Driving in the middle lane

Some of us feel frustrated, some if us feel annoyed, some of us are merely amused. You've got other problems if you let yourself get infuriated. Just work around them and move on.

This is a classic problem, if most people are respectful of others, then some can be selfish and benefit from not having to bother changing lanes, looking in your mirror and so forth.

captain_irish wrote: »

Am I the only person that gets infuriated by people driving solely (and most often slowly) in the middle lane? Do they not realize,that THEY are the ones causing all the traffic, since most people think it's illegal to undertake they move to the right stepping others back. I've seen people in the left lane, nothing ahead of them, pulling into the middle, then the second overtaking lane, going past them and then moving back to the left lane.

The reason that most people "think" this is that in most cases it is in fact illegal. Your second sentence I highlighted is exactly the correct procedure to overtake when someone is hogging the middle lane. In the majority of cases where this proves to be an issue, you are looking at the M50 or a dual carriageway of some description, and except in the rarest of cases, overtaking on the left on those roads is in fact illegal. The provisions for overtaking on the left are (from the relevant SI)

(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

(i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left,

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

(iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle

Now obviously the definition of slow-moving traffic is not explicit here, but even if the middle-lane-moron is doing 70-80kph, in absolute terms that is not really slow-moving traffic, and so they should not be overtaken on the left.

captain_irish wrote: »

Should the garda clamp down on this more since they are not following the rules of the road? Would an 80left 100middle 120right speed limit work with people staying in the lane that suits their driving habits?

In terms of clamping down, if you are referring to the poor lane discipline of Irish drivers, then absolutely. However if you think the process of moving out and back across 2 lanes to overtake needs to be clamped down on, that's rubbish and simply incorrect.

And IMHO that staggered speed limit won't work in the least, unless it's set as a minimum (bad idea to have a 120km/h minimum matching the maximum speed limit, so can only presume this is not the suggestion), as some people will still happily toddle along in whatever lane they please since they are still within the speed limit in any case.

Enforcement of lane discipline for this would be both the simplest and most effective solution to this, but since

1. it's more effort than just shooting fish in a barrel with speed cameras, and
2. Gaybo and the other fools in the RSA aren't campaigning about it (sure we all know speed is the only issue on Irish roads :rolleyes:

I don't expect to see it done any time soon.

captain_irish wrote: »

Am I the only person that gets infuriated by people driving solely (and most often slowly) in the middle lane? Do they not realize,that THEY are the ones causing all the traffic, since most people think it's illegal to undertake they move to the right stepping others back. I've seen people in the left lane, nothing ahead of them, pulling into the middle, then the second overtaking lane, going past them and then moving back to the left lane. Should the garda clamp down on this more since they are not following the rules of the road? Would an 80left 100middle 120right speed limit work with people staying in the lane that suits their driving habits?

What road has 3 lanes and a limit if 120?

This is an interesting debate and I'd love a definite answer.

Regularly, I'm driving out of Dublin on the Naas dualcarriageway late at night.
So I sit into the left of the 3 lanes and stick on the cruise control at around 100km/h.

There's usually very little on the road at the time of night I'm driving.
Whatever is on the road, however, is usually in the middle lane.

So I don't change lanes, I just pass on the inside - to me it's far safer than changing lanes four times every time I want to pass on vehicle (two out to right lane, two back to left lane).

Am I breaking the law?

Even if I am, I think I'm definitely doing the right thing - it's far more dangerous surely to be constantly changing lanes.

captain_irish wrote: »

Doesn't the law state that you have to keep up with the traffic in front as long as you are within the legal limit. Most of these middle lane morons are not following this rule of the road.

If you can find me a statutory instrument stating that (and not just the ROTR, as they are simply an interpretation with no legal standing) then I'll accept it. However I would be a bit surprised to see it since it could lead to a very dangerous scenario if coupled with some of the dangerously high speed limits assigned to bohreens where proper assessment obviously hasn't been done.

In terms of middle-lane-morons and the laws that they are breaking, I believe this section of SI 182/1997 (which I already alluded to on the subject of lane discipline, though hadn't cited) if properly enforced covers all the concerns you raised in the OP, and in a better manner than requiring them to "keep up":

Drive on Left
9. Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.

.
This is taken from an earlier SI, but the original one I linked is supplementary to this one, and does not alter this section. Ultimately 2 and 3 lane carriageways should have little to no issue in facilitating traffic of heterogeneous speeds, provided that lane discipline is maintained - as long as all traffic drives in the leftmost lane possible when they are not overtaking, then a natural effect similar to your per-lane speed limits should be the result. So once again, lane discipline is the point to be addressed, not some issue with the drivers' speed (as long as they are compliant with any minimum speed limit already present, e.g. 50kph on motorways) or the speed limits, or anything else

cython wrote: »

Certain circumstances, yes, but as I've said several times on thread the presence of the "slow-moving traffic" qualifier on scenario c makes it hard to state with certainty that that can be applied to normal motorway/dual carriageway conditions (as opposed to gridlocked times on the likes of the M50)

Slow moving vehicles are not allowed on motorways, so by default we can say that the section of the rta is not relevant for motorways

corktina wrote: »

Yes you are breaking the Law. The middle lane guy is merely a nuisance, but undertaking is illegal and dangerous. Changing lanes is never dangerous so long as you use your mirrors and indicators properly. In fact it is quite an art on a busy motorway (not that we have any of them...)

Doesnt that contradict itself?

ted1 wrote: »

Slow moving vehicles are not allowed on motorways, so by default we can say that the section of the rta is not relevant for motorways

In theory, yes, but in practice there are times when the M50 slows down to being stop-start for one reason or another, so I would say that it does apply there, but under normal circumstances I agree with you.

captain_irish wrote: »

How many tv and radio ads have been on in recent times stating to drive in the left lane and only use the others to overtake then move back to the left lane none of the middle lane hoggers follow this. If I'm in the left lane doing the limit someone in any other lane going slower is therefore slow moving traffic.

captain_irish wrote: »

The definition of traffic in the dictionary is "vehicles moving along a public highway" so it doesn't matter what speed their doing if it's slower than you their considered slow moving traffic. Legal to undertake

Once again, these are your own definitions and interpretations of slow-moving traffic, which makes no odds in the eyes of the law. You are applying subjective metrics to the term slow-moving, while in the SI the use of the word slow-moving suggests a more absolute sense, by its presence before comparing the two vehicles' relative speeds

hobochris wrote: »

Failing to keep left is also braking the law.

Very true, and enforcement of/adherence to same would render this thread moot. Unfortunately we don't have this in reality, and some people want to see/exploit a grey area where it's less grey than they might claim.

hobochris wrote: »

So in your interpretation of the law, If someone is in lane one(left) with no traffic in front of them, is moving at 100km and passes someone who is incorrectly driving slower in lane two(middle), WITHOUT MAKING ANY MANOEUVRE OR ALTERING THERE COURSE IN ANY WAY, that person observing the rules of the road in lane one has broken the law?

Yes, since they had perfectly adequate opportunity to move out and overtake in compliance with the law. Unless of course they aren't observing ahead to anticipate these situations before they find themselves in them.

hobochris wrote: »

What happens if the driver in lane two slows down suddenly and as a result of which the driver in lane one passes them without making any alteration to lane or speed? has the person in lane one still broken the law?

Please don't try to use a niche or edge case to justify a much broader point, it smacks of desperation. In that case an element of discretion (Gardai and judges both have this) would have to come into it. Though again unless the driver in the outer lane absolutely slammed on, the driver in lane 1 possibly should have been preparing to overtake already.

hobochris wrote: »

Or if the driver in lane two aborts an overtake, does that mean that the person who was previous been overtaken has now broken the law? as the vehicle in lane one would have passed that vehicle in lane two, technically.

If the overtake is aborted then they arguably have not passed the driver in lane 2, as the latter was never really properly ahead (could not have pulled back into lane 1 safely).

hobochris wrote: »

Just to put some context on this, that law would have been intended to stop people from moving from an outside line to an inside lane for the purpose of getting around a vehicle in front, which would be considered dangerous. It would not have been intended to impede safe progress when the road is clear in front.

Good to know that there's someone on boards who was involved in drawing up the SI's associated with the roads in 1964 who can give us this insight (since this particular clause hasn't changed between then and now) :rolleyes: If that was actually the case then in the numerous amendments since then (1997 and 2012 to name just 2) surely someone could have reworded it, or added a clause covering your scenario? Especially since the number of DCs and motorways where this is relevant has expanded significantly in this time. While such a clause might admittedly be at odds with the keep left law, it would at least decriminalise the act for would-be innocent parties. That they didn't suggests your interpretation of the intention is actually a bit at odds with the reality.