Car clamped by DCc

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still going to disagree with you,I just don't see anything in any of the arguments that says a center line can't be a traffic lane boundary, especially when related to a single or double continuous white lines doesn't delineate the edge of a traffic lane

Statute specifically states what marks the boundary of a traffic lane and it is not the continuous white line, it specifically states what a continuous white line means, the continuous is a mandatory regulatory sign, not a traffic lane identification sign.

Traffic lanes are identified by RRM 003 only, if no RRM 003 then there's no traffic lane, it's that simple, statute does not allow for any other lines to identify a traffic lane. You can't start adding in provisions that don't exist to suit the agenda, and neither can the courts.

You are failing to realise that what constitutes a "traffic lane" for road traffic regulation is as per statute, not as per any common understanding.

Spook_ie

GM228 wrote: »

Statute specifically states what marks the boundary of a traffic lane and it is not the continuous white line, it specifically states what a continuous white line means, the continuous is a mandatory regulatory sign, not a traffic lane identification sign.

Traffic lanes are identified by RRM 003 only, if no RRM 003 then there's no traffic lane, it's that simple, statute does not allow for any other lines to identify a traffic lane. You can't start adding in provisions that don't exist to suit the agenda, and neither can the courts.

You are failing to realise that what constitutes a "traffic lane" for road traffic regulation is as per statute, not as per any common understanding.

Still going to disagree with you, RRM001 can designate a traffic lane boundary

11 Centre of Roadway .

11. (1) The following traffic signs may be provided along the centre of a roadway:—

(a) traffic sign number RRM 001—a continuous white line approximately 100 or 150 millimetres wide and extending not less than 20 metres along the centre of the roadway, or

(b) traffic sign number RRM 002 — a broken white line extending along the centre of the roadway and consisting of segments having the following dimensions and spacings:—

(i) segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, 3 metres and spaced 3 metres apart, or

(ii) segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, 3 metres long and spaced 9 metres apart.

(2) Traffic sign number RRM 001 may be provided along a roadway other than at the centre of the roadway where it is appropriate in accordance with the layout of traffic lanes.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still going to disagree with you, RRM001 can designate a traffic lane boundary

(2) Traffic sign number RRM 001 may be provided along a roadway other than at the centre of the roadway where it is appropriate in accordance with the layout of traffic lanes.

All that is saying that the 'centre line' doesn't have to be exactly halfway across the roadway.

Spook_ie

Victor wrote: »

All that is saying that the 'centre line' doesn't have to be exactly halfway across the roadway.

Correct, it's moved to provide the delineation between opposite traffic lanes.

Here's a question for people, can a single road marking RRM003 define a lane on its own or does it need something to the left and right of it to define the boundaries of the traffic lane?

For example, how many traffic lanes are there here? How many RRM003s are there?

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

UK example of a 4 lane road.https://www.google.com/maps/@54.823001,-2.8468933,3a,75y,323.45h,56.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYqPux7VkOE5QwVIYjxkmBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And if you take away just one of their Diagram 1005 lines (same as our RRM003) then the roadway is reduced to two traffic lanes, not three. i.e you have two carriageways, one of which has two traffic lanes.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct, it's moved to provide the delineation between opposite traffic lanes.

The thing is though unless there is an RRM 003 on the opposite side aswell then the opposite side does not have a "traffic lane".

Spook_ie wrote: »

Here's a question for people, can a single road marking RRM003 define a lane on its own or does it need something to the left and right of it to define the boundaries of the traffic lane?

No, needs nothing on either side. An example of this is a one way street where RRM003 creates two separate traffic lanes.

Spook_ie wrote: »

For example, how many traffic lanes are there here? How many RRM003s are there?

There are three RRM003s (first, third and fourth broken line), and one RRM028 (second broken line) meaning five traffic lanes at that point.

Spook_ie

You can't have a lane without boundaries, in the case of one RRM003 the pavement or edge of the carriage way is one boundary, the center line or center median is another, if the pavement or edge of the carriage way didn't count as a border to the traffic lane then a traffic lane on the M1 going North could ( in theory according to you ) stretch over to the N2.

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

You can't have a lane without boundaries, in the case of one RRM003 the pavement or edge of the carriage way is one boundary, the center line or center median is another, if the pavement or edge of the carriage way didn't count as a border to the traffic lane then a traffic lane on the M1 going North could ( in theory according to you ) stretch over to the N2.

Hang on, your question was in relation to a single road marking was it not:-

can a single road marking RRM003 define a lane on its own or does it need something to the left and right of it to define the boundaries of the traffic lane?

I was speaking of road markings and gave an example, of course the pavement etc will identify the other edge, I took your question to mean road markings only.

But the point made is that any other marking in itself does not create a traffic lane.

Spook_ie

GM228 wrote: »

Hang on, your question was in relation to a single road marking was it not:-



I was speaking of road markings and gave an example, of course the pavement etc will identify the other edge, I took your question to mean road markings only.

But the point made is that any other marking in itself does not create a traffic lane.

So you are saying that on a road such as (excuse the crass drawing skills ) this, the middle two lanes would be the same (traffic) lane?
<snipped my paint drawing for image found in manual>

Actually found an image

Victor

Spook_ie wrote: »

lane?

"Traffic lane".

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you are saying that on a road such as (excuse the crass drawing skills ) this, the middle two lanes would be the same (traffic) lane?
<snipped my paint drawing for image found in manual>

Actually found an image

No, in the image you post there are four traffic lanes, two on each side of the road.

But if one side of the road were divided by RM003 and the other side were not divided at all, there would not be three traffic lanes, but two. One side of the road would not be divided into traffic lanes at all; the other side would be divided into two traffic lanes.

Basically, a section of roadway not bounded on either side by RM003 is not a traffic lane. A traffic lane is bounded on at least one side by RM003.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I cant imagine they get into this fine detail on a driver theory test. I'm too old to have had to do one but i cant imagine they do.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I cant imagine they get into this fine detail on a driver theory test. I'm too old to have had to do one but i cant imagine they do.

Relax. They don't.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Relax. They don't.

I have no need to relax. I wasnt uptight.

Del2005

Melendez wrote: »

Thank God I don't have to do my driving theory test. Life should be easier than this.

They don't go into technical details in the theory test. But if you are using the road you are supposed to know the laws ;-)

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Claw Hammer

The reality is that the space was vacant and free o charge in an area where parking spaces are at a premium. The old adage applies, if it looks too good to be true, then it is.

dccaresuckers

I got caught in the trap tbh. I didn't know Irish laws I Have been punished. i little bit disappointing but I understand they have to apply the law,.

Claw Hammer

dccaresuckers wrote: »

. I didn't know Irish laws I Have been punished. .

You thought you knew Iris laws. A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing.