Basis for no overtaking in the left lane ?

Sandwich

No comments on, 'its not the fast lane, its the overtaking lane', 'why do people hog the overtaking lane', 'can you be fined for undertaking', 'thems the rules so you cant' etc.

But a simple question:

What is the reasoning behind passing in the left lane of a dual(or more) carriageway being against the ROTR?

Was up and down the M1 today outside my normal (when its quiet) hours and was surpised at the amount of undertaking going on. Road was busy but all doing at least 90kph. Yet it seemed pretty safe as they did it, and I coulndt think of a reason against it (cars of old didnt have left hand wing mirrors?).

Anyone know the rationale?

E92

Sandwich wrote: »

What is the reasoning behind passing in the left lane of a dual(or more) carriageway being against the ROTR?

What about traffic trying to merge onto a DC/Motorway? Where are they supposed to go when you're doing your undertaking manoeuvre?

Btw it is perfectly legal to undertake if traffic if the lane to the right is going slower than traffic on the left.

colm_mcm

I'm not in favour of overtaking on the left, I know in some countries it's legal. here are my points:

With a ban on overtaking on the left:

It makes moving from an outer lane to a slip road safer, as the traffic to your left won't be travelling faster than you, and you can join the inside lane (left hand) traffic easier

When joining a road, you aren't merging with the fastest moving traffic

It also means that motorcycles won't whizz by on your passenger side when you change lane to the left.

It should bunch traffic travelling at similar speeds together, i.e slow moving traffic on the inside (left hand) lane, faster traffic on outer (right hand) lanes. (more education is needed here)

It makes weaving in and out of lanes to get ahead illegal

It makes overtaking traffic to your right as you approach an on-ramp or sliproad illegal, it's quite common for people in the inside (left hand) lane to suddenly realise that they're missing their exit and swerve, I think that if overtaking on the left was legal, then people would be less aware of the actions of cars to their right,

E92 wrote: »

Btw it is perfectly legal to undertake if traffic if the lane to the right is going slower than traffic on the left.

This does not apply to most situations.

E92

The inside lane is called the overtaking lane for a reason. If we allowed overtaking on the left then we'd be making a mockery of the keep left rule and that would mean that cars could well be travelling faster than they already are, making it harder and less safe to merge with traffic already on the road.

If people want to go faster then let them in the fast lane, don't make it harder for me to get onto a road that is designed for high speeds in the first place, which in case people have forgotten is a road capable of 160 km/h, since that is the design speed of our Motorways and Dual Carriageways built to Motorway standard.

colm_mcm

by inside lane, I mean left hand. just clarified my original post.

For once I'm in total agreement with E92


I think people should grow up, if someone flashes their lights at you, get out of the way
If you're on the outside lane of a 3 lane road, and there are 3 or 4 cars close behind you, get out of the way
If you're not going faster than the traffic to your left, pull in behind them.

Scrap the "well, I'm doing 100kmph and that's the limit. why should I pull over?" attitude too!

markpb

Sandwich wrote: »

Anyone know the rationale?

It makes the system of motorway driving predictable and safer. You know that you can drop from lane 2 to lane 1 without much of a risk of someone racing up behind you in that lane. It means you can concentrate on the traffic in front and behind so you can maintain a predictable distance from both.

If you go somewhere with three lane motorways where undertaking is permitted, it's quite daunting. A car could be moving from 3 to 2 to undertake at the same time as a car is moving from 1 to 2 to overtake. Both check their mirrors, both check their blind spot but it's quite easy to miss the fact that the other car is moving towards you.

Ronanom

What if your going along at 90kmph in the overtaking lane and theres someone ahead of you. You move over to the left lane and continue driving and after a while you pass out the car that was initially ahead of you in the over taking lane....

When is it seen as illegal?

colm_mcm

Ronanom wrote: »

When is it seen as illegal?

All the time.

you wait for the person in front of you to pull over, then you overtake.
alternatively you don't overtake.

Ronanom

colm_mcm wrote: »

All the time.

you wait for the person in front of you to pull over, then you overtake.
alternatively you don't overtake.

So even if someone is hogging the overtaking lane at 50kmph on a motorway and your travelling at the limit in the left lane, you have to slow down etc..? Seems daft

markpb

Ronanom wrote: »

So even if someone is hogging the overtaking lane at 50kmph on a motorway and your travelling at the limit in the left lane, you have to slow down etc..? Seems daft

It's only daft because the law usually assumes everyone else is law abiding too. If the other person overtook and moved left, you'd be free to overtake without breaking the law.

Similarly, cyclists on a mandatory cycle lane are only allowed to leave the lane to overtake a legally parked car. If there's a illegally parked car, by the word of the law they have to stay there until the owner (or the Gardai) remove it.

colm_mcm

Ronanom wrote: »

So even if someone is hogging the overtaking lane at 50kmph on a motorway and your travelling at the limit in the left lane, you have to slow down etc..? Seems daft

What's daft is the person in the outside lane doing 50kmph. we need to be more assertive with these drivers. blast the horn, and flash lights. maybe give them a lick of the bullbars if nobody's looking!

Alun

colm_mcm wrote: »

What's daft is the person in the outside lane doing 50kmph.

Just go to Germany to see it working as it should do ... the prospect of a 3- or 4-lane German autobahn with US-style over-/under-taking rules makes me shudder :eek: although where I lived when I was there, there were a number of US Army / Air Force bases nearby which made for some interesting 'conflicts' especially with newly arrived service personnel who assumed it worked 'just like at home'.

peasant

colm_mcm wrote: »

maybe give them a lick of the bullbars if nobody's looking!

Which, of course, is something you only said jokingly, would never do and are aware that it could be lethal, right?

RIGHT? :D:D

Wishbone Ash

Just bear in mind lads that some of us drive vehicles which are legally limited to a top speed of 64kph or 80 kph and perfectly entitled to use motorways. Merging onto the left lane would be very difficult if other vehicles were overtaking on the left.

colm_mcm

nobody's opposing it at all?

ninty9er

Sandwich wrote: »

But a simple question:

What is the reasoning behind passing in the left lane of a dual(or more) carriageway being against the ROTR?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

DublinDilbert

markpb wrote: »

You know that you can drop from lane 2 to lane 1 without much of a risk of someone racing up behind you in that lane.

You should always do a proper lane change, checking mirrors + blind spots when changing lanes.... cause someone could be driving at the same speed as you in another lane, hence be sitting in your blind spot.

What happens when we have roads with 4 lanes on them? it would not make sense to traverse 4 lanes of traffic to over take then move back again.

Does the M50 between N4 and N7 junctions not have 4 lanes? I know some people are going to say its 3 lanes + a slip road joining the N3 and N4, but effectively its 4 lanes.

Alun

DublinDilbert wrote: »

Does the M50 between N4 and N7 junctions not have 4 lanes? I know some people are going to say its 3 lanes + a slip road joining the N3 and N4, but effectively its 4 lanes.

No it's not. If you're driving straight through you stay in lane 1, not the slip / weaving lane.

colm_mcm

DublinDilbert wrote: »

What happens when we have roads with 4 lanes on them? it would not make sense to traverse 4 lanes of traffic to over take then move back again.

Of course that wouldn't make sense. in reality though, if the traffic in lane 1 was going too slow, you could easily overtake using lane 2, then pull back in to 1. If lane 1 was going far too slow for you, then naturally, you wouldn't be sticking round in lane 1. i'd imagine in a 4 lane situation, lane 1 would be made up mostly of trucks and people about to use slip roads.

Steve

Sandwich wrote: »

But a simple question:

What is the reasoning behind passing in the left lane of a dual(or more) carriageway being against the ROTR?

Anyone know the rationale?

Simple answer IMO is that the law predates multi carriage roads and was originally written to prevent 'undertaking' on a normal single carriage road.

E92 wrote: »

Btw it is perfectly legal to undertake if traffic if the lane to the right is going slower than traffic on the left.

No it's not. I'd like to see you argue that one with a judge.

Sandwich

colm_mcm wrote: »

I'm not in favour of overtaking on the left, I know in some countries it's legal. here are my points:

With a ban on overtaking on the left:

It makes moving from an outer lane to a slip road safer, as the traffic to your left won't be travelling faster than you, and you can join the inside lane (left hand) traffic easier

When joining a road, you aren't merging with the fastest moving traffic

It also means that motorcycles won't whizz by on your passenger side when you change lane to the left.

It should bunch traffic travelling at similar speeds together, i.e slow moving traffic on the inside (left hand) lane, faster traffic on outer (right hand) lanes. (more education is needed here)

It makes weaving in and out of lanes to get ahead illegal

It makes overtaking traffic to your right as you approach an on-ramp or sliproad illegal, it's quite common for people in the inside (left hand) lane to suddenly realise that they're missing their exit and swerve, I think that if overtaking on the left was legal, then people would be less aware of the actions of cars to their right,


This does not apply to most situations.

Good post probably sums up most of the points. Have no strong views but its not clear cut to me.
- Slip roads. Not sure its a valid point as (currently) traffic in the left lane might be doing 80 or 120. If you're joining the motorway, is whether the overtaking lane is going slower or faster than the left lane that you are joining of any relevance. Is it not as easy to move into a lane (from the right lane or slip road) if its travelling at 120 or 80?
- you should look in your mirrors when changing lane in either direction: why the need for extra protection on you left?
- Weaving. At the moment you could argue we are 'half' weaving anyway.
- Bunching. Arguably worse with the existing rule do to right lane hoggers. And the then dangerous situation of people overtaking on the left when it is an unexpected rather then normal occurance. Traffic might flow more smoothly if traffic did weave, as faster moving vehicles would never feel unduly held up.
- Is it not as easy to look-indicate-manoevre safely to the right as it is to the left.?


Still wondering what the original reasoning was tho.

colm_mcm

If the problem of right lane hoggers was addressed, there would be no need to "undertake"

A lot of right lane hogger just don't realise that overtaking on the left is illegal, so don't know that they are effectively forcing people to break the law in order to pass them.

A lot of people don't use their mirrors, and don't watch the traffic build up behind them.

A couple of reminder signs on major roads wouldn't go amiss.

peasant

Sandwich wrote: »

Still wondering what the original reasoning was tho.

Because it makes perfect sense.

Stop thinking of motorways in terms of the ever clogged M50 for a minute and imagine a motorway with actual flowing traffic.

A lot of that traffic would be trucks, which are limited to 80 km/h amd other slower traffic. By bunching them all up in one lane, the other lane can go faster safely.

(Provided of course you get no lane hoggers)

VH

colm_mcm wrote: »

All the time.

Technically you can overtake in the left lane, but only if the traffiic in all lanes is in "slow moving in queues", according to the ROTR. They don't define slow.

In an ideal world I'm all for flashing/beeping at a right lane hogger, but it's not an ideal world. It's not possible to flash/beep the idiot who is 20 cars ahead, so I'm all for overtaking in the left lane, as long as it is done safely of course.

For the purposes of this exercise I interpret "slow" in the ROTR to mean less than the speed limit.

unkel

Alun wrote: »

Just go to Germany to see it working as it should do ... the prospect of a 3- or 4-lane German autobahn with US-style over-/under-taking rules makes me shudder :eek:

Indeed!

The "keep your lane" principle, or whatever they call it in the US, works over there because most vehicles do about the same speed. The difference between the fastest and the slowest vehicles is no more than 20MPH. The difference in Germany could well be 200km/h

E92 wrote: »

Btw it is perfectly legal to undertake if traffic if the lane to the right is going slower than traffic on the left.

No it is not! The ROTR state something like that, but the concensus seems to be that this only applies in slow moving traffic (as in crawling, not as in doing 70km/h)

Steve

VH wrote: »

For the purposes of this exercise I interpret "slow" in the ROTR to mean less than the speed limit.

Unfortunately, how you 'interpret' it doesn't really count for much in court if the judge has a different opinion.

colm_mcm

this suggestion that you can overtake on the left if the traffic on your right is going slower is ridiculous.

If you're overtaking them, they're gonna be going slower than you!

E92

unkel wrote: »

No it is not! The ROTR state something like that, but the concensus seems to be that this only applies in slow moving traffic (as in crawling, not as in doing 70km/h)

Fair enough, I got what I said from the ROTR though. One tends to assume that it would be correct:o:eek:!

Steve

E92 wrote: »

Fair enough, I got what I said from the ROTR though. One tends to assume that it would be correct:o:eek:!

ROTR is correct, the problem is the law is poorly worded and doesn't define 'slow moving'. This means it is up to a Judge to interpret it.

colm_mcm

the ROTR is only an interpretation of the law as it is!

unkel

colm_mcm wrote: »

the ROTR is only an interpretation of the law as it is!

Indeed it is. And to any remaining doubter out there with the ROTR clamped under their arm, in the situation described above on motorways, you can only undertake if traffic is crawling

And just to clarify, I'm not on any high-horse here. I admit to undertaking. In my defence: I have driven for many years in many countries. The only country where I have ever illegally done any undertaking is here.