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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Undertaking

2

Comments

  • #52
    Esel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,518 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    But... but... but it's the Rules of the Road!

    Not your ornery onager



  • #53
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I'm not.

    RTA makes it quite clear what's legal and what's not. It's also been spelt out several times for you already.

    It doesn't. As grogi stated, the relevant legislation is a 1964 Statutory Instrument (SI)

    Just because you or others say something on an internet forum doesn't make it correct. There is absolutely nothing that has been said on this thread that supports the argument you have been trying to make.

    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.


  • #54
    grogi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    dil999 wrote: »
    Definitions in law are in the context of the legislation, and not something you pull off dictionary.com.

    But there is no definition in said Act that would contradict a common understanding of the term 'overtaking'.


  • #55
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    grogi wrote: »
    But there is no definition in said Act that would contradict a common understanding of the term 'overtaking'.
    But what is the common understanding of the term 'overtaking'? It seems different people have a different understanding of the term.

    From the legislation overtaking is the act of passing traffic which is heading in the same direction. A driver should always overtake on the right except in the three specific cases provided for by the law.
    ( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
    ( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,
    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.


  • #56
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,524 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    But what is the common understanding of the term 'overtaking'? It seems different people have a different understanding of the term.

    From the legislation overtaking is the act of passing traffic which is heading in the same direction. A driver should always overtake on the right except in the three specific cases provided for by the law.
    ( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
    ( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,
    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

    so if I'm taking the next exit I can signal the manoeuvre and undertake


  • #57
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    But what is the common understanding of the term 'overtaking'? It seems different people have a different understanding of the term.

    From the legislation overtaking is the act of passing traffic which is heading in the same direction. A driver should always overtake on the right except in the three specific cases provided for by the law.
    ( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
    ( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,
    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

    FishOnABike wrote: »
    From the legislation overtaking is the act of passing traffic which is heading in the same direction

    No its not. That is not stated anywhere in the legislation. Your argument falls down when you make stuff up.

    Also remember that there is also no definition of "slow moving traffic" in the legislation either. Is it 50 km/hr? Is it 100 km/hr? Does it depend on the context? Is 100 km/hr on a motorway considered slow? But not 50 km/hr in an urban setting?

    Legislation is not a scientific document. There is a reason we have judges barristers, solicitors.


  • #58
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,524 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    basically slow is only an opinion.
    to me it has to any speed lower than what you would expect the average driver to be doing.
    assuming weather conditions allow then most people would expect to be able to drive close to the speed limit. anything less than that would be considered slow.


  • #59
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    grogi wrote: »
    But there is no definition in said Act that would contradict a common understanding of the term 'overtaking'.

    There isn't and there doesn't have to be. I would argue that a "common understanding of the term overtaking" in the context of general motoring, and in the context of the legislation, is a specific maneuver that involves moving from lane a to lane b and back to lane a after passing out another vehicle or obstacle that was in lane a. That is a common understanding of 'overtaking'.
    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.


  • #60
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    basically slow is only an opinion.
    to me it has to any speed lower than what you would expect the average driver to be doing.
    assuming weather conditions allow then most people would expect to be able to drive close to the speed limit. anything less than that would be considered slow.
    It is more likely to be considered in context. 100Km/hr might be considered slow on a motorway, but not in a 60Km/hr zone.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    dil999 wrote: »
    There isn't and there doesn't have to be. I would argue that a "common understanding of the term overtaking" in the context of general motoring, and in the context of the legislation, is a specific maneuver that involves moving from lane a to lane b and back to lane a after passing out another vehicle or obstacle that was in lane a. That is a common understanding of 'overtaking'.
    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.

    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.


  • #62
    worded
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭worded


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


  • #63
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #64
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #65
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,494 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #67
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,524 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


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

    quantify slow


  • #68
    worded
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭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


  • #69
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    worded wrote: »
    Driving miss daisy

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

    exactly


  • #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.


  • #71
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #72
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,760 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.


  • #73
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


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


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


  • #74
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,474 ✭✭✭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?


  • #75
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • #76
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #77
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,760 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.


  • #78
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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.


  • #80
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #81
    T-Maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭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
  • #82
    grogi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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!


  • #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.


  • #84
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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).


  • #85
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,760 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.


  • #86
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


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

    - Moderator


  • #87
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #88
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #89
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭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=


  • #90
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭_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
  • #91
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭_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"


  • #92
    dil999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭dil999


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    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.

    You are not correct. The Legislation and the RTA is not clear. The definition of overtaking in the context of the legislation is not clear. The definition of 'slow' in the legislation is not clear. I have made a very detailed argument as to why this is the case.

    Somebody answer me this question. What exact speed is slow as defined in this SI?

    I think enough has has been said on this. But remember, the law is never black and white. And if anyone ever gets charged or prosecuted for driving within the speed limit on the left lane of a motorway, but faster than traffic in the right. Please start a thread. I will be waiting.


  • #93
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    In this instance the vast majority would agree it's actually very clear.

    For clarity though the offence isn't driving faster than a vehicle in the outside lane, it's passing/overtaking/undertaking a vehicle on your rhs.


  • #94
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    dil999 wrote: »
    You are not correct. The Legislation and the RTA is not clear. The definition of overtaking in the context of the legislation is not clear.
    It appears to be clear to almost everyone but yourself.
    dil999 wrote: »
    The definition of 'slow' in the legislation is not clear. I have made a very detailed argument as to why this is the case.
    You may have made detailed arguments for your view but each has been soundly refuted by multiple posters. You have yet to respond to the counter arguments in posts #80, #88 and #89 which have repeatedly shown your arguments to be without foundation.
    dil999 wrote: »
    Somebody answer me this question. What exact speed is slow as defined in this SI?
    The legislation doesn't specify an exact speed for 'slow', that's for the prosecuting garda and judge to decide. I think it would be decided on the reasonable person standard. Good luck trying to convince a judge that you travelling at 120kmh in lane one, overtaking the lane hogger in lane two who is travelling at 100kmh on a HQDC are 'slow moving traffic'.
    dil999 wrote: »
    I think enough has has been said on this. But remember, the law is never black and white. And if anyone ever gets charged or prosecuted for driving within the speed limit on the left lane of a motorway, but faster than traffic in the right. Please start a thread. I will be waiting.
    Some aspects of the law are black and white e.g. overtake on the right except for the three exceptions provided for in law and by implication that overtaking does not, by necessity, have to involve any lane changing.

    Other aspects are subject to the reasonable person test - e.g. what speed is slow and how far the next left turn needs to be if you overtake on the left having indicated your intention to turn left.


  • #95
    Isambard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    the overtaking/undertaking thing stems from people assuming that the opposite to "over" is "under". It is in some contexts, but not in this one. In this context the opposite to "Overtaking on the right" is "overtaking on the left".

    Undertaking in another sense is sometimes the result of overtaking on the left and that's why, in general, it is not allowed.


  • #96
    LFCFan
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 3,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭LFCFan


    Pretty much every morning on the M1 the overtaking lane is completely clogged with cars doing less than 120Kph while the driving lane is completely empty. I enter the M1 and the driving lane is empty. I get up to 120Kph and reach the last car sitting in the overtaking lane. What do I do? Sit in the driving lane just behind the last car in the overtaking lane or pull in behind the last car in the overtaking lane and grow that line even more? The law may say you can't overtake on the left but in some cases the law is an ass and common sense should prevail.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    LFCFan wrote: »
    Pretty much every morning on the M1 the overtaking lane is completely clogged with cars doing less than 120Kph while the driving lane is completely empty. I enter the M1 and the driving lane is empty. I get up to 120Kph and reach the last car sitting in the overtaking lane. What do I do? Sit in the driving lane just behind the last car in the overtaking lane or pull in behind the last car in the overtaking lane and grow that line even more? The law may say you can't overtake on the left but in some cases the law is an ass and common sense should prevail.

    You sit behind them in the driving lane and wait. Rushing up the driving lane may prevent someone the opportunity to switch back in, who didn't have the visibility to check it was clear to beforehand.


  • #98
    LFCFan
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 3,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭LFCFan


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    LFCFan wrote: »
    Pretty much every morning on the M1 the overtaking lane is completely clogged with cars doing less than 120Kph while the driving lane is completely empty. I enter the M1 and the driving lane is empty. I get up to 120Kph and reach the last car sitting in the overtaking lane. What do I do? Sit in the driving lane just behind the last car in the overtaking lane or pull in behind the last car in the overtaking lane and grow that line even more? The law may say you can't overtake on the left but in some cases the law is an ass and common sense should prevail.

    You sit behind them in the driving lane and wait. Rushing up the driving lane may prevent someone the opportunity to switch back in, who didn't have the visibility to check it was clear to beforehand.
    Visibility to check? What's the difference between checking your left hand mirror compared to checking your right hand mirror? Are you saying drivers are fine moving to the left without indicating or checking it's clear? Motorway driving in this country is pathetic. You end up with a situation where you have a completely empty driving lane but a clogged overtaking lane and have to sit behind it all with nothing in front of you. I try to drive in the correct lane as much as possible but it's beyond frustrating. Just some of the stuff that you see on a daily basis:
    1. You have drivers entering the motorway with a long merge lane still ahead of them but insist on pulling out in front of you without warning.
    2. You have drivers entering the motorway with nothing in front of them in the driving lane but proceed straight to the middle lane and stay there for the duration
    3. Drivers who insist on staying in the overtaking lane for the duration despite faster moving traffic behind them and nothing in the driving lane to overtake. 
    4. Drivers who actually flash you when you are moving in and out of lanes to overtake as normal while they remain in the wrong lane
    5. Drivers who don't indicate when changing lanes
    6. Drivers who wait till the last opportunity to move from the outside lane to get across to their exit and slow down to make the manoeuvre, creating a phantom jam. 
    7. Drivers who will toddle along in the overtaking lane, overtaking nothing with a huge gap in front of them and if they even get a sniff that someone is going to move in to the space in front of them they speed up to close the gap.
    8. Drivers who have a line of traffic behind them, obviously trying to get past and despite flashing etc they refuse and then when the drivers have to undertake to get past the driver starts flashing them. 


  • #99
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    LFCFan wrote: »
    Pretty much every morning on the M1 the overtaking lane is completely clogged with cars doing less than 120Kph while the driving lane is completely empty. I enter the M1 and the driving lane is empty. I get up to 120Kph and reach the last car sitting in the overtaking lane. What do I do? Sit in the driving lane just behind the last car in the overtaking lane or pull in behind the last car in the overtaking lane and grow that line even more? The law may say you can't overtake on the left but in some cases the law is an ass and common sense should prevail.

    I'd suggest that "Common Sense" is prevailing all over the Country in respect of this stuff.

    You correctly identify the basic issue as being the speed at which the relative lanes are moving.

    A driver is expected to drive up to the posted speed-limit on any given road,should the conditions safely allow for it.
    On an RSA Driving Test for example,failure to make progress can,and does,contribute to Test faliures.

    As dil999 asks earlier in thread,neither the SI nor the greater RTA offers a definition on what the "Slower Speed" actually is.
    In the absence of that definition,a reasonable person might suggest that a driver in the unobstructed inner driving lane is fully entitled,once the conditions allow,to proceed at the posted Speed Limit.
    Exercising that entitlement,once safely performed,in no way interferes with the progress of the middle lane driver who chooses to travel at a lower speed than the posted limit.
    The conflict can & does occur,when drivers who fail to read the road ahead ( usually middle lane adherents themselves) suddenly come up to the rear bumper of Mid Lane Man,and make a sudden dart in to the left to perform the undertake...This is the manouvere which mostly causes the grief we see all too often.
    If,however Mid-Lane Man is travelling at the posted speed limit,then you sit tight,whether it's off side or near side as an overtake will then definitely break the law.

    Being in charge of a 1 tonne+ chunk of mechanical and electrical mass,travelling at speeds of up to 120 KpH imposes (or should impose) a certain sense of realization that one needs to pay a tad more attention to your constantly changing surroundings.

    A quick spin along any of our HQDC or M way network,will raise enough doubts as to the abilities of many drivers to cope with the differing requirements of such driving.

    In the meantime,the obvious lack of any effective,pro-active Traffic Policing,will continue to facilitate ignorance,and further embolden aggressive drivers to do what they do best.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #100
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    LFCFan wrote: »
    Visibility to check? What's the difference between checking your left hand mirror compared to checking your right hand mirror?

    I'm not familiar with the section of road you are talking about, but there are a few roads where the view behind is obscure because you are either ascending or descending or going around a bend. So would not be able to see or gauge what's in the other lane.

    That's all I was on about.


  • #101
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    LFCFan wrote: »
    1. You have drivers entering the motorway with a long merge lane still ahead of them but insist on pulling out in front of you without warning.
    2. You have drivers entering the motorway with nothing in front of them in the driving lane but proceed straight to the middle lane and stay there for the duration
    3. Drivers who insist on staying in the overtaking lane for the duration despite faster moving traffic behind them and nothing in the driving lane to overtake. 
    4. Drivers who actually flash you when you are moving in and out of lanes to overtake as normal while they remain in the wrong lane
    5. Drivers who don't indicate when changing lanes
    6. Drivers who wait till the last opportunity to move from the outside lane to get across to their exit and slow down to make the manoeuvre, creating a phantom jam. 
    7. Drivers who will toddle along in the overtaking lane, overtaking nothing with a huge gap in front of them and if they even get a sniff that someone is going to move in to the space in front of them they speed up to close the gap.
    8. Drivers who have a line of traffic behind them, obviously trying to get past and despite flashing etc they refuse and then when the drivers have to undertake to get past the driver starts flashing them. 

    1 - These are people who aren't doing proper observation as opposed to their view being obscured.
    2 - So lane hoggers then as per the thread. I'm not sure why you are pointing that in a response to my comment. But still you either overtake via a 3rd Lane if available and safe to do so, or hold back in the driving lane.
    3 - No different to point 2 other than when they got there.
    4 - So they shouldn't be flashing? I'd agree with that. But otherwise you are still repeating point 2.
    5 - eh... yeah that's a problem... but I keep enough clearance to not have to react to it.
    6 - Yeah that's also wrong. And is also a symptom of poor road design (reference going from M50 south bound to Monastery Road, via Red Cow, you've to cross 4 lanes within 200 metres. I always suggest using Ballymount exit as a turnback. also, visibility in the rear view mirrors here are regularly obscured. I'm surpirsed there aren't more accidents on that side of it)
    7 - That's poor awareness of what they are doing. Chances are they are unaware of their speed as well thinking they were going faster than they were. But why is that in response to my comment about holding back beside a queue of people in the over taking lane? This couldn't be why the tail of it is there.
    8 - So back to a variant of point 4 above. No one should be flashing each other. And one's frustration behind someone hogging the over taking lane while the driving lane is clear is not justification for undertaking them. Nor is an action born of frustration "Common Sense."


  • Advertisement
Advertisement