Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

magicbastarder

Isambard wrote: »

I bow to your superior knowledge. A cyclist would I imagine know more about undertaking than most :-)

i see what you did there. but it's legal for a cyclist to do it, so that's OK.

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle

degsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i see what you did there. but it's legal for a cyclist to do it, so that's OK.

So cyclists use the motorway now?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

degsie wrote: »

So cyclists use the motorway now?

ask Isambard. he was the one who raised the topic.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

Its a dilemma isn't it?

If a clown is dozing along in the middle lane, the safest thing is often to pass him on the inside but strictly speaking you are supposed to make four lane changes, all because an idiot doesn't know how to use a motorway properly.

It's the easiest with regards to less movements. It's not the safest by far. You have to watch 2 lanes of traffic to your right.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Its a dilemma isn't it?

If a clown is dozing along in the middle lane, the safest thing is often to pass him on the inside but strictly speaking you are supposed to make four lane changes, all because an idiot doesn't know how to use a motorway properly.

It's the easiest with regards to less movements. It's not the safest by far. You have to watch 2 lanes of traffic to your right.

You have to do that if you are making the lane changes too.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

You have to do that if you are making the lane changes too.

Not as much as doing one under take requires. You need to make sure someone isn't coming in across the person you are passing, and intending to cut in, in front of you.

The safest option is to hold your position behind them in the first lane.

Seth Brundle

Dravokivich wrote: »

The safest option is to hold your position behind them in the first lane.

Back in the real world, these dozy gits are usually driving significantly slower than you so are you saying that we should all slow down because one person doesn't understand how to drive on a dual carriageway?

kbannon

While i totally get why you'd do it, you are putting yourself into blind spots by undertaking - it's entirely reasonable for someone to move back from lane 3 to lane 1 and they wouldn't see you at all

kbannon wrote: »

Back in the real world, these dozy gits are usually driving significantly slower than you so are you saying that we should all slow down because one person doesn't understand how to drive on a dual carriageway?

well someone else was talking about safer options - this is probably the safer option if you're judging by that criteria - not necessarily what we 'should all do'

Cookie_Monster

bluewolf wrote: »

While i totally get why you'd do it, you are putting yourself into blind spots by undertaking - it's entirely reasonable for someone to move back from lane 3 to lane 1 and they wouldn't see you at all

No it's not, that means they are changing lanes without looking to ensure the lane is clear...

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No it's not, that means they are changing lanes without looking to ensure the lane is clear...

i reckon they can look all they want and not see you if you're on the inside of a car in lane 2 tearing up just when they think it's clear

First Up

bluewolf wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No it's not, that means they are changing lanes without looking to ensure the lane is clear...

i reckon they can look all they want and not see you if you're on the inside of a car in lane 2 tearing up just when they think it's clear

There are risks for all the options. If the road is quiet, I will usuallly make the 3 lane manouvre, although I'll admit it is mostly to try to make a point to the dullard in lane 2.

But if its busy across all 3 lanes, the inside overtake is definitely less risky, especially if there isn't an upcoming exit that the dullard might wander into at the last minute.

Dravokivich

kbannon wrote: »

Back in the real world, these dozy gits are usually driving significantly slower than you so are you saying that we should all slow down because one person doesn't understand how to drive on a dual carriageway?

I prefer to not get frustrated by the actions of other drivers as it can impact my own driving. I'll sit back for however long I need to.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

I prefer to not get frustrated by the actions of other drivers as it can impact my own driving. I'll sit back for however long I need to.

Mmmm. Think about it:

Somebody is dozing along in the middle lane at 80 in a 100 kph zone. You sit in at the same speed in Lane 1. So that's two lanes blocked doing 80, forcing everyone who wants to go (legally) a bit quicker into Lane 3.

You think that's making the road safer?

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

Mmmm. Think about it:

Somebody is dozing along in the middle lane at 80 in a 100 kph zone. You sit in at the same speed in Lane 1. So that's two lanes blocked doing 80, forcing everyone who wants to go (legally) a bit quicker into Lane 3.

You think that's making the road safer?

We are expected to over take when safe to do so, to the right. Taking matters into your own hands going by'em along the left is bringing risk into it. It's by far the laziest option to get around them and is by no means the safest.

TheChizler

Dravokivich wrote: »

We are expected to over take when safe to do so, to the right. Taking matters into your own hands going by'em along the left is bringing risk into it. It's by far the laziest option to get around them and is by no means the safest.

My feeling on this is that if they're dozy enough to trundle along in the wrong lane not noticing the traffic they're causing behind them, they're dozy enough to plough through you while you're overtaking on the left and they suddenly realise their exit is coming up.

degsie

A lot of back and forth on this one, and still nobody is offering a sensible solution. Maybe this is one of those things we all have accept and move on. Plenty of threads have come and gone on this topic.

First Up

[QUOTE=Dravokivich;105601825]We are expected to over take when safe to do so, to the right. Taking matters into your own hands going by'em along the left is bringing risk into it. It's by far the laziest option to get around them and is by no means the safest.[/QUOTE]

Yes but that's not what you said you do - you said you sit in Lane 1 behind them, thereby letting the Lane 2 hogger dictate the pace of two lanes.

Someone blocking the middle lane is endangering everyone by causing them to change lanes. If someone is blocking Lane 2, by definition there isn't room behind him so forcing yourself into that Lane and then trying to join a faster moving 3rd lane involves two risky moves. In that situation, a prudent passs on the inside, while carefully watching that the Lane 2 dozer doesn't wander into you, involves less risk.

I said it is a dilemma.

First Up

TheChizler wrote: »

My feeling on this is that if they're dozy enough to trundle along in the wrong lane not noticing the traffic they're causing behind them, they're dozy enough to plough through you while you're overtaking on the left and they suddenly realise their exit is coming up.

Which is why I said I wouldn't do it if there is an exit coming up.

First Up

degsie wrote: »

A lot of back and forth on this one, and still nobody is offering a sensible solution. Maybe this is one of those things we all have accept and move on. Plenty of threads have come and gone on this topic.

There is a sensible solution. Its called KEEP LEFT.

Isambard

there is no danger in changing lanes, when it's done properly. what danger there is comes from substandard observation and anticipation.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

Yes but that's not what you said you do - you said you sit in Lane 1 behind them, thereby letting the Lane 2 hogger dictate the pace of two lanes.

Someone blocking the middle lane is endangering everyone by causing them to change lanes. If someone is blocking Lane 2, by definition there isn't room behind him so forcing yourself into that Lane and then trying to join a faster moving 3rd lane involves two risky moves. In that situation, a prudent passs on the inside, while carefully watching that the Lane 2 dozer doesn't wander into you, involves less risk.

I said it is a dilemma.

It's no dilemma at all. I'm not going to do something because of someone else. If it turns out by proxy they've slowed down traffic on 2 lanes, so be it. I'm still not going to over take on the left. If other drivers are too close to allow you to switch lanes, that's another issue again and you should be less worried about someone hogging the 2nd lane and more concerned about drivers around you not giving enough room around everyone else.

First Up

Isambard wrote: »

there is no danger in changing lanes, when it's done properly. what danger there is comes from substandard observation and anticipation.

I don't have hard numbers but from listening to reports of motorway prangs, I have the impression that a high proportion happen in the outside lane (maybe the AA or RSA keep records?). If that is the case, then it could be speculated that they happen because someone has moved into that lane out of frustration at been blocked in Lane 2 and (because there is a queue in Lane 2) doesn't have clear view of what's coming up at a faster speed in Lane 3.

Yes, all accidents are someopne's fault but mis-use of motorway lanes creates more situations in which accidents can happen.

Isambard

First Up wrote: »

I don't have hard numbers but from listening to reports of motorway prangs, I have the impression that a high proportion happen in the outside lane (maybe the AA or RSA keep records?). If that is the case, then it could be speculated that they happen because someone has moved into that lane out of frustration at been blocked in Lane 2 and (because there is a queue in Lane 2) doesn't have clear view of what's coming up at a faster speed in Lane 3.

Yes, all accidents are someopne's fault but mis-use of motorway lanes creates more situations in which accidents can happen.

in other words, poor observation being the cause rather than the act of changing lanes.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's no dilemma at all. I'm not going to do something because of someone else. If it turns out by proxy they've slowed down traffic on 2 lanes, so be it. I'm still not going to over take on the left. If other drivers are too close to allow you to switch lanes, that's another issue again and you should be less worried about someone hogging the 2nd lane and more concerned about drivers around you not giving enough room around everyone else.

Yet you are doing something exactly because of someone else.

An important part of good driving is being aware of how your actions impact others. If you insist on blocking Lane 1 because someone is also slowing Lane 2, then you are contributing to a situation that will cause more manouvers than necessary and thereby increase the risk of accidents.

I'm not talking about switching into lane 1 to undertake but it is legal for traffic in Lane 1 to move faster than traffic in Lanes 2 or 3. If all three lanes are full there nothing inherently dangerous or wrong about continuing in Lane 1 at a faster pace than Lane 2.

Of course you keep your eyes open and be especially aware that someone dozing in Lane 2 is liable to do something else stupid.

First Up

Isambard wrote: »

in other words, poor observation being the cause rather than the act of changing lanes.

Yes, but the more lane changes that take place, the greater the chances of people not doing it properly.

Dravokivich

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but the more lane changes that take place, the greater the chances of people not doing it properly.

Which brings the odds to 100%, when doing so on the left, but because it suits you...

First Up wrote: »

Yet you are doing something exactly because of someone else.

An important part of good driving is being aware of how your actions impact others. If you insist on blocking Lane 1 because someone is also slowing Lane 2, then you are contributing to a situation that will cause more manouvers than necessary and thereby increase the risk of accidents.

I'm not talking about switching into lane 1 to undertake but it is legal for traffic in Lane 1 to move faster than traffic in Lanes 2 or 3. If all three lanes are full there nothing inherently dangerous or wrong about continuing in Lane 1 at a faster pace than Lane 2.

Of course you keep your eyes open and be especially aware that someone dozing in Lane 2 is liable to do something else stupid.

I'm very aware of how my driving can impact others. As I mentioned earlier, we are expected to over take to the right, not the left. Being where you are not expected to be, is inciting risk. If someone is going to make a manouver due to me waiting it out in Lane 1, it's on them to make the observations required and to assess if it is safe to do so for themselves.

The idea behind Lane 1 being faster than lane 2 and overtaking on the left, is in regards to slow moving traffic congestion, not just the presence of a lot of cars there. And this isn't even what was being put forward. You were arguing for over taking on the left, when faced with a lane hogger in Lane 2.

beer enigma

Speaking as someone that commutes daily from Cork to Dublin by car, this affects me a lot.

Often find that the 3 lane Naas road inbound moves quite freely in lane 1, less so in lane 2 and just a mass of people hitting brakes in lane 3, its quite extraordinary.

M7 is no better as you frequently get one plonker sitting in the outside lane at 100kph then the guy comes up at 120Kph in the inside lane but doesn't want to undertake, so he slows and moves across behind the plonker....then the next guy does it and then the next so you have lane 2 with 10 drivers all playing sheep and overtaking nobody and a totally empty lane 1....trust me its a very very common sight.

I'm sorry, but if I'm in lane 1 and these guys are all playing silly bu**ers in lane 2, I will move past carefully within the limit on the first lane and leave them playing chance in the 2nd.

Irish Steve

The simplest solution would be to use the same concept as the Americans do, I don't read regularly of mega crashes on their freeways, and they take the line of least resistance, pass on either side if there's a vehicle moving slowly. At least if it was official. people should be prepared for changes either side of them.

In the same vein, there are a lot of junctions where the equivalent of the American turn right on a red would make life a lot easier.

First Up

Dravokivich wrote: »

Which brings the odds to 100%, when doing so on the left, but because it suits you...




I'm very aware of how my driving can impact others. As I mentioned earlier, we are expected to over take to the right, not the left. Being where you are not expected to be, is inciting risk. If someone is going to make a manouver due to me waiting it out in Lane 1, it's on them to make the observations required and to assess if it is safe to do so for themselves.

The idea behind Lane 1 being faster than lane 2 and overtaking on the left, is in regards to slow moving traffic congestion, not just the presence of a lot of cars there. And this isn't even what was being put forward. You were arguing for over taking on the left, when faced with a lane hogger in Lane 2.

I am saying that when faced with a choice of (a) making a four lane manouver (1-2-3-2-1) on a congested road, (b) holding up Lane 1 by slowing to the speed of the Lane hogger in 2, or (c) maintaining my (legal) speed in Lane 1 and thereby overtaking the Lane hogger in 2, in my judgement option (c) carries the lowest risk to me and others if carried out carefully.

degsie

A 'take the lane of least resistance' approach makes sense to me.

Cookie_Monster

Irish Steve wrote: »

The simplest solution would be to use the same concept as the Americans do, I don't read regularly of mega crashes on their freeways, and they take the line of least resistance, pass on either side if there's a vehicle moving slowly. At least if it was official. people should be prepared for changes either side of them.

+1
Not just the US, same operates here in NZ on multi lane roads, though there is a general keep left rule as well.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Mmmm. Think about it:

Somebody is dozing along in the middle lane at 80 in a 100 kph zone. You sit in at the same speed in Lane 1. So that's two lanes blocked doing 80, forcing everyone who wants to go (legally) a bit quicker into Lane 3.

You think that's making the road safer?

Lane 2 is being blocked, no other lane is being blocked, the OP is driving in the driving lane.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Yet you are doing something exactly because of someone else.

An important part of good driving is being aware of how your actions impact others. If you insist on blocking Lane 1 because someone is also slowing Lane 2, then you are contributing to a situation that will cause more manouvers than necessary and thereby increase the risk of accidents.

Its impossible to block the driving lane by driving in it, there are 1 if not 2 over taking lanes.

First Up wrote: »

I'm not talking about switching into lane 1 to undertake but it is legal for traffic in Lane 1 to move faster than traffic in Lanes 2 or 3. If all three lanes are full there nothing inherently dangerous or wrong about continuing in Lane 1 at a faster pace than Lane 2.

Its illegal to overtake on the left unless traffic is "slow moving".
Moving slower is not the same as slow moving.

Whether or not you were always in lane 1 or switched into lane 1 is irrelevant.
Its often incorrectly brought up to defect overtaking on the left but its hogwash.

Overtaking is passing someone, what lane you do it in or what lane you started in has zero bearing.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Its impossible to block the driving lane by driving in it, there are 1 if not 2 over taking lanes.

Its illegal to overtake on the left unless traffic is "slow moving".
Moving slower is not the same as slow moving.

Whether or not you were always in lane 1 or switched into lane 1 is irrelevant.
Its often incorrectly brought up to defect overtaking on the left but its hogwash.

Overtaking is passing someone, what lane you do it in or what lane you started in has zero bearing.

If cars in lanes 1 and 2 are both travelling below the limit (under normal driving conditions) they are in effect blocking both lanes for use by other drivers. That forces all other traffic into the 3rd lane which is both dangerous and inconsiderate.

Your use of parenthesis for "slow moving" indicates that the term is open to interpretation. Taking your interpretation literally means that a car in lane 2 can dictate the speed at which all cars in lanes 2 and 1 can travel. For example, if the cars in both lanes are travelling at 90 and the car in lane 2 decides to slow to 70, is the car in lane 1 obliged to also slow to 70, or to make a 4 lane manouver to keep going at his legal and safe pace?

It is not hogwash but I said it is dilemma. It requires drivers to use their judgement to decide the safest course of action. There are many instances when that course of action requires common sense and road awareness to stay in lane 1 and maintain a legal pace rather than a slavish adherance to passing on the right.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

If cars in lanes 1 and 2 are both travelling below the limit (under normal driving conditions) they are in effect blocking both lanes for use by other drivers. That forces all other traffic into the 3rd lane which is both dangerous and inconsiderate.

By that logic any car on a single lane carriageway is blocking other drivers.
You are free to drive in the driving lane as long as you are travelling at or above the minimum speed limit for the road.
The car in the overtaking lane is blocking traffic and forcing them into lane 3.
the car in lane 1, is perfectly entitled to drive in the driving lane!

First Up wrote: »

Your use of parenthesis for "slow moving" indicates that the term is open to interpretation. Taking your interpretation literally means that a car in lane 2 can dictate the speed at which all cars in lanes 2 and 1 can travel. For example, if the cars in both lanes are travelling at 90 and the car in lane 2 decides to slow to 70, is the car in lane 1 obliged to also slow to 70, or to make a 4 lane manouver to keep going at his legal and safe pace?

"()" are parenthesis.
I quoted "slow moving" because its a quote from the relevant statute.

The actual speed is open to some interpretation, but the terms "slow-moving traffic" will never mean traffic at or near the speed limit for the road.
"Slow" is the clue. If it was to mean what you seem to think it means then overtaking on the left would be legal in Ireland, as by definition, the traffic you are passing is moving slower than you are.

Yes, a car in lane 2 can dictate the speed lanes 1 and 2 can travel, in exactly the same way as a car in lane 1 of a single lane carriage way can also dictate the speed of all traffic behind it.

In answer to your question, yes, if you want to pass someone who is driving in lane 2 when you are in lane 1, legally, you have to pass them in lane 3.

First Up wrote: »

It is not hogwash but I said it is dilemma. It requires drivers to use their judgement to decide the safest course of action. There are many instances when that course of action requires common sense and road awareness to stay in lane 1 and maintain a legal pace rather than a slavish adherance to passing on the right.

It is hogwash. People try to explain away illegal overtaking all the time on here by arguing about what lane they started/finished in.
Its irrelevant.

There is no "dilemma", you either overtake them legally, or you stay behind them in lane 1.
There is no judgement involved, there are laws, its not anarchy (though sometimes I'm not so sure)

Obeying the driving statues isn't "slavish", its following the laws of driving in this country, so that everyone else on the road with you has some idea of what to expect from you.
If you don't like it, move to various states in the USA where you can overtake and indeed drive in whichever lane you so choose, meanwhile in Ireland, we will continue to overtake on the right.

GreeBo

degsie wrote: »

A 'take the lane of least resistance' approach makes sense to me.

That leads to frequent, abrupt lane changes, over-breaking and then gridlock.
The most economical use of lanes is for slower traffic to stay on the left, faster traffic on the right and everyone to drive in the driving lane unless overtaking.

degsie

GreeBo wrote: »

That leads to frequent, abrupt lane changes, over-breaking and then gridlock.
The most economical use of lanes is for slower traffic to stay on the left, faster traffic on the right and everyone to drive in the driving lane unless overtaking.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Unless of course you have data to prove this.

flaneur

What shocked me was during the recent icy weather, I was driving on the M7 and M8 to Cork and there was significantly bad frost in the overtaking lane in places.

Issues:

1. Cars tailgating in the driving lane. There was genuinely a risk of black ice and the traffic was dropped back to moving at about 100km/h. I wanted to keep a good distance between me and the car ahead of me and some moron drove ON my bumper because I wasn’t going fast enough for him. He wouldn’t overtake and kept just driving way too close. There was genuinely ice on the road surface !! There was a whole line of traffic ahead of me all moving at 100km/h

2. There was a little frost in the overtaking lane and a guy overtook without moving into lane fully and caused several cars to have to swerve IN ICY weather into the hard shoulder.

Moronic driving !

3. I’m also regularly encountering people driving without lights on in foggy weather and at dusk. Then people leave the fog lights on when there’s no fog...

GreeBo

degsie wrote: »

That is an opinion, not a fact. Unless of course you have data to prove this.

If you can overtake in any lane you can drive in any lane, hence you will have slower cars in all lanes instead of just 1 lane.

Hows that for a legal rolling road block?

Sean Kinvarra

Isambard wrote: »

the term "overtake" means to pass.
To use the term "undertake" is not correct as in this instance under is not the opposite of over.
To overtake on the right is the correct procedure, to overtake on the left, in most cases, is not legal.
Which lane you were in and whether you moved lane has no bearing on that.

Definition and legality of *undertaking* in UK. It is also legal in Ireland, as there is no interpretation of "slow moving traffic" in the Irish Statute Book. Neither is there a law on bikers lane filtering which is both undertaking and overtaking together.

Sean Kinvarra

TheChizler wrote: »

mfceiling wrote: »

Eh yeah it has. There are 2 lanes on a motorway. The left hand lane is the driving lane. If you encounter a vehicle in front of you moving slower than you then you overtake it by moving into the right lane (the overtaking lane). After passing the vehicle you should move back to the left lane.

It's really that simple.

So if you move straight into the right lane getting on the M8 in Cork and stay on until exiting the M50 having passed 200 cars on the way you wouldn't have overtaken a single one of them?

You are spot on👠People spout myths yet cannot send a link to prove their point.

Sean Kinvarra

Irish Steve wrote: »

The simplest solution would be to use the same concept as the Americans do, I don't read regularly of mega crashes on their freeways, and they take the line of least resistance, pass on either side if there's a vehicle moving slowly. At least if it was official. people should be prepared for changes either side of them.

In the same vein, there are a lot of junctions where the equivalent of the American turn right on a red would make life a lot easier.

The American system is used closer to home, Overtaking on left or I like to call it "undertaking" is legal in UK. N.Ireland have their own Highway Code and its also legal there.
It's a bit rediculous to think that you can undertake on the North of the border yet as soon as you cross into the ROI you are committing a criminal offence.

First Up

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Irish Steve wrote: »

The simplest solution would be to use the same concept as the Americans do, I don't read regularly of mega crashes on their freeways, and they take the line of least resistance, pass on either side if there's a vehicle moving slowly. At least if it was official. people should be prepared for changes either side of them.

In the same vein, there are a lot of junctions where the equivalent of the American turn right on a red would make life a lot easier.

The American system is used closer to home, Overtaking on left or I like to call it "undertaking" is legal in UK. N.Ireland have their own Highway Code and its also legal there.
It's a bit rediculous to think that you can undertake on the North of the border yet as soon as you cross into the ROI you are committing a criminal offence.

And motorway driving in Britain is far superior to what you see here anyway so the need to "undertake" drivers abusing the middle lane is much less frequent.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

There is no "dilemma", you either overtake them legally, or you stay behind them in lane 1.
There is no judgement involved, there are laws, its not anarchy (though sometimes I'm not so sure)

Obeying the driving statues isn't "slavish", its following the laws of driving in this country, so that everyone else on the road with you has some idea of what to expect from you.
If you don't like it, move to various states in the USA where you can overtake and indeed drive in whichever lane you so choose, meanwhile in Ireland, we will continue to overtake on the right.

Good drivers are aware of what is going on around them and are aware of the consequences of their own actions. They also use their brains and are able to exercise their own judgement.

There are reasons why busy 3 lane Irish motorways are frequently blocked by accidents and there are also reasons why a high proportion of those accidents are in the 3rd lane.

If you encounter a tricky situation on a motorway, you'll get the information you need to solve by looking out the window, not by reading the rules of the road.

First Up

And I should add the the bit in the Highway Code about overtaking on the right is there in conjunction with (and predicated on the assumption that people are following) the other bit about KEEPING LEFT.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Good drivers are aware of what is going on around them and are aware of the consequences of their own actions. They also use their brains and are able to exercise their own judgement.

There are reasons why busy 3 lane Irish motorways are frequently blocked by accidents and there are also reasons why a high proportion of those accidents are in the 3rd lane.

If you encounter a tricky situation on a motorway, you'll get the information you need to solve by looking out the window, not by reading the rules of the road.

Earlier you wondered how many accidents occurred in the 3rd lane, now you are stating it as fact. Could you link that source please?

You can make up all the excuses and old wives tales you want, you will still be wrong.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

And I should add the the bit in the Highway Code about overtaking on the right is there in conjunction with (and predicated on the assumption that people are following) the other bit about KEEPING LEFT.

Maybe the drivers who don't keep left are following your example and ignoring the rules as they believe, like you, that they know better?

You have just reduced your own argument to "well they are wrong too!" :rolleyes:

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Good drivers are aware of what is going on around them and are aware of the consequences of their own actions. They also use their brains and are able to exercise their own judgement.

There are reasons why busy 3 lane Irish motorways are frequently blocked by accidents and there are also reasons why a high proportion of those accidents are in the 3rd lane.

If you encounter a tricky situation on a motorway, you'll get the information you need to solve by looking out the window, not by reading the rules of the road.

Earlier you wondered how many accidents occurred in the 3rd lane, now you are stating it as fact. Could you link that source please?

You can make up all the excuses and old wives tales you want, you will still be wrong.

It would be interesting to know if the RSA or Gardai keep a record but as they have largely abdicated responsibility for motorway behaviour, I doubt it.

In the meantime I'll stick with my anecdotal observation that a high proportion of accidents mentioned on radio refer to the 3rd lane.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

And I should add the the bit in the Highway Code about overtaking on the right is there in conjunction with (and predicated on the assumption that people are following) the other bit about KEEPING LEFT.

Maybe the drivers who don't keep left are following your example and ignoring the rules as they believe, like you, that they know better?

You have just reduced your own argument to "well they are wrong too!" :rolleyes:

Yeah I was expecting that.

I'm not advocating any particular policy, beyond dealing with each situation as you find it. A driver's ultimate responsibility is to assess a situation, weigh up the risks attached to each option and then take the safest and quickest way of dealing with it. That sometimes means passing another car on the inside.