Undertaking on the motorway

TireeTerror

"a driver may overtake on the left—

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

Slow moving traffic...no mention of how heavy it is.

I think the term "slow moving" could be open to interpretation. 200kph is "slow moving" compared to 250kph. So you could argue in court that you were travelling at the designated speed limit of 100kph in the left hand lane. As you proceeded you caught up with vehicles in the right hand lane who had not moved into the left lane as they should have. They were "slow moving" compared to you as they were travelling at 90kph. As they were "slow moving" in relation to you, you passed them safely on the left side.

Henry Ford III

TireeTerror wrote: »

"a driver may overtake on the left—

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

Slow moving traffic...no mention of how heavy it is.

I think the term "slow moving" could be open to interpretation. 200kph is "slow moving" compared to 250kph. So you could argue in court that you were travelling at the designated speed limit of 100kph in the left hand lane. As you proceeded you caught up with vehicles in the right hand lane who had not moved into the left lane as they should have. They were "slow moving" compared to you as they were travelling at 90kph. As they were "slow moving" in relation to you, you passed them safely on the left side.

Slow moving, not slower moving.

djimi

TireeTerror wrote: »

"a driver may overtake on the left—

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

Slow moving traffic...no mention of how heavy it is.

I think the term "slow moving" could be open to interpretation. 200kph is "slow moving" compared to 250kph. So you could argue in court that you were travelling at the designated speed limit of 100kph in the left hand lane. As you proceeded you caught up with vehicles in the right hand lane who had not moved into the left lane as they should have. They were "slow moving" compared to you as they were travelling at 90kph. As they were "slow moving" in relation to you, you passed them safely on the left side.

If youre driving at 100km/h in the driving lane then you are not driving in slow moving traffic.

mitosis

TireeTerror wrote: »

"a driver may overtake on the left—

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

Slow moving traffic...no mention of how heavy it is.

I think the term "slow moving" could be open to interpretation. 200kph is "slow moving" compared to 250kph. So you could argue in court that you were travelling at the designated speed limit of 100kph in the left hand lane. As you proceeded you caught up with vehicles in the right hand lane who had not moved into the left lane as they should have. They were "slow moving" compared to you as they were travelling at 90kph. As they were "slow moving" in relation to you, you passed them safely on the left side.

The statute doesn't read "compared with your speed" anywhere. The comparison is between not moving at all and moving. As otherwise observed, the UK defines this as 1st gear start/stop, that is the spirit as intended here also. Best of luck to whomever would argue 80kph was slow moving in Court

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

If youre driving at 100km/h in the driving lane then you are not driving in slow moving traffic.

For what it's worth I'd agree.

However it's a Garda's choice whether or not prosecute based on his interpretation of this term, and may come down to legal argument should it go to Court.

Ultimately widespread poor lane discipline is a major problem in Ireland.

Lots of people here trying to justify their undertaking actions on the basis of what "lane hoggers" do. I feel their pain, and thankfully don't have to deal with the horrors on the M50 very often.

It's still illegal though.

Ok lads, so im driving along in the driving lane with nothing in front when i reach a slower moving car in the middle lane i should slow down for no reason and keep at the same speed of the said car because you are so anal in you're interpretation of the RTA regarding slow moving traffic.

Get your eyes out of the books and use some common sense.

Henry Ford III

cisk wrote: »

Ok lads, so im driving along in the driving lane with nothing in front when i reach a slower moving car in the middle lane i should slow down for no reason and keep at the same speed of the said car because you are so anal in you're interpretation of the RTA regarding slow moving traffic.

Get your eyes out of the books and use some common sense.

No you should move out into lane 2, then lane 3, then back in again. No need to slow down at all.

djimi

cisk wrote: »

Ok lads, so im driving along in the driving lane with nothing in front when i reach a slower moving car in the middle lane i should slow down for no reason and keep at the same speed of the said car because you are so anal in you're interpretation of the RTA regarding slow moving traffic.

Get your eyes out of the books and use some common sense.

Common sense is all well and good until you get pulled over for breaking the law. Most people can drive at 90mph quite comfortably and safely on an empty motorway, but they can have no complaint if picked up by a speed camera.

Whatever way you want to intepret "slow moving traffic", if you are driving at 100km/h then you will not get away with overtaking on the left if caught. Not a hope.

What you choose to do is your own business, but by the letter of the law, if you are in the driving lane and encounter slower moving car in the middle lane then you should move into the outside lane to pass them and then move back into the driving lane again. Stupid as it may sound, thats the law in this country.

TireeTerror

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No you should move out into lane 2, then lane 3, then back in again. No need to slow down at all.

Ah but he would have to slow down if there was only two lanes, or if lane 3 was similarly occupied by slower moving vehicles.

There are two solutions. The first one is to allow overtaking in every lane so long as it is safe to do so.

The second one is for the Police to start enforcing the law and pulling over and fining every driver who doesn't move left when they should.

The easiest way is to allow overtaking in all lanes, it could happen overnight.

Henry Ford III

TireeTerror wrote: »

Ah but he would have to slow down if there was only two lanes, or if lane 3 was similarly occupied by slower moving vehicles.

There are two solutions. The first one is to allow overtaking in every lane so long as it is safe to do so.

The second one is for the Police to start enforcing the law and pulling over and fining every driver who doesn't move left when they should.

The easiest way is to allow overtaking in all lanes, it could happen overnight.

Can't see it ever happening, despite how convenient it might seem.

GTE

TireeTerror wrote: »

Ah but he would have to slow down if there was only two lanes, or if lane 3 was similarly occupied by slower moving vehicles.

There are two solutions. The first one is to allow overtaking in every lane so long as it is safe to do so.

The second one is for the Police to start enforcing the law and pulling over and fining every driver who doesn't move left when they should.

The easiest way is to allow overtaking in all lanes, it could happen overnight.

Nope, his original question was about a three lane road, see his use of the word middle.

If you stick to what the poster was describing, then Henry Fords post is correct. You just have to jump across two lanes to do the overtake. It is annoying but that is just the way it has to be done.

The "solution" of allowing over/undertaking in any lane safely possible is just a workaround for the actual issue where people:

1) Hog the middle lane as the post described
2) Do not speed up to the limit for overtaking moves as you added.

Allowing people overtake anywhere will just allow the people who fall into points 1 and 2 drive like a**holes.

Simple.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Can't see it ever happening, despite how convenient it might seem.

Nor can I sadly. It makes the most sense though; as far as I see it there is absolutely nothing dangerous about overtaking on the left, except that in this country it is no permitted so people dont tend to pay proper attention when moving left. If people were aware that cars could pass on both sides then passing on the left would be no more dangerous than passing on the right.

djimi

bbk wrote: »

Allowing people overtake anywhere will just allow the people who fall into points 1 and 2 drive like a**holes.

It will also mean that them driving like assholes wont affect other road users anywhere near as much.

naughtysmurf

Just back from the US where I was regulary on one of the Interstates, three lanes in each direction plus slip / exit lanes not sure if it's legal or not but undertaking is the norm from what I could see.

Thought it worked grand, takes a few minutes to adjust to it but once you know to expect it, it's not a problem and I thought it kept things moving along even with high car numbers on the road

From dual carriage way upwards undertaking is common, in Florida anyway

Henry Ford III

naughtysmurf wrote: »

Just back from the US where I was regulary on one of the Interstates, three lanes in each direction plus slip / exit lanes not sure if it's legal or not but undertaking is the norm from what I could see.

Thought it worked grand, takes a few minutes to adjust to it but once you know to expect it, it's not a problem and I thought it kept things moving along even with high car numbers on the road

From dual carriage way upwards undertaking is common, in Florida anyway

In the USA you can pass on either side.

You can't do that (legally at least) here.

Chris_Heilong

look at what the top two threads on motors are today:rolleyes:

whomitconcerns

driving home the other evening in inside lane M50, car in front of me doing 70/80 so I pulled into the middle lane, car in front in middle lane then only doing 80/90. I quick flash lights to him to pull in, (there were cars in lane 3, lane 1 was now clear). He didn't move in so I quick flash again, he pulls in.

I pulled back to inside lane then and he flashed me aggressively from behind then pulled out and came along side me in the middle lane and brought down his window and started shouting and gesturing at me while pressing horn. He blocked me pulling into centre lane and slowed down (there was a car in front of me in lane 1).

Wasnt really sure what to do then but the car in front of me went into the aux lane so I just put my foot on the floor to get away from the loon...

Great fun....

naughtysmurf

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In the USA you can pass on either side.

You can't do that (legally at least) here.

Fair enough, main point was that I thought it seemed to work well whether it was a dual carriageway or motorway

GTE

djimi wrote: »

It will also mean that them driving like assholes wont affect other road users anywhere near as much.

Absolutely, but it is not going to solve any fundamental problems with how we as a country drive. I take your point but it is just the complete wrong way to go about fixing something wrong.

bmaxi

naughtysmurf wrote: »

Just back from the US where I was regulary on one of the Interstates, three lanes in each direction plus slip / exit lanes not sure if it's legal or not but undertaking is the norm from what I could see.

Thought it worked grand, takes a few minutes to adjust to it but once you know to expect it, it's not a problem and I thought it kept things moving along even with high car numbers on the road

From dual carriage way upwards undertaking is common, in Florida anyway

I'd say it's probably legal, they have a police force in the U.S.

Henry Ford III

I think it's a question of education (or perhaps re education) and even enforcement.

If you knew you'd get done (fines and points) for lane hogging/undertaking lane discipline would surely improve.

I'm not sure whether the core issue is ignorance or apathy.

TheChizler

djimi wrote: »

Nor can I sadly. It makes the most sense though; as far as I see it there is absolutely nothing dangerous about overtaking on the left, except that in this country it is no permitted so people dont tend to pay proper attention when moving left. If people were aware that cars could pass on both sides then passing on the left would be no more dangerous than passing on the right.

Think about it, all the exits and hard shoulders are on the left. Do you really want to be blocking someone who possibly desperately needs to get to their slip road or hard shoulder cause their car is breaking down? What if there is an accident in the right hand carriageway that spills over to the left or someone crossing the road from the median and they need to swerve to free space that exists only to their left.

Whether they should be on the right or not is neither here not there, the fact is the situation exists. Accidents happen most often when two people do something incorrect, two wrongs don't make a right etc.

Makes an awful amount of sense to design the laws so everyone should at all times have a free exit path to get them out of any situation.

whomitconcerns

i thought it was always apathy..but my mother told me that she always uses middle lane as left lane is too slow my father does it so he wont have to overtake as often....i tried arguing...but Im just impatient evidentaly :P

Cleveland Hot Pocket

naughtysmurf wrote: »

Fair enough, main point was that I thought it seemed to work well whether it was a dual carriageway or motorway

It would be a welcome change here.
The US have a few motoring laws that would work well elsewhere imo, the overtaking either side one is one example, another is the "right turn on red" (or left turn on red if it were here)

Cleveland Hot Pocket

whomitconcerns wrote: »

i thought it was always apathy..but my mother told me that she always uses middle lane as left lane is too slow my father does it so he wont have to overtake as often....i tried arguing...but Im just impatient evidentaly :P

Yes I have had that argument with both of the parents meself but to no avail. It is that generation and older that is the worst part of this problem imo.

djimi

TheChizler wrote: »

Think about it, all the exits and hard shoulders are on the left. Do you really want to be blocking someone who possibly desperately needs to get to their slip road or hard shoulder cause their car is breaking down? What if there is an accident in the right hand carriageway that spills over to the left or someone crossing the road from the median and they need to swerve to free space that exists in only one dorecti

I dont see how allowing overtaking on the left changes anything? As it stands all cars should be in the left hand lane unless overtaking anyway, so if anything it would ease congestion in the left hand lane.

djimi

bbk wrote: »

Absolutely, but it is not going to solve any fundamental problems with how we as a country drive. I take your point but it is just the complete wrong way to go about fixing something wrong.

Dont get me wrong, it would be better to enforce lane discipline, but that doesnt look like happening any time soon (not while we have a police force who have basically zero interest in enforcing any traffic laws bar speeding and drink driving), so as an alternative it might help the average motorist.

dr.fuzzenstein

dillo2k10 wrote: »

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

Shouldn't people expect the unexpected?
Every single time someone starts a thread about having had an accident, the response is "You should not have had an accident, because you should drive in a manner that would allow you to safely stop/avoid an obstacle materialising out of thin air 1 meter in front of your bumper!"

Jesus.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No you should move out into lane 2, then lane 3, then back in again. No need to slow down at all.

Henry Ford I'm not sure, with your posts today, whether you're giving the official protocol or your own opinions!

In this case, officially that might be correct but in the Real World, the guy was doing everything right and should just continue on straight. If some pleb wants to lane hog then that's his problem.

Of course there could be negative consequences to undertaking because a Cop could pull you, but I believe its a risk well worth taking until common sense prevails and the real culprits - the lane hoggers - are the ones that are targeted by police.

Henry Ford III

Jesus. wrote: »

Henry Ford I'm not sure, with your posts today, whether you're giving the official protocol or your own opinions!

In this case, officially that might be correct but in the Real World, the guy was doing everything right and should just continue on straight. If some pleb wants to lane hog then that's his problem.

Of course there could be negative consequences to undertaking because a Cop could pull you, but I believe its a risk well worth taking until common sense prevails and the real culprits - the lane hoggers - are the ones that are targeted by police.

You can't justify bad driving by saying someone else's bad driving made me do it.

Sometimes the rules are difficult and/or frustrating to follow. Doesn't stop them being the rules however.