Undertaking on the motorway

CiniO

RootX wrote: »

Fresh data
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Points%20Chart1.pdf

Driving a vehicle (subject to an ordinary speed limit of 80 kms per hour or less) on the outside lane on a motorway or dual carriageway is an offense.

RootX wrote: »

The first RSA link I quoted suggests driving HGV and Buses on the outside lane is an offense.

The table with the penalty points that went into effect last Friday no longer refers to buses but to vehicles with restricted speed, limited to 80 kmh.

My understanding now, based on the citizensinformation link is that buses with no standing passengers are limited to 100kmh on motorways, therefore they can use the outside lane.

I just looked it up.
This is actually outrageous.
RSA issued this list few days ago, and yet it still refers to vehicles limited to 80km/h instead of 90km/h what it should refer to.
As I quoted few posts above, law prohibiting usage of most right lane applies to vehicles limited to 90km/h on motorways.
Therefore according to this list, truck driver overtaking on 2 lane motorway, while is breaking the law, can not be issued a fine and points for that, as his vehicle in not subject to ordinary speed limit of 80km/h or less on motorway).

Insane.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Like you did?
You made a statement without looking up anything or providing any links.

Have a look at my posts above. I linked to thread on boards from few years back, where everything was explained by me to smallest detail.

Then requested anyone who disagreed to have to prove you wrong.





Ordinary speed limit = NOT on motorway.
Motorway is not "ordinary" speed limit.

Says who?

3. (1) The ordinary speed limit prescribed for a single or double deck mechanically propelled vehicle constructed or adapted for use primarily for the carriage of passengers which has seating capacity for more than 8 persons and which is—


(a) neither designed nor adapted for the carriage of standing passengers, when driven on—


(i) a motorway or a dual carriageway, is 100 kilometres per hour, or


(ii) any other public road, is 80 kilometres per hour, or


(b) designed or adapted for the carriage of standing passengers when driven on any public road is 65 kilometres per hour.

As you can see, when bus is being driven on motorway, it's prescribed speed limit is 100km/h.

You and the couple of other "I hate Irish everything" and "know it all" posters that are like you in this forum really are irritating.

Where ever did I say "I hate Irish everthing" or "know it all"?
I know certain things, and can explain them in dicussions.
If there is something I don't know, I learn from others or just present my opinion instead of saying I'm sure I'm right.
But here I'm right.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

You're missing a lot.

Well, explain then please.

Also, if you check the penalty points statistics on the RSA website which are updated monthly and narrow it down to "Driver Offences" in Dublin City Council area in May 2013 you will note that in that area alone 45 points in total (between on the spots and court convictions) were issued for "Breach of motorway outside lane driving rule".

I honestly don't understand what you meant by that?

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

You and the couple of other "I hate Irish everything" and "know it all" posters that are like you in this forum really are irritating.

So I can say you are a law-breaker, and when you ask which law, I can say "look it up yourself?". I don't think so.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Continuing to assert that and quoting obscure blogs and articles isn't strengthening your argument.

What the law says and means - pass on the rhs with 3 specific exceptions - stands both here and in the UK, and there's no need to specifically say don't pass on the lhs. That's understood.

It doesn't matter how dangerous undertaking is or isn't - it's simply illegal. A parallel - If you were to drive a really fast car on say the M7 at 250kph and not make even the tiniest mistake nor inconvenience any other road user you could argue what you did wasn't dangerous. Still wouldn't make it legal though would it?

p.s. I found this on youtube. Is that you making the comments?

Driving at 250km/h on M7 I would say is dangerous for you may have a blow out or failure in car mechanism, and that's without any other traffic. With other traffic lethal. With normal driving I wouldn't undertake at 120km/h if hoggers are moving at say 30kmh for I'd see that as dangerous driving also. I would undertake at a speed ratio of less than 2/1 and the faster the traffic moving even less. And when I say undertaking I mean simply passing on inside and not lane changing.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Driving at 250km/h on M7 I would say is dangerous for you may have a blow out or failure in car mechanism, and that's without any other traffic. With other traffic lethal. With normal driving I wouldn't undertake at 120km/h if hoggers are moving at say 30kmh for I'd see that as dangerous driving also. I would undertake at a speed ratio of less than 2/1 and the faster the traffic moving even less. And when I say undertaking I mean simply passing on inside and not lane changing.

There's the issue in a nutshell Sean. It's not for you or for anyone else to set your own rules according to what you might deem to be dangerous.

The rules apply to everybody equally. Ignore or interpret them according to your own definitions and you'll deserve to be caught and prosecuted.

keithclancy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

There's the issue in a nutshell Sean. It's not for you or for anyone else to set your own rules according to what you might deem to be dangerous.

The rules apply to everybody equally. Ignore or interpret them according to your own definitions and you'll deserve to be caught and prosecuted.

The point was that the RSA, the Road Traffic act and Penalty points have errors.

They should make the rules bleedin obvious for a start, the fact that people are debating on whether its correct or not highlights this !

Zubeneschamali

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's not for you or for anyone else to set your own rules according to what you might deem to be dangerous.

Well, in fairness, it kind of is.

I break traffic laws all the time: the speed limits on open road/motorways. I obey the rules strictly on parking - have never had a ticket. These are choices, and yes, I get to decide which rules to follow and which to break. I even choose to pass knobs on the left, from time to time.

But when I break the rules, I am aware that I'm doing it, and I have no complaints to make when caught and ticketed. If Sean and other on this thread simply said "I know it's illegal, but FFS, the M50 and the Naas road are just mad with lane-hoggers, I break this rule and I'm not sorry", I don't think the thread would still be gong 2 years later.

keithclancy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, in fairness, it kind of is.

I break traffic laws all the time: the speed limits on open road/motorways. I obey the rules strictly on parking - have never had a ticket. These are choices, and yes, I get to decide which rules to follow and which to break. I even choose to pass knobs on the left, from time to time.

But when I break the rules, I am aware that I'm doing it, and I have no complaints to make when caught and ticketed. If Sean and other on this thread simply said "I know it's illegal, but FFS, the M50 and the Naas road are just mad with lane-hoggers, I break this rule and I'm not sorry", I don't think the thread would still be gong 2 years later.

Exactly, I was geblitzed on a road coming out of Dusseldorf last week .. was doing around 100 in an 80 on the motorway (keeping pace with traffic)

I drive that road every working day for the last 5 years and haven't killed anyone :P

Although everyone here uses Flitsmeister and Blitzer in NL and Germany respectively to warn themselves of those mobile camera hazards

Sean Kinvarra

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Driving at 250km/h on M7 I would say is dangerous for you may have a blow out or failure in car mechanism, and that's without any other traffic. With other traffic lethal. With normal driving I wouldn't undertake at 120km/h if hoggers are moving at say 30kmh for I'd see that as dangerous driving also. I would undertake at a speed ratio of less than 2/1 and the faster the traffic moving even less. And when I say undertaking I mean simply passing on inside and not lane changing.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

There's the issue in a nutshell Sean. It's not for you or for anyone else to set your own rules according to what you might deem to be dangerous.

The rules apply to everybody equally. Ignore or interpret them according to your own definitions and you'll deserve to be caught and prosecuted.

And this is a country where it's legal to undertake!!!!
http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

And this is a country where it's legal to undertake!!!!
http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

It's not legal to undertake in the UK.

Repeating an assertion over and over doesn't make it the law. The relevant legislation and interpretative backups have already been posted.

mackerski

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's not legal to undertake in the UK.

Repeating an assertion over and over doesn't make it the law. The relevant legislation and interpretative backups have already been posted.

I've found an inspirational video for Sean:

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

Henry Ford III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, in fairness, it kind of is.

I break traffic laws all the time: the speed limits on open road/motorways. I obey the rules strictly on parking - have never had a ticket. These are choices, and yes, I get to decide which rules to follow and which to break. I even choose to pass knobs on the left, from time to time.

But when I break the rules, I am aware that I'm doing it, and I have no complaints to make when caught and ticketed. If Sean and other on this thread simply said "I know it's illegal, but FFS, the M50 and the Naas road are just mad with lane-hoggers, I break this rule and I'm not sorry", I don't think the thread would still be gong 2 years later.

So you control your behavior and compliance or otherwise.

Not the same thing as following a customised version of the road traffic laws though.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's not legal to undertake in the UK.

Repeating an assertion over and over doesn't make it the law. The relevant legislation and interpretative backups have already been posted.

2. Introduction
This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Highway Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility. Further information on driving/riding techniques can be found in ‘The Official DVSA Guide to Driving - the essential skills’ and ‘The Official DVSA Guide to Riding - the essential skills’.

Rule 268.
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Does not "MUST NOT" but only advises by using "Do Not"

GTE

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/497378433664839680

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

This clearly states that you can be done for breaking "should not" and "do not" rules.

It just means that MUST NOT has a specific, explicit law against it (like alcohol/drugs/seatbelts) and breaking it is always an offense. The do not/should not rules are caught under general offenses like driving without consideration, careless driving, dangerous driving, and breaking these rules is considered evidence that you committed one of these other offenses.

ironclaw

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Rule 268.
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Does not "MUST NOT" but only advises by using "Do Not"

How does that make undertaking legal in your eyes? Congested traffic hardly moves at 100km/h. To anyone with an iota of sense it means solid traffic such as the M11/N11 section at rush hour. Are we all going to debate what 'congested' means now?

Zubeneschamali

ironclaw wrote: »

How does that make undertaking legal in your eyes?

Sean thinks that all the do not/should not rules are advice, and only the MUST NOT rules are offenses if you break them.

Sean Kinvarra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sean thinks that all the do not/should not rules are advice, and only the MUST NOT rules are offenses if you break them.

This should end this argument!!!!
http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/news_and_events/blogpost/Undertaking_is_it_illegal#.U-OUOtq9KK1

mikeecho

meanwhile on twitter..

RustyNut

mikeecho wrote: »

meanwhile on twitter..

Wins me over.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Does not "MUST NOT" but only advises by using "Do Not"

What exactly does "Do Not" mean?

cython

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

This should end this argument!!!!
http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/news_and_events/blogpost/Undertaking_is_it_illegal#.U-OUOtq9KK1

1. That is the interpretation of a law firm, which holds no more standing in law than any blog post that your or I might put up. Arguably it might be better advised than the average, but still no more definitive or relevant.
2. Did you even read that before posting it?

   In conclusion, it seems that it is perfectly legal to over-take in the 'wrong' lane, but not always advisable.

   Wow, they're really convinced of the legality by the sounds of that....

   Considering the recent proposals to provide police with further powers to issue fixed penalty notices and points on licence for such issues as lane hogging etc I would not advocate any under-taking manoeuvre unless absolutely necessary.

   Or maybe not! :rolleyes:

How exactly was this going to end any argument whatsoever?!

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

This should end this argument!!!!
http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/news_and_events/blogpost/Undertaking_is_it_illegal#.U-OUOtq9KK1

No, you just found someone else who can't read plain English:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Jesus.

mikeecho wrote: »

meanwhile on twitter..

Have the Cops ever posted a picture of them penalising a lane hogger?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

Have the Cops ever posted a picture of them penalising a lane hogger?

Probably not.
I've spoken to Traffic Corps members and they use the terms "fast" and "slow" lane.
So I wouldnt put much trust in what the AGS twitter says, if I was pulled for overtaking on the left I'd be allowing it to go to court.

RustyNut

Jesus. wrote: »

Have the Cops ever posted a picture of them penalising a lane hogger?

We live in hope...

Sean Kinvarra

RustyNut wrote: »

Wins me over.

Yes, and rightly so to pull him in for weaving between cars and undertaking that type of undertaking that is illegal, similar to bike lane filtering which is also illegal if carried out over a certain low speed and he would be charged for careless - dangerous driving. But can you not tell the difference between that and simply sticking to lane 1, the driving lane and passing on inside? It's like saying driving over the speed limit by 5km/h is as dangerous as 50km/h over the limit That's the problem here, most people can't.

RustyNut

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Yes, and rightly so to pull him in for weaving between cars and undertaking that type of undertaking that is illegal, similar to bike lane filtering which is also illegal if carried out over a certain low speed and he would be charged for careless - dangerous driving. But can you not tell the difference between that and simply sticking to lane 1, the driving lane and passing on inside? It's like saying driving over the speed limit by 5km/h is as dangerous as 50km/h over the limit That's the problem here, most people can't.

Remind me again what the on the spot fine was for? not what drew attention to him.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Yes, and rightly so to pull him in for weaving between cars and undertaking that type of undertaking that is illegal, similar to bike lane filtering which is also illegal if carried out over a certain low speed and he would be charged for careless - dangerous driving. But can you not tell the difference between that and simply sticking to lane 1, the driving lane and passing on inside? It's like saying driving over the speed limit by 5km/h is as dangerous as 50km/h over the limit That's the problem here, most people can't.

Agreed with all of the above.

Jesus.

.

Jesus.

Cops aren't renowned for their towering intellect

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

that type of undertaking that is illegal

Can you point to a law that says this type of undertaking is illegal in Ireland?

Because the only law I know of says all kinds of undertaking are illegal, except 3, and you don't believe in that law.

Sean Kinvarra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can you point to a law that says this type of undertaking is illegal in Ireland?

Because the only law I know of says all kinds of undertaking are illegal, except 3, and you don't believe in that law.

So your leaving motorways and going onto other roads. Is that the 3 in the SI that was written into law before we ever had motorways?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

Cops aren't renowned for their towering intellect

In fairness that's an american photo. Cops over there are often not the smartest....

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

So your leaving motorways and going onto other roads. Is that the 3 in the SI that was written into law before we ever had motorways?

No, I'm happy to stick with motorways. You post the law that you think supersedes the one you don't believe in.

GTE

Sean Kinvarra

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

So your leaving motorways and going onto other roads. Is that the 3 in the SI that was written into law before we ever had motorways?

cython wrote: »

1. That is the interpretation of a law firm, which holds no more standing in law than any blog post that your or I might put up. Arguably it might be better advised than the average, but still no more definitive or relevant.
2. Did you even read that before posting it?
   Wow, they're really convinced of the legality by the sounds of that....Or maybe not! :rolleyes:

How exactly was this going to end any argument whatsoever?!

He used the word "wrong" lane for it was aimed at the people who believe it is wrong.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

...drivel...

are you by any chance a member of this crowd, because that is the only time I have ever seen such patently wrong nonsense repeated without thought or consideration of actual reality:
http://www.tirnasaor.com/

degsie

Guys, it's been TWO YEARS. Will someone please answer the OP's question already.

dr.fuzzenstein

degsie wrote: »

Guys, it's been TWO YEARS. Will someone please answer the OP's question already.

This is Ireland, so it always comes down to the same thing:
"I don't give a crap what anyone else says, I just make up my own rules and follow them" and then complain loudly that it's mayhem out there and everyone just does what they want and what's the world coming to, etc...
The problem with enforcement here is that they don't give a crap about the rules either, they just fill quotas. So they do a certain number of people for certain things (speed, seatbelts, phones, maybe alcohol and fcuk anything else) and otherwise don't care if you drive down the road backwards with your car on fire and your arse hanging out the window, not my problem kind of thing.

RustyNut

mikeecho wrote: »

meanwhile on twitter..

RustyNut wrote: »

Remind me again what the on the spot fine was for? not what drew attention to him.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This is Ireland, so it always comes down to the same thing:
"I don't give a crap what anyone else says, I just make up my own rules and follow them" and then complain loudly that it's mayhem out there and everyone just does what they want and what's the world coming to, etc...
The problem with enforcement here is that they don't give a crap about the rules either, they just fill quotas. So they do a certain number of people for certain things (speed, seatbelts, phones, maybe alcohol and fcuk anything else) and otherwise don't care if you drive down the road backwards with your car on fire and your arse hanging out the window, not my problem kind of thing.

Thats exactly it, enforcement, there is none as long as you are not speeding. Its ok to be the first one or two passed a red light, yellow box, what yellow box?so what if I'm in the "fast lane" Im going as fast as I want, it was only a bit of the continues white line I crossed etc, etc, etc.
Mabe the RSA should start their own enforcement teams just like they do with HGV's.






Hides in corner with helmet on

Sean Kinvarra

2 questions to all you who think its illegal to undertake on any road
1. Is it dangerous?
2. And if so, how is it dangerous?

ironclaw

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

2 questions to all you who think its illegal to undertake on any road
1. Is it dangerous?
2. And if so, how is it dangerous?

By convention, if I'm overtaking someone in the right most lane, I don't reasonably expect someone to be travelling faster than me and to my left. That's, in my mind, why its dangerous. The Rules of the Road are not law but they give some order and some expectation to others as to how to act. I reasonably expect someone to follow them as I do i.e. I would not pass someone, at speed, to their left, with the aim of 'getting ahead' of them. Why? Because that's what moving progressively to the right is for i.e. The overtaking lane(s)

As the famous (I think Dunlop Ad) said 'Expect the unexpected' and that is always how I conduct myself. Everyone else on the road is a clown etc and expect them to do all sorts. I'm not saying I blindly merge back left, however by putting your car somewhere where its not reasonable for someone to expect it, your frankly being a plank and a danger on the road.

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

2 questions to all you who think its illegal to undertake on any road
1. Is it dangerous?
2. And if so, how is it dangerous?

I don't care if it is dangerous, that's not why it should be kept illegal.

You live and drive in America, so you know how it goes: you can drive in any lane and keep up your speed, passing on the left and right as the speed of other lanes varies. It means that the speed of the lanes averages out, they all end up doing the same speed: 3 lanes of traffic from LA to San Diego, all shooting along at 65-70 mph.

Except in Ireland, they'd all end up doing the speed of the hat-wearing Tiida driver, the nervous girl who can barely see over the wheel of her Picanto, and the guy whose Jetta is held together with baling twine. 3 lanes doing 70 kph.

To make progress, I'd have to weave from lane to lane, and the other drivers trying to do 120 kph would be doing the same, and it would be mayhem.

So: keep left, pass right, and we all progress at the speed we choose, rather than all doing the speed of the slowest drivers.

Now, you'll protest "What about the lane hoggers???" and yes, I'd like to see them ticketed. But saying they're grand, we'll just pass on the left makes things worse, not better.

djimi

mikeecho wrote: »

meanwhile on twitter..

Am I alone in disliking this kind of backslapping from the Gardai? So you did you job, big ****ing deal. Youd swear they just took down the FBI ten most wanted... :rolleyes:

Id be more impressed if I saw them pulling over cars on a daily basis on the main roads, instead of thinking they are great by posting on Twitter/Facebook of the isolated incidents where they showed a moments competence.

djimi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Except in Ireland, they'd all end up doing the speed of the hat-wearing Tiida driver, the nervous girl who can barely see over the wheel of her Picanto, and the guy whose Jetta is held together with baling twine. 3 lanes doing 70 kph.

How is that any different to what we have now?

At least if undertaking was legal it wouldnt matter if some prick was hogging the overtaking lane. Its obviously not a perfect solution, but in the absense of a police force who have the slightest interest in policing our roads and dealing with the lane hoggers, its the next best thing really.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Am I alone in disliking this kind of backslapping from the Gardai? So you did you job, big ****ing deal. Youd swear they just took down the FBI ten most wanted... :rolleyes:

Id be more impressed if I saw them pulling over cars on a daily basis on the main roads, instead of thinking they are great by posting on Twitter/Facebook of the isolated incidents where they showed a moments competence.

No, you are right. If they even wrote a 200 word piece on a blog somewhere with the relevant legislation and explanation as to why they pulled them over etc, at least if they threw enough info at the general public it would stick. But no, quick Tweet and that is policing.

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

A Youd swear they just took down the FBI ten most wanted...

Given that they pulled someone for something that a hard-core of boardsies refuse to accept is illegal, I appreciate them publicising it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

2 questions to all you who think its illegal to undertake on any road
1. Is it dangerous?
2. And if so, how is it dangerous?

Well, I'd say 1, irrelevant to the discussion of legality and 2, I do not neccesarily think that it is dangerous in all circumstances, but still irrelevant if I'm caught.
If I'm done for it and argue based on what you said that it isn't, I won't fancy my chances.
The only way to find out is if someone tries that stuff in court and I'm not volunteering.
Because legal works in the same way as funny. Theoretically it could be a great idea, but in the end it either flies or not and you can't always tell in advance.