Using the hard shoulder

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

I think its pretty clear that the ROTR is referring to the latter. It talks about the HS not being a normal driving lane but that it can be pulled into temporarily to let other vehicles past if there are no pedestrians or entrances nearby (think the last part was only aded in the latest ROTR) From the wording and context it is clearly talking about pulling over and driving in the HS, not pulling over and stopping.

The law is very clear that you must not drive on the hard shoulder and the ROTR cannot change that. If the ROTR meant that you could move onto the hard shoulder and drive there, it would have said that.

'Pull over' means slow down, move to the left and stop.

Any conditions mentioned in the ROTR about pedestrians, cyclists or entrances must mean that you should not stop in the hard shoulder if they would be obstructed.

If the meaning of the ROTR is in conflict with the law or is being interpreted incorrectly by motorists it must be changed.

Driving on the hard shoulder is illegal and unsafe.

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The law is very clear that you must not drive on the hard shoulder and the ROTR cannot change that. If the ROTR meant that you could move onto the hard shoulder and drive there, it would have said that.

'Pull over' means slow down, move to the left and stop.

Any conditions mentioned in the ROTR about pedestrians, cyclists or entrances must mean that you should not stop in the hard shoulder if they would be obstructed.

If the meaning of the ROTR is in conflict with the law or is being interpreted incorrectly by motorists it must be changed.

Driving on the hard shoulder is illegal and unsafe.

And earlier on we had

Since the law stipulates that the broken yellow line RRM025 indicates the edge of a roadway, anyone driving along a hard shoulder it would be breaking the law. Technically this would apply to cycling too, but let's turn a benign blind-eye to that.

So it's only illegal if cars do it We can't have two laws on the same road.

corktina

dont argue with Cyclopath...he's a Barrister.....













...I assume....:)

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote:

So it's only illegal if cars do it We can't have two laws on the same road.

No, it's illegal in both cases and I agree with you that both cyclists and motorists should obey the law.

We're discussing driving cars & trucks on the hard shoulder at speeds of up to 100kph. For the purposes of this discussion I suggested turning a blind eye to the issue of cyclists riding on the hard shoulder as the safety issues are insignificant compared to the illegal use of the hard shoulder by motorists.

To be fair to some of these motorists, they're reacting to intimidation from other motorists.

kenco

Driving in the HS is illegal. It is there primarially for the emergency services. The amount of abuse I see on the Tallaght road (before the Spawell) is not only crazy but also down right dangerous. Ambulances, etc have to use the HS if there is gridlock to get to Tallaght Hospital but every chancer ducks into it before Cheeverstown and belts along laughing.

I cant wait for the day there is a bike cop at the end of the lane! Just as another poster said it only takes the occassional enforcement of the law to make things happen in this country.

Floppybits

The reason for my post was that people on the M50 are using the hard shoulder as a 3rd land, they are not motorists pulling over to let faster traffic through, they are simply using the lane so that they don't have to queue for their exit like us ordinary folk. This is not just people in cars but trucks and Vans. As far as I am aware the hard shoulder is not a driving lane. I think it is infact an emergency lane where people having car trouble can pull over safely to asses the problems with the car or as another poster said for use by the emergency services to respond to an emergency.

As another poster said all it needs is for a bike cop to be there for a few days and nab these muppets and hopefully that will put an end to it.

As I said I think driving in Ireland is getting more and more dangerous everyday as people seem to think they are invincible in their cars and have no care to consideration to other drivers who simply want to get to where they are going safely. I guess this is too much to ask nowadays?

cyclopath2001

Floppybits wrote:

I think it is infact an emergency lane where people having car trouble can pull over safely to asses the problems with the car

In the UK, I've seen advice to motorists that if they do have to pull over onto the hard shoulder in the event of a breakdown, to get out of the car as quickly as possible via the left doors and get as far up the embankment away from the car as they can.

Apparently, many accidents happen with vehicles speeding along the hard shoulder and colliding with stopped ones.

On any road, the thought of a 'courteous-driver' moving over onto the hard shoulder at 100kph to allow speeding drivers pass, would discourage me from attempting to repair a right-hand puncture.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

'Pull over' means slow down, move to the left and stop.

That depends on interpretation does it not? The ROTR states that you should "Pull in" to allow other vehicles to pass. That doesn't necessarily mean "stop". In other parts of the book, it mentions "Pull in and stop" which implies that pulling in doesn't mean stopping. It further implies that you may keep moving by saying that you may not use the hard shoulder if there are junctions or entrances "nearby" - If you stopped, then the proximity of entrances or junctions would be irrelevant, provided that you weren't obstructing them. This of course is again interpretation. And since the ROTR is not an interpretation of the law, we'd be wasting our time arguing about it.

I'll have a look and see if I can find the relevant legislation.

Fratton Fred

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the UK, I've seen advice to motorists that if they do have to pull over onto the hard shoulder in the event of a breakdown, to get out of the car as quickly as possible via the left doors and get as far up the embankment away from the car as they can.

Apparently, many accidents happen with vehicles speeding along the hard shoulder and colliding with stopped ones.

it's more to do with the fact you are parked on the side of a very very busy road and there will be cars flying past as 70mph. Driving on the hardshoulder is a lot less common than in Ireland.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

On any road, the thought of a 'courteous-driver' moving over onto the hard shoulder at 100kph to allow speeding drivers pass, would discourage me from attempting to repair a right-hand puncture.

I believe this is illegal on British Motorways, but I wouldn't ant to change a wheel on the side of a single carriageway N road either.

Fratton Fred

kenco wrote:

I cant wait for the day there is a bike cop at the end of the lane! Just as another poster said it only takes the occassional enforcement of the law to make things happen in this country.

I haven't seen one lately, but there was quite often one at the northbound Firhouse slip in the mornings. The traffic hasn't been too bad recently (That's temptng fate:eek: ) but in the mornings when the traffic is backed up to Dundrum I have seen a Moorbike Gard there with his note book out calling the line of offending motorists on one by one.

It is very very funny.:D

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

That depends on interpretation does it not?And since the ROTR is not an interpretation of the law, we'd be wasting our time arguing about it. I'll have a look and see if I can find the relevant legislation.

Yes and yes.

The only relevant legislation that I've found is in SI's 181 & 182 of 1997.

Futile as it is to discuss the legally worthless opinion expressed in the ROTR. There's also the issue of what kind of speed the ROTR envisaged would be done by the person being passed. Did they intend for their opinion to apply to someone doing 100kph in a 100kph zone being overtaken by someone else doing 120? Or, did they envisage a slow moving vehicle doing 50 kph or less? Also did they intend that, if not stopping, that the vehicle moving over would further reduce speed?

In any case if you drive into a pothole doing 100kph on the hard shoulder, best not try and sue the council.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The only relevant legislation that I've found is in SI's 181 & 182 of 1997.

These are indeed the only two items I could find. Basically, nothing specifically states that driving in the hard shoulder is an offence, nothing specifically states that you may not drive in the hard shoulder, but at the same time you are generally required to drive in the roadway unless otherwise directed.

My big problem is that this line:

Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway

could be interpreted to mean that you may not overtake. There is no regulation that "requires" you to overtake, so since this regulation directs you to drive on the left, then by extension, you are not permitted to overtake.

Except we know that's not true - you *are* permitted to overtake. So there's a reasonable argument using the same foundation that even though this regulation directs you to drive on the left edge of the roadway, you may under certain conditions and where it is safe to do so drive on the hard shoulder.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

These are indeed the only two items I could find. Basically, nothing specifically states that driving in the hard shoulder is an offence, nothing specifically states that you may not drive in the hard shoulder, but at the same time you are generally required to drive in the roadway unless otherwise directed.

You're only allowed drive on the roadway. The hard shoulder is not a roadway. Driving along the hard shoulder could be classified as either dangerous or careless driving.

'Otherwise directed' can only mean another statutory regulation that makes an exception in specified circumstances, an instruction given by a member of the Gardaí or perhaps a road-works diversion.

could be interpreted to mean that you may not overtake. There is no regulation that "requires" you to overtake, so since this regulation directs you to drive on the left, then by extension, you are not permitted to overtake....Except we know that's not true - you *are* permitted to overtake. So there's a reasonable argument using the same foundation that even though this regulation directs you to drive on the left edge of the roadway, you may under certain conditions and where it is safe to do so drive on the hard shoulder.

Your logic is flawed. Overtaking is quite different. There are very detailed regulations that specify when it is permitted to overtake. If there were routine exceptions that permitted driving on the hard shoulder, they'd be described in similar detail. While motorists may derive some comfort from the ROTR and common practice, it may not help them if they find themselves in court some day.

Simple solution,

Use the new "private" revenue raising speed camera vans and redeploy them to monitor hard shoulder violations. Do a lot more for road safety than nicking motorists for doing 101 in a 100Km limit.

Chris_533976

COMMON SENSE WINS.

Dont drive normally in the hard shoulder, its not designed for it, its designed as somewhere to stop in an emergency. If someone wants to pass and its narrow, its courteous to move into the hard shoulder to let them pass. If you drive a tractor/lorry/slow vehicle then you should pull over readily if you're holding up traffic.

Common sense solves all these problems with less fighting that throwing rulebooks and laws at each other.

cyclopath2001

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what 'common sense' means. People who speed, park illegally and break traffic lights all think that they're very sensible drivers.

We have rules for a reason.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Your logic is flawed. Overtaking is quite different. There are very detailed regulations that specify when it is permitted to overtake.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the regulations don't specifically state when you may overtake. They specify certain circumstances in which you absolutely may not overtake, and a handful of instances where you may overtake on the left.
My point was that the regulation says that you shall drive on the left of the roadway unless *directed* to do otherwise. Since you will never be directed to overtake a slow moving vehicle, then to take that regulation at face value means that overtaking is not permitted.
So similarly, you would never be directed to drive partly on the hard shoulder, but there are no regulations to say when/if you may or may not do it.

I'm really hoping that someone can find something other than those two S.I.'s, otherwise it looks like the ROTR just made some stuff up that's been taken as gospel for the last 20 years.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the regulations don't specifically state when you may overtake. They specify certain circumstances in which you absolutely may not overtake, and a handful of instances where you may overtake on the left.

I'd agree, but I suggest that it's reasonably implicit that overtaking may take place, otherwise they'd never spend so much time saying when you cannot.

But, when it comes to the 'hard shoulder', it's a non-entity and you cannot treat it in any way as a roadway. It shares some characteristics with loading bays, parking areas or driveways. You're allowed cross them & footways too as you access the roadway, but you cannot drive 'along' them. I'd interpret this as meaning that they can be used 'at low speed', e.g. 25kph or less while accessing or leaving the roadway.

A similar dilemma exists for drivers passing on the left (when in slow-moving traffic), there's no definition as to what speeds could be involved either with the car on the right or the left.

The ROTR may not be wrong, just people's interpretation of it. That should not be surprising. To adopt your 'Gospel' metaphor, to understand the doctrine that is the ROTR, they need to go back and read their Bibles (the Statutory Regulations).

Victor

Deleted User wrote:

Use the new "private" revenue raising speed camera vans and redeploy them to monitor hard shoulder violations. Do a lot more for road safety than nicking motorists for doing 101 in a 100Km limit.

Who is to say they plan to use vans (only)? or do people doing "101 in a 100Km limit"?

corktina

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I'd agree, but I suggest that it's reasonably implicit that overtaking may take place, otherwise they'd never spend so much time saying when you cannot.

But, when it comes to the 'hard shoulder', it's a non-entity and you cannot treat it in any way as a roadway. It shares some characteristics with loading bays, parking areas or driveways. You're allowed cross them & footways too as you access the roadway, but you cannot drive 'along' them. I'd interpret this as meaning that they can be used 'at low speed', e.g. 25kph or less while accessing or leaving the roadway.

A similar dilemma exists for drivers passing on the left (when in slow-moving traffic), there's no definition as to what speeds could be involved either with the car on the right or the left.

The ROTR may not be wrong, just people's interpretation of it. That should not be surprising. To adopt your 'Gospel' metaphor, to understand the doctrine that is the ROTR, they need to go back and read their Bibles (the Statutory Regulations).

the whole issue hinges on "if it is safe to do so"....if you were proscuted for pulling over onto the hard shoulder to allow someone to pass OR overtaking on the left OR similar....you would actually be charged with dangerous driving rather than the specific thing you did....hence in the Gards opinion it WASN'T safe to do so.....

ps noone ever got done for 101 in a 100 limit...i believe the rule of thumb used is a margin of 10% to allow for inaccurate speedos (some say 10% plus 4 km/h..)

cyclopath2001

corktina wrote:

the whole issue hinges on "if it is safe to do so"....

Except that this exception is not mentioned at all in the regulations.

Driving along the hard shoulder is illegal, just like running a red light. The whole issue hinges on whether or not you get caught.

It's amazing that people would risk damage to their cars or prosecution in order to be courteous to speeding boors.

I'd wonder if the people who advocate using the illegal use of hard shoulder to allow impatient drivers to pass are the ones being passed or the ones doing the passing?

corktina

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Except that this exception is not mentioned at all in the regulations.

Driving along the hard shoulder is illegal, just like running a red light. The whole issue hinges on whether or not you get caught.

It's amazing that people would risk damage to their cars or prosecution in order to be courteous to speeding boors.

I'd wonder if the people who advocate using the illegal use of hard shoulder to allow impatient drivers to pass are the ones being passed or the ones doing the passing?

your opinion is worth only as much as mine.....

ardmacha

not a new debate
from www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie

Dáil Éireann - Volume 224 - 12 October, 1966
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Road Traffic Markings.

Dr. Gibbons

35. Dr. Gibbons asked the Minister for Local Government what legal significance the broken yellow line on recently improved roads has in guiding traffic; and if slower moving traffic is expected to travel on the roadway between the yellow broken line and grass margin if it is wide enough, so as to allow faster moving traffic through; and if he will make a statement on the use of roads so marked.

Mr. Blaney

Mr. Blaney: The yellow broken line to which the Deputy refers is intended to indicate to road users the edge of the carriageway proper. This is of particular benefit where “hard shoulders” are provided on major routes as a built-in safety feature. These shoulders or margins serve as emergency stopping or parking places for vehicular traffic and provide a “safety zone” for pedestrians. They are not intended as an additional lane for vehicular traffic and should not be so used. I may add that the significance of these markings is stated clearly in the “Rules of the Road”.

Del2005

And the rules of the road clearly state that you make pull over into the hard shoulder briefly, if there are no pedestrians or cyclists and no junctions or entrances are nearby, to allow faster moving traffic past. Also the rules for motorways are different.

On page 211 of the ROTR it says that the Hard Shoulder is "A part of the road that is divided by broken or continous yellow lines from the rest of the
road and should be used only by certain road users in certain situations". Thats their bold not mine.

As for not pulling over to let someone going faster past. It's not my or any other drivers job to stop or slow down speeding drivers. Thats why we have a police force. And I'd much rather have a speeder ahead of me, where the Gardai/private speed camera operators will catch them, then stuck up my @rse.

corktina

EXACTLY my thought Dellboy....i'm much happier with noone behind me and a decoy to attract the attention of the speed traps ahead of me.

ANd dont forget, 100km/h po MY speedo may only be 97 on someone elses....they arent that accurate.....wheel diameter varies with tyre wear....

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote:

And the rules of the road clearly state that you make pull over into the hard shoulder briefly,

At what speed?

corktina

if its safe to do so you arent going to get a ticket...if it isnt safe to do so, you'll get done for DD i guess....

cyclopath2001

corktina wrote:

if its safe to do so you arent going to get a ticket...if it isnt safe to do so, you'll get done for DD i guess....

Would the same apply when driving through traffic lights on red?

corktina

where in the ROTR does it say you can do that?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote:

At what speed?

The speed you are travelling at!