Undertaking on the motorway

creedp

visual wrote: »

Dont see the garda pulling middle lane hoggers on 3 lane motorway or dual carriageway but the law still dictates drive on the left even if its not enforced

I don't have any problem with people undertaking in those circumstances on a motorway or in an out of operation bus lane but my question was is it required that one drives in such a bus lane - I've never heard of someone pulled/convicted for it nor have I ever heard of any advice given that drivers must use such bus lanes. I always look to use one as I can make great progress especially when the time changes over initally - of course I'm then breaking the law by undertaking the traffic that chooses not to move over after 7pm or whatever the relevant time is? Very hard to win on Irish roads.

Pro Hoc Vice

creedp wrote: »

I don't have any problem with people undertaking in those circumstances on a motorway or in an out of operation bus lane but my question was is it required that one drives in such a bus lane - I've never heard of someone pulled/convicted for it nor have I ever heard of any advice given that drivers must use such bus lanes. I always look to use one as I can make great progress especially when the time changes over initally - of course I'm then breaking the law by undertaking the traffic that chooses not to move over after 7pm or whatever the relevant time is? Very hard to win on Irish roads.

Most bus lanes I know of are in built up urban areas, so usually heavy traffic and if in traffic the exceptions apply.

creedp

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Most bus lanes I know of are in built up urban areas, so usually heavy traffic and if in traffic the exceptions apply.

Therein lies the problem though .. define slow moving traffic .. 50 kmph in a 60 kmph limit? How about 80 kmph in a 100kmph limit?

dr.fuzzenstein

degsie wrote: »

So, what is the answer to the op's question? Is it dangerous?

Depends who you ask and also on the specific situation.
Today I passed a car on the inside going from Shannon to Limerick, as did everyone else, because it was sitting in the outside of the dual carriageway doing 70 km/h.
I dont feel safe passing flutes like that on any side, because they don't have the brain capacity to process all the information presented to them whilst driving and could do anything.

Henry Ford III

creedp wrote: »

Therein lies the problem though .. define slow moving traffic .. 50 kmph in a 60 kmph limit? How about 80 kmph in a 100kmph limit?

Slow not slower. It's been defined as congested and stop/start.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Slow not slower. It's been defined as congested and stop/start.

has it?
where precisely was that?

I've reviewed the SI and cannot find any mention of either of the italicized terms.

old_aussie

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Its dangerous only because people are told not to do it, so people dont expect people coming up on that side.

Then it's about time drivers were taught to ALWAYS look to their left hand blind spot before changing back to the left lane.

PS watch out if you come to Australia.

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

has it?
where precisely was that?

I've reviewed the SI and cannot find any mention of either of the italicized terms.

It's on this thread already. Info taken from various non statutory sources.

I'd have thought that it's pretty obvious what it means, even if it's not written into legislation.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's on this thread already. Info taken from various non statutory sources.

I'd have thought that it's pretty obvious what it means, even if it's not written into legislation.

But if there is no legislation to back it up then you're p!ssing against the wind, so to speak.

cletus

I would imagine, given both documented evidence of guards pulling for undertaking, and first hand accounts from boardsies of same, that we can take it that slow moving traffic is as stated by the legal practitioner in this thread, bumper to bumper and stop/start, rather than just slower than the given speed limit/how fast I'd like to be travelling

Even Sean Kinvara has given up questioning the legality of it, and is focusing on the danger aspect

ironclaw

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's on this thread already. Info taken from various non statutory sources.

I'd have thought that it's pretty obvious what it means, even if it's not written into legislation.

I think common sense prevails really. The law is never really black and white, there is many grey areas. Hence why we have judges. I would not fancy taking my chances in front of a judge explaining why I undertook someone on a motorway because they were moving 'relatively' slower.

A single car sitting in the overtaking lane. A stream of cars behind them. Nothing in the driving lane. That's not congested nor is it, potentially, slow moving. However its exceptionally dangerous to pass them to the left as its an unexpected maneuver.

The N11 / M11 at rush hour for example, that's congested and slow moving traffic. Its not unexpected for someone to be your left and passing you. Hence why its not an offence in that scenario.

I know people will be pedantic and argue 'well it isn't written in law' but its relatively safer and far more expected for a car to be to your left and 'undertaking' you in slow moving, heavily congested traffic than say on an open road with light traffic. Common sense, it ain't all that common.

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

But if there is no legislation to back it up then you're p!ssing against the wind, so to speak.

Since there is no legal definition, it's up to the judge to decide.

I think that no matter which boardsie's definition of "slow" you pick, a judge in the district court's definition will be slower.

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

But if there is no legislation to back it up then you're p!ssing against the wind, so to speak.

Incorrect.

You can and will get done for it.

jprboy

ironclaw wrote: »

I think common sense prevails really. The law is never really black and white, there is many grey areas. Hence why we have judges. I would not fancy taking my chances in front of a judge explaining why I undertook someone on a motorway because they were moving 'relatively' slower.

A single car sitting in the overtaking lane. A stream of cars behind them. Nothing in the driving lane. That's not congested nor is it, potentially, slow moving. However its exceptionally dangerous to pass them to the left as its an unexpected maneuver.

The N11 / M11 at rush hour for example, that's congested and slow moving traffic. Its not unexpected for someone to be your left and passing you. Hence why its not an offence in that scenario.

I know people will be pedantic and argue 'well it isn't written in law' but its relatively safer and far more expected for a car to be to your left and 'undertaking' you in slow moving, heavily congested traffic than say on an open road with light traffic. Common sense, it ain't all that common.

Well put and, as a sometime undertaker (not the coffin type!), I agree.

However, in the scenario outlined above (which I've bolded), ideally what should happen is everyone waits for the blocking car to make way. If this doesn't happen, someone is inevitably going to undertake and with varying levels of fury building in the various cars, the danger is heightened.

So, if the blocking car doesn't move, what should happen?

creedp

ironclaw wrote: »

I think common sense prevails really. The law is never really black and white, there is many grey areas. Hence why we have judges. I would not fancy taking my chances in front of a judge explaining why I undertook someone on a motorway because they were moving 'relatively' slower.

A single car sitting in the overtaking lane. A stream of cars behind them. Nothing in the driving lane. That's not congested nor is it, potentially, slow moving. However its exceptionally dangerous to pass them to the left as its an unexpected maneuver.

Linking the first with the second piece of bolded text do you not think that passing on the left in this circumstance constitutes common sense. In reality, and forget about the ROTR, how long would you stay behind someone doing say 80kmph on the outside lane of a motorway if you were intent on travelling at the legitimate speed limit?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Incorrect.

You can and will get done for it.

Under which law?

ironclaw wrote: »

I think common sense prevails really. The law is never really black and white, there is many grey areas. Hence why we have judges. I would not fancy taking my chances in front of a judge explaining why I undertook someone on a motorway because they were moving 'relatively' slower.

A single car sitting in the overtaking lane. A stream of cars behind them. Nothing in the driving lane. That's not congested nor is it, potentially, slow moving. However its exceptionally dangerous to pass them to the left as its an unexpected maneuver.

The N11 / M11 at rush hour for example, that's congested and slow moving traffic. Its not unexpected for someone to be your left and passing you. Hence why its not an offence in that scenario.

I know people will be pedantic and argue 'well it isn't written in law' but its relatively safer and far more expected for a car to be to your left and 'undertaking' you in slow moving, heavily congested traffic than say on an open road with light traffic. Common sense, it ain't all that common.

Common sense must prevail.
How long must I sit behind a 60-80 kph lane hogger in the overtaking lane, queue for miles back, with an empty driving lane??

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Under which law?


Common sense must prevail.
How long must I sit behind a 60-80 kph lane hogger in the overtaking lane, queue for miles back, with an empty driving lane??

I'd imagine the RTA - Driving without due care and attention, or in an extreme case maybe dangerous driving?

Neither has a definitive list of what constitutes an offence.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'd imagine the RTA - Driving without due care and attention, or in an extreme case maybe dangerous driving?

Neither has a definitive list of what constitutes an offence.

I'd be delighted if I was summonsed in such circumstances under either of those acts, as i'd imagine even without hiring a solicitor, no judge could prosecute there.

How is it dangerous driving?
How is it driving without due care and attention?

Exactly, no grounds for the charge. The member would probably be told off for wasting court time tbh.

ironclaw

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Common sense must prevail.
How long must I sit behind a 60-80 kph lane hogger in the overtaking lane, queue for miles back, with an empty driving lane??

Of course. But you would want to show you made reasonable effort to effect a legal overtake. i.e. Waiting a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps an indicator. Perhaps a flash of the lights / horn. All of which you can prove either yourself, DVR, or the in-car from the Gardai who pulled you (Assuming in this example you got pulled)

I wouldn't stand in front of judge without said evidence or I wouldn't fancy my chances. In fact, it would be fairly cut and dry, and you'd probably get an awful rap for it.

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I'd be delighted if I was summonsed in such circumstances under either of those acts, as i'd imagine even without hiring a solicitor, no judge could prosecute there.

How is it dangerous driving?
How is it driving without due care and attention?

Exactly, no grounds for the charge. The member would probably be told off for wasting court time tbh.

You'd imagine wrong. There's plenty of examples of folk being prosecuted for undertaking - some mentioned on this thread already.

There's no doubting the illegality of such a manouvre.

p.s. Judges don't prosecute.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

ironclaw wrote: »

Of course. But you would want to show you made reasonable effort to effect a legal overtake. i.e. Waiting a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps an indicator. Perhaps a flash of the lights / horn. All of which you can prove either yourself, DVR, or the in-car from the Gardai who pulled you (Assuming in this example you got pulled)

I wouldn't stand in front of judge without said evidence or I wouldn't fancy my chances. In fact, it would be fairly cut and dry, and you'd probably get an awful rap for it.

Unless it's in two streams of traffic moving at different speeds - ie if I'm moving from the overtaking lane to the driving lane to effect an overtake (on the left) then I will always beep first, flash lights and indicate.

For those two specific named offenses I am clearly not guilty.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You'd imagine wrong. There's plenty of examples of folk being prosecuted for undertaking - some mentioned on this thread already.

There's no doubting the illegality of such a manouvre.

p.s. Judges don't prosecute.

The imagine remark was directed at not needing a solicitor, not at the sentence as a whole. Apologies if this was not clear.

And your sarcastic postscript was not necessary, it was clear what I meant. Even if the wrong terms were used.

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Under which law?

How many times must this be repeated?

Road Traffic Act, 1961

(5) A person who contravenes a bye-law under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.

Now, you may say it is not a sensible law, but that does not matter: the fact is that passing a lane-hogger on the left is illegal under the road traffic acts, and anyone doing so commits an offense:

Overtaking

19.—(1) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.


(2) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) unless he can clearly see a portion of the roadway which—


(a) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and


(b) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.


(3) A driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.


(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this bye-law, a driver may overtake on the left—


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


(b) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after having overtaken, to turn left at a road junction and has signalled this intention,


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

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Ugh, there is nothing specific that defines slow moving traffic.
It is therefore open to interpretation.

We've been down this road and it is now going in circles. Stick a fork in her Jim, it's done.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

We've been down this road and it is now going in circles. Stick a fork in her Jim, it's done.

Im actually getting dizzy reading it :pac:

Its just the same arguement and counter arguement for 31 pages...

bmc58

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Its dangerous only because people are told not to do it, so people dont expect people coming up on that side.

Is it illegal to undertake on a motorway?

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Ugh, there is nothing specific that defines slow moving traffic. It is therefore open to interpretation.

You asked "Under what law?", and I posted chapter and verse.

All laws are open to interpretation, but it isn't your interpretation that counts, it's the judge's, and they interpret them every day. For a living.

BMJD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You asked "Under what law?", and I posted chapter and verse.

has that law been updated since 1961/1964?

Xennon

If the line of traffic in the overtaking lane is slower than the traffic in the driving lane, then are they not also at fault as they should move to the driving land if they are not overtaking?

Over taking on the left is something you have to apply common sense to. You know when its wrong. Ive often moved to the overtaking lane when there was nothing in front of me to overtake a slow driver whos sat in the overtaking lane, they normally pull into the driving lane. Some will hog the over taking lane, but will eventually move in once they figure out whats going on.

Patience wins....

Zubeneschamali

BMJD wrote: »

has that law been updated since 1961/1964?

There are 6 pages of different laws, sets of bye-laws, ministerial orders etc. etc. listed in the Rules of the Road book which affect driving. Good luck seeing if any of them amended this section.

But the RoR themselves are (supposed) to summarise current law. They aren't always right up to date, but they clearly state that the rules as written in 1964 still apply.

Including on Motorways.

LostDamo

Xennon wrote: »

If the line of traffic in the overtaking lane is slower than the traffic in the driving lane, then are they not also at fault as they should move to the driving land if they are not overtaking?

Over taking on the left is something you have to apply common sense to. You know when its wrong. Ive often moved to the overtaking lane when there was nothing in front of me to overtake a slow driver whos sat in the overtaking lane, they normally pull into the driving lane. Some will hog the over taking lane, but will eventually move in once they figure out whats going on.

Patience wins....

So your part of the problem too, how does that help. If I'm behind 2 cars in overtaking lane & driving lane is free I have no choice but to undertake. It looks like 2 idiots to rather than slow car with patient driver behind & what ur not over taking them so when