Apart from the lane hogging bus, who is more at fault here?

Darc19

What motorway has 3 lanes and a 80km limit?


Possibly it's a n road such as N7 near newlands cross.

Op doesn't state where it was as it may not suit their argument.

Eg, if it was approaching Newlands cross the bus would be correct to be in lane 2 if it was continuing to Dublin city, truck would be ok to undertake if taking M50.


But no matter what even if truck was not turning off, it is the car that moved lanes and it is the car driver that is at fault.

Also the car driver should have been aware of the truck before they overtook the bus.

As they say, expect the unexpected.

_Kaiser_

twin_beacon wrote: »

The law does not have any context, it just states if traffic is moving more "slowly". There is no mention of what defines "slow", or if the slowness is being caused by traffic congestion, or just a single slow moving vehicle.


From page 55 of the Rules of the Road

Er... your own link/quote gives precisely what "slow" is defined as:

for example, in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.

As others have said, there is a huge difference between slowly, and slower. A car doing 110 on a motorway may be moving slower than the car that overtakes at 120, but you couldn't say it's moving slowly.

Again, it worries me that this isn't clear to some people - either that or they're trying to play what they percieve as a "grey area" (it isn't!) for their own advantage.

bop1977

FishOnABike wrote: »

HGVs not allowed in lane 3 of a 3 lane carriageway.

Speed limit dependant. 80k or less yes they are, more than 80k they aren’t.

twin_beacon

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Er... your own link/quote gives precisely what "slow" is defined as:

No, the rules of the road just gives an example of what "slow" is.

Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly but traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the right-hand lane – for example, in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.

The law does not state that overtaking on the left is allowed only in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As others have said, there is a huge difference between slowly, and slower. A car doing 110 on a motorway may be moving slower than the car that overtakes at 120, but you couldn't say it's moving slowly.

Again, it worries me that this isn't clear to some people - either that or they're trying to play what they percieve as a "grey area" (it isn't!) for their own advantage.

There is no definition in the law that states what slow actually is, and thats the whole argument here. Is it a fixed speed? Is it a percentage of the speed limit that applies to a road? In the passage we are given an an example of what slow is, but not a definition. How is this not a grey area when a term (slow) used in a law, is not clearly defined?
I don't see how I'm trying to use this to my own advantage? If someone ended up in court for undertaking a slower moving vehicle (on a two lane road, and within the speed limit), and the defending solicitor asked the judge for the exact definition of "slow" in the law, and it couldn't be produced, then the case would be thrown out.

knucklehead6

We're getting sidetracked here.


All of us can agree that the car driver is the one at fault in the incident mentioned in the OP, super swedish driving skills notwithstanding

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

No, the rules of the road just gives an example of what "slow" is.



The law does not state that overtaking on the left is allowed only in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.



There is no definition in the law that states what slow actually is, and thats the whole argument here. Is it a fixed speed? Is it a percentage of the speed limit that applies to a road? In the passage we are given an an example of what slow is, but not a definition. How is this not a grey area when a term (slow) used in a law, is not clearly defined?
I don't see how I'm trying to use this to my own advantage? If someone ended up in court for undertaking a slower moving vehicle (on a two lane road, and within the speed limit), and the defending solicitor asked the judge for the exact definition of "slow" in the law, and it couldn't be produced, then the case would be thrown out.

Nope. The judge would make an interpretation as to the intent of the legislation, and would certainly be aided by any clarifying evidence.

That's how case law works.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

100% agree with the swedish bloke above (I swear I'm not biased because I love Volvo and Saab) and even in North American rules the car is wrong too.

But we all agree the car driver is the cause to the accident, the thread has served it's purpose IMO

Think we should all leave before more arguing of judges and interpretation of the law flow in

knucklehead6

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

100% agree with the swedish bloke above (I swear I'm not biased because I love Volvo and Saab) and even in North American rules the car is wrong too.

But we all agree the car driver is the cause to the accident, the thread has served it's purpose IMO

Think we should all leave before more arguing of judges and interpretation of the law flow in

Errrmmm

Red hair and freckles here Koppaberg. I’m as paddy as they come!!

twin_beacon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Nope. The judge would make an interpretation as to the intent of the legislation, and would certainly be aided by any clarifying evidence.

That's how case law works.

Lets say this is the wording of a law:

Vehicles must not exceed a speed of 40 kmph when they are following an agricultural vehicle - for example, a tractor.

Applying the same interpretation the law mentioned in the rules of the road above, the speed limit of 40 kmph would apply to vehicles that are following tractors only, and would not apply to anyone following a combine harvester.

In the above tractor example, a tractor is an example of a agricultural vehicle, but its not the only type of agricultural vehicles.

In the rules of the road, slow moving stop/start traffic conditions is an example of slow traffic, but its not the only type of slow traffic.

markmoto

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Who is at fault

MacDanger wrote: »

The lorry driver breaks the rules

Bus should be pullover and giving 60 euro fine and 2 penalty points.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Point%20offences%20as%20of%2026%20October%202018.pdf

Jeremy Sproket

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

Lets say this is the wording of a law:


Applying the same interpretation the law mentioned in the rules of the road above, the speed limit of 40 kmph would apply to vehicles that are following tractors only, and would not apply to anyone following a combine harvester.

In the above tractor example, a tractor is an example of a agricultural vehicle, but its not the only type of agricultural vehicles.

In the rules of the road, slow moving stop/start traffic conditions is an example of slow traffic, but its not the only type of slow traffic.

100% strawman.

Thoie

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

twin_beacon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

100% strawman.

explain why I am wrong so.

Midnight_EG

markmoto wrote: »

Bus should be pullover and giving 60 euro fine and 2 penalty points.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Point%20offences%20as%20of%2026%20October%202018.pdf

For what particular reason?

Grolschevik

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

Thoie wrote: »

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

I took this to mean:
a) If the legitimacy of overtaking on the left is a matter of the interpretation of "slow" v "slower", that is , an interpretation based on relative speeds,

and (b) by definition, if it is only possible to overtake someone on the left if they are travelling at a slower speed than you,

then (c) why does the law specifically say you should not overtake on the left?

Would not a reliance on any relativistic interpretation of "slow/slower" mean that the law is esentially meaningless/redundant?

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

explain why I am wrong so.

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Specifically the failed "it's ok to overtake on the lhs if the traffic in lane 2 or 3 is slower moving then me" argument.

That's demonstrably nonsense.

km991148

Thoie wrote: »

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

Three wrongs in this example! - bus wasn't overtaking, undertaking lorry and the car not checking. But yeah - obviously the first two don't absolve the car driver of the mistake. Its not even a question really.

twin_beacon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Specifically the failed "it's ok to overtake on the lhs if the traffic in lane 2 or 3 is slower moving then me" argument.

That's demonstrably nonsense.

I think its very ironic that I'm the one that is been called a "Strawman", when I'm the one that has given examples of the term "for example" in a different scenarios to back up my views, yet you keep attacking my point without ever attempting to back up your points.

If you believe slow moving traffic the law refers to is ONLY bumper to bumper, stop - start traffic, you are wrong. Take this scenario that happens every day on the M50 at rush hour. People flock to the middle and right lane, leaving the left lane less congested and as a result, traffic will often flow more freely. In this scenario, lets say all the lanes are moving at a speed of 70 kmph. Then the right and middle lakes reduce their speed to 50 kmph, but the left lane is still able to maintain their speed of 70 kmph, so the cars in the left lane undertake the slower moving traffic in the middle lane. Why don't the Guards pull over the thousands of cars that undertake like this every day? because page 142 in the rules of the road states:

You must progress at a speed and in a way that avoids interference with other motorway traffic.

In other words, you can't slow down to 50 kmph holding up cars behind, and leaving an empty lane ahead, because the lanes to the right have slowed down. I have undertaken cars like this on most days pre covid when I had to drive into the office. I have undertaken squad cars doing this.



good luck, I'm outa here.

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

I think its very ironic that I'm the one that is been called a "Strawman", when I'm the one that has given examples of the term "for example" in a different scenarios to back up my views, yet you keep attacking my point without ever attempting to back up your points.

If you believe slow moving traffic the law refers to is ONLY bumper to bumper, stop - start traffic, you are wrong. Take this scenario that happens every day on the M50 at rush hour. People flock to the middle and right lane, leaving the left lane less congested and as a result, traffic will often flow more freely. In this scenario, lets say all the lanes are moving at a speed of 70 kmph. Then the right and middle lakes reduce their speed to 50 kmph, but the left lane is still able to maintain their speed of 70 kmph, so the cars in the left lane undertake the slower moving traffic in the middle lane. Why don't the Guards pull over the thousands of cars that undertake like this every day? because page 142 in the rules of the road states:


In other words, you can't slow down to 50 kmph holding up cars behind, and leaving an empty lane ahead, because the lanes to the right have slowed down. I have undertaken cars like this on most days pre covid when I had to drive into the office. I have undertaken squad cars doing this.



good luck, I'm outa here.

See post #27. It's all there.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Midnight_EG wrote: »

For what particular reason?

I'd say he was probably looking at failer to drive on left but that isn't in this case, that would be more driving on wrong side of the road.

However, driving without reasonable consideration. A guard could throw that if they felt like it ! Especially if the guard saw what was happening.

But that offense is very broad anyway

BnB

Question is just completely black and white

Was the bus driver an Ass ? - From the info in the OP, it would appear so

Did the truck driver break the law ? - That appears to be debatable - If you are to take the OP at his/her word, they did at least break the speed limit

But to the original question, Who caused the accident ? - 100% caused by the car driver. Cut across 2 lanes without checking if it was safe to do so. Talking about the truck and bus and what they did are irrelevant. You cut across two lanes in front of another vehicle and got whacked..... No argument - No room for discussion - 100% your fault.

Spook_ie

twin_beacon wrote: »

No, the rules of the road just gives an example of what "slow" is.



The law does not state that overtaking on the left is allowed only in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.

Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly but traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the right-hand lane – for example, in slow moving (, or) stop/start traffic conditions.

Would it not require a comma or the word OR to make it grammatically correct for your interpretation?