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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

People with a funny idea of the rules of the road.

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    The number of motorists who think it's illegal to cycle two abreast. It's perfectly legal and advisable. There's even an RSA advert campaign advising motorists of this but on every club ride there's always a few dickhead motorists who feel the need to display their ignorance of the road traffic regulations.

    There is the caveat though when cyclists are overtaking cyclists

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058180350

    In particular this post with thanks to GM228
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116976437&postcount=14


  • Options
    #33
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Weepsie wrote: »
    What I find astonishing is he number of motorists who quote the rules of the road (rightly and wrongly) as if they're some sort of sacredly enshrined passages, and when you point out to them that the RTA actually says x and y they get all uppity

    I notice that among lots of road users, cyclists, pedestrians and motorised vehicles


  • Options
    #34
    Fast2move
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Fast2move


    [quote="kirving;117398779"
    I 100% disagree with this statement. Things happen way too fast on a motorway to be trying to instill behaviours in a population. At 100km/h with a slip road ending, the here and now is the only thing that matters. Don't create a dangerous situation in order to teach a lesson.[/quote]

    Well then you’re contradicting yourself because previously you stated about how your behaviour can affect other peoples driving.

    I cannot explain my comprehensive opinion of the subject in one small message and I would never advocate aggression or obstinance on the road. But all too often when people see a car on the sliproad they immediately change lanes. These unnecessary manoeuvers increase the risk of accidents. I am of the understanding that if I move to another lane to accommodate a poorly driven vehicle on the sliproad merging then I’m doing it in avoidance and not out of courtesy

    It is only by repeatedly enforcing correct driving behaviour and etiquette will people actually change their driving habits. But I have long given up expecting that to ever happen in Ireland


  • Options
    #35
    aFlabbyPanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭aFlabbyPanda


    tphase wrote: »
    FYP :)

    not picking a fight but if can use the 2nd/3rd lane to allow traffic to merge into the 1st lane, why wouldn't you move over?.

    To me the wording implies that I should stay left (1st/2nd lane depending on if its a 2 or 3 lane motorway) unless overtaking or to allow taffic to merge onto the motorway.


  • Options
    #36
    mgbgt1978
    Registered Users Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭mgbgt1978


    CoBo55 wrote: »
    Charming. Just out of curiosity, why would anyone merging into the motorway need to indicate? You know what they're trying to do, just let them merge or if it bothers you that much accelerate past them and let them merge in behind you. Drivers like you are exactly the reason I move to the outer lane at junctions.


    Probably because they are moving from one lane to another, and for some reason the Rules of the Road state that you should "mirror, indicate, manoeuvre " when changing lane.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,651 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    aFlabbyPanda wrote: »
    According to https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Leaflets/Leaf_booklets/motorway_driving.pdf you should move into the next lane to allow for traffic merging onto to the motorway.

    * Lane 1 – You should always use this lane for normal driving. Stay in this lane unless
    you are overtaking.

    • Lane 2 – On a two lane motorway, you should only use this lane for overtaking. You
    must move back to lane 1 once you have finished overtaking and it is safe to do so.
    You can also move into lane 2 to allow vehicles coming from your left to join the
    motorway. On a 3 lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is
    slower moving traffic in lane 1.

    • Lane 3 – You should only use this lane if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues
    and you need to overtake or make room for merging traffic. You should move back
    to lane 1 as soon as it is safe to do so.

    Wrong. It's up to the merging vehicle to adjust their speed to merge safely. OP should not have slowed.


  • Options
    #38
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,651 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    The number of motorists who think it's illegal to cycle two abreast. It's perfectly legal and advisable. There's even an RSA advert campaign advising motorists of this but on every club ride there's always a few dickhead motorists who feel the need to display their ignorance of the road traffic regulations.

    And these idiot drivers don't realise that it's easier to pass cyclists if they're 2 abreast


  • Options
    #39
    aFlabbyPanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭aFlabbyPanda


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Wrong. It's up to the merging vehicle to adjust their speed to merge safely. OP should not have slowed.

    what part is wrong in the pdf? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    Do you have to indicate when pulling back in after overtaking on a motorway? I seem to remember that it was not necessary.


  • Options
    #41
    stopthevoting
    Registered Users Posts: 266 ✭✭stopthevoting


    aFlabbyPanda wrote: »
    what part is wrong in the pdf? :rolleyes:
    Did you see posts numbers 6 and 17 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    CoBo55 wrote: »
    Charming. Just out of curiosity, why would anyone merging into the motorway need to indicate? You know what they're trying to do, just let them merge or if it bothers you that much accelerate past them and let them merge in behind you. Drivers like you are exactly the reason I move to the outer lane at junctions.

    They are changing the lane. Their lane finishes and they want to get onto a lane that's on the main line.


  • Options
    #43
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    Government buildings wrote: »
    Do you have to indicate when pulling back in after overtaking on a motorway? I seem to remember that it was not necessary.

    Every time you change a lane you should indicate.


  • Options
    #44
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,928 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    grogi wrote: »
    They are changing the lane. Their lane finishes and they want to get onto a lane that's on the main line.

    Right so why do they need to indicate if you can see their lane ends... they arent changing lane. Their lane is merging in.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #45
    ClosedAccountFuzzy
    Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    The biggest issue is a lot of Irish drivers don't have a clue how to merge.

    You see them looking flustered as they come up to a junction and then merging way too slowly and even stopping hard on it the slipway.


  • Options
    #46
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Right so why do they need to indicate if you can see their lane ends...

    That's getting dangerously close to 'I don't indicate, because I always turn here.'.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    The number of motorists who think it's illegal to cycle two abreast. It's perfectly legal and advisable. There's even an RSA advert campaign advising motorists of this but on every club ride there's always a few dickhead motorists who feel the need to display their ignorance of the road traffic regulations.

    Why bring this up in this thread? Motorways have nothing to do with cyclists.


  • Options
    #48
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,651 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    aFlabbyPanda wrote: »
    what part is wrong in the pdf? :rolleyes:

    It has no legal standing and does not imply that the merger has any right of way.


  • Options
    #49
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    FuzzyThinking wrote: »
    The biggest issue is a lot of Irish drivers don't have a clue how to merge.

    You see them looking flustered as they come up to a junction and then merging way too slowly and even stopping hard on it the slipway.

    They should do a few weeks in Italy and a likes where you get about 6 feet of a slip way to merge.


  • Options
    #50
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,928 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    grogi wrote: »
    That's getting dangerously close to 'I don't indicate, because I always turn here.'.

    You can see their lane is ending, merging into this one.
    It's a standard feature of motorway merging - "I always turn here" has to do with it is anyone's guess. How you could think the situations similar is beyond me.
    You can't see that the lane is going to end?

    What do you think they are going to do?
    Do you imagine the car is going to turn into a plane and take flight?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #51
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    You can see their lane is ending, merging into this one.
    It's a standard feature of motorway merging what "I always turn here" has to do with it is neither here nor there.
    You can't see that the lane is going to end?

    What do you think they are going to do?
    Do you imagine the car is going to turn into a plane and take flight?

    You cannot be serious .

    Why should it be my responsibility to guess what the other party will do when they have legal obligation and tools to communicate that? There is no grey area here: indicate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    You can see their lane is ending, merging into this one.
    It's a standard feature of motorway merging - "I always turn here" has to do with it is anyone's guess. How you could think the situations similar is beyond me.
    You can't see that the lane is going to end?

    What do you think they are going to do?
    Do you imagine the car is going to turn into a plane and take flight?

    The person merging should have slowed down or sped up before that point regardless. Their responsibility.


  • Options
    #53
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,928 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    grogi wrote: »
    You cannot be serious .

    Why should it be my responsibility to guess what the other party will do when they have legal obligation and tools to communicate that? There is no grey area here: indicate.

    Why do you have to guess if you can see that the slipway lane is about to end and merge into your one?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #54
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh


  • Options
    #55
    aFlabbyPanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭aFlabbyPanda


    McGaggs wrote: »
    It has no legal standing and does not imply that the merger has any right of way.

    cool, let the rsa know so sure. I've yet to see anyone else provide anything except opinions.


  • Options
    #56
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,928 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    The person merging should have slowed down or sped up before that point regardless. Their responsibility.

    And the vehicles in Lane 1 should have left room for merging too.
    I'm just disputing the point of the indicator when it's obvious that the slipway is ending and must merge in.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #57
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,765 ✭✭✭Panrich


    McCrack wrote: »
    Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

    A lot of drivers tend to think that an indicator confers right of way as well.


  • Options
    #58
    aFlabbyPanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭aFlabbyPanda


    I just found on page 144 on the rules of the road it says the person joining must give way to traffic already on the motorway.

    https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


  • Options
    #59
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,956 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Why bring this up in this thread? Motorways have nothing to do with cyclists.
    Perhaps have another read of the thread title - 'People with a funny idea of the rules of the road'.

    Not sure why you think it's about motorways - the ROTR apply to all public roads.


  • Options
    #60
    Pataman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭Pataman


    McCrack wrote: »
    Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

    Its a legal requirement. Its not difficult. By that logic, why would you bother indicating at all. Sure you will be leaving the road at some point and its obviously all the other drivers that need to read your mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    tDw6u1bj
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭tDw6u1bj


    McCrack wrote: »
    Definitely no necessity for a merging vehicle to indicate, it looks silly tbh

    You indicate when intending to move from one lane to another.

    Consistent and predictable driving is what makes things safer.
    You think it's silly? Maybe you're right, but it's not up to us to decide what rules are silly and which aren't - everybody will have different opinions, pick different rules to ignore and then things get messy and dangerous.


Advertisement