Apart from the lane hogging bus, who is more at fault here?

Jeremy Sproket

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

Lets say this is the wording of a law:


Applying the same interpretation the law mentioned in the rules of the road above, the speed limit of 40 kmph would apply to vehicles that are following tractors only, and would not apply to anyone following a combine harvester.

In the above tractor example, a tractor is an example of a agricultural vehicle, but its not the only type of agricultural vehicles.

In the rules of the road, slow moving stop/start traffic conditions is an example of slow traffic, but its not the only type of slow traffic.

100% strawman.

Thoie

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

twin_beacon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

100% strawman.

explain why I am wrong so.

Midnight_EG

markmoto wrote: »

Bus should be pullover and giving 60 euro fine and 2 penalty points.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Point%20offences%20as%20of%2026%20October%202018.pdf

For what particular reason?

Grolschevik

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

So why is it illegal to overtake on the left then?

Thoie wrote: »

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

I took this to mean:
a) If the legitimacy of overtaking on the left is a matter of the interpretation of "slow" v "slower", that is , an interpretation based on relative speeds,

and (b) by definition, if it is only possible to overtake someone on the left if they are travelling at a slower speed than you,

then (c) why does the law specifically say you should not overtake on the left?

Would not a reliance on any relativistic interpretation of "slow/slower" mean that the law is esentially meaningless/redundant?

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

explain why I am wrong so.

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Specifically the failed "it's ok to overtake on the lhs if the traffic in lane 2 or 3 is slower moving then me" argument.

That's demonstrably nonsense.

km991148

Thoie wrote: »

That's not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm littering (illegal), that doesn't mean you get to run up and stab me.

Regardless of whether the lorry was sticking to the speed limit/driving in the correct lane/displaying a tax disc, it was the driver of the car's responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before moving into it.

Three wrongs in this example! - bus wasn't overtaking, undertaking lorry and the car not checking. But yeah - obviously the first two don't absolve the car driver of the mistake. Its not even a question really.

twin_beacon

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Specifically the failed "it's ok to overtake on the lhs if the traffic in lane 2 or 3 is slower moving then me" argument.

That's demonstrably nonsense.

I think its very ironic that I'm the one that is been called a "Strawman", when I'm the one that has given examples of the term "for example" in a different scenarios to back up my views, yet you keep attacking my point without ever attempting to back up your points.

If you believe slow moving traffic the law refers to is ONLY bumper to bumper, stop - start traffic, you are wrong. Take this scenario that happens every day on the M50 at rush hour. People flock to the middle and right lane, leaving the left lane less congested and as a result, traffic will often flow more freely. In this scenario, lets say all the lanes are moving at a speed of 70 kmph. Then the right and middle lakes reduce their speed to 50 kmph, but the left lane is still able to maintain their speed of 70 kmph, so the cars in the left lane undertake the slower moving traffic in the middle lane. Why don't the Guards pull over the thousands of cars that undertake like this every day? because page 142 in the rules of the road states:

You must progress at a speed and in a way that avoids interference with other motorway traffic.

In other words, you can't slow down to 50 kmph holding up cars behind, and leaving an empty lane ahead, because the lanes to the right have slowed down. I have undertaken cars like this on most days pre covid when I had to drive into the office. I have undertaken squad cars doing this.



good luck, I'm outa here.

Henry Ford III

twin_beacon wrote: »

I think its very ironic that I'm the one that is been called a "Strawman", when I'm the one that has given examples of the term "for example" in a different scenarios to back up my views, yet you keep attacking my point without ever attempting to back up your points.

If you believe slow moving traffic the law refers to is ONLY bumper to bumper, stop - start traffic, you are wrong. Take this scenario that happens every day on the M50 at rush hour. People flock to the middle and right lane, leaving the left lane less congested and as a result, traffic will often flow more freely. In this scenario, lets say all the lanes are moving at a speed of 70 kmph. Then the right and middle lakes reduce their speed to 50 kmph, but the left lane is still able to maintain their speed of 70 kmph, so the cars in the left lane undertake the slower moving traffic in the middle lane. Why don't the Guards pull over the thousands of cars that undertake like this every day? because page 142 in the rules of the road states:


In other words, you can't slow down to 50 kmph holding up cars behind, and leaving an empty lane ahead, because the lanes to the right have slowed down. I have undertaken cars like this on most days pre covid when I had to drive into the office. I have undertaken squad cars doing this.



good luck, I'm outa here.

See post #27. It's all there.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Midnight_EG wrote: »

For what particular reason?

I'd say he was probably looking at failer to drive on left but that isn't in this case, that would be more driving on wrong side of the road.

However, driving without reasonable consideration. A guard could throw that if they felt like it ! Especially if the guard saw what was happening.

But that offense is very broad anyway

BnB

Question is just completely black and white

Was the bus driver an Ass ? - From the info in the OP, it would appear so

Did the truck driver break the law ? - That appears to be debatable - If you are to take the OP at his/her word, they did at least break the speed limit

But to the original question, Who caused the accident ? - 100% caused by the car driver. Cut across 2 lanes without checking if it was safe to do so. Talking about the truck and bus and what they did are irrelevant. You cut across two lanes in front of another vehicle and got whacked..... No argument - No room for discussion - 100% your fault.

Spook_ie

twin_beacon wrote: »

No, the rules of the road just gives an example of what "slow" is.



The law does not state that overtaking on the left is allowed only in slow moving stop/start traffic conditions.

Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly but traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the right-hand lane – for example, in slow moving (, or) stop/start traffic conditions.

Would it not require a comma or the word OR to make it grammatically correct for your interpretation?