People with a funny idea of the rules of the road.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

You can see their lane is ending, merging into this one.
It's a standard feature of motorway merging - "I always turn here" has to do with it is anyone's guess. How you could think the situations similar is beyond me.
You can't see that the lane is going to end?

What do you think they are going to do?
Do you imagine the car is going to turn into a plane and take flight?

The person merging should have slowed down or sped up before that point regardless. Their responsibility.

odyssey06

grogi wrote: »

You cannot be serious .

Why should it be my responsibility to guess what the other party will do when they have legal obligation and tools to communicate that? There is no grey area here: indicate.

Why do you have to guess if you can see that the slipway lane is about to end and merge into your one?

McCrack

Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

aFlabbyPanda

McGaggs wrote: »

It has no legal standing and does not imply that the merger has any right of way.

cool, let the rsa know so sure. I've yet to see anyone else provide anything except opinions.

odyssey06

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The person merging should have slowed down or sped up before that point regardless. Their responsibility.

And the vehicles in Lane 1 should have left room for merging too.
I'm just disputing the point of the indicator when it's obvious that the slipway is ending and must merge in.

Panrich

McCrack wrote: »

Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

A lot of drivers tend to think that an indicator confers right of way as well.

aFlabbyPanda

I just found on page 144 on the rules of the road it says the person joining must give way to traffic already on the motorway.

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

Wishbone Ash

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Why bring this up in this thread? Motorways have nothing to do with cyclists.

Perhaps have another read of the thread title - 'People with a funny idea of the rules of the road'.

Not sure why you think it's about motorways - the ROTR apply to all public roads.

Pataman

McCrack wrote: »

Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

Its a legal requirement. Its not difficult. By that logic, why would you bother indicating at all. Sure you will be leaving the road at some point and its obviously all the other drivers that need to read your mind.

tDw6u1bj

McCrack wrote: »

Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

You indicate when intending to move from one lane to another.

Consistent and predictable driving is what makes things safer.
You think it's silly? Maybe you're right, but it's not up to us to decide what rules are silly and which aren't - everybody will have different opinions, pick different rules to ignore and then things get messy and dangerous.

Victor

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The number of motorists who think it's illegal to cycle two abreast. It's perfectly legal and advisable. There's even an RSA advert campaign advising motorists of this but on every club ride there's always a few dickhead motorists who feel the need to display their ignorance of the road traffic regulations.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

And a few cyclists that feel the need to display their lack of consideration for anyone else on the road.

This makes it sound like you could benefit from that ad.

Cheensbo wrote: »

Only 8 posts to get from merging to bicycles, good going - probably not a record though :pac:

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Why bring this up in this thread? Motorways have nothing to do with cyclists.

This thread is about:

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

People with a funny idea of the rules of the road.

mgbgt1978

aFlabbyPanda wrote: »

what part is wrong in the pdf? :rolleyes:

It has been pointed out 3 times already here that the pdf is fine.
However your decision to replace the word 'can' with 'should' is incorrect....and the fact that you refuse to accept this possibly reflects more on your M/way merging skills than anything else :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

CoBo55

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Probably because they are moving from one lane to another, and for some reason the Rules of the Road state that you should "mirror, indicate, manoeuvre " when changing lane.

AHH will ya stop with your mirror signal manoeuvre bladder, it's perfectly obvious to everyone where a merging vehicle is going, it doesn't require the services of Columbo or a flashing amber light to work out what the other vehicle is doing. As I said earlier, on approach to a busy merge, burn a little more fuel speed up move over and move back to the left lane when you get past the junction (using your indicator of course).

grogi

McCrack wrote: »

Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

Because looking smart and non-silly is the most important thing while driving.

BREAKING NEWS: RSA announced great success of their campaign to make motorist look less silly. Our national silliness level dropped from 43 to 38% over last 12 months.

aFlabbyPanda

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

It has been pointed out 3 times already here that the pdf is fine.
However your decision to replace the word 'can' with 'should' is incorrect....and the fact that you refuse to accept this possibly reflects more on your M/way merging skills than anything else :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I didnt replace any word. this was my word not the text from the pdf?

and no one else provided evidence of what was incorrect but I posted with the correct info further back.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

And the vehicles in Lane 1 should have left room for merging too.
I'm just disputing the point of the indicator when it's obvious that the slipway is ending and must merge in.

The vehicle in Lane 1 doesn't have to. They can but they don't have to.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Perhaps have another read of the thread title - 'People with a funny idea of the rules of the road'.

Not sure why you think it's about motorways - the ROTR apply to all public roads.

I think it's about motorways because that's what was said in the OP. Take the crusade elsewhere, you have a whole forum for it.

tDw6u1bj

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is the caveat though when cyclists are overtaking cyclists

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058180350

In particular this post with thanks to GM228
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116976437&postcount=14

I'm sure I'll regret this...

1. You're responding to a poster who's talking about cycling two-abreast with a whole discussion about cycling three-abreast. These things are unrelated and it's arguing in bad faith to use that as aresponse.

2. There is a false presumption in what you're getting at, that inconvenience will be caused because a the driver behind would otherwise have been able to overtake. If the driver isn't able to overtake 3 safely (assuming some aren't on the opposite side of the road) then they won't be able to overtake 2, or even 1 safely. ie. The inconvenience bit is the law but I think it's a moot point because it'll never come up.

mgbgt1978

CoBo55 wrote: »

AHH will ya stop with your mirror signal manoeuvre bladder, it's perfectly obvious to everyone where a merging vehicle is going, it doesn't require the services of Columbo or a flashing amber light to work out what the other vehicle is doing. As I said earlier, on approach to a busy merge, burn a little more fuel speed up move over and move back to the left lane when you get past the junction (using your indicator of course).

So you believe it's OK to change lanes when entering a M/way without letting any other road users aware of your intentions ?
And that there's no need to check for existing Traffic on the M/way ?

Some slip-roads can be 1/2km long. But we'll all just guess when you are going to change lane.:rolleyes:

Fighting Tao

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

I'm sure I'll regret this...

1. You're responding to a poster who's talking about cycling two-abreast with a whole discussion about cycling three-abreast. These things are unrelated and it's arguing in bad faith to use that as aresponse.

2. There is a false presumption in what you're getting at, that inconvenience will be caused because a the driver behind would otherwise have been able to overtake. If the driver isn't able to overtake 3 safely (assuming some aren't on the opposite side of the road) then they won't be able to overtake 2, or even 1 safely. ie. The inconvenience bit is the law but I think it's a moot point because it'll never come up.

Not to mention the interpretation of the SI should be from the viewpoint of a reasonable person, not someone with an axe to grind. Maybe that’s why no one ever hears about court cases involving people cycling 3 abreast.

The J Stands for Jay

aFlabbyPanda wrote: »

cool, let the rsa know so sure. I've yet to see anyone else provide anything except opinions.

The rules are too much hassle to go through. Have a look at irishstatutebook.ie and you'll find out everything you need to know.

mgbgt1978

aFlabbyPanda wrote: »

According to https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Leaflets/Leaf_booklets/motorway_driving.pdf you should move into the next lane to allow for traffic merging onto to the motorway.

* Lane 1 – You should always use this lane for normal driving. Stay in this lane unless
you are overtaking.

• Lane 2 – On a two lane motorway, you should only use this lane for overtaking. You
must move back to lane 1 once you have finished overtaking and it is safe to do so.
You can also move into lane 2 to allow vehicles coming from your left to join the
motorway. On a 3 lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is
slower moving traffic in lane 1.

• Lane 3 – You should only use this lane if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues
and you need to overtake or make room for merging traffic. You should move back
to lane 1 as soon as it is safe to do so.

Update : from https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf the driver joining must give way to traffic on the motorway and must signal.

aFlabbyPanda wrote: »

I didnt replace any word. this was my word not the text from the pdf?

and no one else provided evidence of what was incorrect but I posted with the correct info further back.

According to the RSA you 'can', not 'should'. If you're going to quote something at least get the words right.

Wanderer2010

Driving many years now and there is still one situation that confuses me. Want to turn right on to a main road and there is another car wanting to turn left onto the same road. In other words, the street they are on is just to the right of me. It feels like I should have the right of way but technically they are closer to joining the road so Im sure I have to yield rather than crossing in front of them..
In reality we end up just looking blankly at each other, waiting for someone to break the impasse and either signal for one of us to go first. Either that or neither of us makes eye contact and both proceed at the same time and awkwardly meet in the middle, annoyed at each other but unwilling to admit we were unsure!!

aFlabbyPanda

I quoted the pdf, the word 'should' was my wording and I've explained that and I've provided the correct answer for the question the OP asked. this thread is toxic at this stage (how we got to cyclists I dont know).

tDw6u1bj

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Driving many years now and there is still one situation that confuses me. Want to turn right on to a main road and there is another car wanting to turn left onto the same road. In other words, the street they are on is just to the right of me. It feels like I should have the right of way but technically they are closer to joining the road so Im sure I have to yield rather than crossing in front of them..
In reality we end up just looking blankly at each other, waiting for someone to break the impasse and either signal for one of us to go first. Either that or neither of us makes eye contact and both proceed at the same time and awkwardly meet in the middle, annoyed at each other but unwilling to admit we were unsure!!

If I'm reading this correctly, person making the left turn has right of way.
Right-turner is turning across left-turners lane and so would be denying them their ROW if they went.

Still, I'll admit to having doubts and it's something that could really be given a diagram in the rules of the road.

wandererz

Then you have the people dawdling along behind trucks on a motorway. You are in the outer lane travelling faster to overtake them.

And then boom!
At the very last minute, just as you are behind them, decide to pull out in front of you into the overtaking lane.

And continue at the same slow pace.

It's a game between my spouse & I now.
I'd say I am right about 98% of the time because I'm such a great mind reader.

Wanderer2010

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

If I'm reading this correctly, person making the left turn has right of way.
Right-turner is turning across left-turners lane and so would be denying them their ROW if they went.

Still, I'll admit to having doubts and it's something that could really be given a diagram in the rules of the road.

Yeah thats what i meant and I agree that the other driver has the right of way but its a tricky situation and a lot of people havent a clue what to do here. Doesnt help Ireland is filled with zig zag roads off the main roads so close to each other!

Fighting Tao

wandererz wrote: »

Then you have the people dawdling along behind trucks on a motorway. You are in the outer lane travelling faster to overtake them.

And then boom!
At the very last minute, just as you are behind them, decide to pull out in front of you into the overtaking lane.

And continue at the same slow pace.

It's a game between my spouse & I now.
I'd say I'm right about 98% of the time, because I'm such a great mind reader.

I find that happens more frequently when driving a flat bed. It’s as if they look in the mirror, see a flatbed and rather than judge the approaching speed, they assume it is going to be slow.

deise08

Can i throw in cars that are exiting a roundabout stopping to let people cross the road?

tDw6u1bj

deise08 wrote: »

Can i throw in cars that are exiting a roundabout stopping to let people cross the road?

Only if you throw them into the same place as people who stop in the middle of a busy roundabout and block the whole thing after entering when their exit wasn't clear.

tDw6u1bj

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Doesnt help Ireland is filled with zig zag roads off the main roads so close to each other!

You mean staggered junctions? Now that would be something else entirely!

wandererz

How about if you are in the inside lane of a roundabout intending to exit in 2 exits. At the next exit someone enters the roundabout into the outer lane, failing to give way to you already on the roundabout and preventing you from changing lanes or exiting.

Horrible people

1874

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Driving many years now and there is still one situation that confuses me. Want to turn right on to a main road and there is another car wanting to turn left onto the same road. In other words, the street they are on is just to the right of me. It feels like I should have the right of way but technically they are closer to joining the road so Im sure I have to yield rather than crossing in front of them..
In reality we end up just looking blankly at each other, waiting for someone to break the impasse and either signal for one of us to go first. Either that or neither of us makes eye contact and both proceed at the same time and awkwardly meet in the middle, annoyed at each other but unwilling to admit we were unsure!!

If its they want to turn left on the same road you're on but they are traveling towards you? You want to turn right onto the same road?

Hell no! you don't have right of way, you're driving years and this confuses you? you are changing lanes/crossing their lane, of course they have right of way, you dont seem to know because you think you have right of way but are so uncertain you say it seems you should yield to them.
Here's the deal, unless you are a mindreader, you don't even know if they are turning at all, how do you know they are turning?? because they have their indicator on?? all an indicator on means is that their indicator is on, nothing else, I wouldn't read anything into it. Thread title very appropriate.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Yeah thats what i meant and I agree that the other driver has the right of way but its a tricky situation and a lot of people havent a clue what to do here. Doesnt help Ireland is filled with zig zag roads off the main roads so close to each other!

Its not a tricky situation at all, it is very clear, they have right of way.
Also roads aren't all straight and are of different sizes. No offence but your posts are concerning, but not surprising, because people have an appalling understanding of how to negotiate their way around other road users.

Idleater

deise08 wrote: »

Can i throw in cars that are exiting a roundabout stopping to let people cross the road?

Only if those people are yet to begin crossing. Of course you should be stopping (if not even starting) to give way to those already crossing.

micar

deise08 wrote: »

Can i throw in cars that are exiting a roundabout stopping to let people cross the road?

What about those motorists travelling in the opposite direction who will stop to allow a motorist to turn right even though there is no one behind them......look in your rear view mirror and keep going.

As cyclists were brought up.....motorists who believe that

1) they pay road tax and therefore cyclists (who dont) have no right to use the road

2) cyclists don't own a car........while some 80% do

I remember a few years ago now I was driving a rather large vehicle toward the port tunnel but a driver on my left was indicating

to move into the lane that I was driving in but I couldn't move to my right as there was traffic overtaking me!

I got the royal salute from the **** anyway!

tDw6u1bj

1874 wrote: »

Its not a tricky situation at all, it is very clear, they have right of way.
Also roads aren't all straight and are of different sizes.

I agree with you (as I posted above) and you make a very good point about not trusting indicators... I don't think it's such a stupid question though. The counter point to what both you and I have said is that according to the lane markings at junctions, the minor roads actually cease to exist at junctions and in that sense it isn't taking the other lane, as that lane doesn't at that moment exist and the other driver has no rights to the major road lane until they're actually in it.

1874 wrote: »

No offence but your posts are concerning, but not surprising, because people have an appalling understanding of how to negotiate their way around other road users.

What I quite like about this thread is that there's at least something about driving laws that any one of us is uncertain/wrong about and we can get some info on it.

Spook_ie

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Why bring this up in this thread? Motorways have nothing to do with cyclists.

TBF the title does say

People with a funny idea of the rules of the road.

Not "People with a funny idea of how to merge from a slip road"

Spook_ie

grogi wrote: »

You cannot be serious .

Why should it be my responsibility to guess what the other party will do when they have legal obligation and tools to communicate that? There is no grey area here: indicate.

Beg to differ

Indicate if it clarifies a situation, not all indications are actually helpfull

Spook_ie

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

I'm sure I'll regret this...

1. You're responding to a poster who's talking about cycling two-abreast with a whole discussion about cycling three-abreast. These things are unrelated and it's arguing in bad faith to use that as aresponse.

2. There is a false presumption in what you're getting at, that inconvenience will be caused because a the driver behind would otherwise have been able to overtake. If the driver isn't able to overtake 3 safely (assuming some aren't on the opposite side of the road) then they won't be able to overtake 2, or even 1 safely. ie. The inconvenience bit is the law but I think it's a moot point because it'll never come up.

I can easily over take 2 abreast cyclists on most roads, 3 abreast ( depending on how rapidly they are switching leader ) can be much more of an inconvenience, which is (funnily enough ) exactly what the SI says in relation to inconveniencing

Anyways if you want to argue the finer points of that SI, the whole legal forum will probably await your input with much anticipation.

John_Rambo

Me travelling around a fried egg roundabout with the right of way... Elderly free licence Ford driver enters the roundabout almost hits me and roars at me;

"I had possession of this roundabout, you should yield to me"

That's his funny interpretation of the rules of the road regarding roundabouts.

tDw6u1bj

Spook_ie

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

So you believe it's OK to change lanes when entering a M/way without letting any other road users aware of your intentions ?
And that there's no need to check for existing Traffic on the M/way ?

Some slip-roads can be 1/2km long. But we'll all just guess when you are going to change lane.:rolleyes:

I have to disagree with you, you're not "Changing" lane you're "Merging" into a lane. Yes you do need to Mirror, Yes you do need to cede right of way but signaling, no real need at all, unless you are indicating that you are about to pull up on the hard shoulder

Ak84

Roundabouts.
Entering. A single lane roundabout from stopped position today. Got about 2 ft on when this car came flying on from my right. She was only looking right to see that she wouldn't get hit By something. Anyway, I stopped as i only have the vehicle a week. And off she flew around and didn't even notice me.
But same thing happened before and I ploughed on to the roundabout. Now I was already on the roundabout for a couple of seconds when this car came on and had to brake up behind me. She sat on the horn even tho she entered the roundabout at 40 kmh.

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Not to mention the interpretation of the SI should be from the viewpoint of a reasonable person, not someone with an axe to grind. Maybe that’s why no one ever hears about court cases involving people cycling 3 abreast.

Suggest you go to the legal forum and ask that question, it's not the view point of a reasonable person it's a statute. Now you may disagree with the statute but that is for a higher court to decide or even higher if given leave to appeal the decision, NOT a reasonable person

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

Suggest you go to the legal forum and ask that question, it's not the view point of a reasonable person it's a statute. Now you may disagree with the statute but that is for a higher court to decide or even higher if given leave to appeal the decision, NOT a reasonable person

It’s all in the thread you posted.

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058180350

Spook_ie

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Driving many years now and there is still one situation that confuses me. Want to turn right on to a main road and there is another car wanting to turn left onto the same road. In other words, the street they are on is just to the right of me. It feels like I should have the right of way but technically they are closer to joining the road so Im sure I have to yield rather than crossing in front of them..
In reality we end up just looking blankly at each other, waiting for someone to break the impasse and either signal for one of us to go first. Either that or neither of us makes eye contact and both proceed at the same time and awkwardly meet in the middle, annoyed at each other but unwilling to admit we were unsure!!

The car turning left has precedence, you are crossing a lane of traffic to join the lane they are turning left

tDw6u1bj

Spook_ie wrote: »

I can easily over take 2 abreast cyclists on most roads

Easily, but not safely.

Can you pass two cyclist, leaving a safe distance, without entering the other lane?

You can't, there's very few, if any, roads where you could do that safely with one cyclist.
If you have to enter the other lane then you know it's clear and can take up the entirety of the oncoming lane so it makes little difference between 2 and 3 people.

What people normally mean here is that they're happy to push out into the oncoming lane a bit without being able to see if it's going to be clear*, or at the very least expecting the oncoming driver to move over in their lane.

In either case it's dangerous driving.


*what can, will, and does happen here when an oncoming car appears is the overtaking car pulls left and ploughs into the cyclist

tDw6u1bj

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have to disagree with you, you're not "Changing" lane you're "Merging" into a lane./QUOTE]

Merging is changing lanes. The lanes are going in the same direction but you're still changing lanes.

You move across a line. You end up in a different lane. You're changing lanes.

1874

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

I agree with you (as I posted above) and you make a very good point about not trusting indicators... I don't think it's such a stupid question though. The counter point to what both you and I have said is that according to the lane markings at junctions, the minor roads actually cease to exist at junctions and in that sense it isn't taking the other lane, as that lane doesn't at that moment exist and the other driver has no rights to the major road lane until they're actually in it.

What I quite like about this thread is that there's at least something about driving laws that any one of us is uncertain/wrong about and we can get some info on it.

Im not saying its a stupid question, but I am a bit shocked, all the same I agree, it's better to ask/say/query, I think that situation is very plain myself. My reading of the situation is, the cars are both travelling in opposite directions on the same road and want to turn onto the same side road, so the car in its lane coming towards the OP has right of way in that lane over other vehicles, certainly ones coming towards it who want to turn across.
Not sure what you are talking about minor lanes not existing though, in reality they exist, cars coming from them onto a larger road/depending on road markings usually dont have priority over cars on the larger/main road already.

Ak84 wrote: »

Roundabouts.
Entering. A single lane roundabout from stopped position today. Got about 2 ft on when this car came flying on from my right. She was only looking right to see that she wouldn't get hit By something. Anyway, I stopped as i only have the vehicle a week. And off she flew around and didn't even notice me.
But same thing happened before and I ploughed on to the roundabout. Now I was already on the roundabout for a couple of seconds when this car came on and had to brake up behind me. She sat on the horn even tho she entered the roundabout at 40 kmh.

If you were waiting to get onto the roundabout, then while the driver on it should be mindful you exist, they have right of way, you should have stopped if by which you mean you attempted to move onto the roundabout with a vehicle on it already, you really dont sound like you should have moved onto the roundabout at all though.
Dont want to sound preachy, but vehicles on the roundabout have right of way, you shouldnt be ploughing on, they would rightfully expect you not to drive out in front of them.

Although these days, I'd be wary, as I have noticed people have a tendency to drive on and disregard cars right of way that are already travelling on the roundabout, seems to mostly occur on 2 lane roundabouts in my experience.