Undertaking on the motorway

Sean Kinvarra

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Looking at RotR and "Must"

"You must normally overtake on the right. However, you are allowed to overtake on the left in the situations listed below.

You may overtake on the left when

You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane."

So the Eules of the a Road say you must normally overtake on the right, and sets out when the normal rule does not apply. All as set out in the legislation.

Have you read the booklet on Rules on Motorways? If not you should, for it's about motorways and you will not find anything about undertaking. You will find a lot of must and must nots on motorways, all are legal requirements but none of them concern overtaking on inside, undertaking, passing on inside or whatever you want to call it. It also says nothing about taking right or left turns What you have posted is a direct copy from the SI 1964! I think the first motorway in Ireland opened around the early eighties!!

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You well know what the legislation says Sean. To paraphrase, in an effort to hopefully enable you "get it" it says - always overtake on the right. It's ok to pass on the left however in these 3 circumstances (the 3rd of which has been shown conclusively to mean in stop/start or congested conditions).

I've no idea why you continue to rehash your failed arguments.

p.s. must not and do not both mean you are not allowed do something (undertake).

Henry I'm surprised with you to say that must not means the same as do not.
Must not is a legal obligation where Do not is only advisory. Have you not read the introduction of Rules of the Road

cython

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Have you read the booklet on Rules on Motorways? If not you should, for it's about motorways and you will not find anything about undertaking. You will find a lot of must and must nots on motorways, all are legal requirements but none of them concern overtaking on inside, undertaking, passing on inside or whatever you want to call it. It also says nothing about taking right or left turns

Have you still not taken on board yet that the RoTR document is merely an interpretation of the actual laws, and as such is not the true reference for any of the discussed scenarios?

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

What you have posted is a direct copy from the SI 1964! I think the first motorway in Ireland opened around the early eighties!!

I really don't think any more can be said about your contributions to the thread at this point. However I will try to bring to your attention that the RTA has been updated several times since then, and it has not been deemed necessary to distinguish motorways from other roads in this respect (while the motorways act has provided for other distinctions) in any of these revisions. So the age is could hardly be any more irrelevant.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Have you read the booklet on Rules on Motorways? If not you should, for it's about motorways and you will not find anything about undertaking. You will find a lot of must and must nots on motorways, all are legal requirements but none of them concern overtaking on inside, undertaking, passing on inside or whatever you want to call it. It also says nothing about taking right or left turns What you have posted is a direct copy from the SI 1964! I think the first motorway in Ireland opened around the early eighties!!

Maybe if you followed your own advice and read, I was the person who showed that the SI was amended in among other years 1997 and the most recent version is 2012. It also defines roads, and motorways are not excluded from that definition. The 1964 version has been amended here is 1997

"(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

(5) A driver may only overtake on the left—

( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next 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."

Amended in 2012


and

(ii) by substituting for sub-article (5) the following:

“(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

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

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

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

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

BTW I read the rules of the road about 25 years ago for my test, I now read the road traffic acts and SI's as they are the actual statement of the law. If the amendments did not apply to motorways they would have to make it clear.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Henry I'm surprised with you to say that must not means the same as do not.
Must not is a legal obligation where Do not is only advisory. Have you not read the introduction of Rules of the Road

Must or must not is a legal requirement did you read the rules must normally overtake on the right. THE RULES OF THE ROAD ARE NOT THE LAW, ONE IS CONVICTED OF A BREACH OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACTS NOT THE RULES OF THE ROAD.

dr.fuzzenstein

I muttered, knocking my knuckles through the glass, and stretching an arm out to seize the importunate branch; instead of which, my fingers closed on the fingers of a little, ice-cold hand! The intense horror of nightmare came over me: I tried to draw back my arm, but the hand clung to it, and a most melancholy voice sobbed, 'Let me in—let me in!' 'Who are you?' I asked, struggling, meanwhile, to disengage myself. 'Catherine Linton,' it replied, shiveringly (why did I think of Linton? I had read Earnshaw twenty times for Linton) 'I'm come home: I'd lost my way on the moor!' As it spoke, I discerned, obscurely, a child's face looking through the window. Terror made me cruel; and, finding it useless to attempt shaking the creature off, I pulled its wrist on to the broken pane, and rubbed it to and fro till the blood ran down and soaked the bedclothes: still it wailed, 'Let me in!' and maintaine its tenacious gripe, almost maddening me with fear. 'How can I!' I said at length. 'Let me go, if you want me to let you in!' The fingers relaxed, I snatched mine through the hole, hurriedly piled the books up in a pyramid against it, and stopped my ears to exclude the lamentable prayer. I seemed to keep them closed above a quarter of an hour; yet, the instant I listened again, there was the doleful cry moaning on! 'Begone!' I shouted. 'I'll never let you in, not if you beg for twenty years.' 'It is twenty years,' mourned the voice: 'twenty years. I've been a waif for twenty years!'

Sean Kinvarra

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I muttered, knocking my knuckles through the glass, and stretching an arm out to seize the importunate branch; instead of which, my fingers closed on the fingers of a little, ice-cold hand! The intense horror of nightmare came over me: I tried to draw back my arm, but the hand clung to it, and a most melancholy voice sobbed, 'Let me in—let me in!' 'Who are you?' I asked, struggling, meanwhile, to disengage myself. 'Catherine Linton,' it replied, shiveringly (why did I think of Linton? I had read Earnshaw twenty times for Linton) 'I'm come home: I'd lost my way on the moor!' As it spoke, I discerned, obscurely, a child's face looking through the window. Terror made me cruel; and, finding it useless to attempt shaking the creature off, I pulled its wrist on to the broken pane, and rubbed it to and fro till the blood ran down and soaked the bedclothes: still it wailed, 'Let me in!' and maintaine its tenacious gripe, almost maddening me with fear. 'How can I!' I said at length. 'Let me go, if you want me to let you in!' The fingers relaxed, I snatched mine through the hole, hurriedly piled the books up in a pyramid against it, and stopped my ears to exclude the lamentable prayer. I seemed to keep them closed above a quarter of an hour; yet, the instant I listened again, there was the doleful cry moaning on! 'Begone!' I shouted. 'I'll never let you in, not if you beg for twenty years.' 'It is twenty years,' mourned the voice: 'twenty years. I've been a waif for twenty years!'

   What find I here?
Fair Portia’s counterfeit! What demigod
Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes?
Or whether, riding on the balls of mine,
Seem they in motion? Here are severed lips,
Parted with sugar breath. So sweet a bar
Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs,
The painter plays the spider and hath woven
A golden mesh t' entrap the hearts of men
Faster than gnats in cobwebs. But her eyes—
How could he see to do them? Having made one,
Methinks it should have power to steal both his
And leave itself unfurnished. Yet look how far
The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow

Indricotherium

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.

If you are summonsed for this and you are taking this course of action please pm me the date / time of the case.

Larry Wildman

What should one do in these circumstances:

- You're driving along in the left lane of an empty three lane motorway at 120kph.

- You then come across one car travelling at 90kph in the right lane (i.e. two lanes across).

degsie

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What should one do in these circumstances:

- You're driving along in the left lane of an empty three lane motorway at 120kph.

- You then come across one car travelling at 90kph in the right lane (i.e. two lanes across).

Slow down to 90kph so as not to freak out the other driver, stay a little ways back to allow the driver to safely cross over to the middle or leftmost lane, then proceed to overtake in a safe manner as per ROTR. Simples.

Sean Kinvarra

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What should one do in these circumstances:

- You're driving along in the left lane of an empty three lane motorway at 120kph.

- You then come across one car travelling at 90kph in the right lane (i.e. two lanes across).

Larry if you came across a car travelling at 50kmh 4 lanes to your right you'll still get people on here saying its illegal and dangerous to pass in driving lane. Yet think its safe to drive all the way around and back again. That's 10 lane changes!

Sean Kinvarra

Indricotherium wrote: »

If you are summonsed for this and you are taking this course of action please pm me the date / time of the case.

The only way this could happen is if you under- overtake without due care or dangerously weaving in and out of lanes Driving at 120km/h in inside lane while hoggers at 50km/h I would consider dangerous but I have never heard of any motorist even cautioned for simply passing in inside lane and doubt I ever will. Unless it's here on boards.ie of course.

djimi

degsie wrote: »

Slow down to 90kph so as not to freak out the other driver, stay a little ways back to allow the driver to safely cross over to the middle or leftmost lane, then proceed to overtake in a safe manner as per ROTR. Simples.

Its one of those scenarios where whats legal and whats safe and makes common sense are somewhat at odds with one another. In this scenario the safest thing to do is just proceed in your lane; the other car poses no danger to you whatsoever, and even if they do decide to randomly swerve across two lanes you will be passed them before its an issue. For my money this is a whole lot safer than slowing down dramatically on a motorway and potentially causing a dangerous rolling roadblock.

Of course, this would be considered to be illegal as per the traffic law, but I dont see any situation where a Garda pulls someone over for this.

corktina

is this still going on? jeez

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

is this still going on? jeez

I've given up on this a few pages back. This thread is like trying to sing There's a Hole in the Bucket to the end.

creedp

djimi wrote: »

Its one of those scenarios where whats legal and whats safe and makes common sense are somewhat at odds with one another. In this scenario the safest thing to do is just proceed in your lane; the other car poses no danger to you whatsoever, and even if they do decide to randomly swerve across two lanes you will be passed them before its an issue. For my money this is a whole lot safer than slowing down dramatically on a motorway and potentially causing a dangerous rolling roadblock.

Of course, this would be considered to be illegal as per the traffic law, but I dont see any situation where a Garda pulls someone over for this.

A common sense response to a given circumstance.

In fairness suggesting the person in the left hand lane should slow down and wait for the dawdler 2 lanes to the right to realise that there is someone behind them and 2 lanes to the left wanting the overtake and so a light bulb moment goes off and they cross over to the left hand lane to allow this person to overtake them safely is about are far from a common sense approach as could be imagined. In my simple view this take the phrase 'the law is an ass' to an even greater plateau, i.e. the person who rigidly applies the law even when in the specif circumstances 'the law is an ass' is a much bigger 'ass' than even the law!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I've given up on this a few pages back. This thread is like trying to sing There's a Hole in the Bucket to the end.

This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry,
The difference between "MUST NOT" and "DO NOT, SHOULD NOT",

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BMJD

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone
It's with Sean Kinvara in the slow lane

degsie

BMJD wrote: »

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone
It's with Sean Kinvara in the slow lane

No such thing as a 'slow lane'

Pro Hoc Vice

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Henry,
The difference between "MUST NOT" and "DO NOT, SHOULD NOT",

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

OK I'll bite, so what the reference in the ROTR say must overtake on the right.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Henry,
The difference between "MUST NOT" and "DO NOT, SHOULD NOT",

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Highway code (and ROTR) are merely legislative interpretations. What you can and can't do are set out in the relevant legislation which has been quoted here several times at this stage.

So trying to make hay here on perceived differences of varying ways of telling us "don't do this" is futile and doomed to failure.

It's actually bizzare to read anyone suggesting that there are varying degrees of wrongs suggested by the ROTR. Venal/mortal sins with undertaking at the lower end?

The legislative side of this argument has been won, and you've been comprehensively discredited. Repeating the same losing arguments further weakens your position and frankly makes you look either a bit limited, or perhaps acting as a troll.

There is some merit in this "common sense" notion - getting stuck in lane is a right pain - but be under no illusion if someone's excuse for undertaking is "a lane hogger forced me to pass on the inside" they'll get done for it if seen.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Highway code (and ROTR) are merely legislative interpretations. What you can and can't do are set out in the relevant legislation which has been quoted here several times at this stage.

So trying to make hay here on perceived differences of varying ways of telling us "don't do this" is futile and doomed to failure.

It's actually bizzare to read anyone suggesting that there are varying degrees of wrongs suggested by the ROTR. Venal/mortal sins with undertaking at the lower end?

The legislative side of this argument has been won, and you've been comprehensively discredited. Repeating the same losing arguments further weakens your position and frankly makes you look either a bit limited, or perhaps acting as a troll.

There is some merit in this "common sense" notion - getting stuck in lane is a right pain - but be under no illusion if someone's excuse for undertaking is "a lane hogger forced me to pass on the inside" they'll get done for it if seen.

That's the thanks I get for correcting your mistakes. Just remember the only words used in the R of the R to say that something is mandatory or prohibited are must/ must not In the SI they are shall/ shall not.

Anyway Henry I'm heading on a long drive to Boston then heading wesht to Idaho. I'll have a little present when for you I get back. So until then, slain go foill, a chara

Pro Hoc Vice

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

That's the thanks I get for correcting your mistakes. Just remember the only words used in the R of the R to say that something is mandatory or prohibited are must/ must not In the SI they are shall/ shall not.

Anyway Henry I'm heading on a long drive to Boston then heading wesht to Idaho. I'll have a little present when for you I get back. So until then, slain go foill, a chara

Just give the **** up.

Sean Kinvarra

BMJD wrote: »

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone
It's with Sean Kinvara in the slow lane

O sorry BMJD. But before I go, where can I find a shlow lane? Ish it left of the fasht lane? Everybody join in, 1. 2. 3.
So long fair well
I hate to say good byee
To you, and you, and you and you and youu
La la la la la la la
La la la la la!!!!!!

dr.fuzzenstein

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

O sorry BMJD. But before I go, where can I find a shlow lane? Ish it left of the fasht lane? Everybody join in, 1. 2. 3.
So long fair well
I hate to say good byee
To you, and you, and you and you and youu
La la la la la la la
La la la la la!!!!!!

Mind how you go now and beware of those crazy yanks.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

...Anyway Henry I'm heading on a long drive to Boston then heading wesht to Idaho. I'll have a little present when for you I get back. So until then, slain go foill, a chara

Once again Sean fails to deliver