Is this legal/appropriate?

Iwannahurl

This driver, presumably under instruction, is overtaking a stationary bus by driving on the hatched area.






Is this legal? Is it appropriate instruction for a HGV learner driver?

arleitiss

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This driver, presumably under instruction, is overtaking a stationary bus by driving on the hatched area.






Is this legal? Is it appropriate instruction for a HGV learner driver?

I wonder why is car behind also on that area with all four wheels

Iwannahurl

When in Rome... :rolleyes:

Learned from the same crew perhaps?

ADIDriving

Were you driving the truck or is this a random question?
The laws are often over simplified. Distinctly black and white.
It is often appropriate to overtake on an island, solid white line, etc. It is an reasoned decision to be made each time you approach an obstacle. Why is the vehicle stopped? How long is it going to be there? Is it safe? Etc.

kippy

Isn't the bus parked on Double Yellow lines? (I suppose there is a bus stop there)

Del2005

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This driver, presumably under instruction, is overtaking a stationary bus by driving on the hatched area.






Is this legal? Is it appropriate instruction for a HGV learner driver?

It's illegal to overtake with the continuous white line. But is a bus stop legal on double yellows? I know it's not parking.

As for appropriate, everyone does it and once the instructor informs the driver not to do it in the test no harm IMO.

Wishbone Ash

ADIDriving wrote: »

It is an reasoned decision to be made each time you approach an obstacle. Why is the vehicle stopped? How long is it going to be there? Is it safe? Etc.

Precisely - it's impossible to know from a still image. Lets say the bus stops for 15 minutes. No reasonably person would expect to remain stopped behind it when it would be reasonably safe to pass.

If one came across a broken down vehicle opposite continuous white lines, would one wait behind until a recovery truck arrived? It's illegal to drive on a footpath but when driving a very large/long vehicle on a constricted junction it's often necessary to mount the footpath to make the turn.

Iwannahurl

ADIDriving wrote: »

Were you driving the truck or is this a random question?
The laws are often over simplified. Distinctly black and white.
It is often appropriate to overtake on an island, solid white line, etc. It is an reasoned decision to be made each time you approach an obstacle. Why is the vehicle stopped? How long is it going to be there? Is it safe? Etc.

I wasn't driving the truck, but the question is not random.

The vehicle is clearly a bus, and it has stopped at a bus stop to pick up a passenger (and possibly to let others alight).

Where does an average driver such as myself look for an authoritative source in order to inform decisions such as driving on the hatched area as illustrated?

For example, if I was pulled by AGS for doing so, can I argue the case as you describe, and what authority would I reference?

Wishbone Ash

Del2005 wrote: »

once the instructor informs the driver not to do it in the test

I'd imagine a tester would expect the driver to pass if their was no sign of the bus moving off. Failure to make adequate progress etc.

kippy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Precisely - it's impossible to know from a still image. Lets say the bus stops for 15 minutes. No reasonably person would expect to remain stopped behind it when it would be reasonably safe to pass.

If one came across a broken down vehicle opposite continuous white lines, would one wait behind until a recovery truck arrived? It's illegal to drive on a footpath but when driving a very large/long vehicle on a constricted junction it's often necessary to mount the footpath to make the turn.

It's a points offence if the law were strictly followed:
http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/appendix_4.pdf

Cathalog

In the ROTR, it definitely states that you may cross a continuous white line "for access". Now, a hatch marking is a bit of a gray area.

gbob

And if the truck or any other vehicle overtaking that parked bus was to have an accident whilst crossing that solid white line the bus driver could be implicated, I make this point from the point of view of the bus driver who is forced to break the law and put others in danger due to poor planning, implementation and enforcement of the ROTR.

Del2005

gbob wrote: »

And if the truck or any other vehicle overtaking that parked bus was to have an accident whilst crossing that solid white line the bus driver could be implicated, I make this point from the point of view of the bus driver who is forced to break the law and put others in danger due to poor planning, implementation and enforcement of the ROTR.

The bus isn't parked, it's illegal to park on double yellows, it's in the process of loading/unloading passengers.

No one forced the truck, or any driver, to over take the bus. So the bus driver can't be held responsible for others crossing into the ghost island. The only way the bus driver could be accountable would be if they signalled the truck to pass.

Del2005

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd imagine a tester would expect the driver to pass if their was no sign of the bus moving off. Failure to make adequate progress etc.

The auld conundrum. Get done for crossing the white line or get done for not crossing the white line. How long do you wait? Thought I'd assume if the driver remains in the bus you'd wait and if they got out pass.

mathepac

The ROTR simply states (in red) that you do not enter or drive over hatched areas.

The truck and car are completely in the wrong and I agree with @gbob, it's a disgraceful lack of planning.

The obvious thing to do is for the bus-company / LA to take a chunk out of the wide footpath to create an area that allows the bus to pull in so as not to impede other traffic. This of course creates a problem for the bus-driver in getting back into traffic and it means thought, work and expense for the bus-company & LA and responsibility for the operation of the re-designed road; far easier to maintain the status quo and push the decision-making and responsibility for adverse outcomes onto others.

gbob

Del2005 wrote: »

The bus isn't parked, it's illegal to park on double yellows, it's in the process of loading/unloading passengers.

No one forced the truck, or any driver, to over take the bus. So the bus driver can't be held responsible for others crossing into the ghost island. The only way the bus driver could be accountable would be if they signalled the truck to pass.

When does stopping become parking? Is there an allowable amount of time one can stop on a double yellow before it becomes parking? Two weeks ago a colleague was boarded by a member of the traffic corps and given a warning for exactly the scenario as pictured here, stopped at a bus stop on a solid white line forcing traffic to pass illegally. Unfortunately we live in a reactive rather than a proactive state where the 'sure it'll be grand' attitude prevails until something goes wrong, and when it does it'll be the lowest ranked scapegoat that pays the price, ie the bus driver.

Iwannahurl

gbob wrote: »

When does stopping become parking? Is there an allowable amount of time one can stop on a double yellow before it becomes parking? Two weeks ago a colleague was boarded by a member of the traffic corps and given a warning for exactly the scenario as pictured here, stopped at a bus stop on a solid white line forcing traffic to pass illegally. Unfortunately we live in a reactive rather than a proactive state where the 'sure it'll be grand' attitude prevails until something goes wrong, and when it does it'll be the lowest ranked scapegoat that pays the price, ie the bus driver.

It'll be grand, it'll do, everyone does it.

Irish society succinctly summarised in three phrases.

The third phrase above is one I hear very often when on one of my favourite (high) hobby horses: obstruction of footpaths by motor vehicles. I wonder where they get it from?

gbob

''The third phrase above is one I hear very often when on one of my favourite (high) hobby horses: obstruction of footpaths by motor vehicles. I wonder where they get it from?''

I couldn't agree more, that and parking in a disabled bay while 'I'm just running to the shop' makes my blood boil.

ADIDriving

Iwannahurl; Alway hard to tell from still photos. The first two pics might be legal IF somebody is literally getting in or out. Otherwise, very wrong. The third seems fine. The idea of not parking on a green margin applies to rural roads. It looks like everyone can get past on the road.The last two are terrible. You can't get your buggy past.
PS. I expect you will need to remove pics with school names. Mods may cite some rule.

Iwannahurl

Thanks. Where can I find a source for the rule which states that the ban on parking on grass verges only applies to rural roads?

Back on topic, I'd appreciate some leads in relation to the questions below:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where does an average driver such as myself look for an authoritative source in order to inform decisions such as driving on the hatched area as illustrated?

For example, if I was pulled by AGS for doing so, can I argue the case as you describe, and what authority would I reference?

mathepac

ADIDriving wrote: »

... Alway hard to tell from still photos. ...

No it's not; the pictures are perfectly clear.

ADIDriving wrote: »

... The first two pics might be legal IF somebody is literally getting in or out ...

Not according to the ROTR. Check the first picture again and check the ROTR ....

ADIDriving wrote: »

... The third seems fine. The idea of not parking on a green margin applies to rural roads. It looks like everyone can get past on the road...

Not according to the ROTR.

ADIDriving wrote: »

...The last two are terrible. You can't get your buggy past...

The last two could, if spotted by a Guard, lead to a prosecution for dangerous parking i.e. forcing pedestrians off the footpath and onto the roadway. On conviction, this offence carries 5 penalty points. That's a bit more than "terrible"; it's bordering on criminal.

ADIDriving wrote: »

... PS. I expect you will need to remove pics with school names. Mods may cite some rule.

For what reason? On the basis that the pupils must pay to be told "do as I say, not as I do" by their instructors? I'd be inclined to ring them and ask for their comments.

mathepac

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks. Where can I find a source for the rule which states that the ban on parking on grass verges only applies to rural roads? ...

You can't. The ROTR (page116) states as follows:

"Even if you do not see a particular "no parking" sign or yellow line on the road, you must not stop or park:
...
[lots of exclusions here, ending with]

Wholly or partly on a footpath, a grass margin, a cycle lane or a track or a median strip."

Simplez. Colour is theirs, bolding is mine.

seamus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

For example, if I was pulled by AGS for doing so, can I argue the case as you describe, and what authority would I reference?

Section 5 of the Road Traffic Bye-Laws states that the bye-laws do not apply where it is not possible to comply with them because of an obstruction to traffic.

This basically means that where an obstruction exists in your lane you are permitted to cross a continuous white line or enter a hatched area in order to get around it.

What constitutes an "obstruction" is really the kicker. A bus stopped for 5 minutes while they deal with a lot of difficult passengers clearly is. A bus stopped for ten seconds while they take on one passenger, maybe isn't.

polskafanka

I am learner driver and few times I was forced by a bus to overtake and I often see it when I am on bus myself.
Do not the same rules apply to buses, he should check his mirrors and move of when road is clear! I usually wait and let them first, but they should not force cars to stop or overtake and just move without concern for other vehicles.

Del2005

gbob wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

The bus isn't parked, it's illegal to park on double yellows, it's in the process of loading/unloading passengers.

No one forced the truck, or any driver, to over take the bus. So the bus driver can't be held responsible for others crossing into the ghost island. The only way the bus driver could be accountable would be if they signalled the truck to pass.

When does stopping become parking? Is there an allowable amount of time one can stop on a double yellow before it becomes parking? Two weeks ago a colleague was boarded by a member of the traffic corps and given a warning for exactly the scenario as pictured here, stopped at a bus stop on a solid white line forcing traffic to pass illegally. Unfortunately we live in a reactive rather than a proactive state where the 'sure it'll be grand' attitude prevails until something goes wrong, and when it does it'll be the lowest ranked scapegoat that pays the price, ie the bus driver.

Was your friend driving a bus? If not then they broke the law and deserved the giving out to. It's illegal for a car to stop in a bus bay and it's illegal to stop a bus outside the bay.

But again no one forced the other drivers to break the law and the Garda should have dealt with them aswel as your friend.

That's the major issue in this thread and country. The A La Carte way our laws enforcers enforce our laws and the terrible standard of driving they display to the public. Why bother worring about white lines , ghost islands, parking on the footpath etc when there is little chance anything will happen to you.

mathepac

The bus in the OP is stopped illegally. No ifs ands or buts about it. Read page 116 of the ROTR or refer to my post #22 above.

gbob

Del2005 wrote: »

Was your friend driving a bus? If not then they broke the law and deserved the giving out to. It's illegal for a car to stop in a bus bay and it's illegal to stop a bus outside the bay.

But again no one forced the other drivers to break the law and the Garda should have dealt with them aswel as your friend.

That's the major issue in this thread and country. The A La Carte way our laws enforcers enforce our laws and the terrible standard of driving they display to the public. Why bother worring about white lines , ghost islands, parking on the footpath etc when there is little chance anything will happen to you.

Sorry should have clarified he was driving a scheduled service bus that was timetabled to stop at that location.. and the lack of enforcement or selective enforcement is exactly the problem.

ADIDriving

mathepac wrote: »

No it's not; the pictures are perfectly clear.

Not according to the ROTR. Check the first picture again and check the ROTR ....

Not according to the ROTR.

The last two could, if spotted by a Guard, lead to a prosecution for dangerous parking i.e. forcing pedestrians off the footpath and onto the roadway. On conviction, this offence carries 5 penalty points. That's a bit more than "terrible"; it's bordering on criminal.

For what reason? On the basis that the pupils must pay to be told "do as I say, not as I do" by their instructors? I'd be inclined to ring them and ask for their comments.

Non-application to certain vehicles.6. (1) A prohibition or restriction on parking on a roadway indicated by means of a traffic sign or imposed by this Part of these rules shall not apply to:—
Quoting from the Statute Book, Dublin Parking and Traffic Rules, 1981.
6. Non-application to certain vehicles.
A prohibition or restriction on parking on a roadway indicated by means of a traffic sign or imposed by this Part of these rules shall not apply to:-
g. a vehicle parked while a passenger is entering or leaving it.

The rules of the road is a basic guideline. It does not contain all the facts.

Terrible
ter·ri·ble/ˈterəbəl/


Adjective:

• Extremely and shockingly or distressingly bad or serious: "a terrible crime".
• Causing or likely to cause terror; sinister: "a terrible smile".
  More then terrible, really?
  
  PS. The car on the grass is technically illegally parked as it is on grass. It seems to be outside a house. No Garda would prosecute.

mathepac

ADIDriving wrote: »

Non-application to certain vehicles.6. (1) A prohibition or restriction on parking on a roadway indicated by means of a traffic sign or imposed by this Part of these rules shall not apply to:—
Quoting from the Statute Book, Dublin Parking and Traffic Rules, 1981.
6. Non-application to certain vehicles.
A prohibition or restriction on parking on a roadway indicated by means of a traffic sign or imposed by this Part of these rules shall not apply to:-
g. a vehicle parked while a passenger is entering or leaving it.
....

The pictures above show cars parked on pavements, not roadways. Pavements are for pedestrians, not for motor-vehicles.

Even if parked on the roadway, there is no indication of anyone entering or alighting from any of the vehicles. Unless you were present at the scenes pictured before or after the pictures were taken I can't see how you can interpret the actions of passengers not visible in the photos.

In one picture the car is parked facing against the flow of traffic contrary to the guidelines in the ROTR. The instructor concerned evidently knows better than the ROTR.

The purpose of the guideline (to have cars park on the near-side kerb) is to avoid having to cross two lanes of traffic when moving off again.

ADIDriving wrote: »

... The rules of the road is a basic guideline. It does not contain all the facts...

I thought the guidelines and instructions in the ROTR were to guide the behaviour and actions of road-users. I'm surprised to learn the booklet is a source of facts.

ADIDriving wrote: »

...
Terrible
ter·ri·ble/ˈterəbəl/


Adjective:

• Extremely and shockingly or distressingly bad or serious: "a terrible crime".
• Causing or likely to cause terror; sinister: "a terrible smile".
  More then terrible, really? ...

I'm confused. Are you trying to suggest that "terrible" means more than "terrible" or more than the word I used which was "criminal".

ADIDriving wrote: »

... PS. The car on the grass is technically illegally parked as it is on grass. It seems to be outside a house. No Garda would prosecute.

The phrase "technically illegally parked" is meaningless; either the car is parked legally or not. In the picture it is not legally parked.

As I think several of us agreed, the problem is not law, but enforcement.

Wishbone Ash

Some posters here keep referring to the ROTR. The ROTR is basically a lay-man's rough guide which is heavily abridged for ease of use. For the definitive rules you need to refer to the Statute Instruments and Acts where you will see that almost every regulation has many exceptions. Nothing in the ROTR would be used in a court of law nor would a Garda ever refer to the ROTR when making a charge.

mathepac

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Some posters here keep referring to the ROTR. The ROTR is basically a lay-man's rough guide which is heavily abridged for ease of use. ...

I refer to the ROTR constantly in these threads as these are what road-users are expected to know, understand and abide by, and the theory test questions for learner permit holders relating to road use will be based on the guidelines they contain.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

... For the definitive rules you need to refer to the Statute Instruments and Acts where you will see that almost every regulation has many exceptions. ....

Drivers are not expected to know, understand and interpret all the laws and statutes governing road-use; they are however expected to know and apply the common-sense ROTR to their behaviour while on the public road.

So enlighten us; where are all the exceptions to the issues raised? List all the exceptions to the parts of page 116 in the ROTR I quoted.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

... Nothing in the ROTR would be used in a court of law nor would a Garda ever refer to the ROTR when making a charge.

Why would a driver or a defence lawyer not use the ROTR in court? This is the road-user's behavioural bible until it's replaced by something else.

I paraphrased a part of page 116 that relates to the offence of dangerous parking for the purposes of disputing an issue raised about the car parked on the grass. If you have an issue write to the publishers of the ROTR.

The high-paid legal cognoscenti can talk "section blah blah, sub-section xyz of the Road Traffic Act 2044 as amended" etc. So what? That's their job; it's not a driver's job to know all that gobbledegook.

Del2005

mathepac wrote: »

I refer to the ROTR constantly in these threads as these are what road-users are expected to know, understand and abide by, and the theory test questions for learner permit holders relating to road use will be based on the guidelines they contain.
Drivers are not expected to know, understand and interpret all the laws and statutes governing road-use; they are however expected to know and apply the common-sense ROTR to their behaviour while on the public road.

So enlighten us; where are all the exceptions to the issues raised? List all the exceptions to the parts of page 116 in the ROTR I quoted.
Why would a driver or a defence lawyer not use the ROTR in court? This is the road-user's behavioural bible until it's replaced by something else.

I paraphrased a part of page 116 that relates to the offence of dangerous parking for the purposes of disputing an issue raised about the car parked on the grass. If you have an issue write to the publishers of the ROTR.

The high-paid legal cognoscenti can talk "section blah blah, sub-section xyz of the Road Traffic Act 2044 as amended" etc. So what? That's their job; it's not a driver's job to know all that gobbledegook.

From Page 9 of the online pdf of the ROTR

The overall aim of this booklet is to promote safety, good driving practice and
courtesy in using our roads according to the law. It is an interpretation of the
law from a road safety view. If you have a query you should check the legislation
or ask a Garda. It covers the road traffic laws currently in force, but it will be
updated regularly in the future to take account of new laws.

Note the word "interpretation" that means it's not legally based and it also tells you to check the legislation. Why would it do that if it's the law?

mathepac

Del2005 wrote: »

... Note the word "interpretation" that means it's not legally based and it also tells you to check the legislation. ...

"The overall aim of this booklet is to promote safety, good driving practice and courtesy in using our roads according to the law. It is an interpretation of the law from a road safety view." My constant three word theme in these threads is "care, courtesy, consideration", so in that regard the ROTR and I are in violent agreement.

The fact that ROTR is an interpretation of the law does not mean it is not legally based. It is legally based.

It most certainly does not tell the reader to check the legislation. Read page 9 again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. It states, in part "... If you have a query you should check the legislation or ask a Garda... ". It follows therefore that if you do not have a query, don't bother checking the legislation, use the ROTR as intended.

Del2005 wrote: »

... Why would it do that if it's the law?

I have never promoted the ROTR as the law, nor have I ever described the booklet as the law; read my posts, highlight for me where I have stated that the ROTR is "the law"..

I believe (because I checked) that I used words like "guidelines", "behavioural bible" etc. Do you understand the difference between guidelines and laws? I do, thus I never described the ROTR as the law.

Thus endeth the ever so c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y worded reading lesson.

ADIDriving

mathepac wrote: »

The pictures above show cars parked on pavements, not roadways. Pavements are for pedestrians, not for motor-vehicles.
The statute book says it is illegal to park on pavements it allows an exception for allowing passengers getting in and out.
Even if parked on the roadway, there is no indication of anyone entering or alighting from any of the vehicles. Unless you were present at the scenes pictured before or after the pictures were taken I can't see how you can interpret the actions of passengers not visible in the photos.
Did you not see the capital I and capital F. I was not there. I did say IF someone was getting in or out. In a previous post I also said, "Alway hard to tell from still photos." You replied, "No it's not; the pictures are perfectly clear." But as you later argue they are not clear as we do not know IF anyone just got out of the vehicles. People on boards often misread things, I know I do. It can be hard to keep track of all the things that we say.
In one picture the car is parked facing against the flow of traffic contrary to the guidelines in the ROTR. The instructor concerned evidently knows better than the ROTR.
The purpose of the guideline (to have cars park on the near-side kerb) is to avoid having to cross two lanes of traffic when moving off again.
I thought the guidelines and instructions in the ROTR were to guide the behaviour and actions of road-users.
I have not commented on this aspect. Is there even a path on the otherside? I personally would not park there. But we are just looking at a photo...? I don't know the instructor, so I don't know if they know better then the ROTR or not.
I'm surprised to learn the booklet is a source of facts.
Really! There are loads of facts in the Rules of the Road. But there are far more in the Statute Books.
I'm confused. Are you trying to suggest that "terrible" means more than "terrible" or more than the word I used which was "criminal".
I don't see how terrible can mean more then terrible. That makes no sense. It can mean more then illegal. It means the OP has to walk their child onto the road. This could have much greater consequences then a fine or a few points. Terrible.
The phrase "technically illegally parked" is meaningless; either the car is parked legally or not. In the picture it is not legally parked.
Technically illegally parked does have a meaning, it is the same as not legally parked. The car is illegally parked because it is on grass. There does not come within a million miles of forcing a parent to walk their child onto the road. A Judge would be furious if their time was wasted by this as opposed to far more serious issues. There for my point, "No Garda would prosecute."
As I think several of us agreed, the problem is not law, but enforcement.

I will not be continuing this debate with you. There is no talking to someone who in arguing against Wishbone Ash will not accept the laws over the guideline, and quotes these guidelines like they are laws, "The bus in the OP is stopped illegally. No ifs ands or buts about it. Read page 116 of the ROTR or refer to my post #22 above." Then claims not to. Also you claim this, "My constant three word theme in these threads is "care, courtesy, consideration." while at the same time defend yourself in Handbrakes at traffic lights for comment that people found offensive.

mathepac

ADIDriving wrote: »

I will not be continuing this debate with you...

Excellent.

Mr Levitation

Wow this thread got out of hand!! I work in this area of Galway as an ADI. Firstly I am not happy with the bus stop in this image, its right next to the hatched area. It forces one to overtake in an illegal situation, when the drivers take a break there (and they do there regularly). However Im delighted this thread moved across to the "Paddy's" attitude to driving behaviour. Great work in highlighting the "schools of motoring" who's behaviour could give the rest of us a bad name. If this is a hobby of yours you'll get pleanty of good shots of drivers parking up on footpaths up near the Salthill Post office. I've even witnessed Traffic Corps holding up traffic to allow someone cross the road from the Post Office, get into her car which is parked up on a footpath and on double yellow lines and drive off. Now a lay driver and even a regular Garda may not live and breathe driving such as an ADI should. So the pics above are great and an accurate representation of the poor attitude of some of our "Approved driving instructors". We should be leading be example. but sure if the "til be grand for a minute" attitude is being shown off by instructors in Galway then what hope do the future drivers have. Note: in the original image it is hard to tell if the bus driver is telling the young lady that he is not leaving yet, or doing a pick up after just pulling in. Its clear that the instructor is right or wrong depending on which situation it was.

Iwannahurl

Mr Levitation wrote: »

Wow this thread got out of hand!! I work in this area of Galway as an ADI. Firstly I am not happy with the bus stop in this image, its right next to the hatched area. It forces one to overtake in an illegal situation, when the drivers take a break there (and they do there regularly). However Im delighted this thread moved across to the "Paddy's" attitude to driving behaviour. Great work in highlighting the "schools of motoring" who's behaviour could give the rest of us a bad name. If this is a hobby of yours you'll get pleanty of good shots of drivers parking up on footpaths up near the Salthill Post office. I've even witnessed Traffic Corps holding up traffic to allow someone cross the road from the Post Office, get into her car which is parked up on a footpath and on double yellow lines and drive off. Now a lay driver and even a regular Garda may not live and breathe driving such as an ADI should. So the pics above are great and an accurate representation of the poor attitude of some of our "Approved driving instructors". We should be leading be example. but sure if the "til be grand for a minute" attitude is being shown off by instructors in Galway then what hope do the future drivers have. Note: in the original image it is hard to tell if the bus driver is telling the young lady that he is not leaving yet, or doing a pick up after just pulling in. Its clear that the instructor is right or wrong depending on which situation it was.

I think you have ticked all the right boxes there.

Thing is, when it comes to the roads and traffic environment in this country, where do you start. Yes we're a lot safer than we used to be, and a lot safer than a lot of other countries, but the It'll Do attitude still prevails.

I recall the time many years ago when my boss's avuncular advice to me just before my driving test included his observation that after the formal exam "you'll never drive like that again". He meant well.

My view is that this lax make-it-up-as-you-go-along-shure-aren't-we-grand attitude effectively renders many driving "rules" meaningless. Not surprisingly, we then have a situation where, for example, there is disagreement and confusion about how to handle a roundabout, as a perusal of multiple Motors threads on Boards will testify.

I would have thought consistency was an essential element in good behaviour on the roads. Not robotic driving regardless of circumstances, but at least some sense that laws, rules, guidelines, road markings, signage etc generally mean what they're supposed to.

I know we're meant to expect the unexpected, drive defensively etc, but my experience of the traffic environment in Ireland versus some other European countries I've visited is that rules are meant to be broken and if you are surprised or less than gruntled by this, you're "the only one who cares".

Good driver education, a culture of compliance on the part of those in positions of responsibility, and consistent enforcement should all be part of the mix, IMO.

Your comment on the traffic and parking free-for-all in Salthill made me chuckle in recognition. I used to post regularly in the now defunct, and sadly missed by some, Obnoxious Parking thread on Boards. Unfortunately I no longer have that outlet for my CDO. Sample pic below (which the regulars in the Emergency Services forum regarded as "creepy" IIRC), and here's a link to a page in another forum that I found just now by chance.

Alanstrainor

Iwannahurl, it seems to me that you miss the "Obnoxious parking" thread that was closed in the main motors section. The first post in this thread posed an interesting question, but I fail to see how this is relevant to this forum any more.

Thread closed. You can PM me if you wish.