Driving in the middle lane

djimi

Sobanek wrote: »

It's about politeness, good behaviour and not being a prick on the road - I've let people out of narrow streets, flashed my lights to let them change into my lane and haven't seen a single hand wave or hazards here (as a way of saying thank you)

In Poland I see this all the time though.

How is it being a prick though if its legal to pass on either side? Assuming we are talking about a proper multi-lane road and not someone overtaking by driving into a hedge or something, whats the issue? If the person is in a position to be overtaken on the inside (by driving in the middle/outside lane) then surely they just expect it to happen?

creedp

djimi wrote: »

Yes, technically. Youre not allowed to pass cars on the inside. Obviously what you did was not dangerous, but there is no provision to exclude scenarios where there is an empty lane between you and the car.

He is either breaking the law or he isn't .. otherwise you are guilty of interpreting the law to suit particular circumstances. If you're asking for my advise I would suggest you should have swerved across onto the central median (hopefully no barrier to block you), overtake and then swerve back to Lane 1. Make sure you use your indicators and mirrors appropriately at all times.

djimi

creedp wrote: »

He is either breaking the law or he isn't .. otherwise you are guilty of interpreting the law to suit particular circumstances. If you're asking for my advise I would suggest you should have swerved across onto the central median (hopefully no barrier to block you), overtake and then swerve back to Lane 1. Make sure you use your indicators and mirrors appropriately at all times.

Im not interpreting the law at all; its written down in black and white thats its illegal to pass on the left hand side. By technically I was implying that its unlikely that someone in the left lane would be done for passing someone in the right hand lane when there is an empty lane between them, but by the letter of the law its not legal.

Henry Ford III

celticbest wrote: »

I drive the M50 from J3 (Airport) to J10 on my daily commute to and from work, I drive in Lane 1 when possible as stated in the ROTR, when required I will move into Lane 2 and on a rare occasion I will use Lane 3 to overtake if required, however if the traffic in Lanes 2 & 3 is going slowly then I have no hesitation in undertaking them.

I travel at speeds between 90 to 100km/h & I have undertaken Garda vehicles on a regular basis and have never been stopped, I don’t tailgate & there is always room in front of me if some wants to pull in.

If more resources where to be put in enforcing correct driver behaviour instead of speed, speed, speed then our roads might actually work more efficiently, I’ve lost count of how many times I seen a HGV hogging Lane 2 when they are going at their maximum allowed speed of 90km/h and there’s nothing ahead of them in Lane 1, Professional drivers…..

Do you think this is ok and legal? Seriously?

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Do you think this is ok and legal? Seriously?

It actually might be okay, depending on the situation. I have driven the M50 before where the left lane was practically empty and the right hand lanes were both full with cars doing about 80km/h. Its a very strange road sometimes...

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

It actually might be okay, depending on the situation. I have driven the M50 before where the left lane was practically empty and the right hand lanes were both full with cars doing about 80km/h. Its a very strange road sometimes...

Undertaking (as celticbest described) is never ok nor legal.

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Undertaking (as celticbest described) is never ok nor legal.

Slower moving trafficing is allowed to be undertaking, it's not my fault people don't know the ROTR, as I stated before I have undertaking Gards and have not been pulled.

It is always however illegal to hog a lane but nothing is done about this...

Henry Ford III

celticbest wrote: »

Slower moving trafficing is allowed to be undertaking, it's not my fault people don't know the ROTR, as I stated before I have undertaking Gards and have not been pulled.

It is always however illegal to hog a lane but nothing is done about this...

Oh dear. Perhaps it's you who don't know the ROTR?

As to why a Garda didn't pull you it's anyone's guess.

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Do you think this is ok and legal? Seriously?

Yes I do, as per the ROTR,



Do you seriously think it okay for people to hog lanes?

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Oh dear.

Mmmm.... oh, dear, oh dear......:rolleyes:

celticbest

Some useful information for some people on here....

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Oh dear. Perhaps it's you who don't know the ROTR?

As to why a Garda didn't pull you it's anyone's guess.

'cause I didn't do anything illegal....

Henry Ford III

celticbest wrote: »

'cause I didn't do anything illegal....

No. I reckon you did.

ironclaw

@celticbest, ROTR are an interpretation of the law and 'good practise' They are themselves not the law. You won't be prosecuted with paragraphs read from the ROTR.

And at 80km/h, your well above 'slow / slower moving traffic'. That, in my eyes, is for traffic at a crawl. If everyone just made a point of driving correctly and not going 'ah shure, its grand' then we'd be well on our way. Even at 3am, I'd go lane 1 to 3 and back if I have to. But I'm sure many just rolls the eyes and pass on the left. Your as bad as the lane 2 driver if that is what you do.

celticbest

ironclaw wrote: »

@celticbest, ROTR are an interpretation of the law and 'good practise' They are themselves not the law. You won't be prosecuted with paragraphs read from the ROTR.

And at 80km/h, your well above 'slow / slower moving traffic'. That, in my eyes, is for traffic at a crawl. If everyone just made a point of driving correctly and not going 'ah shure, its grand' then we'd be well on our way. Even at 3am, I'd go lane 1 to 3 and back if I have to. But I'm sure many just rolls the eyes and pass on the left. Your as bad as the lane 2 driver if that is what you do.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No. I reckon you did.

Please read post #60 again, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90044078&postcount=60

Point 3 clearly states that you are allowed to undertake if traffic to your right is moving more slowly, do you seriously think it’s safer to go from Lane 1 to Lane 3 & back to Lane 1 because someone else hogging lane 2 , c’mon now be serious.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Undertaking (as celticbest described) is never ok nor legal.

Like I said, it depends on the situation. If you have two lanes of built up traffic in the middle and the right, and the left lane is moving faster (I have seen this numerous times on the M50) then its not illegal for those cars in the left lane to be passing the cars in the right hand lanes.

Henry Ford III

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Page 52.

Henry Ford III

celticbest wrote: »

Please read post #60 again, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90044078&postcount=60

Point 3 clearly states that you are allowed to undertake if traffic to your right is moving more slowly, do you seriously think it’s safer to go from Lane 1 to Lane 3 & back to Lane 1 because someone else hogging lane 2 , c’mon now be serious.

Yes I know what it says, but the issue is one of how it's interpreted.

The key words are "slow moving traffic" not "slower moving traffic". This means congested and stop/start conditions where it's actually difficult to match speeds.

Passing someone on their lhs just because your lane is going faster is illegal. Gardai prosecute people for doing it too.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Page 52.

Thats just backing up what Im saying to be honest.

Do you really think that if the traffic in the middle and right hand lanes are moving slowly (relatively speaking) then the cars in a more empty left hand lane are supposed to slow down to match their speed needlessly?

Thoie

Why do people say that middle-lane hoggers are hard to police? Could the gardaí not just stand on an overpass with a camera, look at the cars approaching in an outer lane when they're not overtaking anything, and pop a fine in the post to them?

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Thats just backing up what Im saying to be honest.

Do you really think that if the traffic in the middle and right hand lanes are moving slowly (relatively speaking) then the cars in a more empty left hand lane are supposed to slow down to match their speed needlessly?

Unfortunately yes they are. It's a pain in the swiss but there you go.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Unfortunately yes they are. It's a pain in the swiss but there you go.

This is where the definition of slow moving traffic gets called into play, and where the grey area exists. As far as Im concerned, in any built up traffic that is travelling under the speed limit (as built up traffic tends to be), it cannot be considered an offense for one lane to be travelling quicker than the other; thats just the nature of built up traffic.

Its also where common sense comes into play. The chances of anyone ever being done for undertaking where they are travelling in built up traffic in the left lane that is moving quicker than the right hand lane would be virtually nil. The chances of being done for undertaking at all in this country are extremely remote at the best of times...

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Page 52.

Eh, I know how to overtake...

If you have good reason to change lanes, use your mirrors and check in plenty of time to ensure that the way is clear. To check your blind spot
when travelling at speed, take a quick sideways glance to check the
position of a vehicle that may have disappeared from your view in the
mirror.

I don't see how someone hogging a lane is a good reason for me to move across 2 Lanes of traffic & then back across 2 lanes just to overtake someone who doesn’t know how to drive when the Lane you are in is Traffic free.

As I stated I don’t exceed the speed limit so therefore would not be able to undertake them if they drove correctly, I would only have to move out into lane 2 and then back into lane 1, I’m not endangering myself by manoeuvring across multiple lanes because some fool feels like hogging a lane.

Also if someone that is hogging Lane 2 wants to move to Lane 1 so they can exit at the next Junction 100m ahead even though there is an Auxiliary lane between junctions do they not have to check their mirrors before switching Lanes anyway or do the ROTR still not apply to them?

Again please read Page 52 which states you are allowed to undertake slower moving traffic, it does not state a minimum/maximum speed at which this is allowed it just states

Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

This is where the definition of slow moving traffic gets called into play, and where the grey area exists. As far as Im concerned, in any built up traffic that is travelling under the speed limit (as built up traffic tends to be), it cannot be considered an offense for one lane to be travelling quicker than the other; thats just the nature of built up traffic.

Slow not slower remember.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

This is where the definition of slow moving traffic gets called into play, and where the grey area exists. As far as Im concerned, in any built up traffic that is travelling under the speed limit (as built up traffic tends to be), it cannot be considered an offense for one lane to be travelling quicker than the other; thats just the nature of built up traffic.

Its also where common sense comes into play. The chances of anyone ever being done for undertaking where they are travelling in built up traffic in the left lane that is moving quicker than the right hand lane would be virtually nil. The chances of being done for undertaking at all in this country are extremely remote at the best of times...

I realise that this is from the UK but the principles are identical....

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Slow not slower remember.

Define slow? On a long straight multi-lane carraigeway with a speed limit of 100km/h, on a dry clear day, one could very well argue that 95km/h is slow...

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I realise that this is from the UK but the principles are identical....

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

UK rules do not apply here...

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Define slow? On a long straight multi-lane carraigeway with a speed limit of 100km/h, on a dry clear day, one could very well argue that 95km/h is slow...

That's just being silly.

Henry Ford III

celticbest wrote: »

UK rules do not apply here...

Funnily enough I already mentioned that.

What is relevant is the enhanced guidance on what "slow moving" means.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I realise that this is from the UK but the principles are identical....

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

Is it? Define similar speeds? If one lane is doing 80km/h and the other 90km/h is that considered to be similar?

There is no point in posting interpretations of the law; any of those sites (be it a UK side, RSA, ROTR etc) are just interpreting the traffic act in the same way that you and I are doing, and their interpretation holds no more weight legally than either of ours does.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Define slow? On a long straight multi-lane carraigeway with a speed limit of 100km/h, on a dry clear day, one could very well argue that 95km/h is slow...

Congested. Stop/start. 1st gear. That sort of thing.

95kph? I'd think not.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That's just being silly.

Silly how? Have you got a legal defintion of what slow means? Slow compared to what exactly?

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Congested. Stop/start. 1st gear. That sort of thing.

95kph? I'd think not.

Nowhere in the traffic act does it mention congested, stop/start, 1st gear etc.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Is it? Define similar speeds? If one lane is doing 80km/h and the other 90km/h is that considered to be similar?

There is no point in posting interpretations of the law; any of those sites (be it a UK side, RSA, ROTR etc) are just interpreting the traffic act in the same way that you and I are doing, and their interpretation holds no more weight legally than either of ours does.

Insert "congested" and it suddenly makes sense.

There's plenty of point in posting interpretations - it's a discussion board isn't it?

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Nowhere in the traffic act does it mention congested, stop/start, 1st gear etc.

You asked me to define slow. I just did. Whether that's mentioned in the RTA (it isn't) isn't relevant to how I'd define the term however.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Nowhere in the traffic act does it mention congested, stop/start, 1st gear etc.

While I agree with you, I think common sense has to apply here. On a motorway 'slow' moving traffic would be traffic moving at or significantly under the minimum speed limit. 80km/h versus 100km/h is hardly significant. Given the minimum speed limit on a motorway is 50km/h (Termed a 'slow' vehicle by that very blue sign) then I would consider 'slow' to be anything under 50km/h.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You asked me to define slow. I just did. Whether that's mentioned in the RTA (it isn't) isn't relevant to how I'd define the term however.

The point is that neither of our interpretations are relevant; the only thing that matters is how the Gardai/a judge defines slow moving traffic. The traffic act does not define what slow moving traffic means.

celticbest

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Funnily enough I already mentioned that.

What is relevant is the enhanced guidance on what "slow moving" means.

Until our ROTR are changed to clarify more clearly what is slow & what is not, I will continue to drive as I currently do.

If a car is hogging Lane 3 doing 80km/h & a HGV is in Lane 2 also hogging it doing 80km/h while Lane 1 is Traffic free, should no vehicle pass in lane 1 and everything move to Lane 3 with the intention of overtaking thus bringing the Motorway to a standstill?

I’m sure we’ve all heard of a 'Jamiton'.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

While I agree with you, I think common sense has to apply here. On a motorway 'slow' moving traffic would be traffic moving at or significantly under the minimum speed limit. 80km/h versus 100km/h is hardly significant. Given the minimum speed limit on a motorway is 50km/h (Termed a 'slow' vehicle by that very blue sign) then I would consider 'slow' to be anything under 50km/h.

There is no minimum speed limit on an Irish motorway (or any other road). Vehicles on motorways must be capable of travelling at 50km/h; it doesnt mean that its illegal to travel slower than that.

I know Im arguing the point, but Im simply trying to point out that legally there is no definition of slow moving. In my opinion (and thats all it is), in built up traffic that is travelling under the speed limit, it cannot be seen as an offense for traffic in the left hand lane to travelling faster than traffic in the right hand lane. Maybe a Garda might view it differently (I have certainly never seen it happen in my years of driving).

djimi

celticbest wrote: »

Until our ROTR are changed to clarify more clearly what is slow & what is not, I will continue to drive as I currently do.

If a car is hogging Lane 3 doing 80km/h & a HGV is in Lane 2 also hogging it doing 80km/h while Lane 1 is Traffic free, should no vehicle pass in lane 1 and everything move to Lane 3 with the intention of overtaking thus bringing the Motorway to a standstill?

I’m sure we’ve all heard of a 'Jamiton'.

Just to be clear, Im arguing where there is built up traffic, ie where there are two/three solid lines of cars travelling at different speeds.

If you are talking about passing single cars on the inside then you have no defence here; you are in the wrong. A single car will not (in my opinion anyway) be considered to be slow moving traffic, no matter what speed they might be going.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

The point is that neither of our interpretations are relevant; the only thing that matters is how the Gardai/a judge defines slow moving traffic. The traffic act does not define what slow moving traffic means.

Yours might not be, but mine is

I'm sure there's plenty of case law to support my view however. Prosecutions for illegal undertaking (in much the very circumstances as you've described) aren't uncommon.

The cause is however twofold imho:-

1/. Lane hoggers don't move back into lane 1. This slows outside lanes. Lane 1 becomes less populated and potentially more free flowing and quicker. Poor lane discipline, and it's lazy and selfish.

2/. Undertakers are also lazy and selfish. Don't see why someone else's ignorance should force them to change lanes multiple times. So they look for justification to deliberately flout the law.

In an ideal world both these groups would be prosecuted quickly and regularly. This doesn't happen however so they just carry on with their poor lane discipline and bad habits.

The M50 particularly is a disaster of a road for all manner of poor driving.

djimi

If Im wrong then so be it, and if there have been prosecutions where someone in a solid lane of traffic has been done for undertaking another solid lane of traffic then Id be interested to see it. I just dont see how it would have ever happened.

Just to clarify again, I am not talking about a single car undertaking another single car.

celticbest

I give up…

However until I'm stopped I’ll continue to drive with my own safety in mind, I will continue to undertake slow moving traffic including Garda vehicles instead of crossing multiple Lanes of traffic because someone is too brain dead/lazy to drive correctly, proper enforcement of Driving Lanes by the Gardaí would enable me to drive correctly without endangering myself, until this is done my driving habits will not change no matter what anyone says.

We all know this thread will just keep going back and forth without agreement, so IMO it is just a waste of time as numerous other similar threads in the past of the same vein have been.

I which you all safe driving, the main aim of which is to get home to our families in one piece.

corktina

One car hogging the middle lane isn't slow moving traffic...it's a slow moving car. The Law is intended to mean queuing traffic not one car moving slower than you are. I believe this is how a Judge would interpret it.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I always enjoy learning about driving iin Poland.

Ahh my pleasure

djimi wrote: »

Why is it seen as bad etiquette? If its legal then surely drivers just learn to expect it?

First of all, because same as in Ireland you must drive on left lane unless overtaking, you must drive on right lane there, unless overtaking.
Most people (at least on motorways) would obey this, so there very little opportunities to undertake.
I can't say really why undertaking is considered bad etiquette, but it is - that's a fact.

Same as f.e. in Ireland you are allowed by law to drive on 4 different models of tyres on your car, but for safety reasons it's advised to have the same model at least within the same axle. So the same in Poland it's advised not to undertake, even though it's legal.

ironclaw

Hmm, putting aside the 'slow' versus 'fast' argument, I don't see much in your favour if you struck someone merging back to lane one (For example). If I look in my left mirror and I see a car, I'm not expecting them to be going hard enough to catch me or worse still moving fast through a blind spot i.e. Any traffic that is going faster than me, by convention and by the law, should be passing me to my right. You cannot reasonably expect someone to be passing you on the left. Not that it gives you a free reign to jump left but in terms of 'responsibility' you have a responsibility to another driver to pass on the right except for the given circumstances. Its like at a roundabout, its reasonable to expect that traffic will always come from your right only.

Of course, those will say, 'Well they should be more observant' and I am, I'm just posing the Joe Soap scenario. I think you'd be levelled if you ended up in front of judge and it was proved you were undertaking when you hit someone. I wouldn't want to be the undertaking car, I'd expect zero mercy.

dashcamdanny

The thing that bugs me more than middle lane cowboys, is the blind eye our coppers turn to it.

Seen plenty of Garda do it also.

highdef

dashcamdanny wrote: »

The thing that bugs me more than middle lane cowboys, is the blind eye our coppers turn to it.

Seen plenty of Garda do it also.

I was watching on episode of Road Wars (or something similar) a few years ago. The police car came across a car behind another car in the overtaking lane. Both were doing about 90 mph. The car behind was not tailgating but it was obvious that he wanted to pass as the driving lane was clear. What happened next surprised me; the police flashed the car in front (the one behind), it pulled over to the driving lane. They then proceeded to flash and then pull over the driver ahead. He was done for driving in the incorrect lane and causing an obstruction. The other driver was let go and was not pulled over at all. The police reckoned that although the speed limit was 70 mph, the conditions were not dangerous to travel at 90 mph and that even with them both driving at 90 mph, there was no immediate danger to any road users and that the guy hogging the overtaking lane was the one causing the greater offence.

Zubeneschamali

celticbest wrote: »

I’ll continue to drive with my own safety in mind, I will continue to undertake slow moving traffic including Garda vehicles

Until the day you are pulled over and fined.

Yes, posters right here on this forum have been done for overtaking on the left.

creedp

ironclaw wrote: »

Hmm, putting aside the 'slow' versus 'fast' argument, I don't see much in your favour if you struck someone merging back to lane one (For example). If I look in my left mirror and I see a car, I'm not expecting them to be going hard enough to catch me or worse still moving fast through a blind spot i.e. Any traffic that is going faster than me, by convention and by the law, should be passing me to my right. You cannot reasonably expect someone to be passing you on the left. Not that it gives you a free reign to jump left but in terms of 'responsibility' you have a responsibility to another driver to pass on the right except for the given circumstances. Its like at a roundabout, its reasonable to expect that traffic will always come from your right only.

Of course, those will say, 'Well they should be more observant' and I am, I'm just posing the Joe Soap scenario. I think you'd be levelled if you ended up in front of judge and it was proved you were undertaking when you hit someone. I wouldn't want to be the undertaking car, I'd expect zero mercy.

Course the last thing you'd expect of a middle lane hogger is for them to use a bloody indicator and mirrors. So therefore no way could fault be apportioned on them if they drove into another car - even the use of the text above - the left lane user hits the middle lane user even though its the middle lane user which crssses the lane - says it all really. It seems middle lane hoggers are treated in a similar fashion to 'slow chidren' were in the past. Ah sure that's the way they are so lets just drive around them.

As said by a number of contributors until I'm stopped for doing so I will continue to undertake traffic that is deliberately breaking the law by hogging middle/3rd lane rather than create havoc by careering across a busy motorway in order to be able to claim I'm perfect and alway obey the rules to the letter of the law rather than use common sense in a given situation.