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

Undertaking

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    worded
    Registered Users Posts: 4,536 ✭✭✭worded


    A big hellicopter policing motorways with a giant magnet attached would Quickly weed out the offenders on the spot


  • Options
    #63
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    The S.I. I referred to is from 1997, we definitety had two lane roads, dual carriageways and motorways so our legislators are likely to have taken the concept of traffic in left hand lanes travelling faster than traffic in right hand lanes at speeds of 70mph.

    The legislation clearly considers circumstances where overtaking does not involve having to change lanes and clearly states one should overtake on the right other than in the three exceptions explicitly provided for.

    That section of the SI is unchanged from the 1964 SI. The legislation most certainly does not clearly consider circumstances where overtaking does not involve having to change lanes. You are making stuff up again.


  • Options
    #64
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    dil999 wrote: »
    Remember the legislation was originally written in 1964, and the concept of traffic in left hand lanes travelling faster than traffic in right hand lanes at speeds of 70mph did not exist. So the legislators are very unlikely to have considered that as a definition of overtaking.

    that's only 50 years ago, not the dark ages. both the concept of dual lane roads and cars capable of 70mph existed then


  • Options
    #65
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    dil999 wrote: »
    That section of the SI is unchanged from the 1964 SI. The legislation most certainly does not clearly consider circumstances where overtaking does not involve having to change lanes. You are making stuff up again.
    Read section 10 of the 1997 S.I., the three exceptions to overtaking on the right do not require any lane change.


  • Options
    #66
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,278 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    SmartinMartin wrote: »
    you are perfectly entitled to pass traffic on the left if the traffic in that lane is moving slower than you.
    Only is "slow moving" traffic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,506 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Victor wrote: »
    Only is "slow moving" traffic.

    quantify slow


  • Options
    #68
    worded
    Registered Users Posts: 4,536 ✭✭✭worded


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    Victor wrote: »
    Only is "slow moving" traffic.

    quantify slow

    Driving miss daisy

    Anyone driving slower than you is a doddery fecker
    Faster than you is a lunatic


  • Options
    #69
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    worded wrote: »
    Driving miss daisy

    Anyone driving slower than you is a doddery fecker
    Faster than you is a lunatic

    exactly


  • Options
    #70
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    vrusinov wrote: »
    Sure, but a very few of them are on N7 Sunday 7am.

    If very few of the drivers are out and about at 7am on Sunday, then surely not many merging and no need to hog the middle lane.

    I drive quiet hours as well and the amount of idiots who still race to the middle lane from the slip roads are a joke. Idiots the lot of them, every last one.


  • Options
    #71
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    Read section 10 of the 1997 S.I., the three exceptions to overtaking on the right do not require any lane change.

    Only if you misunderstand the word "overtaking".

    If you were to use your misinterpretation of the word, then merging onto a motorway would be impossible, as you would have to wait in the merging lane until all slower moving traffic on the motorway had passed.

    Also as per your misunderstanding, a pretty glaring anomaly would exist:
    You can go faster than a car on your right if you are exiting left at the next junction, but not if you are exiting left at the junction after. (see the_pen_turner's earlier post)

    I really cant assist you with this anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    dil999 wrote:
    Definitions in law are in the context of the legislation, and not something you pull off dictionary.com. You obviously can't grasp that simple principle, and that probably explains the bafflement you are experiencing. I am afraid, I can't help you any more with your state of confusion. Hopefully it passes before morning. Good night.


    The relevant legislation has been quoted more than once. It's abundantly clear to most what it means.

    Your insistance that staying in lane and passing someone on the lhs isn't overtaking has considerable comedy value.


  • Options
    #73
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    dil999 wrote:
    Only if you misunderstand the word "overtaking".


    Ironic that. Everybody understands what the term means but you.


  • Options
    #74
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,425 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Urge to kill... Rising...

    Honestly though definitions of overtaking have been provided by many people, yet you have failed to provide a single link backing up your claim that in order to overtake you must change position to the side and back again.

    How certain are you of this? Would you happily pass a Garda car out on the left side if they were hogging a right hand lane?


  • Options
    #75
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Urge to kill... Rising...

    Honestly though definitions of overtaking have been provided by many people, yet you have failed to provide a single link backing up your claim that in order to overtake you must change position to the side and back again.

    How certain are you of this? Would you happily pass a Garda car out on the left side if they were hogging a right hand lane?

    Absolutely


  • Options
    #76
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Ironic that. Everybody understands what the term means but you.

    You don't even know what 'Everybody' mean.


  • Options
    #77
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Try it and lot everybody know how it goes.

    Oh and please provide one single piece of 3rd party coroboration to back up your assertions on this subject.


  • Options
    #78
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Try it and lot everybody know how it goes.

    Oh and please provide one single piece of 3rd party coroboration to back up your assertions on this subject.

    First sentence shows the bewilderment hasn't worn off.

    I have made a clear and coherent argument. If you don't have the intellectual capabilities or education to understand it, I can't help you. Please provide one single piece of 3rd party corroboration (2 rs btw) to back up your assertions on this subject.


  • Options
    #79
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    dil999 wrote: »
    Only if you misunderstand the word "overtaking".

    If you were to use your misinterpretation of the word, then merging onto a motorway would be impossible, as you would have to wait in the merging lane until all slower moving traffic on the motorway had passed.

    Also as per your misunderstanding, a pretty glaring anomaly would exist:
    You can go faster than a car on your right if you are exiting left at the next junction, but not if you are exiting left at the junction after. (see the_pen_turner's earlier post)

    I really cant assist you with this anymore.

    You can use the hard shoulder if the merging lane isn't long enough. You should also be looking to merge at the speed of the traffic too.


  • Options
    #80
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    dil999 wrote: »
    First sentence shows the bewilderment hasn't worn off.

    I have made a clear and coherent argument. If you don't have the intellectual capabilities or education to understand it, I can't help you. Please provide one single piece of 3rd party corroboration (2 rs btw) to back up your assertions on this subject.
    The "common understanding" :

    "Catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/overtake)
    or
    "an act or the process of moving past another vehicle or person travelling in the same direction" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...sh/overtaking)

    The Legal position :

    S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997
    Overtaking Section 10.
    .
    .
    .
    (5) A driver may only overtake on the left— ... ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.
    This has laready been highlighted by cython in post #22 (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104787248&postcount=22)

    the "common understanding" and legal position are consistent with each other and at odds with your view of overtaking. Neither the "common understanding" nor the legal position mandate that an overtaking manoeuvre must involve a lane change.


  • Options
    #81
    T-Maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,136 ✭✭✭T-Maxx


    I'm with dil9999 on this.

    People seem to get so hung up with interpretations of the rotr that common sense seem to be ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    T-Maxx wrote: »
    I'm with dil9999 on this.

    People seem to get so hung up with interpretations of the rotr that common sense seem to be ignored.

    ROTR is an interpretation on its own!


  • Options
    #83
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    T-Maxx wrote: »
    I'm with dil9999 on this.

    People seem to get so hung up with interpretations of the rotr that common sense seem to be ignored.

    From my point of view, someone is already in the wrong hogging the middle lane. I'm not going to compound it further by doing something that goes against how we are expected to use the road.

    There is another thread around here about one driver who saw another frustrated driver react very badly. But the OP felt they should have done the very same action. Without taking into consideration the potential hazard it presented.

    A lot of drivers just follow the line. I ain't going to be a part of it when it comes to someone driving slowly to my right.


  • Options
    #84
    mdebets
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    grogi wrote: »
    Do you think we would have similar discussion if we speak German? Don't think so - it is €200 for driving in overtaking lane while not overtaking - and it is being enforced.
    If you are such a fan of the German laws, I'm sure that you are aware that driving in the middle lane of a 3 or more lanes autobahn is legal in Germany as long as there are cars on it now and then (you don't need to pull over to the right directly after overtaking, but you can continue in the middle lane, if there are or to be expected more cars further up the road on the right lane).


  • Options
    #85
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    dil999 wrote:
    I have made a clear and coherent argument. If you don't have the intellectual capabilities or education to understand it, I can't help you. Please provide one single piece of 3rd party corroboration (2 rs btw) to back up your assertions on this subject.


    No you haven't. You've made a poor interpretation in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Repeating it over and over doesn't strengthen your argument. Infact it makes you look quite stupid.


  • Options
    #86
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Can we all please try and keep it civil and remember to attack the post and not the poster.

    - Moderator


  • Options
    #87
    dil999
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    No you haven't. You've made a poor interpretation in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Repeating it over and over doesn't strengthen your argument. Infact it makes you look quite stupid.

    Not true. I have consistently argued why my interpretation is valid. Unlike your good self.


  • Options
    #88
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    dil999 wrote: »
    Not true. I have consistently argued why my interpretation is valid. Unlike your good self.
    And each argument has been disproven.

    You claimed the legislation dated from 1964, before two lane roads where "the concept of traffic in left hand lanes travelling faster than traffic in right hand lanes at speeds of 70mph did not exist" it has been pointed out that the current legislation dates from 1997 when the concept did exist.

    You claimed the "common understanding" of overtaking required changing form one lane and back again - this was disproven by multiple dictionary references and by multiple posters' opinions here.

    It has been pointed out that overtaking on the left, as permitted in slow moving traffic, does not require any lane change as can be deduced from reading the legislation.

    Can you address these points raised in post #80 I have yet to see a cogent rebuttal to any of the points raised.


  • Options
    #89
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    dil999 wrote: »
    Nobody could possibly interpret "overtaking" in the context of the 1964 SI as travelling faster in a left lane than traffic to your right. There were no dual carriageways or motorways in existence at the time.

    Ireland's first DC opened in January 1944 (the Naas Road bye-pass/Bluebell Dual Carriageway), by 1950 the government had identified 12.5 miles of dual carriageway built/to be built.

    In 1956 the term "Dual Carriageway" was officially recognised in road traffic law.


    dil999 wrote: »
    Remember the legislation was originally written in 1964, and the concept of traffic in left hand lanes travelling faster than traffic in right hand lanes at speeds of 70mph did not exist. So the legislators are very unlikely to have considered that as a definition of overtaking.
    dil999 wrote: »
    That section of the SI is unchanged from the 1964 SI. The legislation most certainly does not clearly consider circumstances where overtaking does not involve having to change lanes. You are making stuff up again.

    The 1964 SI most certainly did consider circumstances of a lane change - they considered it so much that they dropped that requirement from the older laws.

    You see the 1964 SI replaced the "The General Bye-Laws for the Control of Traffic 1937" which specifically based overtaking on your concept, i.e changing lane to overtake, then "closing in" and then "keep within the proper traffic lane of the overtaken vehicle".


    With the advance of Dual Carriageways Charles Haughey (then Minister for Justice) confirmed in the early 60s that the requirement to close in or return to the lane after an overtake would be dropped in new legislation.

    With regards to overtaking on the left he later confirmed that the overtaking on the left in slow moving traffic would apply to slow moving congested traffic to ease congestion.



    Also, see 0:36, the Audi passing by on the inside lane and staying in it, care to tell the Thames Valley Police officer that he isn't overtaking (undertaking) the police car?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=


  • Options
    #90
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,714 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    I can't believe this argument is still going ...

    - Overtaking is passing another car (REGARDLESS of what lane you're in)

    - The RTA states that you may ONLY overtake on the left in certain limited circumstances (which have been quoted above). Unless that other traffic is slow-moving (ie: stop-start in heavy congestion) you MAY NOT overtake on the left. You must change lanes and overtake the car on the right (assuming a third lane is available)

    - Continuing on in the left lane is against the terms of the RTA and you can technically be prosecuted for it.

    Certain posters may not agree with this law, but that's the way it is. The fact that there are drivers out there who seem unable to understand the above is frightening, but not surprising given the amounts of accidents caused by incorrect lane-changes daily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,714 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    GM228 wrote: »
    Also, see 0:36, the Audi passing by on the inside lane and staying in it, care to tell the Thames Valley Police officer that he isn't overtaking (undertaking) the police car?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7dczF-grdw


    Probably a bad example.

    At 0:28 you can see the Audi clearly in the left lane as the squad car gains on him in the centre

    At 0:32/33 the squad car comes alongside the Audi

    At 0:34 the cop claims the Audi is undertaking him... whereas in reality, the cop obviously lifted off for "TV effect"


Advertisement