Undertaking on the motorway

blastman

Those licence plates with 'LH' on them for lane hogger are very accurate, I've found.....

whiterebel

ironclaw wrote: »

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 People should really have a quick read of how the courts work and how precedent is set and rescinded.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

I'd say this "Garda Peter McAteer, who prosecuted, that they he had observed the defendant driving at high speed on the by-pass. He followed the vehicle and he observed the defendant passing on the inside" probably screwed up his defence.

TheChizler

I think it's been pointed out before, but if all that's required to overtake on the left is to be going faster than the right, what's the point if having the legislation at all? It's would be completely redundant, as in order to overtake you HAVE to be going faster anyway.

They might as well say; you're only allowed to overtake if you're going faster than the traffic you're overtaking. Or you're only allowed go faster than traffic you're overtaking if you're going faster than traffic you're overtaking.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, we lusted (lusted? Damn autocorrect! Quoted) relevant legislation, excerpts from the ROTR and court cases where people where done for passing on the left.
So we made rhe argument, linked to the relevant documents and provided proof of people being done for it.
The con side has done nothing but thrown assertions and very dodgy legal interpretations at everyone based on which I would not chance my luck in court in a million years.
Aside from very dodgy "legal" links, I would like to see a link to a case in Ireland where someone was let off in court for passing on the left based on the "I was going faster" defence.
There hasn't been and there won't be. And you know why? Because there ain't.

wally79

blastman wrote: »

Those licence plates with 'LH' on them for lane hogger are very accurate, I've found.....

Sorry I have to disagree.

I find the worst to be the D reg. Particularly on the M1. Until you get past the Balbriggan exit motorway etiquette doesn't seem to exist.

Sean Kinvarra

whiterebel wrote: »

I'd say this "Garda Peter McAteer, who prosecuted, that they he had observed the defendant driving at high speed on the by-pass. He followed the vehicle and he observed the defendant passing on the inside" probably screwed up his defence.

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between undertaking and dangerous undertaking. A Garda would not pull you in for undertaking a hogger two lanes to your right and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot. He would pull you in if you are undertaking - overtaking constantly and aggressively.
And it IS legal to pass on inside as is in UK

http://advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3472&start=30

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between undertaking and dangerous undertaking.

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between breaking a red light at 3.30 am when no-one is around and zooming through a red in rush hour traffic.

But both are illegal.

jimgoose

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between breaking a red light at 3.30 am when no-one is around...

Mmm. A young nurse had her kneecaps blown away and her career ended last May by a respected outgoing Lord Mayor doing that very thing.

Sean Kinvarra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between breaking a red light at 3.30 am when no-one is around and zooming through a red in rush hour traffic.

But both are illegal.

No such thing as safely breaking a red light either. If caught you will be charged!

blastman

wally79 wrote: »

Sorry I have to disagree.

I find the worst to be the D reg. Particularly on the M1. Until you get past the Balbriggan exit motorway etiquette doesn't seem to exist.

Sorry, I have to agree about the etiquette if not the composition (and I leave at that exit), they're all b@st@rds (except for you and me, obviously).

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

No such thing as safely breaking a red light either. If caught you will be charged!

Classic.

blastman

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

No such thing as safely breaking a red light either. If caught you will be charged!

Of course there is, but it doesn't mean you won't be charged if caught.

Sean Kinvarra

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

Someone doing 110km/h do you mean a "hogger" and someone doing 130km/h is a "speeder". Both are committing an offense..
Why does nobody here want to tell me why they think undertaking is dangerous.

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Why does nobody here want to tell me why they think undertaking is dangerous.

I never said I thought it was dangerous, and I've said from the start of the thread that I do it myself from time to time.

Just like speeding or breaking a red light.

TheChizler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I never said I thought it was dangerous, and I've said from the start of the thread that I do it myself from time to time.

Just like speeding or breaking a red light.

Also multiple people have said and given examples of why they think it's dangerous, several of which he's included in replies and dismissed. Breakdowns while overtaking, needing clear space to the left in an emergency etc.

Sean Kinvarra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I never said I thought it was dangerous, and I've said from the start of the thread that I do it myself from time to time.

Just like speeding or breaking a red light.

So why do you think its illegal. Henry said it was both yet he cannot tell me why he thinks so. As a matter of fact he told me it was none of my business..

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Some people on here cannot tell the difference between undertaking and dangerous undertaking. A Garda would not pull you in for undertaking a hogger two lanes to your right and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot. He would pull you in if you are undertaking - overtaking constantly and aggressively.
And it IS legal to pass on inside as is in UK

http://advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3472&start=30

Once again you've totally failed to prove your claim. One ex cop's opinion on a forum is valueless.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

So why do you think its illegal. Henry said it was both yet he cannot tell me why he thinks so. As a matter of fact he told me it was none of my business..

It's illegal because the law says so.

More than once you've been told why it's dangerous, but even if it wasn't it'd still be illegal.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

No such thing as safely breaking a red light either. If caught you will be charged!

That's exactly our argument!
The weirdest thing about you arguing is that you constantly say stuff and quote legislation that undermines your own position.
There is no such thing as safely breaking a red light and following the same logic, there is no such thing as safely overtaking on the left, at least from the perspective of the Gard that is going to do you for either.
Again, its the egg throwing defense. It's not defined in law, so it MUST be legal to throw eggs at people.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's illegal because the law says so.

More than once you've been told why it's dangerous, but even if it wasn't it'd still be illegal.

I want YOU to tell me. You cannot say its dangerous yet nothing to back up your claim

Sean Kinvarra

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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".

I have driven behind and in front of buses undertaking outside traffic at around 60km/h in out of use bus lanes. I have never seen or heard of a bus driver been pulled in for undertaking when bus lane is out of use. Isn't that also dangerous and illegal.

ironclaw

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I have driven behind and in front of buses undertaking outside traffic at around 60km/h in out of use bus lanes. I have never seen or heard of a bus driver been pulled in for undertaking when bus lane is out of use. Isn't that also dangerous and illegal.

Different context entirely and a useless example. When driving near a bus lane, its reasonable to expect a bus or taxi to be using it, be that in use or out of hours. As such the danger is greatly reduced. As opposed to the completely unorthodox maneuver of cutting someone up on the left on say a motorway.

You cannot compare a bus lane to a say the M50 or a motorway. Your absolutely clutching at straws here and its frankly laughable.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Is this thread still going?
Same old circles same old arguments

It is akin, IMO, to two people standing in a room shouting at the top of their voice. No one listens to the other, and above all, neither side cares.

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I have driven behind and in front of buses undertaking outside traffic at around 60km/h in out of use bus lanes.

In Florida? Really?

Zubeneschamali

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

So why do you think its illegal.

Because keep left, pass right helps traffic flow, and we all get where we are going at the speed we choose.

In America, your roads and traffic are very different, and this isn't practical. If you have five lanes going South, exits on both left and right and a car-pool lane in the middle, keep right/pass left doesn't make sense.

creedp

ironclaw wrote: »

Different context entirely and a useless example. When driving near a bus lane, its reasonable to expect a bus or taxi to be using it, be that in use or out of hours. As such the danger is greatly reduced. As opposed to the completely unorthodox maneuver of cutting someone up on the left on say a motorway.

You cannot compare a bus lane to a say the M50 or a motorway. Your absolutely clutching at straws here and its frankly laughable.

So an example where a car can undertake legally and not be in conjested traffic? Earlier it was argued that you are required to drive in an out of hours bus lane so undertaking someone in such a lane is more bloody dangerous (IMO) that undertaking a car 2 lanes to your right on the M50 ... the greyness has just got is greyer.

In any case this argument can continue until the suns sets for the last time but the reality it unless the Gardai regularly prosectute 'undertakers' or 'lane hoggers' the the practice of undertaking will contine to be as popular and regular as it is today.

RustyNut

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

I have driven behind and in front of buses undertaking outside traffic at around 60km/h in out of use bus lanes. I have never seen or heard of a bus driver been pulled in for undertaking when bus lane is out of use. Isn't that also dangerous and illegal.

Every day I see people on the phone,driving past red lights etc. What was your point again?

_Kaiser_

Jaysus the amount of nonsense and deliberate baiting going on..

Undertaking is illegal, end of - except in the instance of slow moving traffic, or where the car ahead is turning right.
Slow moving traffic is where all lanes are congested and traffic is rolling along or stop/start.. it is NOT for situations where drivers simply want to pass cars that are "hogging" the outside lane.

As to why it's dangerous.. if people really need to have it explained to them why passing a car at speed on the wrong side is risky then it's time to go resit your driving test! That other car could move left at any point (to be in the correct lane after an overtaking move themselves, to prepare to leave the carriageway etc) and while they SHOULD check their mirrors in advance, it is not expected that there'll be some eejit with an impatience streak trying to zip past them on that side.

All the attempts to justify this behaviour that I've read on this thread is just yet another attempt at good ole Irish "cute hoorism" - trying to justify another "dodge" to get one over on... well, I'm not sure exactly? "The Man", other drivers??

It's no wonder there's unnecessary accidents every day with some of the attitudes expressed in this thread.

creedp

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Jaysus the amount of nonsense and deliberate baiting going on..

Undertaking is illegal, end of - except in the instance of slow moving traffic, or where the car ahead is turning right.
Slow moving traffic is where all lanes are congested and traffic is rolling along or stop/start.. it is NOT for situations where drivers simply want to pass cars that are "hogging" the outside lane.

As to why it's dangerous.. if people really need to have it explained to them why passing a car at speed on the wrong side is risky then it's time to go resit your driving test! That other car could move left at any point (to be in the correct lane after an overtaking move themselves, to prepare to leave the carriageway etc) and while they SHOULD check their mirrors in advance, it is not expected that there'll be some eejit with an impatience streak trying to zip past them on that side.

All the attempts to justify this behaviour that I've read on this thread is just yet another attempt at good ole Irish "cute hoorism" - trying to justify another "dodge" to get one over on... well, I'm not sure exactly? "The Man", other drivers??

It's no wonder there's unnecessary accidents every day with some of the attitudes expressed in this thread.

Not going to argue the legal aspect of this issue but as to the danger associated with undertaking the eg you give above is more relevant to a person who might be slow to move left rather but will do so if flashed or beeped at. However, when I contemplating undertaking on a motorway its because I'm dealing with a ejit who sits on the outside lane and the least likely thing they will do is move left.

All the law and the rational argument around relative risks can be debated for as long as people have the patience but are you seriously suggesting that you would sit behind a lane hogger for miles on end while the left/middle lane is empty just to prove a point or be a class prefect in terms of always doing the right thing? What would it take for you to undertake ... travel 10, 20, 30 km behind a hogger doing 80, 70, 60kmph on a motorway .. what would be your breaking point? As said before many a time .. some people drive in accordance with the prevaling circumstances they find themselves in .. while maybe some people open the glove compartment and check the ROTR everytime they are presented with a problem

ironclaw

creedp wrote: »

So an example where a car can undertake legally and not be in conjested traffic? Earlier it was argued that you are required to drive in an out of hours bus lane so undertaking someone in such a lane is more bloody dangerous (IMO) that undertaking a car 2 lanes to your right on the M50 ... the greyness has just got is greyer..

I never argued that you had to drive in an out of hours bus lane. In fact, I admitted I didn't know the relevant legislation (If such exists) and made the point that, for example, going 1 2 3 2 1 on say the N11 would be rather dangerous in comparison to say the M50 or a relevant 3 lane motorway. The difference in width, slope, lights and turns of the N11 versus the M50 makes a collision far more likely. however, on say the N11 you can expect traffic (i.e. a bus) to your left in most locations and account for it. You cannot say the same for the M50.

Either way, its common sense:

Ah, a bus lane to my left. Its during the day. I can reasonably expect a bus, taxi or bike to pass me on my left. Grand so, I'll keep an eye out.

Ah, a bus lane to my left. Its the middle of the night. I can reasonably expect a bus, taxi or bike to pass me on my left. Grand so, I'll keep an eye out.

As opposed to:

Ah, a three lane motorway. I'm overtaking someone to their right. Only a moron would attempt to pass me on my left as its completely against what is expected of the rules of the road and general driving etiquette.

They are not comparable situations.