Ah yes one of the infamous defences of the knowing law-breaker, the "technically incorrect" defence. Sorry but I think it's irresponsible, illegal and dangerous
Here we have two more typical defences combined, the "the other guy is an eejit" defence and the "rules don't apply to me" defence.
Given a choice I'd prefer to share the road-way with the clown.
Another infamous ploy is the "the rules need changing to suit my behaviour" defence and the "deny the road designers intentions" defence
This is "the extrapolation from a false premise" defence where the defendant predicts dire consequences for the general population for ignoring his flawed thinking.
This is not so much a defence as a "pre-emptive I told you so". The "See I warned ye, but would ye listen to me?" scenario.
This is the known as the "illegally proactive" defence where the defendant has a a get-out plan for his illegal actions based around another illegal action, in this case driving on the hard-shoulder.
That m'Luds is the powerful case for the defence, now could I interest you in some private development land I have for sale ...