Who is Frank Cullinane?

Stark

Yield signs are also "implicit" at the junctions of minor roads and major roads. That doesn't mean they have no legal standing.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

Yield signs are also "implicit" at the junctions of minor roads and major roads. That doesn't mean they have no legal standing.

This is well covered and explicitly outlined in the ROTR. The situation with regard to implicit yellow boxes however is not mentioned at all. Unless I am missing something.

Stark

ballooba wrote: »

Unless I am missing something.

The RotR are not a legal document.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

The RotR are not a legal document.

Am I just supposed to take your word for it? I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

Stark

ballooba wrote: »

Am I just supposed to take your word for it? I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

You could try getting driving lessons. Or try blocking a junction that doesn't have a yellow box and seeing how long it takes before you get beeped out of it. If you were doing a driving test in the UK, you'd have to treat every minor junction as if there was an implicit yellow box. Of course, we shouldn't drill down to that level of courtesy in Ireland.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

You could try getting driving lessons. Or try blocking a junction that doesn't have a yellow box and seeing how long it takes before you get beeped out of it.

I have done driving lessons. Plenty of them. I also have my full driving licence. Just because someone beeps you out of it does not mean that it is illegal. Don't be so ignorant.

Stark wrote: »

If you were doing a driving test in the UK, you'd have to treat every minor junction as if there was an implicit yellow box. Of course, we shouldn't drill down to that level of courtesy in Ireland.

The difference between courtesy and law seems to be going straight over your head. Go have a coffee.

Stark

ballooba wrote: »

The difference between courtesy and law seems to be going straight over your head. Go have a coffee.

The discussion started with picking up faults on driving tests. Showing courtesy to other road users is one of the criteria they examine people on. You've already had 3 people here saying that you shouldn't block a junction for the sake of blocking a junction. I don't see anyone but yourself arguing that you should.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

The discussion started with picking up faults on driving tests. Showing courtesy to other road users is one of the criteria they examine people on.

Not it is not. Now you are just making stuff up. Even if courtesy were one of the areas tested it would be debatable if there could be a Grade 3 fault for lack of courtesy.

Stark

From drivingtest.ie:

What is the Purpose of Your Driving Test?

The driving test is designed to establish whether you:

* know the Rules of the Road;
* have the knowledge and skill to drive competently in accordance with those rules;
* drive with due regard for the safety and convenience of other road users.

Funnily, I don't see "You will be tested on your ability to gain extra road inches at everyone else's expense" mentioned anywhere.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

From drivingtest.ie:

That does not say that courtesy is examined. There is no Grade 3 fault for lack of courtesy. No question about it. If you can show me an examiners sheet with a row corresponding to "lack of courtesy" and a column corresponding to that row for a grade 3 fault then maybe I will believe you.

Stark wrote: »

Funnily, I don't see "You will be tested on your ability to gain extra road inches at everyone else's expense" mentioned anywhere.

I never said there was. You're making out like this is be3haviour that I engage in or condone of. That is not the case. I am only saying that there is no such offence in law. Your assertion that a person could receive a grade 3 fault as a result of an offence that does not exist is false.

Stark

ballooba wrote: »

That does not say that courtesy is examined. There is no Grade 3 fault for lack of courtesy. No question about it. If you can show me an examiners sheet with a row corresponding to "lack of courtesy" and a column corresponding to that row for a grade 3 fault then maybe I will believe you.

There is a row explicitly for courtesy (despite what you say about courtesy not being examinable). It doesn't have a Grade 3 column, but that doesn't mean they can't put a tick in one of the other rows.

ballooba wrote: »

I never said there was. You're making out like this is be3haviour that I engage in or condone of. That is not the case. I am only saying that there is no such offence in law. Your assertion that a person could receive a grade 3 fault as a result of an offence that does not exist is false.

Swerving to avoid an animal isn't an offence, but it will get you a Grade 3. They don't have to prove you broke a law to fail to you.

BostonB

wil wrote: »

Common sense doesnt require you to have a box junction to tell you not to enter a junction when traffic is backed up such that there is a good chance you wont be able to clear it before crossing traffic starts to move.
Many drivers use this sort of aggressive approach entering an obviously backed up junction, blocking crossing traffic but knowing they can bludgeon their way through often as the lights end up going red again for the crossing traffic. Doesnt take long before it becomes an accepted bad behaviour....

True. You also get drivers switching lanes into your space as start to cross into a space, leaving you stranded.

ballooba

Stark wrote: »

There is a row explicitly for courtesy (despite what you say about courtesy not being examinable). It doesn't have a Grade 3 column, but that doesn't mean they can't put a tick in one of the other rows.

Which row would be applicable?

Stark wrote: »

Swerving to avoid an animal isn't an offence, but it will get you a Grade 3. They don't have to prove you broke a law to fail to you.

There are numerous other areas under which this is covered.