Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways
Options
Comments
-
While you are at it, ask your contact about the enforcement policy on lane hoggers.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?
p.s. I'm going to get something official from the Traffic Corps on this. I have a contact there. Stay tuned
0 -
-
-
Here's what I asked the Garda Traffic Corps btw....
"Could I ask your opinion on something please? When in lane 1 on a motorway is it legal to pass on the lhs (or "undertake") at any speed on the basis that traffic in your lane is moving more quickly than the outside lanes?"
I think that's a reasonable summation of the point being discussed. Probably won't satisfy some, but then again nothing would 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
As you said the rules are identical in Ire and UK. So how could it be illegal in one and not in other?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?
p.s. I'm going to get something official from the Traffic Corps on this. I have a contact there. Stay tuned0 -
Sean Kinvarra wrote: »As you said the rules are identical in Ire and UK. So how could it be illegal in one and not in other?
Why dont you tell us Sean?Sean Kinvarra wrote: »Some people say they never had or never would undertake. If the RSA made it legal tomorrow would you do it?Sean Kinvarra wrote: »I know quite well it's illegal in Ireland with the exception of slow moving trafficSean Kinvarra wrote: »the RSA who told me you can only undertake in slow moving traffic, which is stop start moving.
Here are a few more reminders since you seem to have forgotten your own points from a different thread.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »According to the RSA you can only undertake on motorways in " slow moving traffic". I asked them what is slow moving. Is it the same on motorways as along the quays at peak time. They told me it means stop start driving.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »What the RSA mean by slow moving traffic is Stop - Starting traffic. That's the reply I got back when I enquired about this.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »Also I cannot understand the RSA not allowing undertaking on motorwaysSean Kinvarra wrote: »The AA put undertaking in the top five of motorway near misses.
I'll leave you now to argue with yourself.
0 -
Nothing's changed. . Can you spot any difference?Sean Kinvarra wrote: »As you said the rules are identical in Ire and UK. So how could it be illegal in one and not in other?
Why dont you tell us Sean?Sean Kinvarra wrote: »Some people say they never had or never would undertake. If the RSA made it legal tomorrow would you do it?Sean Kinvarra wrote: »I know quite well it's illegal in Ireland with the exception of slow moving trafficSean Kinvarra wrote: »the RSA who told me you can only undertake in slow moving traffic, which is stop start moving.
Here are a few more reminders since you seem to have forgotten your own points from a different thread.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »According to the RSA you can only undertake on motorways in " slow moving traffic". I asked them what is slow moving. Is it the same on motorways as along the quays at peak time. They told me it means stop start driving.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »What the RSA mean by slow moving traffic is Stop - Starting traffic. That's the reply I got back when I enquired about this.Sean Kinvarra wrote: »Also I cannot understand the RSA not allowing undertaking on motorwaysSean Kinvarra wrote: »The AA put undertaking in the top five of motorway near misses.
I'll leave you now to argue with yourself.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So what speed do you believe "Slow moving" to be?
People are concentrating way too much simply on the meaning of one set of words, when dealing with statutory interpretation you don’t just look at words in isolation, you look at the appropriate provision/chapter and the Act/SI as a whole, the construction of the legislation, the context and the general rules of grammar.
I have seen cases brought all the way to the Supreme Court over arguments based simply around wording of statutes where a comma may/may not be present for example, yes a simple comma may mean the difference between a conviction or acquittal/dismissal. You would be amazed at the body of law simply concerning statutory interpretation – it can actually get very complicated.
The important thing to note is that the rules of statutory interpretation apply to ALL law whether it may be something really minor like a motoring offence or for more serious matters such as terrorism or murder offences. People seem convinced that once something isn’t defined that it is very much open to interpretation, that is not the case, when something is not defined it must take its ordinary meaning (and yes judges consult ordinary dictionaries for reference) unless the ordinary meaning becomes absurd, the majority of law is actually not defined as it does not need to be and to note is that judges can’t start messing around with the ordinary meaning of words in order to avoid an unjust or anomalous consequence. Statutory interpretation is something that all involved in the legal profession will touch base on, and some take a more in-depth interest specifically in the subject like myself.
With regards to the meaning of “slow-moving”, it’s meaning is the plain, ordinary and literal understanding (which is what the law requires as a first rule for statutory interpretation), we just need to figure out what that is, so perhaps we can refer to the most prominent dictionary for the English language for reference (the OED):-OED wrote:Slow-Moving
Slow in movement, action or progress
We know what movement/action/progress is, but what is slow?OED wrote:Slow
Moving or operating, or designed to do so, only at a low speed; not quick or fast
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that something going at 50 km/h is not slow, it may be slower than 120 km/h, but it isn’t by any definition slow, slow and slower have different meanings.
Next though as I explained earlier we need to look at the actual provision in law as a whole rather than “slow moving” in isolation.(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.
Note the sub paragraphs and the comma between “traffic” and “when” which creates either a necessity or sufficiency condition (in this case it creates a necessity in sub para (iii) ), as such the way to look at it is this way:
1. The action - A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left -
2. Where permitted - in slow-moving traffic,
3. The condition/s - when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle
Take away the conditions and deal with the primary qualifying criteria and we have:-
A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left, in slow-moving traffic
This is important as it shows the driver must be in slow moving traffic first, not simply passing something which is moving slower, the necessity of 3 is 2, 3 is only the secondary qualifying criteria which goes hand in hand with 2 - being in slow moving traffic.
The use of “in” is extremely important for statutory interpretation, as a preposition it signifies that you the driver must actually be in slow-moving traffic, not simply passing a car you deem to be slower than you. This is also in line with comments by the then Garda Commissioner Daniel Costigan who introduced the provisions first into law in 1964 in order to deal with congestion. Charlie Haughey as Minister for Justice also confirmed to the Oireachtas in the early 1960s that this provision was to be introduced for this purpose, it’s part of the public record, but it’s pity that Oireachtas debates can no longer be used to determine statutory interpretation as it would dispense with a judges difficult requirement to look up his dictionary and check what “slow-moving” means (as if he would need to?) and dissect the regulation like I have
Finally a quick look at the condition:-
when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle
I find the use of "more slowly" as opposed to "more slow" or "slower" interesting, my theory is slow/slower emphasizes one's statement (i.e something lasting or a set speed like a lane hogger), "slowly" indicates a way of one's action (i.e something temporary like being slowed down by congestion).
Now some may think all this is really overreaching, but that's how a judge would look at statutory interpretation irrespective of weather or not it's a minor or major piece of legislation.Have you seen a lawyer use that defence? Are you a lawyer with experience in defending this scenario?
Not as such, the offence is what is known as a “strict liability” offence, as such the prosecution does not need to prove the mens rea (guilty mind) of the offence, merely that it happened as opposed to you intended it to happen, as such the defence of “mistake of fact” or “mistake of law” is not a valid defence under law for one accused of a strict liability offence.
I’m sure you have heard the expression “ignorance is not a defence”, or ignorantia legis neminem excusat as we call it in the legal world, it is an age old legal maxim which basically means what the accused believed or perceived to be lawful is not relevant.
The only way you could raise the issue of an appropriate speed for slow moving in this case would not be to raise it as a defence, but rather ask the High Court for an opinion on a point of law on the matter through a case stated or seek judicial review on a point of law – needless to say you would require a very large bank balance to take such a case.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement