Rules of the road vs Laws of the road.

troyzer

When I learned how to drive, the rules of the road book was golden.

I recently started a new job in Ballsbridge which starts at 7:00 AM. For the first time in my life, it made more sense to drive to work in a city rather than get public transport. It's been a really transformative experience and now I'm just convinced that the rules of the road and the laws of the road are two seperate things.

On my drive from Lucan to Ballsbridge there are several "rules" in certain parts of the road that break the law. For example, the N4 between Liffey Valley and the Chapelizod slipe road has a 60 km/h speed limit, this is the law of the road. The rule of the road is if you're not doing close to 80 km/h you will be beeped at and are dangerously obstructing traffic flow.

As you approach Heuston Station, there is a bus lane and a single lane for cars. The law of the road is that you stay in the single lane and when you come to Seán Heuston Bridge you're somehow supposed to segregate into different lanes to turn left or right. This is the law of the road. The rule of the road is that if you don't drive in the bus lane pretty much the whole way, you're going to get honked at by a truck traffic for "turning the wrong way".

On Bachelor's walk, the bus comes out and crosses two lanes of traffic to get into the right lane for O'Connell bridge. To do this, there are two sets of lights. One for the bus and one for cars. The law of the road is that you wait in the car lane for the green light and then go. But because the bus light is obviously green much more frequentely, the rule of the road is that nobody cares and everyone not only treats it as another car lane but actually as the fast lane because it goes green for longer. What is the point of even having a bus lane and light here if the law of the road isn't enforced?

These aren't isolated individuals being pricks. Nearly every driver observes the "rules" over the "laws" in these places and there is never any enforcement of the law. I've even seen the Gardaí do it.

What do we think? Do you have any other examples?

Cookie_Monster

I thought you meant the rules of the road as in the book, which is non-binding as it's not 100% reflective of the road traffic acts. ie telling you you should do x and y when the law is either black or white etc
What you are talking about is simply just lack of enforcement and subsequent habit build-up

magicbastarder

you're conflating two different uses of the word 'rules' there.

there's the Rules Of The Road, the guideline booklet issued by the RSA. in a very specific sense, there is no such thing legally as breaking 'The Rules of the Road' - the ROTR is a guideline based on the law, but is not actual law in and of itself. and it's been known to be wrong.
you are punished (we like to think) for breaking the law, not the ROTR.

you are using 'rules' in a sense of 'this is the way everyone else drives and you'll find yourself at a disadvantage if you don't follow them' sort of way, from what i can see.

seamus

You seem to be confusing the "rules of the road", which is a book paraphrasing the law, with "culture", which are the accepted practices that exist, whether they are legal or not.

As long as you are obeying the law, the culture is irrelevant. There are millions of examples of local/cultural customs when it comes to driving, but that doesn't mean that they have any basis in law. I've heard of plenty of people being hauled into court for manouvers that they've made hundreds of times before without incident.

bigar

I would not count to much on enforcement as my experience tells me the Guards have very limited knowledge of the rules or law of the road.

troyzer

Okay, probably shouldn't have mentioned the book itself. I know the book isn't legally enforcable, I shouldn't have conflated the two.

I meant the rules as in posted speed limits, bus lanes etc.

My general point was that despite careful traffic engineering and posted laws of the road, there is a seperate rules of the road which most drivers abide by which is contrary to the law. And nobody does anything about it.

If you choose to abide by the law you're actually more dangerous than the majority of people who are choosing to follow this organically developed rule instead. The 60km/h limit is probably the best example. If you're doing 60km/h in that area while everyone else is doing 80km/h, you are a liability. There is a reason why motorways for example have minimum speed limits.

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

My general point was that despite careful traffic engineering and posted laws of the road, there is a seperate rules of the road which most drivers abide by which is contrary to the law. And nobody does anything about it.

Unfortunately there is plenty of terrible traffic engineering around that if people stuck to no-one would get anywhere.

soups05

so what you are saying is that some people drive without obeying the ROTR. am shocked, it's lucky am sitting down. in fact i feel quite faint.




you know there is a saying, attributed to Gandhi, be the change you want to see in the world. if a few beeps from other road users bother you then stop driving, if not then drive the way you are supposed to, not the way that is just lazy/easy/whatever. there are several junction around where i live which are meant to be used in fashion A but plenty use them in fashion B. I don't care, if they hit me they will find out how wrong they are so feck it. i drive correctly, thats all i need to worry about.

soups05

troyzer wrote: »

If you're doing 60km/h in that area while everyone else is doing 80km/h, you are a liability. There is a reason why motorways for example have minimum speed limits.

no you are not the liability, you are the one following the law, ie the speed limit.

put the foot down, do 80, then explain in court that you were following the local rule of the road, see what a judge thinks.

the more people who obey the limit, no matter how stupidly low some are, the more it will persuade others to slow down. not all, but eventually more will do 60 than 80. herd mentality.

troyzer

soups05 wrote: »

so what you are saying is that some people drive without obeying the ROTR. am shocked, it's lucky am sitting down. in fact i feel quite faint.




you know there is a saying, attributed to Gandhi, be the change you want to see in the world. if a few beeps from other road users bother you then stop driving, if not then drive the way you are supposed to, not the way that is just lazy/easy/whatever. there are several junction around where i live which are meant to be used in fashion A but plenty use them in fashion B. I don't care, if they hit me they will find out how wrong they are so feck it. i drive correctly, thats all i need to worry about.

My point isn't that some people violate the law, that's hardly a surprise. But there are some instances where EVERYONE violates the law.

soups05 wrote: »

no you are not the liability, you are the one following the law, ie the speed limit.

put the foot down, do 80, then explain in court that you were following the local rule of the road, see what a judge thinks.

the more people who obey the limit, no matter how stupidly low some are, the more it will persuade others to slow down. not all, but eventually more will do 60 than 80. herd mentality.

I did this for the first year or so of having my license and after a while there's just no point. Constantly being beeped at and dangerously undertaken is very much the other person's fault. But the fact remains that if everyone breaks the law simultaneously, it sort of works in a weird way. I'm not agreeing with it and I think everyone should obey the law but not only does the individual obeying the law make no difference, they're just putting themselves at risk. Which, again, isn't their fault but it's just the way it is.

A regular speed van in this area might not be a bad idea. I've seen a van once since I moved back from Australia this time last year and I drive along that stretch at least twice a day, most days.

In the Bachelor's Walk example, I do actually stay in the car lane. Mostly because it just irritates me too much to see the buses struggle to pull out because twats in their Chelsea tractors feel entitled to the bus lane.

Hilly Bill

Just do what you are supposed to do and not what other road users try to get away with. If you want to break the rules of the road for whatever reason and a lot do it, then do so based on your own judgement at the time and not on any unwritten rules of the road.

The m50 flyover in blanch heading into town is one example, it's 30kph and very few do it as its a ridiculous low speed but it's the speed that's limit and just because most people don't obey it, it doesn't mean there is an unwritten rule there for people to do whatever they want.

troyzer

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Just do what you are supposed to do and not what other road users try to get away with. If you want to break the rules of the road for whatever reason and a lot do it, then do so based on your own judgement at the time and not on any unwritten rules of the road.

The m50 flyover in blanch heading into town is one example, it's 30kph and very few do it as its a ridiculous low speed but it's the speed that's limit and just because most people don't obey it, it doesn't mean there is an unwritten rule there for people to do whatever they want.

The Blanch one is another good example, I completely forgot about it. I don't think it's an unwritten rule for people to do whatever they want, but I think most people on that flyover subconsciously think "30km/h is a bit ridiculous, let's call it 50km/h or 60km/h".

com1

troyzer wrote: »

There is a reason why motorways for example have minimum speed limits.

I don't think that motorways in Ireland have a minimum speed limit. I think that the rule (law?) is that your vehicle must be capable of travelling at more than 50KmPH.

There is certainly a culture of law breaking amongst road users which tends to be seen as generally acceptable as enforcement tends to be sporadic at best.

That being said I would not advise that you raise the issue with a Guard on the street (particularly if you have been stopped while complying with the culture (rather than the law)

TLDR - what Hilly bill said

Dravokivich

troyzer wrote: »

The Blanch one is another good example, I completely forgot about it. I don't think it's an unwritten rule for people to do whatever they want, but I think most people on that flyover subconsciously think "30km/h is a bit ridiculous, let's call it 50km/h or 60km/h".

They just don't want to slow down much after doing 80 either side of it. They also don't bother thinking about the reason behind it. That flyover is poorly designed and the speed limit is set to account for large vehicles. We really shouldn't be doing things such as going over at 50/60 on the fly because we disagree with it. There needs to be a big push to properly implement road design instead of impeding us by it. It's the same issues with junction 9 and junction 7.

Cookie_Monster

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The m50 flyover in blanch heading into town is one example, it's 30kph and very few do it as its a ridiculous low speed but it's the speed that's limit and just because most people don't obey it, it doesn't mean there is an unwritten rule there for people to do whatever they want.

isn't there some saying about it being your duty to ignore stupid or unjust laws, or actively protest against them?

com1 wrote:

I don't think that motorways in Ireland have a minimum speed limit. I think that the rule (law?) is that your vehicle must be capable of travelling at more than 50KmPH.

correct. the vehicle has to be capable of 50kph but there is no lower speed limit on a motorway

Hilly Bill

Dravokivich wrote: »

They just don't want to slow down much after doing 80 either side of it. They also don't bother thinking about the reason behind it. That flyover is poorly designed and the speed limit is set to account for large vehicles. We really shouldn't be doing things such as going over at 50/60 on the fly because we disagree with it. There needs to be a big push to properly implement road design instead of impeding us by it. It's the same issues with junction 9 and junction 7.

The speed van is often placed outside the travellodge in between the 50 and the 60 zone. If the lights are green when you are coming over the bridge then you tend to keep the momentum going and run the risk of getting nabbed by the speed van. At the same time, if you slow down from 80 to 50 to 30 or straight to 30, you run the risk of being tailended even though you are in the right. It's one of those places that the flow of traffic nearly dictates that you go over the limit.

Hilly Bill

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

isn't there some saying about it being your duty to ignore stupid or unjust laws, or actively protest against them?


correct. the vehicle has to be capable of 50kph but there is no lower speed limit on a motorway

Maybe it's 50kph as otherwise you might get done for unsafe driving if you go any slower.

Macy0161

troyzer wrote: »

What do we think? Do you have any other examples?

If you don't floor it to go through an amber or recently gone red...

Parking on double yellows is ok, if you have the hazards on, or even better, if you can get your car most or all the way up on the pavement...

Driving up onto the pavement to park is ok, cyclists on the pavement is a danger to all.

I would say speeding is the biggest one. It's so normalised that any enforcement of the actual speed limit is given out about - "shooting fish in a barrel", "only a money making racket", "flash for cash" etc etc.

troyzer

Macy0161 wrote: »

If you don't floor it to go through an amber or recently gone red...

Parking on double yellows is ok, if you have the hazards on, or even better, if you can get your car most or all the way up on the pavement...

Driving up onto the pavement to park is ok, cyclists on the pavement is a danger to all.

I would say speeding is the biggest one. It's so normalised that any enforcement of the actual speed limit is given out about - "shooting fish in a barrel", "only a money making racket", "flash for cash" etc etc.

I think these are all different because the individuals who do it are universally regarded as pricks. I'm more talking about rules that drivers have collectively decided to ignore.

Having said that, if you're driving a van or HGV then it does seem to be the norm to park WHEREVER you want. And yes, just pop the hazards on.

Macy0161

troyzer wrote: »

I think these are all different because the individuals who do it are universally regarded as pricks. I'm more talking about rules that drivers have collectively decided to ignore.

Having said that, if you're driving a van or HGV then it does seem to be the norm to park WHEREVER you want. And yes, just pop the hazards on.

I would say they're just normalised behaviours on our roads, much like the ignorance of the speed limits/ lanes in the opening post.

Look how many go through a clear red, not just gamble on an amber. Go to any urban church at mass time (or mosque or any other religious service) and parking on pavements is rampant. I don't believe they're just being pricks, they're just acting in what is seen as the normal manner.

troyzer

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say they're just normalised behaviours on our roads, much like the ignorance of the speed limits/ lanes in the opening post.

Look how many go through a clear red, not just gamble on an amber. Go to any urban church at mass time (or mosque or any other religious service) and parking on pavements is rampant. I don't believe they're just being pricks, they're just acting in what is seen as the normal manner.

I don't see too many people breaking reds to be fair, just the odd one.

Fair point on pavement parking at churhces. When I was working up the north recently I was driving back to Omagh and the Tyrone/Monaghan match was on in Healy Park. There were cars beached onto the pavement for about two kilometres snaking out of town. Mental stuff.

Macy0161

troyzer wrote: »

I don't see too many people breaking reds to be fair, just the odd one.

Odd one, every light cycle on my commute and around where I work to be honest

ELM327

troyzer wrote: »

The Blanch one is another good example, I completely forgot about it. I don't think it's an unwritten rule for people to do whatever they want, but I think most people on that flyover subconsciously think "30km/h is a bit ridiculous, let's call it 50km/h or 60km/h".

That is one of the ridiculous speed limits.
Also, it's not really enforceable. The speed vans can park in the 60 or 50 zone before it or the 80-100 zone (ie the m50) after it - and they do regularly.
But there's nowhere they can park to get the 30 zone.
Combine lack of enforcement, and a ridiculously low speed limit, and you get zero adherence (or nearly 0)

troyzer

Macy0161 wrote: »

Odd one, every light cycle on my commute and around where I work to be honest

I'm going to sound like a cycling basher but........every single day I see multiple cyclists break red lights and I honestly don't see cars do it much at all. I'm not saying drivers don't do it, but that it's rampant amongst cyclists. I drive home along the Grand Canal and South Circular Road and I always see 5-10 cyclists run a red light, especially at Baggot Street and the top of Camden Street.

ELM327

troyzer wrote: »

I'm going to sound like a cycling basher but........every single day I see multiple cyclists break red lights and I honestly don't see cars do it much at all. I'm not saying drivers don't do it, but that it's rampant amongst cyclists. I drive home along the Grand Canal and South Circular Road and I always see 5-10 cyclists run a red light, especially at Baggot Street and the top of Camden Street.

It's endemic amongst cyclists, lets be honest right.
But motorists do it too.


I do it myself at 530 am on a sunday if I'm heading to the office and I know the light sequence will delay me for 5 mins and theres no one around.

troyzer

ELM327 wrote: »

It's endemic amongst cyclists, lets be honest right.
But motorists do it too.


I do it myself at 530 am on a sunday if I'm heading to the office and I know the light sequence will delay me for 5 mins and theres no one around.

Yeah but how many people go to an office at half five on a Sunday morning?

Macy0161

troyzer wrote: »

I'm going to sound like a cycling basher but........every single day I see multiple cyclists break red lights and I honestly don't see cars do it much at all. I'm not saying drivers don't do it, but that it's rampant amongst cyclists. I drive home along the Grand Canal and South Circular Road and I always see 5-10 cyclists run a red light, especially at Baggot Street and the top of Camden Street.

In the bike or in the car, on the N11, every set of lights I see it morning and evening. The kilmacud road/ stillorgan park road is particularly bad. Both in the car and bike, every time I am stopped on the N11, there are still cars going across when I have green. And for the bike/ pedestrian crossing, that green is slightly delayed compared to the motorised green too.

Similarly if, you're heading outbound on the drummartin link road at the lights for blackthorn drive, the inbound right turn will continue to have vehicles crossing for several cars after the outbound lanes have a green light.

I won't excuse cyclists breaking lights, but to suggest it's a cyclist only issue is nonsense. It's just another one of those things that is so normalised, motorists no longer notice - you're supposed to stop on amber if it's safe to do so. Amber means floor it, and red means chance it. Obviously, all pedestrians wait for the green man...

ELM327

troyzer wrote: »

Yeah but how many people go to an office at half five on a Sunday morning?

That was my point.
0.001% of motorists may break the red light but a vast majority of cyclists do.

Hilly Bill

When you get a taxi licence the rules of the road apparently no longer applies and you get a set of taxi only rules:)

Rubberchikken

I refuse to follow other drivers examples. I refuse to break the speed limits just because some pr#ck thinks im going too slow/he's a better driver/he can teach me how to drive his way.

magicbastarder

ELM327 wrote: »

That was my point.
0.001% of motorists may break the red light but a vast majority of cyclists do.

i think you need your eyes tested. amber and red light jumping is endemic in ireland. there's one junction i know of where i regularly see cars sail through the red, 10, 20 or 30s after it has gone red.

fritzelly

ELM327 wrote: »

That was my point.
0.001% of motorists may break the red light but a vast majority of cyclists do.

And that day you break the red light and the cyclist does too who do you think will get the blame?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's one junction i know of where i regularly see cars sail through the red, 10, 20 or 30s after it has gone red.

this is the junction; many - and i mean *many* cars won't wait for a green to turn red.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3633747,-6.2227654,3a,75y,116.66h,85.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stiXMXMe8g-rEb06uNxkq0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

BarryD2

We all know what the OP is saying and anyone who drives regularly does the same sort of things. There are a set of rules of the road and there is road signage to give a steer on what applies at places. But the reality is that most (all?) drivers are bending these regularly. They are using their judgement, observing other drivers and road users about them and making sensible decisions as to how to get from A to B efficiently and safely.

markpb

BarryD2 wrote: »

But the reality is that most (all?) drivers are bending these regularly. They are using their judgement, observing other drivers and road users about them and making sensible decisions as to how to get from A to B efficiently and safely.

Don't try to sugar coat this as motorists being being sensible. Most people don't know why those rules are in place (30kph limit on the N3 - M50 onramp, 60kph at N4E - M50 split) or only take themselves into consideration (driving on the bus lane at Heuston, running amber/red lights, ignoring red filter lights). It's nothing to do with them making sensible decisions, they are ignorant decisions because they don't know or care why the rules are there.

Try crossing the Alfie Byrne road as a pedestrian and see how many of those pedestrians are "observing other drivers" when they drive through the red filter light and green pedestrian light and nearly hit you. There's no observation going on there, only me-fein driving.

Try being a bus passenger in Dublin and spending big chunks of your trip sitting in traffic because some pillock is blocking the bus lane because they think they're more important than the 89 people in the bus.

If you think this is anti-motorist rant, you'd be wrong. This kind of behaviour also makes it difficult for others to turn left when the bus lane is blocked with cars. It encourages others to break the speed limit needlessly.

And lastly, don't try to convince yourself that it's okay to break the law and treat other road users like crap. The majority of road users obey the law. There's just enough planks breaking the law that they don't feel like they're alone doing it.

Macy0161

markpb wrote:

It's nothing to do with them making sensible decisions, they are ignorant decisions because they don't know or care why the rules are there.

And they know they're unlikely to be penalized/ enforcement is non existent. And seemingly no push from even the rsa for more cameras/ anpr, which could do more about speeding/ red lights/ bus lanes/ tax, insurance, nct etc than whatever number of traffic corps they want.

degsie

troyzer wrote: »

and dangerously undertaken

This is because lazy fat-ass drivers refuse to get out of an overtaking lane and enter the driving lane.

Infini

ELM327 wrote: »

That is one of the ridiculous speed limits.
Also, it's not really enforceable. The speed vans can park in the 60 or 50 zone before it or the 80-100 zone (ie the m50) after it - and they do regularly.
But there's nowhere they can park to get the 30 zone.
Combine lack of enforcement, and a ridiculously low speed limit, and you get zero adherence (or nearly 0)

I'm familiar with that one myself. Noone will drive up that at 30kph expecially with such a steep incline you can actually risk stalling on it at that speed if your not careful. Really poor foresight whoever thougut that was appropiate.

markpb

Infini wrote: »

Noone will drive up that at 30kph expecially with such a steep incline you can actually risk stalling on it at that speed if your not careful. Really poor foresight whoever thougut that was appropiate.

You'd want to be some poor driver to be unable to drive on a hill without speeding or stalling!

dashcamdanny

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you need your eyes tested. amber and red light jumping is endemic in ireland. there's one junction i know of where i regularly see cars sail through the red, 10, 20 or 30s after it has gone red.

Compared to cycles cars are a drop in the ocean with regard breaking lights. I see it at every light in Dublin every day at work. 20 at a time will flow pass the line of cars and sale straight through the red, no matter how long the red has been on. You may see an odd car race though a late amber or early red.

AlekSmart

Macy0161 wrote: »

And they know they're unlikely to be penalized/ enforcement is non existent. And seemingly no push from even the rsa for more cameras/ anpr, which could do more about speeding/ red lights/ bus lanes/ tax, insurance, nct etc than whatever number of traffic corps they want.

Absolutely spot-on.

With the Garda Roads Policing Units (How much was spent on the re-brand ?) woefully under strength,and even then largely deployed on "Headline" policing...ie static Vehicle Check Points...there appears to be no official appetite for mobile pro-active Traffic Policing.

In the absence of this,it would be prudent to involve the private sector in the automation and utilization of Traffic Law enforcement.

It's not ALL about drink driving !! :eek:

magicbastarder

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You may see an odd car race though a late amber or early red.

may? i would see it at nearly every set of lights, cars not just 'squeezing through' on an amber, but gunning it when they see one. it's constant.

it's funny though that there's now a terminology, 'late amber'; 'early red' - red is red. amber is amber.
the argument is lost if that's where we're at.

Dravokivich

Infini wrote: »

I'm familiar with that one myself. Noone will drive up that at 30kph expecially with such a steep incline you can actually risk stalling on it at that speed if your not careful. Really poor foresight whoever thougut that was appropiate.

It's quite easy. I do it any time I'm through there. What are you driving and in what gear?

The issue isn't the limit. The limit is there because of poor road design. It has to take into account all road users.

Charles Babbage

troyzer wrote: »

I did this for the first year or so of having my license and after a while there's just no point. Constantly being beeped at and dangerously undertaken is very much the other person's fault.

If you are in the left lane, then you can only be dangerously overtaken.

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

You'd want to be some poor driver to be unable to drive on a hill without speeding or stalling!

Not once have i done 30 kph over that bit but you can't risk taking the piss either because of the traffic lights on the other side and potentially cars stop just over the bend..

degsie

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Not once have i done 30 kph over that bit but you can't risk taking the piss either because of the traffic lights on the other side and potentially cars stop just over the bend..

Always thought you go around a bend, maybe I'm mistaken.

Hilly Bill

degsie wrote: »

Always thought you go around a bend, maybe I'm mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken.

dashcamdanny

magicbastarder wrote: »

may? i would see it at nearly every set of lights, cars not just 'squeezing through' on an amber, but gunning it when they see one. it's constant.

it's funny though that there's now a terminology, 'late amber'; 'early red' - red is red. amber is amber.
the argument is lost if that's where we're at.

Well may would be the wrong word. fairly often would be better.

Late ambers was tossed around quite alot in my Cat D training and testing. Stop unless it is unsafe to do so. Covers alot. Gunning it would not be a reason:pac:

Dravokivich

degsie wrote: »

Always thought you go around a bend, maybe I'm mistaken.

There's a bend on the crest of the over pass in question.

bigar

ELM327 wrote: »

That was my point.
0.001% of motorists may break the red light but a vast majority of cyclists do.

When I am on my motorbike, I filter through to the traffic light. When there I seem many more cars breaking a red than bicycles. When I move off when green, I always look right and left first as it is possible cars will still go through red. This is a daily occurrence.

troyzer

degsie wrote: »

This is because lazy fat-ass drivers refuse to get out of an overtaking lane and enter the driving lane.

Or you're getting into position to turn right?