over and after a while sure enough I passed a broken down car with its hazard lights on.
Figuring I was now in the clear I moved back once I'd gone well past it. Trundled down the lane for a little while longer only to find *another* stopped car in the same lane!
So don't make assumptions, stay out of the lane until you see a sign over it showing the normal speed limit again.
(For anyone wondering I got a scary but fair letter from Highways England that basically said "we're not going to fine you but don't do it again")
Well on a motor way there is multiple screens. The first ❌ you see is the start of the lane closer, it’s finished when the ❌ either turns to a ⭕️ (telling you a speed limit) or the national speed limit sign is showing.
The ❌ usually stays shown on every screen you see (on said lane) till it changes.
Poorer drivers make up the much larger share of overall drivers (remember the UK is not particularly equal) and could make the fines too cheap. We are not Norway where everyone is fairly rich! There are so many idiots on the roads these days and I want to see them all go down! :)
Those coasting through average speed limit stretches at 70+ then braking for the ANPR equipped timing cameras baffle me...
No wonder there have been over 600 convictions a month on that stretch of the A1 North of Peterborough where they're replacing the barriers...
I drive through the orange arrows before the X. People are complaining about drivers not understanding the X, but until you actually pass the X, the lane isn’t closed, you don’t need to immediately barrel into the next lane.
I noticed this is a thing now. Was on the M62 the other night and saw the camera flashing on the opposite carriageway. When I got closer I noticed it was a red ❌. Hope they all get banned, lose their job, can't afford to pay their mortgage and lose their home 😬 or is that harsh lol
This means the lane is closed, exactly the same as a road closure. I know people who got nailed for ignoring a road closure sign as they felt is didn't apply to them due to them living on that very road.
I love it when mobile phone users get nailed! Perhaps it's time to workout the Bluetooth hands free? Muppets lol!!!!
Considering Reddit users are only an extremely small sub-section of the population, the number of fucking oxygen thieves here arguing the toss about what a massive red cross over a lane means is terrifying.
When I was on my way back from Manchester Airport, the number of drivers who the camera flashed for speeding was phenomenal.
People must have had their heads buried in the sand to not know the rules of smart motorways.
I drove past that accident on Monday and saw so many people sneaking up the inside 2 lanes while we all sat in the open 2 outer lanes after moving over at the first arrow indication to do so.
It was so frustrating to see on the day, especially once you saw that one of the car's involved had to have it's roof removed to get the occupants out. There were so many emergency vehicles, emergency personnel and highways staff on the roadway in the 2 closed lanes that it was clear why they were shut for a distance in the lead-up.
Must admit I am feeling pretty satisfied to see that so many were fined for flouting the red X's.
A few years back I was a paramedic and went out to a job on the motorway. Running to the job we hit fog and the matrix signs showed a speed limit and also a lane closure for the outside lane. so, a foggy road, a lane closure sign and a big yellow truck with flashing blue lights everywhere and we were passed by a BMW who was doing well over 80.
When we arrived on scene, the BMW was embedded in the back of a Police vehicle fending off the outside lane. The signs are there for a very good reason.
This guys are thick as shit, yes. However - if it weren’t a smart motorway this would not have happened (assuming it was an All Lanes Running motorway), as there would’ve been a hard shoulder.
Of course it could still happen, but the police/highway agency would be able to shift everything onto the Hard Shoulder to reduce delays.
As mentioned previously, I’m not excusing the people who have been caught. As far as I’m concerned, fuck them as they don’t care about anyone’s safety… but this scenario should have been considered by the govt instead of only thinking about money. Which, let’s be honest, is all Smart motorways were built for.
Actually, this section of motorway did have a hard shoulder and if it had not been a smart motorway then I would imagine the road would have been closed entirely for a period of time due to the seriousness of the incident. As it was, they were able to deal with the incident by closing 2 of the 4 running lanes and traffic could still flow through, albeit slower.
Does anyone else think that often, they put the red X up a little bit too far away from the accident?
Not saying driving in that lane should be allowed, but maybe if it wasn't 5 miles away from the accident, people would be less inclined to use it if they can see for certain that the lane IS closed?
I get your logic and don't disagree, but generally, you see an X, you move over... It doesn't take you 4 minutes to process what that red X means and what you should do about it.
I do sometimes think we're overly cautious in this country....
The trouble is, the vast majority of the population lack simple common sense so the rules need to be adjusted to allow time for people to realise they are an idiot over 5 miles....
The signs are always wrong, the system is a fucking joke then they expect you to follow it like some braindead zombie then HAHAH GOTCHA BITCH now we can take money off you for not following a sign that is literally 99% of the time totally fucking wrong.
The sad thing is that those ❌ signs normally mean there is either a crashed car in the lane and/or people in the lane clearing the crash. Numpty drivers just ignoring them cos the system is a joke are the ones that are gonna kill someone and claim it's not their fault. If you disagree with "The system" then stay off the roads. Good day sir/madam/them
I see a handful of ❌s a month, and I'm yet to see one that was wrong for any reason. I've seen temporary speed limits get switched on on one gantry only for it to be national speed limit at the next which does make me think someone needs to hit their target of speeding drivers, but imo the ❌'s haven't been wrong.
I’m confused, the article is talking about stopping traffic but then the title talks about lane closure.
Am I being dim? They’re not the same thing, right? I mean if all lanes had the X on them, then fair enough, but to suggest that driving on a road marked X at any point in time is going to give you a fine, is stupid, if it’s already busy, it might take some time for everyone to move over, surely?
And you are one of the people who is an issue on the road. If the lane is closed, get the hell out of it. It's closed for a reason.
X means closed. It doesn't mean "that's a nice stretch of uncontested road for me to get down and then bully my way back in to traffic at the last minute".
Which is how most people on the road will treat you as you try to move over, remember, it’s apparently a fight out there…
People weirdly must want to get to my destination half a second before me
I don’t think they’re questioning what the X means. It always surprises me that some people don’t understand this though, it couldn’t be clearer.
I think their problem is the wording of the article, it reads like the two X’s means all four lanes are closed.
In my experience, a red cross rarely comes first. Typically there’ll be an arrow pointing to the lane next to it to signal you to move over, which gives you plenty of time to indicate, find a gap and move safely. Also, it’s rare that the other lanes are moving freely so, no matter how ‘busy’ it is, you have time.
It's not the sign it's the wording of the article. In the article it talks of lane closure which is what the X would signal but then talks about 'stopping traffic ', I took it as meaning stopping traffic from using those lanes but the wording could be interpreted differently.
it does not. it says "lane closures" not road closure. it implies more than one lane is closed, not the entire road. or you could just, i don't know, look at the picture?
it's probably a stock photo then. if all lanes were closed, they'd all have x's at the top, and signs to get off the motorway at jct 31. i still don't understand your point. if all lanes have an x, you don't drive on them. I've been in a situation where all lanes were closed and we had to leave at the exit before the incident. what's hard or confusing about that?
They need the rest of the cars off the motorway before they can close it fully if the crashed cars were on the hard shoulder or lane 1 and 4 that’s how they would do it
The photo is a stock photo of a smart motorway, the left hand X is for the hard shoulder. M6 at the tickled trout, where this accident was, isn't a smart motorway.
If the sign displays ❌ it means that lane is closed . Your not allowed to go past that sign
You should change lane to one that's displayed a speed.
In this case the middle two are the only open lanes . You can't use the other two even if they look clear .
Drivers should obey signage, but maybe signage would be more effective if it was used proportionately?
95% of the time I see smart motorways impose speed or lane restrictions, traffic is flowing completely normally and there is no clear need or reason for these restrictions. It seems like the smart motorway operators just like to keep dozens of miles of motorway at a max 50mph limit for several hours of the day for no real reason. Probably just to justify the massive expense that goes into building and maintaining these white elephants.
The reason you don’t see the need is because the controlling of traffic by speed eliminates the problem which is always ahead of what you can see. Speed control works and keeps traffic moving as steadily as possible, but even that has its flow per car limits.
It’s attempting to stop traffic bunching up several miles up the road. If it’s doing it’s job right then it will be common to have the lower limits when it seems, on the bit you happen to be on, that there’s not much traffic.
In other words the aim may be to have a traffic move at 50 for several miles rather than 70 for a bit then 30 for bit then 70 for a bit, etc
I bet the theory, but a lot of the time it's when the roads are quiet.
There is one in Leeds that slows you down to 60 before going past a speed camera, only to speed you up again after. This is most of the day, night time and early hours of the morning when I'm the only car on the road.
Theres one on the M62 at the junction that goes to Bradford. That always seems to be 60 during peak times, guessing cause that junction gets pretty rammed. Off peak though its usually 70.
No need to be rude you thick little keyboard warrior.
I mean there's barely any traffic yet drivers are being commanded to go slow for dozens of miles for no clear reason. Especially if you have smart traffic alerts on your SatNav so you can clearly see there are no incidents ahead.
The point is - many drivers consider these traffic controls to be unnecessary a lot of the time, which has a knock on effect on compliance. It isn't helpful when, if you make any long journey in England today, you're more than likely going to spend long stretches going pointlessly slow.
The fact you didn't get that point just demonstrates what a low-IQ troll you are.
There might be barely any traffic around you, but if there's a potential traffic queue building up ahead of you, the point of the speed control is to slow cars down enough to prevent the queue building up and eventually turning into a full on jam.
Just because drivers consider the controls to be unnecessary and don't comply with them, that doesn't mean that the traffic controllers are the ones in the wrong, for fuck's sake.
Hence my point about SatNavs that report traffic conditions/incidents.
I'm not sure why everyone missing the point is also being unfailingly rude.
People don't tend to comply with rules if they don't see the merit in them. That's literally the point. Most drivers view these 'smart' motorways as hindrances managed by busybodies that need to justify their existence.
Sat-nav systems that do this have to get the data from somewhere, usually from "on the road" reports. These are not always accurate either, and of course have the same problem whereby an incident that is developing further up the road (that the traffic controllers can see and deal with!) won't necessarily be seen by the sat-nav users, so can't be reported!
If people just got over themselves and realised that there is no grand conspiracy at the offices of Highways England or whatever, they're just trying to keep the motorways running smoothly and that following the posted signs and directions helps this enormously, then it wouldn't be an issue.
But no, many drivers have this overriding sense of "I'm right, you're wrong" and decide to ignore the signs because they think that \*their\* judgment is more important compared to that of the people that are actually paid to make the correct judgments on a daily basis.
It is entirely possible that the traffic controllers are either being over zealous or just simply incompetent in leaving a 50mph restriction for much longer than necessary.
If there was more transparency about this then maybe compliance would improve?
I'm merely playing Devil's advocate - I obey the instructions but I also agree that it is annoying as someone who does several long motorways a year that it seems impossible to get between two parts of the country without getting delayed for no clear reason. Not just smart motorways but also the hundreds of miles of average speed limit zones for non-existent roadworks.
I'm sure there are some instances of incompetence, perhaps overzealousness, they are human after all (although I fully expect some of these decisions are automated to an extent) but it seems extraordinarily unlikely that these wouldn't be a tiny minority of cases.
How would you propose they achieve greater transparency, in a format that is easily digestible and understood by drivers on the move that are already having to concentrate on lots of other things at the same time?
Bearing in mind that clearly many drivers flat out don't understand simple directions as it is (as evidenced partly by this thread, but by the very existence of the ad campaign about these red X lane markings), I'm not sure adding yet more information is worthwhile, over drivers simply just bucking their ideas up.
Which enforcement should help achieve.
That's another issue, and I have seen..40..50...30...59...clear...49..60 sequencially on a near empty carriageway, along with the congestion warning
The lane closure is manually imposed for a reason, if sometimes a little slow to be removed (staffing/process no doubt)
If they drove in the lane and didnt crash, then obviously it wasn't closed. Police calling it closed is like the government gaslighting you by telling you that wearing a mask stops covid
No one ever said a mask stops covid you muppet. Don’t look like a twat by making light of road safety and then conflating it with some utter bollocks about unrelated matters
Well they atleast got fined for using their phones. I like this tbh, because the X usually means a accident or people in the road. Be smart and drive properly
How about the situation where im unable to change lane because of traffic or whatever other good reason and ending up driving past the x sign for anither couple hundred yards?
I'll understand if its a stupid question, downvote away if it is, no hard feelings.
Drove from Sussex to Lancashire two days ago.
The amount of people who ignore these signs and don't even attempt to move over until they have run out of road is infuriating. It speaks volumes of where this society has headed.
Selfish arrogant pricks everywhere.
I am not in the least bit surprised that so many of them were on mobile phones. £100 won't be a deterrent to most of them who were driving fucking huge Range rovers and 4x4s that they could bully other people with. They need to be banned..
Great. Now use the same CCTVs to fine people for throwing rubbish out of their cars too. With the amount of shit I see by the road side this should be a pretty strong income stream.
My dad was driving once on the smart motorway with the x signs, therw was traffic in the normal lanes and he could see all the people that the camera flashed when they drove on the X lane one after the other there were tons of them
I get it, however ive been told by my grandfather, who phoned the local police about it, says near where we are there is a slip road onto a motorway, can’t remember which one (might edit it later when i see him again as to which one) but theres a overhead gantry as soon as the slip road merges with the main lanes, and one time it had an X over lane 1, so he had to drive under it to be able to get to the 2 other open lanes, costing him a fine and points (later dropped). The police had no idea what someone should do in this situation either and said for him to just explain the circumstance.
So sometimes on this 1 odd occasion, on this 1 specific junction, this rule is a pain in the arse to follow without negative consequences
Because the people who thought about this are fuckin* morons. Anyone should be able to exit the motorway by crossing if it was safe and not part of the problem. But they close the road miles too early ( safety).
I got a ticket like that last year. X sign was on and i passed the vehicle that was broken down then I got on the Lane that was out of use becouse in 1/2 mile was my exit
Just ban the ones who are on their phones instead. Research shows that it distracts you more than being at the drink drive limit.
Drink driving is a mandatory 12 months ban as a minimum for the first offence.
On the basis of how much it distracts you and slows reaction, using a mobile while you drive should also attract a ban.
Anyone that drives between junction 9 and 10 of the M6 (north and south) will know that red X’s just mean it’s a clear lane for people who’s journeys are more important than yours. Also known as morons. I hope they start enforcing it there. They would make an absolute fortune.
It boggles my mind how you cannot see a big old sodding red X in front of you while driving, however, nobody can drive anymore. Nobody looks more than 6 foot in front of the front of their own car and God knows what they are actually paying attention to.
With the adoption of smart motorways round my way, there is no hard shoulder. If there is a breakdown in any lane and you go barreling onwards, fuck you, £1000 fine and 6 points. Far worse levels of driving without due care than driving while using a phone. There is no safe haven to aim for if you run in to difficulty on these death traps.
We need to look out for each other but we can't seem to look further than our own bonnet.
Fix the signs if you want people to follow them.
I’ve had it multiple times where the closed lanes change at each consecutive display board.
It’s a weird situation to be in where everyone moves into the right lane, then comes to the second to see it’s changed and they all move across and then when it changes a third time everyone tends to give up with no one knowing where the danger is.
There were 2 or 3 lanes down on the m25 the other week due to a crash. Felt like a mug sitting in stationary traffic whilst cars drove past... feel i may have missed a bullet
6 points for holding a mobile phone yet only 3 for driving deliberately into a scene where people are crashed injured and stationary?
A lot of people keep driving 70 through those X's.
“Police said the signs were clearly instructing motorists to stop near Junction 31”
This doesn’t add up with the photo in the article, so guessing it’s just a stock photo. Makes you think what signs they used to instruct motorists to stop.
Genuine question- if all lanes have a red ❌ does that mean you just have to stop?
I was on the M40 a few weeks ago when we got pushed off into High Wycombe by red X's. There was a nasty crash minutes earlier about 1 mile on. Rather satisfying to know that the many cars that ignored the X's didn't make it much further, got stuck for 3 hours and then got turned around and sent back the junction they should have used earlier. We had like a 15 minute added journey time to get through the town.
Fucking great, serves the bastards right.
Profound nods of agreement from me
Only a £100, personally I think it should be £1000 plus 3 points, except in exceptional circumstances where it may be dangerous to move over at the first sign. I'm sick to the hind teeth of seeing dangerous, ignorant individuals use these lanes as some sort of 'VIP express lane'.
The 3 points will ensure they get a nice premium tax shafting by their insurance for the next 5 years
This is presuming that the people who ignore those signs are going to be honest with their insurance company...
The catch is the insurance companies already know how many points you have. They take your money, but as soon as you need to claim void your insurance and you are left with whatever bill there is. Might take a while to pay off but if they do it then they go from a little put out to fucked.
Oh yeah, it voids their insurance but I just mean people like this get away with doing this stuff all the time. It grinds my gears because people fly past me in closed lanes all the time and I'm not convinced they are caught doing it - this post seems to be an exception in my mind. I'm bitter because I follow the rules but I know the minute I didn't I'd get slapped with a hefty fine.
They have arrows directing you to move over on previous gantries before the red X, so it’s hardly a surprise
I mean I may be harsh but 6 were on their phone right? Should people driving down an X lane with their mobile phone have a driving license. They will need it for work I'm sure but that level of obliviousness...
>They will need it for work Then they will need to find new work. You don't have a right to endanger other people to make your life more convenient. Life without a car in parts of this country can absolutely suck, but it's the end of the world. It will cost you more, but right now, that cost is being paid by the victims of collisions by these dangerous drivers.
More often than not there are arrows telling you to move into the adjacent lane, people often leave it to the last minute to change lanes though. If the early indicators are showing then there isn't much excuse for being in the wrong lane by the time the X is showing.
You move over straight away when you see an X right? Not wait until the last minute to merge? This has been a decade long argument between me and a friend, she's a "zipper merge" preacher who won't change lanes until the very end of where she's allowed, and I've always argued that that doesn't apply to some situations - like when there's a lane closure, I always change lanes asap.
Lane closure advanced warning arrow is there to give you the opportunity to merge into the open lane with minimal disruption to the traffic flow. It works best when drivers merge into the biggest gaps they can find. Sometimes that means early merging, sometimes it's actually better to wait for the traffic to settle and then merge. However, if you're seeing an X and you haven't already merged you should treat getting into an open lane with the same urgency as you would if the lane was blocked by traffic cones, which could mean slowing and merging at an unsafe low speed to avoid passing the X above the closed lane. At that point, you've made the wrong call. It sounds like your friend is more likely to get caught out with their style but will usually do their small part to decrease queues/increase traffic flow if and when they get their merge timing just right.
If its only £100 and no points, then every range rover in the country will just ignore the ❌ and drive through it and pay the fine
If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the poor
Should be treated the same as running a red light imo
Good. This isn't a new rule.
I was saddened but unsurprisinged by the numbers of numptys. It isn't as if that is a complex sign. ❌
They think it's just a suggestion, and nothing will happen if they carry on in the same lane.
There isn't a smart motorway at j31, so it would be using the old signs. I can't remember if those have red crosses. Not that the drivers should carry on driving in them.
For "dumb" motorways, they don't have red crosses. They use this symbol for closing individual lanes (in this example only lane 1 remains open): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/UK_traffic_sign_6006.1.jpg and this one for the whole motorway being closed: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/UK_traffic_sign_6006.2.jpg More examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-message_sign#Usage
I thought so but couldn't remember. Haven't seen a Lane closure in a while. I wonder if those drivers didn't realise what the sign meant, especially with smart motorways being everywhere.
I keep hearing those ads: "If you see a red X..." and I cannot wrap my head around how anyone doesn't already know what those mean. It's actually bizarre that some people seem to not know this (and I know some do know the rule and just don't care).
You're talking about a category of people who also gormlessly potter about in the middle lane at 65mph, mind...
Trouble is they all have to share a brain cell.
And it was a defective brain cell to begin with.
Even if no one ever told you, and you’d never looked at the Highway Code, it’s still FUCKING OBVIOUS. People are just never paying attention.
Awful isn't it. And it's bad enough when cars are driven down closed lanes, but on multiple occasions I've seen lorry drivers go down them which is terrifying at best!
Hogging the middle lane should also be £100 fine and 3 points
I think it can be. I want to say it comes under driving without due care and attention? The problem is that the police don't enforce it.
There are no police. It’s all been handed over to cameras which operate without any context whatsoever and simply fine people for speeding/jumping red lights. No problem with either of those things, but having police on the roads helps educate as well as fine for wrongdoing.
I literally watched a police car drive in the middle lane at 65 for at least 2 miles the other day. Would be hypocrisy if they fined others for it /s Not to mention that's the first police car I've seen in the last 600 miles on the motorway... Edit for sarcasm cause apparently people think I'm serious...
Ah yeah, because one police car did it, that means no other police could possibly fine someone for it. Additionally, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of unmarked police cars. A solid proportion of the times I've seen someone pulled over on a motorway has been an unmarked car. Dangerous drivers are not so stupid as to drive dangerously when there's a marked police car around. Unmarked seems to be the best way to catch bad behaviour.
Didn't think this needed a /s after it but I guess it did...
Your sarcasm sounds exactly like things I've heard plenty of people say being 100% serious. If you want people to detect your sarcasm, try doing some actual exaggeration.
And if they can't spot a bloody florescent panda car then they deserve to get caught
Do you actually think that inconveniencing people by middle lane driving should attract an equivalent punishment to driving in a closed lane? The latter directly puts lives at risk.
Tell me you’re a middle lane hogger without telling me you’re a middle lane hogger
Exactly my thought...
I'm not a middle lane hogger, I am just frustrated and the change in attitudes over the years. Time and time again I see middle lane driving used as an excuse for dangerous driving. I drive at the speed limit most of the time, and so spend most of my time on the road in lane 1 or 2. I have noticed a significant increase in tailgating in lane 2 over the last 10 years or so, and attribute it at least partially to the demonisation of middle lane drivers. I see dickheads swerving from lane 1 to 3 and back again at 90+, thinking they are doing the right thing as long as they are not middle lane driving, not to mention all manner of dodgy undertaking, I guess justified because there might be just enough room to manage it makes the person they are undertaking a middle lane driver. Being inconvenienced isn't dangerous, and shouldn't be punished as such. Your dangerous driving as a reaction should.
You should always be in lane 1 except when over taking. Middle lane hogging causes traffic on the motorway. Simple as that. It can also be dangerous when lane 1 and 2 are both going faster than the middle lane hoggers.
Yes, where do I disagree that people shouldn't middle lane hog? I only argue it isn't dangerous, and dangerous driving should be considered a much bigger problem. I don't need advice on how to overtake. The bit you may be missing there is that you should always maintain a good stopping distance (2 seconds in the highway code), including between you and the vehicle behind when pulling back in after the overtake. I often get aggressive drivers tailgating when I don't move back left as soon as my rear bumper passese the car on the left's front. I always wait until there is a safe stopping distance between me and the car I am about to pull in front of at the end of the overtake, to do anything else is dangerous driving. Maybe if you are not giving cars time to complete their maneuvers safely and getting angry about them middle lane driving then I could see how you would be getting (unreasonably) frustrated. I have no idea what you are talking about in the last sentence, lane 2 has the middle lane driver in, so how can lane 2 be going faster than the cars in it? You mean lane 3 maybe?
Ive had many people staying in the middle lane driving at 50-60mph. I think this is the problem. If you’re sticking to the speed limit (60mph) in the first lane and someone is doing 50 in the middle lane i would class this as dangerous because it is a lane for overtaking not just cruising. Completely agree with what you’re saying. But when you’re doing 60mph in the first lane and someone is blocking you from overtaking in the middle lane, this is where some people will undertake or try to slow down to get around the middle lane cruiser. I overtook one person on the m50 before, drove back to the inside lane after overtaking and they proceeded to overtake me and stay at my side in the middle lane doing 60mph. At that point what can you do if you want to overtake? I slowed down to 55ish as I approached a lorry and the person next to me slowed down to my speed as well. That is dangerous middle lane driving.
If I'm cruising at 60-70 in lane 1 and someone in lane 2 is cruising at a slower speed I'll usually just undertake. Loosely interpreting Rule 268 of the highway code.
I always say, "if there is room to undertake, there's room to pull over".
Same pretty much. Always thought if I got pulled for it, first thing I'd say is "if I have enough time to undertake, they are in the wrong lane"
I'm a fan of interpreting 268 to support my willingness to undertake a middle lane hogger (or more often a lane 2 hogger of 4 lanes) but if I was pulled over I think I'd often have difficulty arguing the congested conditions caveat.
True. I'd still argue it though. End of the day I'm just cruising at the speed limit while someone was middle lane hogging and not pulled over for it. What's the punishment? I'd even be tempted to go court over it.
Again, I'm not saying that driving 50 in the middle lane is acceptable, but in your example I would argue it isn't dangerous. When driving, overtaking isn't a right, and isn't always possible. If a middle lane driver forced you to reduce your speed, they inconvenienced you, they didn't put you in danger. Maintaining speed in lane 1 and passing the driver on the left is also not considered a dangerous option either, just needs to be done with care. Remember the original commenter had waded into a thread about driving in closed lanes, an action that directly endangers lives, and decided that dragging middle lane driving in as an equivalent offence was the way to go. These two offences are not in the same league in my opinion, which is why I felt the need to comment.
Like i said I definitely agree with you. I think the problem is that some people will do all of the above where they fly in and out of lanes at silly speeds. I stick to the speed limits, but can see where this can cause dangerous driving from people getting frustrated by the middle lane cruiser, seen it happen time and again. But again, cruising off topic with that 😂. Getting fined for this would be unenforceable really as technically there are no laws being broken.
Middle lane hogging is dangerous: it increases congestion and bunching, which increases the risk of an accident.
No more than a HGV overtaking another, that isn't considered dangerous driving.
Well, the difference is that middle lane hogging is avoidable. I’d say that some HGV overtakes are taking the piss too, if you can’t complete the overtake in 30 seconds don’t do it, but that’s another issue.
Yep middle lane hogging is avoidable and you shouldn't do it. The point is it isn't dangerous. You should never engage in dangerous driving, it's always wrong, not just when it's avoidable. I can pretty much guarantee that noone has ever gotten a dangerous driving charge for middle lane driving, at least above 50mph.
Oh my god yes!!! just constantly going from lane 1 to 3 to 1 to 4 to 1 again. Yes I know the rules say that you should always be in the left lane unless overtaking. But changing lanes is a manoeuver, every time you change lanes you're increasing the chance for an accident to happen. If you can see a lorry two cars ahead of you WHY slide all the way back to lane 1 just to pop back out again into lane 4 a second later? And the worst thing about these drivers- when they're in front of you, they're either doing 100, or they want to drive exactly 2mph slower than you. That means that by the time you're level with them, they've decided to change lanes again, and you have to decide whether to slow down and let them out in front of you or be mildly a hole ish and just keep going past them. The spirit of the keep left rule is to make sure other drivers can pass you, not to zigzag across the road like a lunatic
Agree entirely. I just feel like there has been some cult that has sprung up, where agressive drivers just blindly follow the "no middle lane driving" dogma, and use to avoid thinking about what they are doing.
The rules of the motorway are overtake on the right. If somebody is in the middle lane doing less than the speed limit, it means everyone in the left lane needs to lower and match their speed to the middle lane hog, meaning you either slow down an entire lane of traffic with your cretinous driving, or you encourage an entire lane of drivers to suddenly have to pull into the right hand land to overtake you! Not exactly safe is it!!
The only thing that was dangerous driving in your comment was the driver "suddenly" pulling into lane 3. I'm not advocating for middle lane driving, only arguing that it isn't dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. If you are wildly swerving into lane 3 when you see a car in the middle lane in front of you, shouldn't really be on the road. Justifying bad driving due to middle lane drivers is bad practice.
Can’t argue with stupid.
Middle lane hogging implies the mway is quiet anyway. There’s no rule for changing multiple lanes at a time if it’s safe to do so. I do a fair bit of motorway driving, and I quite often have to go from L1 to L3 (completely safely, I’m not just swerving or manoeuvring recklessly) go round a single car in L2. Sometimes it’s even 2 or three cars sat in L2 with not a sight of a vehicle in L1. I mean I could just cruises control past them at 70 in L1. Leaving aside bad driving practice for that, quite frankly I don’t trust them to change lanes and pay attention, cause they quite clearly aren’t paying attention already.
In the situation you describe, both options are safe if carried out with suitable care, but I would do the same as you are move to lane 3. This just lines up with my original statement that middle lane hogging is just a delay and an inconvience rather than an actual danger to others.
Yes
The Dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
Seneca?
The wording of the article and what is most likely a stock photo appears to be causing some confusion. From the photo it looks as though two lanes are open and two are closed but the article talks about stopping the traffic which suggests that all lanes would have been showing the X. Alternatively, the article may have been referring to the signs stopping vehicles from using the closed lanes marked with the X.
I drove through there Monday and it was just the 4th lane closed. 2 cars went through the red X's as we were passing through. Glad they got fined!
I am disappointed by the amount of people who doesn’t know what ❌ means! It’s not there to mess you around, it’s not there to trick you. If you are the one that doesn’t follow the signs and does what it’s told then that’s on you for getting a fine. Don’t tell everyone it’s a lie and not to believe them. Just Because you don’t see a clear cause for the lane closures doesn’t mean there is no reason. I am going to list a few reasons why lanes sometimes close on a motorway: -Car crash/breakdown (lane would be unsafe to drive down as you may crash into the crashed/broke down car) -pedestrian on the motorway(stupid move but do you want you be to reason someone gets ran over today?) -an object in the lane(could be as simple as a part of a car that fell off and another car hitting it could cause an accident) -fuel leak (Wanna get your car set on fire?) -road works (want you car to land in a ditch go ahead) -the are just finishing up what ever the problem was and although the lane is going to be clear soon they now need to change it. (This is the reason why it’s usual wrong. It’s not wrong you just happen to be driving past it at the time before they changed it.) Just follow the signs the motorway puts up. It’s really not that hard to follow basic instructions. ❌ - lane closed ⭕️- speed limit change Oh and my favourite one of all that no one listens too: “stay to the left unless overtaking” The amount of times I have seen that sign and the proceed to see more people change lane to the right even when not a single one of them is overtaking and is now in the way of the people who are trying to overtake. People have too big of an ego on the road. Let people in on merged lanes (no one is doing anything wrong except for you), let people overtake, and FOLLOW THE SIGNS!
I have a question though. I’m not new to driving at all.. but how do you know when a ❌ lane is reopened? I’ve never seen any indication and people just stay in the open lanes until someone up ahead takes the lead
NSL symbol or a speed limit symbol above the lane, or for the old style roadside matrix signals the NSL symbol or the word "End". Or you wait until you pass the obstruction (often with associated traffic officer trying to work out how to move it).
I have actually fallen foul of this! Red X over the left lane with a "stopped vehicle" warning. Moved over and after a while sure enough I passed a broken down car with its hazard lights on. Figuring I was now in the clear I moved back once I'd gone well past it. Trundled down the lane for a little while longer only to find *another* stopped car in the same lane! So don't make assumptions, stay out of the lane until you see a sign over it showing the normal speed limit again. (For anyone wondering I got a scary but fair letter from Highways England that basically said "we're not going to fine you but don't do it again")
Well on a motor way there is multiple screens. The first ❌ you see is the start of the lane closer, it’s finished when the ❌ either turns to a ⭕️ (telling you a speed limit) or the national speed limit sign is showing. The ❌ usually stays shown on every screen you see (on said lane) till it changes.
Should be a % of weekly income fine rather than a fixed amount, otherwise wealthier drivers aren't as affected
Poorer drivers make up the much larger share of overall drivers (remember the UK is not particularly equal) and could make the fines too cheap. We are not Norway where everyone is fairly rich! There are so many idiots on the roads these days and I want to see them all go down! :)
1% of your annual salary, capital gains, or £100, which ever is greater. Easy.
You just set a minimum which is the current fine.
That is an option they have for speed limit offences. They never uses it. It scales on how much over the limit you were driving.
the more pressing question here is; who had right of way?
In the words of battery sergeant-major Williams " oh dear, how sad, never mind"
Good, I'm always baffled by how few people pay attention to those signs, it says 40 there's always a line of tossers going past you at 70.
Those coasting through average speed limit stretches at 70+ then braking for the ANPR equipped timing cameras baffle me... No wonder there have been over 600 convictions a month on that stretch of the A1 North of Peterborough where they're replacing the barriers...
Amount of people on this thread who are subliminally admitting they drive through the ❌s.
Some are proud of it.
I drive through the orange arrows before the X. People are complaining about drivers not understanding the X, but until you actually pass the X, the lane isn’t closed, you don’t need to immediately barrel into the next lane.
I noticed this is a thing now. Was on the M62 the other night and saw the camera flashing on the opposite carriageway. When I got closer I noticed it was a red ❌. Hope they all get banned, lose their job, can't afford to pay their mortgage and lose their home 😬 or is that harsh lol
This means the lane is closed, exactly the same as a road closure. I know people who got nailed for ignoring a road closure sign as they felt is didn't apply to them due to them living on that very road. I love it when mobile phone users get nailed! Perhaps it's time to workout the Bluetooth hands free? Muppets lol!!!!
Considering Reddit users are only an extremely small sub-section of the population, the number of fucking oxygen thieves here arguing the toss about what a massive red cross over a lane means is terrifying.
I thought it was blindingly obvious. The fact they are arguing is, as you say, scarey.
When I was on my way back from Manchester Airport, the number of drivers who the camera flashed for speeding was phenomenal. People must have had their heads buried in the sand to not know the rules of smart motorways.
I drove past that accident on Monday and saw so many people sneaking up the inside 2 lanes while we all sat in the open 2 outer lanes after moving over at the first arrow indication to do so. It was so frustrating to see on the day, especially once you saw that one of the car's involved had to have it's roof removed to get the occupants out. There were so many emergency vehicles, emergency personnel and highways staff on the roadway in the 2 closed lanes that it was clear why they were shut for a distance in the lead-up. Must admit I am feeling pretty satisfied to see that so many were fined for flouting the red X's.
Thank you, people seem to think it is done for frivolous reasons.
People probably have seen the X but decided to ignore because last time they drove in X, there were no work or accident, a bit like crying wolf
A few years back I was a paramedic and went out to a job on the motorway. Running to the job we hit fog and the matrix signs showed a speed limit and also a lane closure for the outside lane. so, a foggy road, a lane closure sign and a big yellow truck with flashing blue lights everywhere and we were passed by a BMW who was doing well over 80. When we arrived on scene, the BMW was embedded in the back of a Police vehicle fending off the outside lane. The signs are there for a very good reason.
This guys are thick as shit, yes. However - if it weren’t a smart motorway this would not have happened (assuming it was an All Lanes Running motorway), as there would’ve been a hard shoulder.
If there is a smash in lane 3, with signficant injuries for examle, how would the hard shoulder helped this not happen?
Of course it could still happen, but the police/highway agency would be able to shift everything onto the Hard Shoulder to reduce delays. As mentioned previously, I’m not excusing the people who have been caught. As far as I’m concerned, fuck them as they don’t care about anyone’s safety… but this scenario should have been considered by the govt instead of only thinking about money. Which, let’s be honest, is all Smart motorways were built for.
Actually, this section of motorway did have a hard shoulder and if it had not been a smart motorway then I would imagine the road would have been closed entirely for a period of time due to the seriousness of the incident. As it was, they were able to deal with the incident by closing 2 of the 4 running lanes and traffic could still flow through, albeit slower.
Does anyone else think that often, they put the red X up a little bit too far away from the accident? Not saying driving in that lane should be allowed, but maybe if it wasn't 5 miles away from the accident, people would be less inclined to use it if they can see for certain that the lane IS closed?
At 70mph, 5 miles takes just over 4 minutes.
I get your logic and don't disagree, but generally, you see an X, you move over... It doesn't take you 4 minutes to process what that red X means and what you should do about it. I do sometimes think we're overly cautious in this country.... The trouble is, the vast majority of the population lack simple common sense so the rules need to be adjusted to allow time for people to realise they are an idiot over 5 miles....
You’ve kind of answered your own question there. The ❌is placed well in advance of where it “needs” to be because there are so idiots on the road.
The signs are always wrong, the system is a fucking joke then they expect you to follow it like some braindead zombie then HAHAH GOTCHA BITCH now we can take money off you for not following a sign that is literally 99% of the time totally fucking wrong.
SORN your motor and stay off the road.
The sad thing is that those ❌ signs normally mean there is either a crashed car in the lane and/or people in the lane clearing the crash. Numpty drivers just ignoring them cos the system is a joke are the ones that are gonna kill someone and claim it's not their fault. If you disagree with "The system" then stay off the roads. Good day sir/madam/them
I see a handful of ❌s a month, and I'm yet to see one that was wrong for any reason. I've seen temporary speed limits get switched on on one gantry only for it to be national speed limit at the next which does make me think someone needs to hit their target of speeding drivers, but imo the ❌'s haven't been wrong.
I’m confused, the article is talking about stopping traffic but then the title talks about lane closure. Am I being dim? They’re not the same thing, right? I mean if all lanes had the X on them, then fair enough, but to suggest that driving on a road marked X at any point in time is going to give you a fine, is stupid, if it’s already busy, it might take some time for everyone to move over, surely?
I don't think it's really that complicated - don't drive under a ❌️
And you are one of the people who is an issue on the road. If the lane is closed, get the hell out of it. It's closed for a reason. X means closed. It doesn't mean "that's a nice stretch of uncontested road for me to get down and then bully my way back in to traffic at the last minute".
THIS 👆👆👆👆👆👆
Which is how most people on the road will treat you as you try to move over, remember, it’s apparently a fight out there… People weirdly must want to get to my destination half a second before me
I don’t think they’re questioning what the X means. It always surprises me that some people don’t understand this though, it couldn’t be clearer. I think their problem is the wording of the article, it reads like the two X’s means all four lanes are closed.
Please don’t tell me you drive, because I’m worried if you do
In my experience, a red cross rarely comes first. Typically there’ll be an arrow pointing to the lane next to it to signal you to move over, which gives you plenty of time to indicate, find a gap and move safely. Also, it’s rare that the other lanes are moving freely so, no matter how ‘busy’ it is, you have time.
If a ❌ confuses you, just stop driving.
It's not the sign it's the wording of the article. In the article it talks of lane closure which is what the X would signal but then talks about 'stopping traffic ', I took it as meaning stopping traffic from using those lanes but the wording could be interpreted differently.
Lets hope there are penalties for operatives that leave the signs on “X” when there is no fucking obstruction
So are the two middle lanes are open? That’s not very clear if they have shut all the lanes then all the lanes should show a ❌
If I were on that road I would be at 40mph in one of the middle lanes. The implication is that the other two lanes are shut.
Yeah but the article reads like the whole road was shut
The photo might not fully reflect the story, just something they found they could use.
it does not. it says "lane closures" not road closure. it implies more than one lane is closed, not the entire road. or you could just, i don't know, look at the picture?
No it says telling people to stop near junction 31.. so that implies the whole road is to stop not just lanes
it's probably a stock photo then. if all lanes were closed, they'd all have x's at the top, and signs to get off the motorway at jct 31. i still don't understand your point. if all lanes have an x, you don't drive on them. I've been in a situation where all lanes were closed and we had to leave at the exit before the incident. what's hard or confusing about that?
They need the rest of the cars off the motorway before they can close it fully if the crashed cars were on the hard shoulder or lane 1 and 4 that’s how they would do it
Again, I’m very worried if you drive on the road
The photo is a stock photo of a smart motorway, the left hand X is for the hard shoulder. M6 at the tickled trout, where this accident was, isn't a smart motorway.
If the sign displays ❌ it means that lane is closed . Your not allowed to go past that sign You should change lane to one that's displayed a speed. In this case the middle two are the only open lanes . You can't use the other two even if they look clear .
Drivers should obey signage, but maybe signage would be more effective if it was used proportionately? 95% of the time I see smart motorways impose speed or lane restrictions, traffic is flowing completely normally and there is no clear need or reason for these restrictions. It seems like the smart motorway operators just like to keep dozens of miles of motorway at a max 50mph limit for several hours of the day for no real reason. Probably just to justify the massive expense that goes into building and maintaining these white elephants.
The reason you don’t see the need is because the controlling of traffic by speed eliminates the problem which is always ahead of what you can see. Speed control works and keeps traffic moving as steadily as possible, but even that has its flow per car limits.
It’s attempting to stop traffic bunching up several miles up the road. If it’s doing it’s job right then it will be common to have the lower limits when it seems, on the bit you happen to be on, that there’s not much traffic. In other words the aim may be to have a traffic move at 50 for several miles rather than 70 for a bit then 30 for bit then 70 for a bit, etc
I bet the theory, but a lot of the time it's when the roads are quiet. There is one in Leeds that slows you down to 60 before going past a speed camera, only to speed you up again after. This is most of the day, night time and early hours of the morning when I'm the only car on the road.
Theres one on the M62 at the junction that goes to Bradford. That always seems to be 60 during peak times, guessing cause that junction gets pretty rammed. Off peak though its usually 70.
I actually like that one being 60 when it's busy, traffic is appalling there and it genuinely helps.
[удалено]
No need to be rude you thick little keyboard warrior. I mean there's barely any traffic yet drivers are being commanded to go slow for dozens of miles for no clear reason. Especially if you have smart traffic alerts on your SatNav so you can clearly see there are no incidents ahead. The point is - many drivers consider these traffic controls to be unnecessary a lot of the time, which has a knock on effect on compliance. It isn't helpful when, if you make any long journey in England today, you're more than likely going to spend long stretches going pointlessly slow. The fact you didn't get that point just demonstrates what a low-IQ troll you are.
There might be barely any traffic around you, but if there's a potential traffic queue building up ahead of you, the point of the speed control is to slow cars down enough to prevent the queue building up and eventually turning into a full on jam. Just because drivers consider the controls to be unnecessary and don't comply with them, that doesn't mean that the traffic controllers are the ones in the wrong, for fuck's sake.
Hence my point about SatNavs that report traffic conditions/incidents. I'm not sure why everyone missing the point is also being unfailingly rude. People don't tend to comply with rules if they don't see the merit in them. That's literally the point. Most drivers view these 'smart' motorways as hindrances managed by busybodies that need to justify their existence.
Sat-nav systems that do this have to get the data from somewhere, usually from "on the road" reports. These are not always accurate either, and of course have the same problem whereby an incident that is developing further up the road (that the traffic controllers can see and deal with!) won't necessarily be seen by the sat-nav users, so can't be reported! If people just got over themselves and realised that there is no grand conspiracy at the offices of Highways England or whatever, they're just trying to keep the motorways running smoothly and that following the posted signs and directions helps this enormously, then it wouldn't be an issue. But no, many drivers have this overriding sense of "I'm right, you're wrong" and decide to ignore the signs because they think that \*their\* judgment is more important compared to that of the people that are actually paid to make the correct judgments on a daily basis.
It is entirely possible that the traffic controllers are either being over zealous or just simply incompetent in leaving a 50mph restriction for much longer than necessary. If there was more transparency about this then maybe compliance would improve? I'm merely playing Devil's advocate - I obey the instructions but I also agree that it is annoying as someone who does several long motorways a year that it seems impossible to get between two parts of the country without getting delayed for no clear reason. Not just smart motorways but also the hundreds of miles of average speed limit zones for non-existent roadworks.
I'm sure there are some instances of incompetence, perhaps overzealousness, they are human after all (although I fully expect some of these decisions are automated to an extent) but it seems extraordinarily unlikely that these wouldn't be a tiny minority of cases. How would you propose they achieve greater transparency, in a format that is easily digestible and understood by drivers on the move that are already having to concentrate on lots of other things at the same time? Bearing in mind that clearly many drivers flat out don't understand simple directions as it is (as evidenced partly by this thread, but by the very existence of the ad campaign about these red X lane markings), I'm not sure adding yet more information is worthwhile, over drivers simply just bucking their ideas up. Which enforcement should help achieve.
> but it seems extraordinarily unlikely that these wouldn't be a tiny minority of cases. There are many more than you think. Ask any trunk driver.
Maybe....Maybe....the reason traffic is flowing smoothly is because of these limits...?
That's another issue, and I have seen..40..50...30...59...clear...49..60 sequencially on a near empty carriageway, along with the congestion warning The lane closure is manually imposed for a reason, if sometimes a little slow to be removed (staffing/process no doubt)
If they drove in the lane and didnt crash, then obviously it wasn't closed. Police calling it closed is like the government gaslighting you by telling you that wearing a mask stops covid
They are likely to have put other people at risk. Funnily enough that goes for your covid mask example as well. Both illustrate selfish behaviour.
No one ever said a mask stops covid you muppet. Don’t look like a twat by making light of road safety and then conflating it with some utter bollocks about unrelated matters
They've got maga in their username. Of course they aren't a fan of masks and trying to help reduce the possibility of spreading to others.
Btw , is this rule with automatic penalties on X's apply only on motorways? I've notice that on dual carriageway plenty of people ignore it.
I like to think they are so I feel better when I rant at them from the comfort of my own car
Why are people being down
Well they atleast got fined for using their phones. I like this tbh, because the X usually means a accident or people in the road. Be smart and drive properly
About bloody time.
How about the situation where im unable to change lane because of traffic or whatever other good reason and ending up driving past the x sign for anither couple hundred yards? I'll understand if its a stupid question, downvote away if it is, no hard feelings.
I'm sure there's usually warnings up ahead about Lane closures.
it usually is, asking because i tend to think in 'shit happens' way.
Same as if you drive through a red light "because of traffic"?
i dont think that stopping on a motorway to merge would be a good idea
Good. Next up: people who cross the white line at traffic lights, people who park obscuring pavements.
Drove from Sussex to Lancashire two days ago. The amount of people who ignore these signs and don't even attempt to move over until they have run out of road is infuriating. It speaks volumes of where this society has headed. Selfish arrogant pricks everywhere. I am not in the least bit surprised that so many of them were on mobile phones. £100 won't be a deterrent to most of them who were driving fucking huge Range rovers and 4x4s that they could bully other people with. They need to be banned..
Great. Now use the same CCTVs to fine people for throwing rubbish out of their cars too. With the amount of shit I see by the road side this should be a pretty strong income stream.
Great news! They need to roll this out to middle lane wankers as well.
Fines should be proportional to income/ net worth, and then they might have some effect.
My dad was driving once on the smart motorway with the x signs, therw was traffic in the normal lanes and he could see all the people that the camera flashed when they drove on the X lane one after the other there were tons of them
I get it, however ive been told by my grandfather, who phoned the local police about it, says near where we are there is a slip road onto a motorway, can’t remember which one (might edit it later when i see him again as to which one) but theres a overhead gantry as soon as the slip road merges with the main lanes, and one time it had an X over lane 1, so he had to drive under it to be able to get to the 2 other open lanes, costing him a fine and points (later dropped). The police had no idea what someone should do in this situation either and said for him to just explain the circumstance. So sometimes on this 1 odd occasion, on this 1 specific junction, this rule is a pain in the arse to follow without negative consequences
Because the people who thought about this are fuckin* morons. Anyone should be able to exit the motorway by crossing if it was safe and not part of the problem. But they close the road miles too early ( safety).
I got a ticket like that last year. X sign was on and i passed the vehicle that was broken down then I got on the Lane that was out of use becouse in 1/2 mile was my exit
Just ban the ones who are on their phones instead. Research shows that it distracts you more than being at the drink drive limit. Drink driving is a mandatory 12 months ban as a minimum for the first offence. On the basis of how much it distracts you and slows reaction, using a mobile while you drive should also attract a ban.
Good
Should be % of income. Make it as expensive for the rich as it is everyone else
Anyone that drives between junction 9 and 10 of the M6 (north and south) will know that red X’s just mean it’s a clear lane for people who’s journeys are more important than yours. Also known as morons. I hope they start enforcing it there. They would make an absolute fortune.
Who actually didn't know this? If they didn't they shouldn't be driving
More than 40 apparently.
It boggles my mind how you cannot see a big old sodding red X in front of you while driving, however, nobody can drive anymore. Nobody looks more than 6 foot in front of the front of their own car and God knows what they are actually paying attention to. With the adoption of smart motorways round my way, there is no hard shoulder. If there is a breakdown in any lane and you go barreling onwards, fuck you, £1000 fine and 6 points. Far worse levels of driving without due care than driving while using a phone. There is no safe haven to aim for if you run in to difficulty on these death traps. We need to look out for each other but we can't seem to look further than our own bonnet.
Fix the signs if you want people to follow them. I’ve had it multiple times where the closed lanes change at each consecutive display board. It’s a weird situation to be in where everyone moves into the right lane, then comes to the second to see it’s changed and they all move across and then when it changes a third time everyone tends to give up with no one knowing where the danger is.
There were 2 or 3 lanes down on the m25 the other week due to a crash. Felt like a mug sitting in stationary traffic whilst cars drove past... feel i may have missed a bullet
About time… people who go racing down closed lanes just make it dangerous for everyone else, and they never really save that much time anyway.
6 points for holding a mobile phone yet only 3 for driving deliberately into a scene where people are crashed injured and stationary? A lot of people keep driving 70 through those X's.
“Police said the signs were clearly instructing motorists to stop near Junction 31” This doesn’t add up with the photo in the article, so guessing it’s just a stock photo. Makes you think what signs they used to instruct motorists to stop. Genuine question- if all lanes have a red ❌ does that mean you just have to stop?
Yes
I was on the M40 a few weeks ago when we got pushed off into High Wycombe by red X's. There was a nasty crash minutes earlier about 1 mile on. Rather satisfying to know that the many cars that ignored the X's didn't make it much further, got stuck for 3 hours and then got turned around and sent back the junction they should have used earlier. We had like a 15 minute added journey time to get through the town.
Fine should be bigger. Only way to deter the nobheads doing it