Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

beauf

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/many_drivers_exceed_the_speed_limit/inappropriate_speed_en

Inappropriate speed
Many drivers exceed the posted speed limits. But even if they keep to the posted speed limit, their speed may be inappropriate for the prevailing traffic, road or weather conditions. Objective data on the prevalence of inappropriate speed is difficult to obtain. One reason is that we do not know enough about the appropriate speed for specific conditions.

However, the vast majority of the drivers do adapt their speed to the actual conditions. For example, in rainy conditions the average speed is lower than when it is dry. At the same time the accident risk is higher during rain [55]. So, it must be concluded that the speed adaptation is insufficient and the speed still inappropriate for rainy conditions and other adverse conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Reasonable_speed

Reasonable speed[edit]

Map of highest-posted speed limits around the world. Click to zoom in
Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States, this requirement is referred to as the basic rule,[19] but more generally in Britain and elsewhere in common law as the reasonable man requirement.[20] The German Highway Code (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung) section on speed begins with a statement[21] which may be rendered in English:

Any person driving a vehicle may only drive so fast that the car is under control. Speeds must be adapted to the road, traffic, visibility and weather conditions as well as the personal skills and characteristics of the vehicle and load...

...The basic speed law is almost always supplemented by specific maximum or minimum limits, but applies regardless. The reasonable speed may be different than the posted speed limit in conditions such as fog, heavy rain, ice, snow, gravel,[27] sharp corners, blinding glare,[28] darkness, crossing traffic,[29] or when there is an obstructed view of orthogonal traffic—such as by road curvature, parked cars, vegetation, or snow banks—thus limiting the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA).[30][31] Basic speed laws are statutized reinforcements of the centuries-old common law negligence doctrine as specifically applied to vehicular speed.[32]

GreeBo

GM228 wrote: »

The motorway sign is not law and actually has no relevance to the law - for example the law does not say no slow vehicles, there is no minimum speed limit on a motorway and nothing to define 50 km/h or less as slow, all the law states is vehicles which are not capable of doing 50 km/h, not that they have to.

I'm not trying to argue that the sign is a legal definition of a law.
All I'm saying is that it would form a large part of my defense, should I be pulled for passing on the left at 50kmh.
Since no where else comes close to defining an actual speed.

Henry Ford III

UK Highway Code mentions "congested" taffic conditions in this context. Again no mention of speed, but I think any reasonable person would understand the intent.

beauf

More like a defence for lane hogging... I'm doing the legal speed officer...

... Since it's hardly slow or queued...

the_pen_turner

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue that the sign is a legal definition of a law.
All I'm saying is that it would form a large part of my defense, should I be pulled for passing on the left at 50kmh.
Since no where else comes close to defining an actual speed.

I would too but that doesn't mean that I couldn't undertake someone doing 60

GreeBo

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I would too but that doesn't mean that I couldn't undertake someone doing 60

I don't disagree, sure you can overtake on the left at whatever speed you want under whatever conditions you want, the question is when will you be pulled for it.
I just personally believe that it gets a lot harder to define/defend "slow" the faster you are going!

beauf

This morning the overtaking lane from the M50 to Malahide slowed down for a couple of KM before the roundabout.

So you have the over taking lane going slowest say 50~65
The middle lanes going to the tunnel slowing to 70~90
The left two lanes to the M1/Airport moving fastest of all going 90~110

trellheim

Doesnt the M50 to Malahide turn into a barrier'd piece in the fast lane just before the M1 roundabout ? Not surprised it slows down to be honest that junction is an absolute nightmare for risky movements as you have fast laners trying to speed at full tilt up the slow lanes to the M1. while slow laners try and get over to the M1 inbound and the tunnel.

Grolschevik

trellheim wrote:

Doesnt the M50 to Malahide turn into a barrier'd piece in the fast lane just before the M1 roundabout ? Not surprised it slows down to be honest that junction is an absolute nightmare for risky movements as you have fast laners trying to speed at full tilt up the slow lanes to the M1. while slow laners try and get over to the M1 inbound and the tunnel.

Yeah, people start getting into lane for the various exit routes from pretty soon after the Ballymun junction. Any queues will be dictated by the traffic and traffic signals on the routes being exited onto.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

UK Highway Code mentions "congested" taffic conditions in this context. Again no mention of speed, but I think any reasonable person would understand the intent.

Is this the same Henry Ford lll that once said Irish RTA is the same as the UK? You may have missed it but this is specially for you.


Postby T.C » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:37 pm


Having spent many years booking people for bad driving on the Motorway, and now advising on liability and traffic law after an accident in a civillian capacity, to answer the original point, there is absolutely nothing in law to prevent someone undertaking if lane 2 or 3 is being hogged.

Contrary to popular belief and what many of these fly on the wall TV programmes would have you believe, there is no specific offence of nearside overtake, in fact it was removed from the statute books when the 1972 Road traffic Act was introduced.

In its place is the section 3 offence of careless driving, but to secure a conviction for the offence the prosecution have to prove that the stanndard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. The simple act of a nearside overtake would not be sufficient, but if the undertaking vehicle then weaves from lane to lane, then that would be a different matter.

As far as hogging lanes 2 or 3 are concerned, the law states that the left hand lane is the driving lane and lanes 2 and 3 (or 4 where applicable) are simply overtaking lanes, and unless slower moving vehicles are being passed, then the driver should return to the nearside lane when it is practicable and convenient to do so, despite the fact that many drivers would still have you believe that we have slow, fast and overtaking lanes.

So the issue really arises when there is a clear open stretch of road or where the driver is clearly not gaining on a behicle ahead in lane 1 and the driver chooses to sit in the middle or outside lane.

In this case, then the other part of the section 3 offence comes into play, "Driving without reasonable consideration for other road users" which is just another sub section of careless driving but carries the same penalty.

It used to be common place to report such drivers, especially when we had full time Motorway patrols, but things are somewhat different these days, well in my old force anyway.

In regards to civil claims, the courts are now starting to realise that the nearside overtake is not illegal and finding in favour of the driver who nipped passed on the nearside and got clobbered because of the numpty who sat in the middle lane and then decided to go back to lane 1 without first checking.

I have dealt with about 6 or 7 of these in the past 12 months and won every one (or at least my colleagues have in respect of the civil personal injury cases) and the middle lane hogger has been held 100% liable. The hogger has a statutory duty of care not only to drive in the correct lane, but also ensure it is safe to return back to the nearside lane before he commences changing position.

This type of accident is most common amongst motorcyclists, and whilst every case has to be judged according to the evidence, I have had many where the defendant third party has immidiately quoted Powell v Moody (1966) and backed it up with "Of course undertaking is an illegal manouevre" and then get very embarrased when I go back and ask them to quote act and section for the undertake and counteract Powell v Moody with Davis v Schrogins (2006)

Sorry, rambled on a bit, but I hope that answers some of the points raised.
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next.
T.C

Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Berkshire

beauf

trellheim wrote: »

Doesnt the M50 to Malahide turn into a barrier'd piece in the fast lane just before the M1 roundabout ? Not surprised it slows down to be honest that junction is an absolute nightmare for risky movements as you have fast laners trying to speed at full tilt up the slow lanes to the M1. while slow laners try and get over to the M1 inbound and the tunnel.

Its a magnet for bad driving. You also get people leaving it last minute in the Malahide lane going flat out then making a dive across 3 lanes to get into the M1 lanes.

GreeBo

trellheim wrote: »

Doesnt the M50 to Malahide turn into a barrier'd piece in the fast lane just before the M1 roundabout ? Not surprised it slows down to be honest that junction is an absolute nightmare for risky movements as you have fast laners trying to speed at full tilt up the slow lanes to the M1. while slow laners try and get over to the M1 inbound and the tunnel.

The lane demarcations in that area effectively split the usual single carriageway into multiple ones (just like the merge lanes do on other exits) and you would not be overtaking cars on the left since you are in a separate carriageway.

beauf

The fact remains there can be a high speed differential between these lanes that makes moving from one to the other dangerous especially where diving across multiple lane is common.
The same issues occur with merge lanes.

While driving by the book, is all well and good. In the real world its high speed undertaking. Certainly not slow.

Q: How many Microsoft hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, they re define darkness as light...

Sean Kinvarra

beauf wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

Kinvarra - Because none of those situations are at similar...

You're as bad as each other....

????? What situations. Lane filtering IS overtaking and undertaking at the same time. And there is no law against it.

No you can only do it certain situations and conditions.

How hard is it for you and beebo to understand if you drive in ignorance or those conditions you'll be done for dangerous driving or worse kill people.

You are like cyclists who ride into the blind spots of trucks thinking having the right of way will save them... but the book said....

You could be done for any manoeuvre if its carried out dangerously. But you will NOT be done for undertaking.

beauf

Can you be booked for driving by the book...

beauf

... Or charged if it's an electric car....

mfceiling

Again I'll ask. This morning I joined the m50 heading southbound at tallaght (towards bray). I accelerated to about 90kmh on the merging lane then joined lane 1.

Middle lane was very busy and there were approx 8 cars ahead in the lane and the lane was busy as far back as I could see. That lane was travelling about 70 - 80 kmh.

I couldn't get into the 3rd lane to overtake as I couldn't even get in to the middle lane to make that manoeuvre.

I kept my constant speed and moved ahead of the middle lane. The cars behind me kept their speed and moved past the middle lane hoggers.

Should I have slowed to a crawl to allow the at least 1km tailback of traffic in the middle lane to get past me so I could attempt to get to the middle or outside lane or should I kept my constant merging speed and stayed in the driving lane?


I remember about 2 years ago I was driving in the left lane going over the west link bridge. I had the cruise control set for 95 kmh and there was traffic in the third lane (middle lane was empty - was earlyish Saturday morning).
A garda bike came up the middle lane and gestured at the cars to move out of the lane and to get in to the left most lane. He did this to about 4 or 5 cars all sitting in the 3rd lane. I had "undertaken" them but had kept a constant speed. He then waved the last one across and came towards me. He shook his head and nodded back....I gave him a thumbs up and he took off like a scalded cat.
My wife as usual "what did you do that he shook his head at you"....."I think it's more about those eejits that were in the outside lane that he was nodding at"
"So you're not in trouble"

I can do nothing right when she's beside me!!

Sean Kinvarra

mfceiling wrote: »

Again I'll ask. This morning I joined the m50 heading southbound at tallaght (towards bray). I accelerated to about 90kmh on the merging lane then joined lane 1.

Middle lane was very busy and there were approx 8 cars ahead in the lane and the lane was busy as far back as I could see. That lane was travelling about 70 - 80 kmh.

I couldn't get into the 3rd lane to overtake as I couldn't even get in to the middle lane to make that manoeuvre.

I kept my constant speed and moved ahead of the middle lane. The cars behind me kept their speed and moved past the middle lane hoggers.

Should I have slowed to a crawl to allow the at least 1km tailback of traffic in the middle lane to get past me so I could attempt to get to the middle or outside lane or should I kept my constant merging speed and stayed in the driving lane?


I remember about 2 years ago I was driving in the left lane going over the west link bridge. I had the cruise control set for 95 kmh and there was traffic in the third lane (middle lane was empty - was earlyish Saturday morning).
A garda bike came up the middle lane and gestured at the cars to move out of the lane and to get in to the left most lane. He did this to about 4 or 5 cars all sitting in the 3rd lane. I had "undertaken" them but had kept a constant speed. He then waved the last one across and came towards me. He shook his head and nodded back....I gave him a thumbs up and he took off like a scalded cat.
My wife as usual "what did you do that he shook his head at you"....."I think it's more about those eejits that were in the outside lane that he was nodding at"
"So you're not in trouble"

I can do nothing right when she's beside me!!

You were correct and did exactly what an advanced driving instructor would tell you to do.

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Is this the same Henry Ford lll that once said Irish RTA is the same as the UK? You may have missed it but this is specially for you.....

I don't recall saying that. Can you provide a link?

GM228

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue that the sign is a legal definition of a law.
All I'm saying is that it would form a large part of my defense, should I be pulled for passing on the left at 50kmh.
Since no where else comes close to defining an actual speed.

Best of luck with that defence, it would mean nothing.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

You could be done for any manoeuvre if its carried out dangerously. But you will NOT be done for undertaking.

Really? You obviously missed the Garda Tweet I previously posted. People are done for it, I have seen it and know Gardaí who have prosecuted motorists for it.

I suppose you will NOT be done for lane hogging (i.e driving on the left hand side of the roadway) either.

Sean Kinvarra

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Is this the same Henry Ford lll that once said Irish RTA is the same as the UK? You may have missed it but this is specially for you.....

I don't recall saying that. Can you provide a link?

Sure I can.
Henry Ford III's Avatar
Henry Ford III
Registered User
13-Aug-2014 09:27
#1,258
Cleveland Hot Pocket said:
UK links? Really?


Yes. The law is identical, so it's wholly relevant.

Sean Kinvarra

GM228 wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue that the sign is a legal definition of a law.
All I'm saying is that it would form a large part of my defense, should I be pulled for passing on the left at 50kmh.
Since no where else comes close to defining an actual speed.

Best of luck with that defence, it would mean nothing.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

You could be done for any manoeuvre if its carried out dangerously. But you will NOT be done for undertaking.

Really? You obviously missed the Garda Tweet I previously posted. People are done for it, I have seen it and know Gardaí who have prosecuted motorists for it.

I suppose you will NOT be done for lane hogging (i.e driving on the left hand side of the roadway) either.

Is that the one where a driver was done for undertaking whilst driving in the SAME lane as other traffic and reaching a speed of 160kmh and failing to stop? Are you seriously implying that that's the same as staying in the driving lane and passing a hogger who is in any of the outside lanes? Sometimes I think you do be serious!

Sean Kinvarra

GM228 wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue that the sign is a legal definition of a law.
All I'm saying is that it would form a large part of my defense, should I be pulled for passing on the left at 50kmh.
Since no where else comes close to defining an actual speed.

Best of luck with that defence, it would mean nothing.

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

You could be done for any manoeuvre if its carried out dangerously. But you will NOT be done for undertaking.

Really? You obviously missed the Garda Tweet I previously posted. People are done for it, I have seen it and know Gardaí who have prosecuted motorists for it.

I suppose you will NOT be done for lane hogging (i.e driving on the left hand side of the roadway) either.

Is that the one where a driver was done for undertaking whilst driving in the SAME lane as other traffic and reaching a speed of 160kmh and failing to stop? Are you seriously implying that that's the same as staying in the driving lane and passing a hogger who is in any of the outside lanes? Sometimes I think you do be serious!

GreeBo

GM228 wrote: »

Best of luck with that defence, it would mean nothing.

So what speed do you believe "Slow moving" to be?

Have you seen a lawyer use that defence? Are you a lawyer with experience in defending this scenario?

Henry Ford III

Sean Kinvarra wrote: »

Sure I can.
Henry Ford III's Avatar
Henry Ford III
Registered User
13-Aug-2014 09:27
#1,258
Cleveland Hot Pocket said:
UK links? Really?


Yes. The law is identical, so it's wholly relevant.

That's not a link.

It's a different country obviously with different legislation, but the intent of the laws are identical. That's why I posted it. In a legal case the Judge tries to interpret the intent of the legislation, and can and will use whatever outside means as he/she sees fit to do so.

GreeBo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In a legal case the Judge tries to interpret the intent of the legislation, and can and will use whatever outside means as he/she sees fit to do so.

Such as a motorway sign! :cool:

Henry Ford III

GreeBo wrote: »

So what speed do you believe "Slow moving" to be?

I'd believe it to mean congested or stop/start conditions.

Irrespective of how many times some might say it's ok the cruise past cars in lanes 2 or 3 whilst they are in lane 1 or 2 on the basis of their incorrect interpretation of "slow moving" I think the law is fairly clear regarding it's intent.

Slow isn't the same as slower, and that's crucial imho.

GreeBo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Slow isn't the same as slower, and that's crucial imho.

Agreed that the intent is to allow traffic to move freely in lane 1 if there is queuing in other lanes (for whatever reason)


Despite providing the English definition of "slow-moving" some are still arguing that its a relative term meaning "slower than I want to go".
I'm pretty sure a judge will have a dictionary at his disposal in the absence of a legal definition of "slow-moving"!

Henry Ford III

If it was ok to "undertake" then why is there any need to include the "slow moving" part in the RTA as amended?

p.s. I'm going to get something official from the Traffic Corps on this. I have a contact there. Stay tuned

GreeBo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If it was ok to "undertake" then why is there any need to include the "slow moving" part in the RTA as amended?

Asked and avoided multiple times already on thread.