Correct procedure here?

RoundyMooney

Why oh why do you have to complicate everything?

wil

cormie wrote: »

I'd bet €2.60 that it's not actually illegal, or hasn't been defined in the law, to go straight for a few meters in this scenario

I know it shouldn't be done, don't get me wrong.

Sure what if somebody was intending to go right and they then changed their minds while waiting in the middle to turn right and instead went straight ahead. They were breaking the law until they decided to go straight on? I can't imagine that's written anywhere in the book of the law.

"M'lud, the defendant would like to enter a plea of not guilty on the basis that he was driving with due beer and distraction and in no fit condition to carry out an illegal right turn.":D

cast_iron

Good Lord, every post you make actually makes you look more stupid (I don'y think you are aware of that).

cormie wrote: »

I'd bet €2.60 that it's not actually illegal, or hasn't been defined in the law, to go straight for a few meters in this scenario

God your good. And here was all us thinking "it's okay to proceed a few metres at Mespil road, regardless of traffic lights" would be defined in law. Damn, I nearly lost €2.60.

cormie wrote: »

I know it shouldn't be done, don't get me wrong.

Of course.

cormie wrote: »

Sure what if somebody was intending to go right and they then changed their minds while waiting in the middle to turn right and instead went straight ahead. They were breaking the law until they decided to go straight on? I can't imagine that's written anywhere in the book of the law.

Then you haven't a clue how laws are written (as if that wasn't already apparent).
This has all been explained earlier, how can you not understand?

Last time:
The arrow on the road doesn't matter a damn (as disobeying it is not the offence in question). Lets say the lane means you can go right only, you can accept that you cannot proceed a few metres in this case as you are turning right, Yes? Good.

Now, (leaving the mind change aside for a moment) by your own admission, you're turning. The red light means you are forbidden to proceed, so therefore cannot cross the white line before the lights. That's the law.

The mind change is irrelevant as a law has been broken. You openly admit you were going right and breaking the above law. Just because you change your mind does not nullify the offence. Of course, in reality, it would probably get you off, but that's not in question here.

I see your point - the road markings say it's okay to proceed, so how can it be an offence?

By that logic, you are saying if the road markings indicate it's okay to proceed, that makes it okay to do 100km/h through same junction? Of course not. Nor does it make it okay to break a red light (bounding you to the white line before it). Another offence has still been committed in both cases, and no arrow on a road nullifies this fact. This is the fundamental of your problem.

In any case, I'm off to the Eastlink.

cormie

So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

I'm not sure if you realise, but I wasn't asking with the intention of saving a few seconds in future, I stay behind the line when I'm at that junction, even though I know the sequence will not leave me in a pickle. I was just questioning the law of this hypothetical scenario. I obey the red light. If everyone questioned minor things like this, our roads would be safer:D Relax.

cast_iron

cormie wrote: »

So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

Em, sorry, that was not your question.

Your mind change is a different issue (which, incidentally, I dealt with already).

Please read my last reply in depth and think about it very carefully while doing so. It does actually explain why you are wrong.

If you're not willing to deviate from your repeated opinion that it's "legal to go there as there's an arrow on the road saying straight ahead", then you will never accept the legal answer.

Now, after a quick recovery in James's, I'm off to the Westlink with the lads. Hopefully I'll die this time.

cormie

Originally Posted by cormie View Post
So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

cast_iron wrote: »

Em, sorry, that was not your question.

That's all I've wanted to know, I may have asked in a roundabout way, but it's the reason I started the thread.

cast_iron wrote: »

If you're not willing to deviate from your repeated opinion that it's "legal to go there as there's an arrow on the road saying straight ahead", then you will never accept the legal answer.

I don't have a concrete opinion as I don't know for certain on the legal situation of it. €2.60 is a sum I'm willing to lose on a gamble:D

I'm not interested in arguing, just curious about a little scenario that holds no real relevance to the world of driving anyway. I'll re-read your post again tomorrow, I'm far too tired now so perhaps something in it will slap me across the face tomorrow and shut me up:p

cyclopath2001

cormie wrote: »

I don't know for certain on the legal situation of it.

SI 182/1997:30.

(1) Where traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002, RTS 003 or RTS 004 (referred to in these Regulations as traffic lights) is provided, a person shall not drive a vehicle past the traffic lights, or past traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] where such sign is provided in association with the traffic lights when the red lamp of the traffic light is illuminated.
....
(3) ( a ) A driver of a vehicle facing traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002 or RTS 003 in which the green lamp is illuminated may proceed beyond the traffic lights, or beyond traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] if such traffic sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, provided no other road user is endangered and subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of articles 8 and 29.

( b ) When traffic lights contain green lamps which indicate a directional arrow, a driver of a vehicle wishing to proceed in accordance with paragraph (a) in the direction indicated by the arrow may only do so when such lamp is illuminated.

This means you can only cross the stop line if there is a directional arrow illuminated for the direction you intend to take. I assume that you have indicated your intention some time before reaching the junction.

However, the procedure at the right turn from Clontarf Road towards East Wall is different. Drivers, especially truckers just ignore the traffic signal and turn right anyway.

unkel

Thanks, cyclopath2001

Now I can lay this thread to rest...