Solving the “middle lane hoggers” problem.

tom1ie

beauf wrote: »

Basically you want people to leave lane 2 clear so you can drive in it.

Nope. I drive in l1. The driving lane.

endacl

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Free state

I am not trying to antagonise

Ah, you kinda are though, aren’t you.

endacl

beauf wrote: »

Free state there is an ironic term.

Consider me ironed.

beauf

tom1ie wrote: »

Nope. I drive in l1. The driving lane.

L2 is hardly a problem then is it.

mfceiling

It will never be solved.

I've seen drivers sit in the middle lane of both the m50 and the N7 at 4 in the morning...and I mean lots of cars.
People are stupid and oblivious that they are wrong.

I pulled my wife about it recently and we ended up having an argument about it. She states that she's doing nothing wrong and that she's always driven in the middle lane.
I called her an idiot and told her she shouldn't be allowed near a motorway until she learns and understands lane discipline.

pablo128

My missus had her full licence a year before she ventured onto a motorway. So one day I made her drive from Tallaght to Courtown. I told her to stay in lane 1 unless she needed to overtake. Guess what. Lane 1 all the way to Wexford.

Now if a new driver can manage that, so can anyone making excuses otherwise.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Explain it to you? Wouldn’t it be simpler if you were to just put your driving license back in the cornflakes box you found it in?

I think you're the third person to make a hilarious comment rather than explaining the apparently simple logic as to why undertaking is illegal. Do you even know yourself? The fact that it's legal in other countries means it's clearly contentious.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Because we've decided we want everyone to expect that.

Its not the same in every country.

Same as turning on red, or cyclists going through on red.

Fair enough. It is because it is.

If that's it, we should decide as a country to change this if we want to solve the MLH problem. I can't see why undertaking shouldn't be legal.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough. It is because it is.

If that's it, we should decide as a country to change this if we want to solve the MLH problem. I can't see why undertaking shouldn't be legal.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all pick and choose which laws we want to abide by.

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if we could all pick and choose which laws we want to abide by.

Where oh where did I say anything like that

beauf

pablo128 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if we could all pick and choose which laws we want to abide by.

Isn't that why this thread exists because people are doing exactly that.

Wombatman

pablo128 wrote: »

My missus had her full licence a year before she ventured onto a motorway. So one day I made her drive from Tallaght to Courtown. I told her to stay in lane 1 unless she needed to overtake. Guess what. Lane 1 all the way to Wexford.

Now if a new driver can manage that, so can anyone making excuses otherwise.

Drive all the way to from Tallaght to Wexford in Lane 1?
95% of drivers wouldn't do this. Nonsense contribution.

Just back from Phoenix. Driving on the 6 lane orbital loop every day without issue. Why have 6 lanes if everyone should stay in lane 1?

People on this thread wouldn’t stand a chance driving there because they can’t or are afraid to use common sense.

Paddigol

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough. It is because it is.

If that's it, we should decide as a country to change this if we want to solve the MLH problem. I can't see why undertaking shouldn't be legal.

Undertaking increases the chances of collisions, which at 100kmph have the potential for serious damage.

The current ROTR are fine.
Stay in L1 unless you're overtaking a car in L1.
Only use L3 if you're overtaking a car in L3.
Chances of accident due to cars weaving from left and right minimised.

How hard is it to (a) just drive at the speed limit, and (b) just pull back into L1 when you're done overtaking?

Lots of blathering, but the rules are perfectly straightforward - it says an awful, awful lot about the ability of most Irish drivers that they can't adhere to speed limits and manage a slight tilt of the head to look in the mirror and flick of the wrist to steer back into correct lane.

tom1ie

beauf wrote: »

L2 is hardly a problem then is it.

It is as I like to drive at 100kph. However I'm not allowed undertake, so I have to then execute five manoeuvres that shouldn't have to be executed.
Do you understand now or is this still too complicated for you?

bmc58

tom1ie wrote: »

So as the title of this thread suggests I’m putting forward an idea to maybe help with the problem of people driving in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway when there is no traffic in the left hand driving lane of that motorway.
Paint road markings on the middle lane and the outside lane that say “please merge into lane 1 for driving lane. Overtaking lane only.”
I’m sure this could be shortened. It should be accompanied by a merge arrow.
Would this work?
We have a big problem with people not even knowing they are driving incorrectly on 3 lane motorway, so why don’t we tell them when they are on the actual motorway by using the paint coupled with overhead gantrys.
Please discuss and tell me why it’s a terrible idea and destined not to work

If they are not bothering you or anyone else let them off.No point in getting upset over idiots who dont know the rules of motorway driving.You do the right thing and don't mind fools.

FrToddUnctious

Paddigol wrote: »

Undertaking increases the chances of collisions

Explain how?

pablo128

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

Explain how?

Idiots veering across 2 lanes at the last minute for an exit.

That's one example.

FrToddUnctious

pablo128 wrote: »

Idiots veering across 2 lanes at the last minute for an exit.

That's one example.

How is that related to undertaking?

pablo128

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

How is that related to undertaking?

Ah here if I have to explain it to you....

FrToddUnctious

pablo128 wrote: »

Ah here if I have to explain it to you....

Go on shur, people going from lane 3 to 1 at the last minute to get their exit, how does that have any relation to undertaking?

pablo128

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

Go on shur, people going from lane 3 to 1 at the last minute to get their exit, how does that have any relation to undertaking?

You asked a poster to explain how undertaking increases the risk of a collision. I gave an example.

FrToddUnctious

pablo128 wrote: »

You asked a poster to explain how undertaking increases the risk of a collision. I gave an example.

No you didn't, you said something completely unrelated to undertaking, and clearly can't explain whatever it was you meant

pablo128

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

No you didn't, you said something completely unrelated to undertaking, and clearly can't explain whatever it was you meant

You are posting nonsense now. Good luck.

FrToddUnctious

pablo128 wrote: »

You are posting nonsense now. Good luck.

Right grand, so just to confirm, you don't have any examples of how undertaking increases the risk of collision then?

tuxy

Wombatman wrote: »

Just back from Phoenix. Driving on the 6 lane orbital loop every day without issue. Why have 6 lanes if everyone should stay in lane 1?

People on this thread wouldn’t stand a chance driving there because they can’t or are afraid to use common sense.

Of all the countries to pick you choose the one that is a developed country but has at least 3 times the road fatalities per capita as Ireland.
Why set the standard of driving that far lower than Ireland?
We should try to reduce accidents not bring in a free for all lane system.
Legally we have a system close to some of the best countries it's just people do not follow the rules.

tom1ie

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

Right grand, so just to confirm, you don't have any examples of how undertaking increases the risk of collision then?

I suppose an example of how it would be dangerous would be the assclowns in L2 wouldn't check their left mirror if they decided they need to get into L1 as they hadn't passed anyone as they were playing it safe.
This might then lead to a crash due to them being absolute assclowns.
That's one reason.

FrToddUnctious

tom1ie wrote: »

I suppose an example of how it would be dangerous would be the assclowns in L2 wouldn't check their left mirror if they decided they need to get into L1 as they hadn't passed anyone as they were playing it safe.
This might then lead to a crash due to them being absolute assclowns.
That's one reason.

Thanks for answering

I hear this argument all the time but it's never made sense to me

If the guy in L2 is really just going to swing straight into L1 without checking their mirrors, why would passing them on the right be any safer? What makes us think he will check when going right but not when going left?

Henry Ford III

tom1ie wrote: »

But the mlh is causing an obstruction. Is this not illegal aswell?

Yes but it still doesn't make undertaking legal.

tom1ie

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Yes but it still doesn't make undertaking legal.

Agreed. So both are in the wrong. However mlh cause undertaking so if there weren't mlh's there wouldn't be undertaking.

Henry Ford III

FrToddUnctious wrote: »

Thanks for answering

I hear this argument all the time but it's never made sense to me

If the guy in L2 is really just going to swing straight into L1 without checking their mirrors, why would passing them on the right be any safer? What makes us think he will check when going right but not when going left?

Laws frequently make no sense. Your obligations remain however.