Undertaking on the motorway

beer enigma

Unless its been repealed, there was a 'minimum' speed limit set at 30mph for Motorways by some Act in the early 70's - not sure if it got sidelined after we went to Kph, but maybe that needs to be increased and enforced

Xennon

So, two people going slow in the overtaking lane justifies you risking an accident.....nice. Would you overtake an artic on the left?

It looks like 2 idiots to rather than slow car with patient driver behind & what ur not over taking them so when

Wha???

djimi

Andip wrote: »

Unless its been repealed, there was a 'minimum' speed limit set at 30mph for Motorways by some Act in the early 70's - not sure if it got sidelined after we went to Kph, but maybe that needs to be increased and enforced

There is no minimum speed limit on any Irish road afaik. Vehicles on motorways must be capable of doing 30mph, but it doesnt mean that they have to travel at that speed at all times.

If you set a minimum speed limit on motorways then tens of thousands of cars would break it on a daily basis on the M50/M7...

BMJD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

I was referring to the law you linked to regarding overtaking - is that the most recent law on the matter?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Andip wrote: »

Unless its been repealed, there was a 'minimum' speed limit set at 30mph for Motorways by some Act in the early 70's - not sure if it got sidelined after we went to Kph, but maybe that needs to be increased and enforced

No, there is no minimum speed. Never was.
Only that your vehicle had to be capable of going 30mph, this still exists and it is 50 km now afair
As djimi says

djimi wrote: »

There is no minimum speed limit on any Irish road afaik. Vehicles on motorways must be capable of doing 30mph, but it doesnt mean that they have to travel at that speed at all times.

If you set a minimum speed limit on motorways then tens of thousands of cars would break it on a daily basis on the M50/M7...

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

Im actually getting dizzy reading it :pac:

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

This exactly, and I'm not going to post in the argument any further.
I've expressed my viewpoint and gotten the same response as below.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Look. The laws listed are clear as feckin' mud. But I'm done. I'm not going to respond any further. After 30 odd pages, nothing has been said to change my mind or even show me a concrete law that is not open to interpretation.
So I shall bow out of the thread.

Sammy_Jankis

doolox wrote: »

We Irish should have a Drive Left/pass right rule but seem to have inadvertantly adopted the German Fahr Recht rule....although we drive on the left. Often the fastest lane in Ireland is the leftmost lane..............

Very true.

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

show me a concrete law that is not open to interpretation.

There is no such thing as a concrete law that is not open to interpretation. Even on important stuff like murder vs. self defence, it all comes down to language like "reasonable in the circumstances".

Sean Kinvarra

ironclaw wrote: »

Pretty sure this was debated to the nines but given its a continuous white line, you can't cross it or something to that effect. So you were basically trapped in it. Also I don't think anyone ever produced evidence or legislation saying you had to use it or when out of hours it constituted a 'normal' driving lane in Ireland (Could be wrong)

That said I still treat it like a normal lane when I can. But I can't imagine going 1 2 and 3, and back, to overtake on say the N11 between town and Foxrock. That would be insanity.

There are certain circumstances where you can cross a bus lane whilst in use, ie exiting or entering property.

Jebus Diced

I normally dont undertake on motorways, However I was on the M4 the other day past the toll heading towards Mullingar, Driving ahead of me was a campervan in the left lane and a car doing 80kph (mathcing the camper but behind) in the right, when I got near the camper and car -the car driver (male 50's) was holding and talking on his phone,
Only when i passed him on the left and then passed the camper on the right he noticed how slow he was going and so bombed it to like 150kph and stayed in the right lane the whole way.

Sean Kinvarra

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.

70km/h on a 120km/h motorway is "slow moving traffic"
35km/h along quays where the limit is 30km/h is not slow moving traffic.
So how is it dangerous to undertake a hogger driving 70km/h three lanes to your right on a motorway?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

70km/h on a 120km/h motorway is "slow moving traffic"
35km/h along quays where the limit is 30km/h is not slow moving traffic.
So how is it dangerous to undertake a hogger driving 70km/h three lanes to your right on a motorway?

It's a losing battle man, 30+ pages and they ain't listenin' :P

Pro Hoc Vice

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

70km/h on a 120km/h motorway is "slow moving traffic"
35km/h along quays where the limit is 30km/h is not slow moving traffic.
So how is it dangerous to undertake a hogger driving 70km/h three lanes to your right on a motorway?

The question is not is it dangerous the question is it illegal, lots of things in road traffic regulations are not in themselves dangerous but are illegal. The next question is would a person doing such an action be prosecuted and then convicted.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

70km/h on a 120km/h motorway is "slow moving traffic"
35km/h along quays where the limit is 30km/h is not slow moving traffic.
So how is it dangerous to undertake a hogger driving 70km/h three lanes to your right on a motorway?

The situation as far as the Irish courts are concerned, even if the guy does 40 in the "fasht" lane and periodically brake tests everyone behind him, that's fine, but the second you try to nip past him on the inside, you're done.
Oh and by the way, the "slow moving traffic" defense didn't wash:
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/fined-for-overtaking-in-the-inside-lane-27741490.html

I have passed on the inside, but I do not delude myself into thinking the Traffic Corps would give me a slap on the back and say "good man yourself".

Jesus.

Xennon wrote: »

Would you overtake an artic on the left?

I'll admit to having done so when they were sat in the middle lane.

It is dodgy though

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

It's a losing battle man, 30+ pages and they ain't listenin' :P

Perhaps it's yourself and Sean who can't/won't listen?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Perhaps it's yourself and Sean who can't/won't listen?

Either way, it's a pointless thread.
Done to death, and no one is listening.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

70km/h on a 120km/h motorway is "slow moving traffic"
35km/h along quays where the limit is 30km/h is not slow moving traffic.
So how is it dangerous to undertake a hogger driving 70km/h three lanes to your right on a motorway?

Incorrect yet again. You don't appear to able to differentiate the difference between "slower" and "slow" in this context. In case you've forgotten "slow" has been defined as congested and/or stop start. So 70kph on a motorway is never "slow" for this purpose.

It makes no difference whether a manouvre is dangerous or not if it's illegal.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Incorrect yet again. You don't appear to able to differentiate the difference between "slower" and "slow" in this context. In case you've forgotten "slow" has been defined as congested and/or stop start. So 70kph on a motorway is never "slow" for this purpose.

It makes no difference whether a manouvre is dangerous or not if it's illegal.

By whom?
You constantly state this, but yet have no links to a law or anything where this has been legally defined.

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

By whom?
You constantly state this, but yet have no links to a law or anything where this has been legally defined.

Please read the thread. I've no intention of repeating myself. It doesn't have to be written into legislation.

For example - If you started throwing eggs at people you might get arrested for it and charged under perhaps a public order heading. There's no specific statutory offense of egg throwing however.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Please read the thread. I've no intention of repeating myself. It doesn't have to be written into legislation.

For example - If you started throwing eggs at people you might get arrested for it and charged under perhaps a public order heading. There's no specific statutory offense of egg throwing however.

Yes but it isn't defined anywhere. You can keep saying it is defined till you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it so.
To continue your analogy, it woudl be like saying "egg throwing has been defined as a public order offense"
It hasnt.
Slow moving traffic is *not* defined anywhere, and this is the crux of the issue. Please stop misrepresenting incorrect information as fact - you say many times on thread that it is defined but it is *not*


Gah. I had tried to stay out of this thread but *SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG GODDAMMIT*

ironclaw

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

By whom?
You constantly state this, but yet have no links to a law or anything where this has been legally defined.

I had a good look and I agree with you, I can't find a definition. That said, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a SI or case law. However, this is why we have judges. People should really have a quick read of how the courts work and how precedent is set and rescinded.

Stand before a judge and say you undertook because he was doing 100km/h and you wanted to do 120km/h, and try the 'slow' argument, it won't work. It still makes the maneuver dangerous, unexpected and against the 'framework' that is provided in the Rules of the Road / Statutory instruments. Unless like I previously said you had DVR evidence that it was absolutely 'last resort'

So whilst its not legally defined, as lets be honest that frankly impossible for every single case in point, common sense would dictate that 'slow' means congested and queuing traffic as is the case, I believe, its defined in France and Norway. Not directly legally applicable here but would be a consideration in a ruling.

EDIT: There you go, precedent, so the 'slow' defense has case law: http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/fined-for-overtaking-in-the-inside-lane-27741490.html

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes but it isn't defined anywhere. You can keep saying it is defined till you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it so.
To continue your analogy, it woudl be like saying "egg throwing has been defined as a public order offense"
It hasnt.
Slow moving traffic is *not* defined anywhere, and this is the crux of the issue. Please stop misrepresenting incorrect information as fact - you say many times on thread that it is defined but it is *not*


Gah. I had tried to stay out of this thread but *SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG GODDAMMIT*

It has been defined and the links have already been provided. Ultimately a judge can interpret the meaning and intent, and examples of court cases involving successful prosecutions have also been provided on this thread.

It's clearcut, and apart from being obtuse I don't understand why you cannot see that.

Henry Ford III

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Henry Ford III wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/motorways-253-to-273/overtaking-267-to-269

268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

UK links? Really?

Pro Hoc Vice

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes but it isn't defined anywhere. You can keep saying it is defined till you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it so.
To continue your analogy, it woudl be like saying "egg throwing has been defined as a public order offense"
It hasnt.
Slow moving traffic is *not* defined anywhere, and this is the crux of the issue. Please stop misrepresenting incorrect information as fact - you say many times on thread that it is defined but it is *not*


Gah. I had tried to stay out of this thread but *SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG GODDAMMIT*

Egg throwing has not been defined in legislation as a public order offence but persons throwing eggs could very well be prosecuted under section 5 of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act.

Henry Ford III

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

UK links? Really?

Yes. The law is identical, so it's wholly relevant.

Henry Ford III

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Egg throwing has not been defined in legislation as a public order offence but persons throwing eggs could very well be prosecuted under section 5 of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act.

But it's not defined in specific legislation so surely it can't be actionable?

Zubeneschamali

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Slow moving traffic is *not* defined anywhere, and this is the crux of the issue.

If AA roadwatch come on the radio and say there is slow moving traffic on the M50 between junctions 6 and 7, I have a pretty good idea of what the phrase means. It is perfectly straightforward English.

For some reason, it doesn't conjure up an image of you doing 100 kph in an empty driving lane, and a single numpty doing 80 kph in the overtaking lane two lanes to your right.

_Kaiser_

This back and forth over what "slow moving traffic" is is exactly why we have so many problems on the roads and so much nanny-state legislation

Slow moving traffic on a motorway means all lanes heavily congested and cars rolling along at <50 km/h or stop/start. It does NOT mean someone doing 110 and the guy in the left lane tearing past at 130+ because they don't want to wait.

Honestly, if people need common-sense stuff like this spelled out then maybe they should be asking if they should be on the road at all themselves.