Gatso Van M1

ArphaRima

It's exactly my logic. I've seen accidents with people doing almost what the OP suggests. I saw a car go along a line of traffic on the M50 past a queue, then slow and indicate at the end of the queue (N3). The following car smashed into him.

The bus lane situation is different in that the OP is saying to follow the letter of the law, whereas the car above was "trying it on". But I say there is a few reasons that most people dont follow the ROTR in this case.
A: to keep the outside lane free for traffic going straight or right (depending on the road) in slow moving traffic.
B: to stop themselves from being hit from behind in fast moving traffic on the likes of dual carriageways etc.
C: to join the queue where the queue already exists, and not to be seen to skip the queue.
-and yes finally-
to skip backlogged traffic lawfully queuing in the ordinary lane.

highdef

Well not letting me into the beginning of the normal left lane won't make matters any better. If you were at the top of the queue in the bus lane and traffic started moving and you did not let me, then it would be you who would be causing an obstruction to me by being somewhere you shouldn't be in the first place. When I am changing to the left lane, the only thing that should be there is a bus or taxi but it would normally be free and empty so in theory cars would simply change from centre (or right) lane to the left lane where the bus lane ends and everything would go along swimmingly. Obviously, I have to give way to whatever is in the lane though. I'm not just going to drive into a car.
Why on earth would you deliberately block someone from entering a lane at the point where they are supposed to be entering it. Looks like you're the one who is trying to cause an accident.

Anyway, this topic has kinda hijacked the original thread of a Gatso van so maybe we should leave it at that. I've no problems with continuing on but we are WAY off topic.

markpb

fluffer wrote: »

It's exactly my logic. I've seen accidents with people doing almost what the OP suggests. I saw a car go along a line of traffic on the M50 past a queue, then slow and indicate at the end of the queue (N3). The following car smashed into him.

This is nothing to do with what you're describing. Either the first car slowed down too quickly, indicated too late or the second car was driving too close to react in time. It could happen even if there was no bus lane and they were both driving in lane one.

fluffer wrote: »

But I say there is a few reasons that most people dont follow the ROTR in this case.

In Paris, bus lanes are physically segregated from car lanes. When people want to turn left, they continue to the end of the lane, wait for the bus lane to clear and turn. They don't have the option of jumping into the bus lane early, people don't run into the back of them because they drive properly. Why is it that Irish drivers blame bus lane running on safety instead of what it really is... ignorance?

ArphaRima

Well not letting me into the beginning of the normal left lane won't make matters any better.

No but it would make me feel better.

There wouldnt be an "accident" -If you hit me it'd be because you chose to drive into me.

Dr. Loon

BoardsRanger wrote: »

surely you can have a debate without resorting to insults! well obviously, there is a difference of opinion here. i think your wrong, you think i'm wrong! il continue to do what i do, as will you. best of luck now

If you think "silly friend" is an insult, then you must be very sensitive. My apologies though.

You can think I'm wrong all you want, but I'm right and you're wrong. There's no arguing wrong or right here. You could argue that what you do is maybe a better practice, but it's still wrong and illegal based on the rules of the road.

Anyway, I'd also suggest we drop it. If you really want to debate it open another thread.

ArphaRima

people don't run into the back of them because they drive properly. Why is it that Irish drivers blame bus lane running on safety instead of what it really is... ignorance?

But french drivers cant enter the Bus lane.. So at the end of the bus lane drivers would be EXPECTED to manouvre.

You're both comparing scenarios between what they could/should be as opposed to what they are. I am saying that given how the situation here is not the ideal, in given situations the cautious driver is the one not following the ROTR.

markpb

fluffer wrote: »

But french drivers cant enter the Bus lane.. So at the end of the bus lane drivers would be EXPECTED to manouvre.

If I came to the end of a bus lane at a junction, I'd expect that people might want to turn left. Especially if they had indicated in time.

I accept you're being pragmatic and I agree that there are situations where it's unavoidable but the attitude should not be one where it's acceptable to run bus lanes simply because other people are.

highdef

I am saying that given how the situation here is not the ideal, in given situations the cautious driver is the one not following the ROTR.

Fluffer, can you please direct me to where it says in the ROTR handbook that in this given situation, drivers should use the bus lane? I must have somehow missed that part the last time I read through it which was recently enough.

highdef

Mods, would a new thread for this topic be made? Or is it running its course?

ArphaRima

to skip backlogged traffic lawfully queuing in the ordinary lane.

The point D is where I said I dont support, and point C I can understand, but I am advising a common sense attitude and case-by-case approach to every ROTR.

Fluffer, can you please direct me to where it says in the ROTR handbook that in this given situation, drivers should use the bus lane? I must have somehow missed that part the last time I read through it which was recently enough.

Its not in it. Its called use your own judgement. Do you need everything written down for you? -You should just follow every single rule you read blindly, sue when it fails you, and complain when there are none.

Markpb - I abhor Highdef's letter-of-the-law attitude whereby he will come to a complete stop on a fast-moving dual carriageway just because he thinks has a point to prove. The first, second and third cars might see him, indicate and overtake. But to the cars way back who are suddenly confronted with a car fully parked on a dual carriageway when they are doing 60mph? His indicators flashing, and him being right will be good consolations while they recover in intensive care..

Esel

fluffer wrote: »

I abhor Highdef's letter-of-the-law attitude whereby he will come to a complete stop on a fast-moving dual carriageway just because he thinks has a point to prove. The first, second and third cars might see him, indicate and overtake. But to the cars way back who are suddenly confronted with a car fully parked on a dual carriageway when they are doing 60mph? His indicators flashing, and him being right will be good consolations while they recover in intensive care..

From what I have read, you are the one on a hobby horse here. Two points: firstly the car would be stopped, not 'parked', and secondly, the speed limit mentioned is 60km/h, not 60mph. By your logic, cars that come to a stop on a carriageway due to traffic conditions would be regularly rear-ended. This just does not happen.

What you are proposing is, plainly and simply, wrong. It's your decision though. Do you do it often, and have you ever been fined?

Mr. Presentable

fluffer wrote: »

Some do, some dont.

I'd be interested to know one that doesn't, please advise.

highdef

Fluffer, as Esel said this is on a road with a 60kmh limit, not 60mph. In fact, a 50 kmh comes into force just at the end of the bus lane and their are a set of traffic lights about 100m further on. And even with that limit, traffic goes nowhere near that speed when I drive that road in the evening. In fact the middle lane is often as slow moving or slower than the bus lane. Sometimes it can work out slower for me, sometimes quicker. Depends on the traffic on the day. It would probably be nearer an average of 20mph, if you still do speeds in British Imperial.
As for a car appearing all of a sudden in front, that is quite ridiculous. If you are driving on a road with a full lane of slow moving or stopped trafic to you left and a major traffic light controlled junction approaching and also cars performing lane changes, you'd want to be travelling at a speed that is safe. If you can't tell from a distance that a car is ahead is stopped or traveling at a much slower speed than you, then you really shouldn't be driving. If people drive the way you describe it, there should be rear endings all over the place every day with people coming to a halt to make right hand turns and blocking the road.

Stark

fluffer wrote: »

The bus lane situation is different in that the OP is saying to follow the letter of the law, whereas the car above was "trying it on". But I say there is a few reasons that most people dont follow the ROTR in this case.
A: to keep the outside lane free for traffic going straight or right (depending on the road) in slow moving traffic.

At the expense of public transport users.

fluffer wrote: »

B: to stop themselves from being hit from behind in fast moving traffic on the likes of dual carriageways etc.

Bullcrap for the reasons others have described.

fluffer wrote: »

C: to join the queue where the queue already exists, and not to be seen to skip the queue.

Those people had no right to be in the bus lane in the first place so nothing wrong with "skipping the queue".

fluffer wrote: »

-and yes finally-
to skip backlogged traffic lawfully queuing in the ordinary lane.

The one real reason.