Undertaking in bus lanes.

degsie

So anyway, I was happily trucking along in an 'outside of posted hours' bus lane the other day and zipping by the stop/start traffic in the other lane. There was a Garda car behind be the whole way and they didn't even blink. So they didn't see this as a problem, neither do I.

Sean Kinvarra

degsie wrote: »

So anyway, I was happily trucking along in an 'outside of posted hours' bus lane the other day and zipping by the stop/start traffic in the other lane. There was a Garda car behind be the whole way and they didn't even blink. So they didn't see this as a problem, neither do I.

Neither do I. The reason the Gardai won't pull you in even though the RSA say it's an offense and highly dangerous, is if they did then they would have to pull in buses and taxis as they would also be undertaking.

visual

degsie wrote: »

So anyway, I was happily trucking along in an 'outside of posted hours' bus lane the other day and zipping by the stop/start traffic in the other lane. There was a Garda car behind be the whole way and they didn't even blink. So they didn't see this as a problem, neither do I.

They also don't see middle lane hoggers driving 20kph below the limit as a problem but it doesn't make it right or legal

TheChizler

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Neither do I. The reason the Gardai won't pull you in even though the RSA say it's an offense and highly dangerous, is if they did then they would have to pull in buses and taxis as they would also be undertaking.

Also the other lane being start-stop, i.e. slow moving traffic, and explicitly allowed...

Sean Kinvarra

TheChizler wrote: »

Also the other lane being start-stop, i.e. slow moving traffic, and explicitly allowed...

Say that to bus and taxi drivers or even cyclists you won't see them stop-start when bus lanes are out of use

TheChizler

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Say that to bus and taxi drivers or even cyclists you won't see them stop-start when bus lanes are out of use

I'm not sure I understand your point... In the bus lane outside of posted hours, or any regular road, you can over-take on the left if other traffic is start-stop.

cython

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Say that to bus and taxi drivers or even cyclists you won't see them stop-start when bus lanes are out of use

The bold is an irrelevant example, as cyclists are entitled to overtake on the left in the majority of cases:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html wrote:

(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.”,

Note the stark contrast in the wording of the first paragraph when compared to the general case for motorised vehicles, i.e. as long as the traffic is slower (relative) than the cyclist, it is ok, whereas the general case refers to the absolute of "slow-moving traffic":

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html wrote:

“(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,

enda1

cython wrote: »

The bold is an irrelevant example, as cyclists are entitled to overtake on the left in the majority of cases:


Note the stark contrast in the wording of the first paragraph when compared to the general case for motorised vehicles, i.e. as long as the traffic is slower (relative) than the cyclist, it is ok, whereas the general case refers to the absolute of "slow-moving traffic":

Kinda sounds the same to me especially when the latter appears to be qualified as "when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle".

MajorMax

If the bus lane is out of service (after 19.00) then you can drive in it, you can also "undertake" as there is no "Slow/fast" lane rule on roads with a speed limit below 60 kph which is the vast majority of bus lanes

TheChizler

MajorMax wrote: »

If the bus lane is out of service (after 19.00) then you can drive in it, you can also "undertake" as there is no "Slow/fast" lane rule on roads with a speed limit below 60 kph which is the vast majority of bus lanes

Eh wha? Where did you hear this?

Sean Kinvarra

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point... In the bus lane outside of posted hours, or any regular road, you can over-take on the left if other traffic is start-stop.[/

Yes ONLY if traffic is start- sto. ,,,Outside bus lane posted hours with traffic moving at 30,40,50kmh which is not stop-start, in outside lane according to RSA it is an offence for a bus or taxi or any other vehicle to pass on inside

To me that rule must be changed

Sean Kinvarra

MajorMax wrote: »

If the bus lane is out of service (after 19.00) then you can drive in it, you can also "undertake" as there is no "Slow/fast" lane rule on roads with a speed limit below 60 kph which is the vast majority of bus lanes

Like to know where you got that information. If it's true I will personally throw it back at the RSA who told me you can only undertake in slow moving traffic, which is stop start moving.

cython

enda1 wrote: »

Kinda sounds the same to me especially when the latter appears to be qualified as "when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle".

If it were the same, then why have the differing wording at all? A qualification is just that, and should clarify, not broaden the criteria already mentioned.

It is probably equally likely that the clause for cars to pass on the left at all only exists so that drivers in stop start traffic do not find themselves hamstrung from making progress in the left lane by being unable to pass cars stopped in traffic on their right. The reason this might be necessary is that in such slow/stop-start traffic, there may not be space for the driver(s) in the right hand lane to pull in and keep left, by contrast to freer flowing traffic, whereby there is no excuse for not keeping left.

In any case, under normal functions of the English language, for that SI you have to accept that the initial clause is "in slow-moving traffic", and this is clarified/qualified by "when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle." While it may seem an unnecessary statement, in that the traffic on the right would have to be moving more slowly to be overtaken, this wording also doesn't explicitly liberalise people moving into the left hand lane for the express purpose of overtaking on the left, rather it happens that they are already in the left lane, and traffic happens to be slower on the right.

However people will always try to find a loophole, even if one doesn't really exist, until such a time as it is tested.

enda1

^
Seeing as slow-moving is ambiguous, without it being better defined it is legal to pass on the left.

cython

enda1 wrote: »

^
Seeing as slow-moving is ambiguous, without it being better defined it is legal to pass on the left.

Well to anybody that may find themselves in front of a judge for overtaking on the left on a motorway at 100+kph (plenty of people doing it), I say best of luck in convincing him/her of that being covered by slow-moving. While it may be ambiguous, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and ultimately you are at the mercy of the Gardai and the judiciary a judge to take the stance you describe.

So if you accept that there are at least some scenarios that are clearly not legal due to the slow-moving clause (and if you don't then there is quite frankly no point in continuing this conversation, as you are addressing this from a very odd perspective to regard motorway/DC speed limits as slow-moving), then the question that stands is simply the interpretation of slow-moving. Ultimately the only people whose interpretation(s) of this matter are the aforementioned Gardai and judges, as they are the ones who make the decisions regarding prosecutions and convictions.

djimi

The problem with the wording in the statute book is that "slow moving" means virtually nothing if its is not quantified. If Im driving on a motorway then 45mph is slow moving relative to the speed limit on the road in question. Indeed, I can point to plenty of situations where I have been on a two lane stretch of 60mph dual carraigeway, where there are two solid lanes of cars each doing in or around 40mph. If the left hand lane is going marginally faster such that the cars are overtaking the cars in the right hand, are these cars deemed to be illegally overtaking on the left? The situation certainly seems to fall within the terms of the law, 40mph is slow moving relative to the speed limit of the road, and two solid lines of cars consitutes traffic in anyones book, yet by the defintion of the RSA it is an illegal situation.

The RSA saying that slow moving is defined as stop start means absolutely nothing unless they can point to a legal definition to back that up.