Undertaking in bus lanes.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Bus Lanes
32. (1) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024, and a contra flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.

(2) A person shall not enter a bus lane with a vehicle other than an omnibus or a pedal cycle during the period of operation of the bus lane which shall be indicated on an information plate.

(3) A person shall not enter a contra flow bus lane with a vehicle other than an omnibus.

(4) A person shall not enter a bus only street with a vehicle other than an omnibus except for the purpose of access.

(5) ( a ) Sub-articles (1) and (2) shall not apply to a vehicle crossing a with flow bus lane or a contra flow bus lane solely for the purpose—
(i) of entering or leaving premises or property adjacent to such a bus lane, or
(ii) of entering or leaving a road inset adjacent to such a bus lane in order to load or unload goods.
( b ) Sub-article (2) shall not apply to a taxi or a wheelchair accessible taxi which is being used in the course of business.

Yup, that's cleared it up....

Id be interested to see how a judge interprets it. The RSA can say what they like, their opinion is only a guide and doesnt hold a lot of weight really. I suspect in court it would come down to the individual situation and not some hard and fast definition.

The Dagda wrote: »

I simply don't believe that the RSA sent you an email saying that. Who signed the email?

Does anyone have a link to the actual legislation that would cover overtaking on the left?

It's been quoted and linked to many times in this thread. Go to irishstatutebook.ie and search for "overtake".

So anyway, I was happily trucking along in an 'outside of posted hours' bus lane the other day and zipping by the stop/start traffic in the other lane. There was a Garda car behind be the whole way and they didn't even blink. So they didn't see this as a problem, neither do I.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Say that to bus and taxi drivers or even cyclists you won't see them stop-start when bus lanes are out of use

The bold is an irrelevant example, as cyclists are entitled to overtake on the left in the majority of cases:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html wrote:

(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, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—


(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,


(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or


(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

Note the stark contrast in the wording of the first paragraph when compared to the general case for motorised vehicles, i.e. as long as the traffic is slower (relative) than the cyclist, it is ok, whereas the general case refers to the absolute of "slow-moving traffic":

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html wrote:

“(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,

If the bus lane is out of service (after 19.00) then you can drive in it, you can also "undertake" as there is no "Slow/fast" lane rule on roads with a speed limit below 60 kph which is the vast majority of bus lanes

enda1 wrote: »

Kinda sounds the same to me especially when the latter appears to be qualified as "when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle".

If it were the same, then why have the differing wording at all? A qualification is just that, and should clarify, not broaden the criteria already mentioned.

It is probably equally likely that the clause for cars to pass on the left at all only exists so that drivers in stop start traffic do not find themselves hamstrung from making progress in the left lane by being unable to pass cars stopped in traffic on their right. The reason this might be necessary is that in such slow/stop-start traffic, there may not be space for the driver(s) in the right hand lane to pull in and keep left, by contrast to freer flowing traffic, whereby there is no excuse for not keeping left.

In any case, under normal functions of the English language, for that SI you have to accept that the initial clause is "in slow-moving traffic", and this is clarified/qualified by "when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle." While it may seem an unnecessary statement, in that the traffic on the right would have to be moving more slowly to be overtaken, this wording also doesn't explicitly liberalise people moving into the left hand lane for the express purpose of overtaking on the left, rather it happens that they are already in the left lane, and traffic happens to be slower on the right.

However people will always try to find a loophole, even if one doesn't really exist, until such a time as it is tested.

enda1 wrote: »

^
Seeing as slow-moving is ambiguous, without it being better defined it is legal to pass on the left.

Well to anybody that may find themselves in front of a judge for overtaking on the left on a motorway at 100+kph (plenty of people doing it), I say best of luck in convincing him/her of that being covered by slow-moving. While it may be ambiguous, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and ultimately you are at the mercy of the Gardai and the judiciary a judge to take the stance you describe.

So if you accept that there are at least some scenarios that are clearly not legal due to the slow-moving clause (and if you don't then there is quite frankly no point in continuing this conversation, as you are addressing this from a very odd perspective to regard motorway/DC speed limits as slow-moving), then the question that stands is simply the interpretation of slow-moving. Ultimately the only people whose interpretation(s) of this matter are the aforementioned Gardai and judges, as they are the ones who make the decisions regarding prosecutions and convictions.