# Appropriate approach to someone driving at 90kph in the middle lane of the Naas Rd?



## Joe_90

What is the appropriate approach to someone driving at 90kph in the middle lane of the Naas road.
A) move from the left hand lane, into the middle lane, then the outside lane, overtake and move back into the middle lane and then the inside lane.
B) drive in the middle lane yourself and flash the light and blow the horn like they do in France to get them to move over.
C) relax in the inside land and pass them out.

Drives me nuts. And before you say anything I drive at 100kph on the Naas road.


----------



## Vanilla

A, obviously. You have the choice of three lanes and you're complaining? Ah come on.


----------



## RonanC

*Legally -* A


*What we should do -* Lane 1 -> Lane 2 (Flash lights twice) -> Lane 3 (quick beep) -> Lane 2 -> Lane 1 (Look in rear view mirror and see driver look confused while continuing in Lane 2)


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Very good question. 

Here is the RSA guide to "" 



> *Overtaking*
> 
> Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow  moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more  slowly than you are. If you intend to move from a slower lane to a  faster lane, adjust your speed first.



I presume this applies to other 3 or 4 lane roads as well. 

Most drivers seem to avoid bus lanes even outside bus lane hours. So they end up driving slowly in the middle lane. 

I tend to use the inside lane and just overtake slower drivers in an outside lane. I keep an eye on them to make sure that they don't suddenly turn in. But I suppose  if they did turn in, I would be at fault? 

It's probably a lot safer than switching over three or four lanes and switching back again. 

Taxis and buses seem to travel very fast in the Bus Lane and don't worry too much about it.


----------



## RonanC

alser said:


> It is fact Irish people don't know how to drive on motorways. if someone is in the middle lane and they are going slower than you THEY should move to the left hand lane. You see on the M50 every day someone going 60/70km in the middle lane and there is no one in the lefthand lane.


 
It has nothing to do with what speed they are driving at. It comes down to whether they are overtaking or not. 

Lane 2 and 3 are for overtaking only. Lane 1 is the driving lane.


----------



## michaelm

If you're in the inside lane and you can pass them without breaking the speed limit then C) relax in the inside land and pass them out.


----------



## RonanC

Brendan Burgess said:


> I tend to use the inside lane and just overtake slower drivers in an outside lane. I keep an eye on them to make sure that they don't suddenly turn in. But I suppose if they did turn in, I would be at fault?
> 
> It's probably a lot safer than switching over three or four lanes and switching back again.


 
It is also illegal and you can be done for 'undertaking' or overtaking on the left unless_ 'traffic is travelling in slow moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are.' _


----------



## RonanC

michaelm said:


> If you're in the inside lane and you can pass them without breaking the speed limit then C) relax in the inside land and pass them out.


 

Rules of the Road say otherwise and Gardai have been known to pull people over for overtaking on the left.


----------



## RonanC

There is a serious lack of knowledge, understanding and respect of our rules of the road. Roundabouts, motorways, traffic lights, yield signs, pedestrian crossings, correct use of lanes, correct use of lights (fog lights, side lights and indicators). 

We should have to do driver training courses every 10 years or so (on renewal of licence). Why do we have testing for vehicles when some of us have never even sat a test, and the rest have sat a test that simply does not cover most of the requirements for driving on modern roads.


----------



## michaelm

RonanC said:


> Rules of the Road say otherwise and Gardai have been known to pull people over for overtaking on the left.


No doubt.  And I accept that it's technically incorrect to pass on the inside but I'm not crossing two lanes to pass some clown who's dawdling in the middle lane.  I don't think the Rules scale up well to 3 or 4 lane roads . . in practice lanes 2 and 3 aren't overtaking lanes, they are to soak up volume . . if everyone were to drive in the inside (driving) lane the M50, N7, N4 etc would grind to a halt.





Brendan Burgess said:


> But I suppose  if they did turn in, I would be at fault?


I think it would be their fault.  In any event I always do it swiftly and am prepared to veer into the hard shoulder if they obliviously switch lanes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Maybe the Gardai should start pulling in people who are driving in the outside lanes when not overtaking.  

Just a quiet word with them about the rules of the road might solve a lot of problems. 

Brendan


----------



## Fatphrog

michaelm said:


> if everyone were to drive in the inside (driving) lane the M50, N7, N4 etc would grind to a halt.I think it would be their fault.



I disagree. If everyone drove in the leftmost lane and moved out to overtake slower vehicles, our motorways would move much more efficiently.


----------



## shesells

Fatphrog said:


> I disagree. If everyone drove in the leftmost lane and moved out to overtake slower vehicles, our motorways would move much more efficiently.



But don't forget the advice from the RSA (in their ads) is that you should never be in the left lane approaching a merge from the left as this impedes cars merging from the left. It's a big problem if you go on the M50 Southbound from the N3, the merge is short but the left lane is always full of trucks who want to go off at the N4 exit.


----------



## Leo

shesells said:


> But don't forget the advice from the RSA (in their ads) is that you should never be in the left lane approaching a merge from the left as this impedes cars merging from the left. It's a big problem if you go on the M50 Southbound from the N3, the merge is short but the left lane is always full of trucks who want to go off at the N4 exit.


 
That's not correct, their guide actually states:






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





> *Lane 2 *– 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.​


​​​​​


----------



## mathepac

RonanC said:


> *Legally -* A ...


*Legally & for obvious Safety reasons -  A *


----------



## mathepac

michaelm said:


> No doubt.  And I accept that it's technically incorrect to pass on the inside ...


Ah yes one of the infamous defences  of the knowing law-breaker, the "technically incorrect" defence. Sorry but I  think  it's irresponsible,  illegal and dangerous


michaelm said:


> ...  but I'm not crossing two lanes to pass some clown who's dawdling in the middle lane.  ...


Here we have two more typical defences combined, the "the other guy is an eejit" defence and the "rules don't apply to me" defence.

Given a choice I'd prefer to share the road-way with the clown.


michaelm said:


> ...  I don't think the Rules scale up well to 3 or 4 lane roads . . in practice lanes 2 and 3 aren't overtaking lanes, they are to soak up volume . ...


Another infamous ploy is the "the rules need changing to suit my behaviour" defence and the "deny the road designers intentions" defence


michaelm said:


> ... . if everyone were to drive in the inside (driving) lane the M50, N7, N4 etc would grind to a halt....


This is "the extrapolation from a false premise" defence where the defendant predicts dire consequences for the general population for ignoring his flawed  thinking.


michaelm said:


> ... I think it would be their fault.  ...


This is not so much a defence as a "pre-emptive I told you so".  The "See I warned ye, but would ye listen to me?" scenario.


michaelm said:


> ... In any event I always do it swiftly and am prepared to veer into the hard shoulder if they obliviously switch lanes.


This is the known as the "illegally proactive" defence where the defendant has a a get-out plan for his illegal actions based around another illegal action, in this case driving on the hard-shoulder.

That m'Luds is the powerful case for the defence, now could I interest you in some private development land I have for sale ...


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> *Legally & for obvious Safety reasons -  A *



So the driver in car "A" is driving along in the left land at 100Kmph, obeying the law, when you start to catch up with a slower moving car "B" (or other mechanically propelled ve-he-kel) in the middle land. 
Are you suggesting that driver "A" should cross two lanes in order to pass out car "B" rather than continue to drive along at 100Kmph in the inside lane?

If so then that's just silly and quite dangerous.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> So the driver in car "A" is driving along in the left land at 100Kmph, obeying the law, when you start to catch up with a slower moving car "B" (or other mechanically propelled ve-he-kel) in the middle land.
> Are you suggesting that driver "A" should cross two lanes in order to pass out car "B" rather than continue to drive along at 100Kmph in the inside lane?
> 
> If so then that's just silly and quite dangerous.


 
It's far more dangerous to pass on the left because the vehicle in lane 2 could pull into lane 1 at any time.


----------



## Billo

For me the appropriate approach to question has always been C. 
Too dangerous to do otherwise due to large volumes of traffic in outside lanes whereas inside lane is very often a free run.


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> It's far more dangerous to pass on the left because the vehicle in lane 2 could pull into lane 1 at any time.



That's silly as well; if you have to change lanes for any reason you have to check to see if it's safe to do so.
By that logic if there was an obstacle in lane 2 everyone would instantly have to filter into lane 3 to pass them.


----------



## Fatphrog

shesells said:


> But don't forget the advice from the RSA (in their ads) is that you should never be in the left lane approaching a merge from the left as this impedes cars merging from the left. It's a big problem if you go on the M50 Southbound from the N3, the merge is short but the left lane is always full of trucks who want to go off at the N4 exit.



You're getting the emphasis wrong. They say that you MAY move out to accommodate merging traffic, not that you must move out regardless. Being in the left lane approaching a merge is usually perfectly fine.


----------



## RonanC

Fatphrog said:


> You're getting the emphasis wrong. They say that you MAY move out to accommodate merging traffic, not that you must move out regardless. Being in the left lane approaching a merge is usually perfectly fine.



A big issue with some people driving in Ireland is that they do not join in the Motorway at a safe or matching speed. They seem to stick to 60-80kph and then pull into Lane 1 forcing all traffic behind to move into Lane 2. 

Also, good practice will say that if you are on a motorway you should move over if it is safe to do so to allow merging traffic. On approaching a junction, advanced driving courses will tell you to move over in advance of a merging lane.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> That's silly as well; if you have to change lanes for any reason you have to check to see if it's safe to do so.
> By that logic if there was an obstacle in lane 2 everyone would instantly have to filter into lane 3 to pass them.



No matter if you think it is silly or not, it is dangerous and against the rules of the road. Really do wish Gardai clamp down on this and middle lane hoggers. Both are signs of ignorant and incompetent driving.


----------



## Romulan

It's endemic on the N7 all the time and it drives me mad because it is extremely dangerous.  I rank it up there with mobile phone use and wonder how many accidents it causes because you can clearly see the impact it has on traffic flow and driver behaviour.

I have seen marked and unmarked Garda cars ignore this and it's one of the things that makes me think about a "Russian" web cam on the dash.

From my observations, it is usually older male drivers and women drivers who do this.
(Am ducking now)


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mathepac said:


> Ah yes one of the infamous defences  of the knowing law-breaker, the "technically incorrect" defence. Sorry but I  think  it's irresponsible,  illegal and dangerous
> Here we have two more typical defences combined, the "the other guy is an eejit" defence and the "rules don't apply to me" defence.
> 
> Given a choice I'd prefer to share the road-way with the clown.
> Another infamous ploy is the "the rules need changing to suit my behaviour" defence and the "deny the road designers intentions" defence
> This is "the extrapolation from a false premise" defence where the defendant predicts dire consequences for the general population for ignoring his flawed  thinking.
> This is not so much a defence as a "pre-emptive I told you so".  The "See I warned ye, but would ye listen to me?" scenario.
> This is the known as the "illegally proactive" defence where the defendant has a a get-out plan for his illegal actions based around another illegal action, in this case driving on the hard-shoulder.
> 
> That m'Luds is the powerful case for the defence, now could I interest you in some private development land I have for sale ...



Hi MichaelM

Despite our learned counsel, Mathepac's analysis of your case, I think your overall obligation is to drive safely. And it is clearly safer to pass a car on the inside than cross over two lanes, overtake him and then cross over again in front of him to the inside lane. 

I will give evidence on your behalf. 

Brendan


----------



## shesells

Fatphrog said:


> You're getting the emphasis wrong. They say that you MAY move out to accommodate merging traffic, not that you must move out regardless. Being in the left lane approaching a merge is usually perfectly fine.



From the ads I always take it that you should and always do. Precisely because living off the N3 I wish more drivers would move to lane 2, merge is at most 200m to the M50S


----------



## Billo

Was this discussed before here ;

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=34604

From my reading of it traffic on motorway always has right of way.


----------



## Luternau

For what it's worth
-the Naas Road is a dual carraigeway so the rules for motorways do not apply.

-when I was doing my driving test, allbeit a long-time ago, the rules for driving on dual-carriageway were that you overtake on the right, unless traffic in your lane is moving faster than traffic in lanes to your right. 

-so on that basis, just for the question asked, C, stay in lane, pass car in middle lane.

-note moving into the left hand lane to overtake is not allowed and may be what the Gardaí have pulled people in for.

I would agree that people dont know how to drive motorways here. Compared to Germany, Switzerland it's very unmannerly and at times very dangerous.  They really need to educate people to pull out to the outer lanes to allow a safe merge. Anything else just causes backlogs on ramps at busy times for no reason or worse, could cause accidents when impatient drivers just pull out in front of moving traffic rather than slow down and wait for a safe gap.
Another gripe is motorists not getting in the inside or filter lane early enough to safely exit a motorway, at 80kmph or less. Instead some weave in and out of lanes, possibly crossing 2 lanes of traffic to exit at the last moment, often taking advantage of the safe zone left by a driver to the car in front of them, and then slam on the brakes, thus putting the safety of the driver that does it by the book in danger. Madness!


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> So the driver in car "A" is driving along in the left land at 100Kmph, obeying the law, when you start to catch up with a slower moving car "B" (or other mechanically propelled ve-he-kel) in the middle land.
> Are you suggesting that driver "A" should cross two lanes in order to pass out car "B" rather than continue to drive along at 100Kmph in the inside lane? ...


Assuming we have two adult, law-abiding, responsible and fairly competent drivers, the following is the ideal scenario:

Driver "B", realising he is gaining on Driver "A", indicates right and moves into Lane 2 when it is safe to do so.

Driver "A", observing her mirrors, sees a car behind her in Lane 2, indicates left and moves to Lane 1 when it is safe to do so

Driver "B" passes Driver "A" safely on her right and when it is safe to do so, indicates left and moves to Lane 1.
Simples. All done calmly in a controlled fashion and all within the speed limit.

Of course if either or both of the drivers is not law-abiding, responsible and  competent, anything is possible, including some  of the illegal and dangerous manoeuvres described in the thread already.

[LATE EDIT: I forgot to say that if there is slower-moving traffic in Lane 1, Driver "A" can stay in Lane 2. Driver "B" must then use Lane 3 to overtake her, moving back to Lane 2 when it is safe to do so.


Purple said:


> ...If so then that's just silly and quite dangerous.


I can only suggest you take up  your issues with Uncle Gaybo, the Guards and ultimately the legislators.


----------



## Bronte

Joe_90 said:


> A) move from the left hand lane, into the middle lane, then the outside lane, overtake and move back into the middle lane and then the inside lane.
> 
> C) relax in the inside land and pass them out.
> 
> .


 
Not sure why you mention the Naas road but for the record I do C in Ireland where every motorway or whatever you want to call them has most of the trafic in the middle lane, often with none at all in the driving lane. But I know A is the correct procedure. 

I don't like passing out and A requires a minimum of 5 steps and I'd prefer to relax and do C. I consider A is a heck of a lot more dangerous than C. 

Where there is a sliproad joining the motorway I change lane to allow trafic to join and then go back into the driving lane. And I must say it's a lot more of a pleasure to drive on all the new motorways and indeed even the M50 is great now since it ceased to be a car park. And they've a wonderful new system in place for rented cars and tolls on it now whereby it goes automatically on your credit card. Not sure what those who drive from the UK do as their is no way they could possible understand that the toll is actually there etc.


----------



## Bill Struth

Up until a few years ago it was acceptable in this country to drive out of the test centre after having failed your driving test.

60,000 people were given full licenses in 1979 despite never having passed a driving test.

A study last year showed that 43% of learner drivers were driving unaccompanied.

Any wonder standards are so poor.


----------



## mathepac

Bronte said:


> ... I don't like passing out   ...


I agree, passing out while driving is to be avoided at all costs. 



Bronte said:


> ... I don't like passing out and A requires a  minimum of 5 steps and I'd prefer to relax and do C. I consider A is a  heck of a lot more dangerous than C.  ...


You have the option of  driving  in lane 1,  but if you want to overtake, then following the ROTR is the best idea.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Not only standards are poor, obeying the rules or good sense is poor and courtesy is poor. Many of the junctions are poorly designed in this country. Very much designed by engineers and with little thought to the practicalities of using them.  



Joe_90 said:


> ...Drives me nuts. And before you say anything I drive at 100kph on the Naas road.



If it drives you nuts, does that not suggests you are consistently driving faster than the traffic in the middle lane. So you are constantly overtaking in effect. So is there a need to constantly move to the slowest moving inside lane?

If its safer to go between the middle and the outside lane, I think that's more important than obeying the letter of the law by diving to the inside lane constantly. Or undertaking.


----------



## sam h

> A) move from the left hand lane, into the middle lane, then the outside lane, overtake and move back into the middle lane and then the inside lane.
> B) drive in the middle lane yourself and flash the light and blow the horn like they do in France to get them to move over.
> C) relax in the inside land and pass them out.


 
Whilst I know that A is correct & I will do so whenever possible (usually with a bit of a dirty look) there are times, this is not an option

I was on the Nass road - 3 lovely wide lanes.  There was actually NOTHING in the middle lane (unusual I know) - they were all on the outside overtaking lane (lane 3).  Almost bumper to bumper.  There were a scattering of cars on the driving lane, so I stayed where I was & cruised alone.  Technically incorrect, I know, but had I moved to lane 3 I would have not made progress & just added to the problem.

It would have been interesting to see what a garda would have said - who is more in the wrong?  The cars in lane 3 who are not overtaking or the (fewer) cars in lane 1 who are doing as they should - driving.

Another time I joined the M50 at Blanchardstown & drove to Firhouse.  There was a car in lane 3 the WHOLE way.  He was doing 100kmp, but never moved over.  I was behind him (in lane 1 & doing the same speed).  Loads of cars flashed him, honked etc & eventually undertook him on Lane 2 (yes, I am aware they would have been speeding).


----------



## jdwex

AlbacoreA said:


> Very much designed by engineers and with little thought to the practicalities of using them.


In what ways? Some of the merging lanes on the autobahns and freeways are quite short - you wouldn't get away with dawdling on to the mainline at 70 km/hr!


----------



## Bill Struth

Why do people use the term 'driving lane?'

they're all driving lanes aren't they?

'Fast lane' is another one that's used quite often.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Things like roundabouts with two marked exit lanes at the same, going into a single lane. 
Roundabouts just too small with two many lanes. 
Exit ramps where the left lane goes right and the right lane goes left. 
Lane marking which change immediately after a blind crest. 
A filter off lane with suddenly vastly lower speed (due to a tight bend) than the main road.

A favorite one in a local estate where they widened the road, removed verges, trees, and footpaths to create a bus lane. Then added about 4 sets of lights, and narrowed all lanes including the new bus lane into one lane in two places, creating bottle necks where previously there were none. 

Inconsistent cycle lanes. In the same estate there's about 5 of roundabouts. Each one has the cycle lanes done a completely different way.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Bill Struth said:


> Why do people use the term 'driving lane?'
> 
> they're all driving lanes aren't they?
> 
> 'Fast lane' is another one that's used quite often.



Never heard "driving lane"

Why do people use "Fast lane" ? seems pretty obvious. Its the fastest lane.


----------



## michaelm

Brendan Burgess said:


> And it is clearly safer to pass a car on the inside than cross over two lanes, overtake him and then cross over again in front of him to the inside lane.


In any event, the clown doting in the middle lane is probably as likely to switch, without checking mirrors, into the outside lane as he is the inside lane.


----------



## Bill Struth

AlbacoreA said:


> Never heard "driving lane"


'Driving lane' has been used a couple of times in this thread.


AlbacoreA said:


> Why do people use "Fast lane" ? seems pretty obvious. Its the fastest lane.


So if someone is undertaking in the inside lane, thereby going fastest, is this then the 'fast lane?'

'Fast lane' is the incorrect term to use, they are, of course, all fast lanes.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Bill Struth said:


> 'Driving lane' has been used a couple of times in this thread.
> 
> So if someone is undertaking in the inside lane, thereby going fastest, is this then the 'fast lane?'
> 
> 'Fast lane' is the incorrect term to use, they are, of course, all fast lanes.



Obviously. I meant outside of this thread in general use. When people use a term in a thread there's a tendency of replies to re-use to keep in context. I've never heard driving lane before. Can you find any reference to it out side of this thread? Seems to be a US term, that used to describe a lane you can drive in, or are driving in. Also a lane in a car park. Maybe its been shortened to just lane over the years.

Your query wasn't was "fast lane" technically correct. But why people use it. Being correct has got nothing to do with it. You use to hear it a lot more, but has fallen out of use. On average the outside lane is going to have the highest average speed, the inside the lowest. So its a sweeping generalisation. 

Is there really any point in taking things so literally?


----------



## mathepac

Luternau said:


> For what it's worth
> -the Naas Road is a dual carraigeway so the rules for motorways do not apply ....


Uncle Gaybo  when writing his little book seems to use the terms "two-lane motor-way" and "dual-carriageway" interchangeably  and AFAIK the same rules apply.


Bill Struth said:


> Why do people use the term 'driving lane?'
> 
> they're all driving lanes aren't they?
> 
> 'Fast lane' is another one that's used quite often.


Uncle Gaybo's little book, used "inside lane" and "outside lane" to  describe lanes on two-lane motor-ways or just Lane 1 and Lane 2.


----------



## sam h

I used the term "driving lane", as in it is the lane you should be driving in unless you are overtaking (the other lanes 2 & 3 are overtaking lanes).


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> Assuming we have two adult, law-abiding, responsible and fairly competent drivers, the following is the ideal scenario:
> 
> Driver "B", realising he is gaining on Driver "A", indicates right and moves into Lane 2 when it is safe to do so.
> 
> Driver "A", observing her mirrors, sees a car behind her in Lane 2, indicates left and moves to Lane 1 when it is safe to do so
> 
> Driver "B" passes Driver "A" safely on her right and when it is safe to do so, indicates left and moves to Lane 1.
> Simples. All done calmly in a controlled fashion and all within the speed limit.
> 
> Of course if either or both of the drivers is not law-abiding, responsible and  competent, anything is possible, including some  of the illegal and dangerous manoeuvres described in the thread already.
> 
> [LATE EDIT: I forgot to say that if there is slower-moving traffic in Lane 1, Driver "A" can stay in Lane 2. Driver "B" must then use Lane 3 to overtake her, moving back to Lane 2 when it is safe to do so.
> I can only suggest you take up  your issues with Uncle Gaybo, the Guards and ultimately the legislators.



We now all that. 
This thread is about slower moving cars in the second lane. Suggesting that a driver in the inside lane should move across two lanes in order to pass the car in the second lane (rather than just stay where they are, at the speed they are doing) is incorrect and dangerous. 
There is no way anyone has ever been stopped by the police for staying in the inside lane and driving within the speed limit, thereby passing a slower moving car in the second lane. Therefore there's no need to take it up with anyone.


----------



## RonanC

Bill Struth said:


> Why do people use the term 'driving lane?'
> 
> they're all driving lanes aren't they?
> 
> 'Fast lane' is another one that's used quite often.


 
No they are not all driving lanes.... 

Lane 2 and Lane 3 are Overtaking Lanes

Lane 1 is the Driving Lane


----------



## Luternau

RonanC said:


> No they are not all driving lanes....
> 
> Lane 2 and Lane 3 are Overtaking Lanes
> 
> Lane 1 is the Driving Lane



In relation to the OP question, that's wrong information. 

On a dual or triple carriage way, the middle lane, and on triple ones (Naas Rd), the outer lanes are driving lanes. How else could traffic turn right off a dual carriageway? On motorways, traffic generally exits off to the left. However, common sense would dictate driving on the inside lane whenever possible.

On motorways the outer lane is the overtaking lane.

No Garda will prosecute for overtaking on the left provided the driver did not join that lane explicidy to overtake-in which case that's undertaking, and illegal.


----------



## jdwex

Luternau said:


> In relation to the OP question, that's wrong information.
> 
> On a dual or triple carriage way, the middle lane, and on triple ones (Naas Rd),



It's not a triple carriageway. It's a dual carriageway with 3 lanes in each direction. There is a median down the middle which splits the carriageway into two - hence dual carriageway!


----------



## AlbacoreA

Luternau said:


> ...No Garda will prosecute for overtaking on the left provided the driver did not join that lane explicidy to overtake-in which case that's undertaking, and illegal.



I say speed is a factor . I don't think they'd like you just staying on the inside lane doing 100kph passing everyone on the inside. Whereas a slow steady overtake, might be ignored.


----------



## Bill Struth

RonanC said:


> No they are not all driving lanes....
> 
> Lane 2 and Lane 3 are Overtaking Lanes
> 
> Lane 1 is the Driving Lane


 News to me. I can't see Lane 1 or inside lane referred to as 'driving lane' in the rules of the road either. I'm open to correction though.


----------



## rayn

My "Rules of the road" Page122 is quite clear and Lane nearest central reservation should be used for overtaking only.
It *must not* be used by goods vehicles over 3,500 kgs., passenger vehicles with seating for more than 8 passengers, or vehicles towing a trailer horsebox or caravan.
This is never enforced. Bus Eireann is constantly infringing this and also the maximum speed of coaches is 80km/hr without standing passengers and 65km/hr with standing passengers.


----------



## RonanC

Bangs head against wall at serious lack of knowledge of rules of the road


----------



## RonanC

Luternau said:


> In relation to the OP question, that's wrong information.
> 
> On a dual or triple carriage way, the middle lane, and on triple ones (Naas Rd), the outer lanes are driving lanes. How else could traffic turn right off a dual carriageway? On motorways, traffic generally exits off to the left. However, common sense would dictate driving on the inside lane whenever possible.
> 
> On motorways the outer lane is the overtaking lane.
> 
> No Garda will prosecute for overtaking on the left provided the driver did not join that lane explicidy to overtake-in which case that's undertaking, and illegal.


 
You should only enter lane 2 or 3 (depending on road) to overtake or enter a right turn filter lane. You should not sit in this lane just because you intend to take the next right turn a few km's down the road. STAY LEFT APPLIES in all cases


----------



## RonanC

Bill Struth said:


> News to me. I can't see Lane 1 or inside lane referred to as 'driving lane' in the rules of the road either. I'm open to correction though.


 
Rules of the road state that you must keep left unless overtaking meaning that lane 1 is always the driving lane and all others are always overtaking lanes


----------



## Bill Struth

RonanC said:


> Rules of the road state that you must keep left unless overtaking meaning that lane 1 is always the driving lane and all others are always overtaking lanes


 I'm aware of the rule, it's the term 'driving lane' that I haven't come across before.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> There is no way anyone has ever been stopped by the police for staying in the inside lane and driving within the speed limit.


 
I've seen cars pulled on the Naas Road for doing just that. Funnily, I've never seen anyone stopped for cruising in the middle lane.


----------



## mathepac

I'm kinda surprised I survived to my current age with all the apparent nut-jobs that seem to travel our roads, waiting to pounce on innocent, law-abiding (even if a bit doddery) drivers.

I got a few unexpected quid into the kitty lately and I was thinking of buying a motorcycling bicycle of some sort. I might wait a while longer and invest in a Hummer, armed of course to get me through Newland's Cross on my next trip to the Shmoke.


----------



## callybags

mathepac said:


> I'm kinda surprised I survived to my current age with all the apparent nut-jobs that seem to travel our roads, waiting to pounce on innocent, law-abiding (even if a bit doddery) drivers.
> 
> I got a few unexpected quid into the kitty lately and *I was thinking of buying a motorcycling bicycle* of some sort. I might wait a while longer and invest in a Hummer, armed of course to get me through Newland's Cross on my next trip to the Shmoke.


 
If you ever get one of these please post a picture.

I'm fascinated.


----------



## jdwex

mathepac said:


> armed of course to get me through Newland's Cross on my next trip to the Shmoke.



I'm not sure what you'll need - construction will probably start on the NX freeflow interchange in the next couple of months.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> I've seen cars pulled on the Naas Road for doing just that.


Are you saying that you've seen cars driving along in a relatively clear inside lane being stopped because they didn't move out to pass a slower moving car in the middle lane?  
I'm no talking about a car that undertakes (enters the inside land only to pass a car in the outside lane).


----------



## orka

At least part of the reason there are so many middle-lane hoggers is that Irish drivers generally are a big bunch of ignoramuses.  If you try to do the right thing and drive in the left lane, when it comes time to move into the middle to allow merging traffic to join, those already in the middle lane will close the gap to stop you moving in front of them - so it's far less stressful to just sit in the middle lane and let everyone else overtake/undertake/whatever they want.  Contrast this with the UK where drivers are so much politer and lane driving is generally observed - you indicate and shockingly, someone will courteously let you out; vehicle move safely into the middle lane to let merging traffic in; there is less outer lane hogging because drivers know that they will be permitted by other drivers to move in and out of lanes as required.  Even the always-busy M25 is a haven compared to the ignorance on Irish roads.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> Are you saying that you've seen cars driving along in a relatively clear inside lane being stopped because they didn't move out to pass a slower moving car in the middle lane?
> I'm no talking about a car that undertakes (enters the inside land only to pass a car in the outside lane).


 
Purple, I think you are missing the point here. Overtaking a car on the left is illegal unless you are driving in slow moving traffic. It doesn't matter if you entered Lane 1 or were already in Lane 1 to overtake on the left. 

The law does not state you can pass a slower moving car on the left, it clearly states:



> *Overtake only on the right*, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are. If you intend to move from a slower lane to a faster lane, adjust your speed first.


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> Purple, I think you are missing the point here. Overtaking a car on the left is illegal unless you are driving in slow moving traffic. It doesn't matter if you entered Lane 1 or were already in Lane 1 to overtake on the left.



No, you are missing the point;  if you are in the inside lane and there is a car in the middle lane going more slowly than you then you are not overtaking it, you are simply driving within the speed limit in your lane. In order to overtake you must perform a manoeuvre; you must change lanes. 
Therefore if you entered the inside lane from the middle lane in order to pass the slower moving car in that middle lane you are undertaking and therefore breaking the rules of the road. If you were in the inside lane all along then you didn't perform a manoeuvre and so didn't undertake.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> No, you are missing the point; if you are in the inside lane and there is a car in the middle lane going more slowly than you then you are not overtaking it, you are simply driving within the speed limit in your lane. In order to overtake you must perform a manoeuvre; you must change lanes.
> Therefore if you entered the inside lane from the middle lane in order to pass the slower moving car in that middle lane you are undertaking and therefore breaking the rules of the road. If you were in the inside lane all along then you didn't perform a manoeuvre and so didn't undertake.


 
Purple, under the rules of the road you are overtaking on the left which is illegal. I would advise you to contact the RSA if you don't believe me


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> Purple, under the rules of the road you are overtaking on the left which is illegal. I would advise you to contact the RSA if you don't believe me



The  don't say anything about it.

To repeat; overtaking is passing a car in your lane by moving into a different lane. If you are in the correct lane, on the left, then you should not move to the right, across two lanes, because someone else is in the wrong lane. That's dangerous.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> No, you are missing the point; ...


I must respectfully beg to differ; you've missed the point again and again.



Purple said:


> ...  If you were in the inside  lane all along then you didn't perform a manoeuvre and so didn't  undertake.


Uncle Gaybo's buke (on page 45 no less)  states "you *must* normally overtake on the right" *unless*


the guy in front indicates right and moves over and you want to go straight ahead
you have signalled you want to turn left
two lanes of traffic are moving slowly and the inside lane is moving faster than the outside lane
I just spoke with Kathleen Watkins on the phone and Gaybo is very upset with you.

Do not pass GO on the left or the right, do not collect 200 squids, you naughty, naughty Purple you.

[EDIT: a present from Gaybo - *good-driving-practice/overtaking.html*]


----------



## ajapale

But if you are in the left lane all along and travelling at (or just under) the speed limit then what provision of the ROTR are you breaking? as stated by michaelm, purple and others earlier.



michaelm said:


> If you're in the inside lane and you can pass  them without breaking the speed limit then C) relax in the inside land  and pass them out.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> two lanes of traffic are moving slowly and the inside lane is moving faster than the outside lane



There you go.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> Are you saying that you've seen cars driving along in a relatively clear inside lane being stopped because they didn't move out to pass a slower moving car in the middle lane?


 
Yes, that exact scenario. Two cars crusing in middle lane, another car remains in lane one and undertakes them. The second of the cars cruising in the middle lane turns out to be an unmarked garda car, as soon as the car in lane 1 is past, they put on the siren/lights and pull them in. The car that was cruising in front in the middle lane continues in that lane! I really don't know why they do nothing about it, even the traffic corps are frequently on that road and do nothing. I saw a similar scenario another time, but wasn't as close, so can't be sure there wasn't something else going on there.

I drive that road every day, undertaking, crusing in the middle and even outside lane is common. But then, almost every time I use a roundabout, someone fails to indicate or use the correct lane, the majority of red lights, someone jumps...


----------



## dub_nerd

Purple said:


> The  don't say anything about it.
> 
> To repeat; overtaking is passing a car in your lane by moving into a different lane. If you are in the correct lane, on the left, then you should not move to the right, across two lanes, because someone else is in the wrong lane. That's dangerous.


 
Look up "overtaking" in the dictionary, or on Wikipedia. They disagree with you. Even just applying a bit of common sense to the plain meaning of the word, there is no earthly reason why the definition of "overtaking" would entail changing lanes, any more than it would entail looping the loop and overtaking them from above.


----------



## rayn

Am I missing something? Purple said that the rules of the road don't say anything about overtaking and gives a link to the extract from the rules and lo and behold there is a whole section on overtaking.


----------



## mathepac

rayn said:


> Am I missing something? ....


Yes. The relevant link is the one I gave. FYI:   *good-driving-practice/overtaking.html

*


ajapale said:


> ...  what provision of the ROTR are you breaking?  as stated by michaelm, purple and others earlier.


The one I listed above, scroll down a little on that page; it's as clear as crystal, no possible ambiguity.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> There you go.


Nope. You're just making it up as  you go along now.

Two lanes moving slowly was never mentioned in the OP which said very clearly - 



> What is the appropriate approach to *someone* [*EDIT: a single car, not a lane of them*] driving at 90kph in the middle lane of the Naas road.
> A) move from the left hand lane, into the middle lane, then the outside  lane, overtake and move back into the middle lane and then the inside  lane.
> B) drive in the middle lane yourself and flash the light and blow the horn like they do in France to get them to move over.
> C) relax in the inside land and pass them out...


I know my assumption below has since proven incorrect but nevertheless:-


> Assuming we have two adult, law-abiding, responsible and fairly competent drivers, the following is the ideal scenario:
> 
> Driver "B", realising he is gaining on Driver "A", indicates right and moves into Lane 2 when it is safe to do so.
> Driver "A", observing her mirrors, sees a car behind her in Lane 2, indicates left and moves to Lane 1 when it is safe to do so
> Driver "B" passes Driver "A" safely on her right [*EDIT: Exactly as  detailed on p. 45 ROTR*] and when it is safe to do so, indicates left and moves to Lane 1.
> Simples. All done calmly in a controlled fashion and all within the speed limit.
> 
> Of course if either or both of the drivers is not law-abiding, responsible and  competent, anything is possible, including some  of the illegal and dangerous manoeuvres described in the thread already. ....


----------



## Bronte

mathepac said:


> I agree, passing out while driving is to be avoided at all costs.
> 
> .


 
Very good, and I didn't get it the first time I read it .  I don't like overtaking, nor indeed driving but then I particularly don't like parking but I can reverse car park which a lot of people in Ireland cannot do.  

And it's now clear to me from this thread that a lot of people don't have any idea how to drive on motorways as I'm more confused than when the thread started.  It's like the offside rule in football.  Everyone has their own interpretation.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> Yes. The relevant link is the one I gave. FYI:   *good-driving-practice/overtaking.html
> 
> *
> The one I listed above, scroll down a little on that page; it's as clear as crystal, no possible ambiguity.



This is getting really silly now.
This is a copy and paste from the link I gave (which is a page further from the same as the link you gave);

_Overtaking
*Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are. If you intend to move from a slower lane to a faster lane,* adjust your speed first.
Before you start to overtake, remember 'mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre', and look in your blind spots. Check that the way is clear (behind and ahead) and signal well in advance.
Remember that traffic will be travelling a lot faster than on ordinary roads. Be particularly careful at dusk, during darkness, and in poor weather conditions when it is more difficult to judge speed, distance and stopping distance. Signal and return to your original lane as soon as possible._


Show me where it says you have to move over two lanes to drive past a car in the middle lane that's travelling slowly. Show me where it says that you must not drive faster than a car in the middle lane.
It’s nonsense, it’s counterintuitive and it would be dangerous.
It would mean that if a driver in the middle lane slows down for some reason every car in the inside lane who continues to drive at the speed they were doing is breaking the law. It would mean that if a driver in the middle land slams on the breaks cars in the inside lane should also slam on.


----------



## Purple

rayn said:


> Am I missing something? Purple said that the rules of the road don't say anything about overtaking and gives a link to the extract from the rules and lo and behold there is a whole section on overtaking.



I said that the rules of the road don't say that driving faster than a slow moving car in a lane to your right is undertaking, so yes, you are missing something.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> Nope. You're just making it up as  you go along now.
> 
> Two lanes moving slowly was never mentioned in the OP which said very clearly -



We are now talking about a car in the left most lane driving faster than a car in the middle lane. Don't try to change the discussion at this stage.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Yes, that exact scenario. Two cars crusing in middle lane, another car remains in lane one and undertakes them. The second of the cars cruising in the middle lane turns out to be an unmarked garda car, as soon as the car in lane 1 is past, they put on the siren/lights and pull them in. The car that was cruising in front in the middle lane continues in that lane! I really don't know why they do nothing about it, even the traffic corps are frequently on that road and do nothing. I saw a similar scenario another time, but wasn't as close, so can't be sure there wasn't something else going on there.
> 
> I drive that road every day, undertaking, crusing in the middle and even outside lane is common. But then, almost every time I use a roundabout, someone fails to indicate or use the correct lane, the majority of red lights, someone jumps...



I agree on the second paragraph.
On the first paragraph the gardai were driving in the wrong lane and were wrong to stop the car in the inside lane unless that driver was speeding. Some Gardai are idiots and some of them are brutal drivers. That's hardly news.


----------



## michaelm

mathepac said:


> I'm kinda surprised I survived to my current age with all the apparent nut-jobs that seem to travel our roads, waiting to pounce on innocent, law-abiding (even if a bit doddery) drivers.


Against all odds it would seem.





mathepac said:


> I got a few unexpected quid into the kitty lately and I was thinking of buying a motorcycling bicycle of some sort.


Now that would be an accident waiting to happen.  Get a budgerigar instead .


----------



## AlbacoreA

RonanC said:


> Bangs head against wall at serious lack of knowledge of rules of the road



I don't think it lack of knowledge, most are deliberately ignoring them.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> ...Show me where it says you have to move over two lanes to drive past a car in the middle lane that's travelling slowly. ... .


Right here, in your own typing  --->  





Purple said:


> ..._* Overtake only on the right ...* _.


simply put  and very specific, leaving out, ifs ands or buts, special cases or exceptions, thems the rules. The only confusion that might arise is where someone genuinely doesn't know left from right.


Purple said:


> ...
> Show me where it says you have to move over two lanes to drive past a  car in the middle lane that's travelling slowly. .


Right here --->


Purple said:


> ..._* Overtake only on the right ...* _


It follows naturally from the simple rule.

The person in the middle lane may be an eejit who doesn't understand motorway driving but that doesn't give anyone travelling in and around him the right to deliberately flout safety and the ROTR.

The Brits used to have a little mantra for motorway driving that I was forced to learn years ago before I did my first test. It said "Pass right, stay left".  I think it still has relevance today with people making up their own rules to suit their poor driving behaviour.

With posters becoming more and more obdurate and obtuse I'm gonna sign off with Purple' words of wisdom --->





Purple said:


> ..._* Overtake only on the right ...* _


 and remember your right is the side opposite to which you carry your sword or the arm opposite the one which you offer in support and protection when escorting a lady.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> Right here, in your own typing  --->  simply put  and very specific, leaving out, ifs ands or buts, special cases or exceptions, thems the rules. The only confusion that might arise is where someone genuinely doesn't know left from right.
> Right here --->
> It follows naturally from the simple rule.
> 
> The person in the middle lane may be an eejit who doesn't understand motorway driving but that doesn't give anyone travelling in and around him the right to deliberately flout safety and the ROTR.
> 
> The Brits used to have a little mantra for motorway driving that I was forced to learn years ago before I did my first test. It said "Pass right, stay left".  I think it still has relevance today with people making up their own rules to suit their poor driving behaviour.
> 
> With posters becoming more and more obdurate and obtuse I'm gonna sign off with Purple' words of wisdom ---> and remember your right is the side opposite to which you carry your sword or the arm opposite the one which you offer in support and protection when escorting a lady.



Selecting the same quote and constructing a false premise by, to say the least, misunderstanding that meaning of that quote, in order to make the same point over and over again doesn’t make you correct.
You have not addressed my previous point. If you misinterpretation of the rules of the road were correct then; 


> It would mean that if a driver in the middle lane slows down for some reason every car in the inside lane who continues to drive at the speed they were doing is breaking the law. It would mean that if a driver in the middle land slams on the breaks cars in the inside lane should also slam on.



Do you think that this would constitute safe driving?
If not, and considering that the rules of the road are there to encourage safe driving, then your counter intuitive understanding of correct road usage does not stand up. 
If your interpretation was correct then any time a driver slowed down then all traffic in any lane to their left would also have to slow down by the same amount. 
If a car in the left most lane, driving within the speed limit on a 3 lane motorway, came upon a car in the rightmost lane driving slowly they would have to cross to that rightmost lane and drive behind the slow moving car, waiting for them to pull over to the left, before they could proceed. They would have to do this rather than stay where they are, driving safely and within the speed limit.
The idea doesn’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny.


----------



## vandriver

if everyone was following the law,then most of the scenarios you outline shouldn't be happening!


----------



## Purple

vandriver said:


> if everyone was following the law,then most of the scenarios you outline shouldn't be happening!



I agree but if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle


----------



## Leo

Coincidental timing of this particular court case...



> 'DUBLIN Wives' star Danielle Meagher dangerously passed out a line of vehicles, then accused the investigating garda of bullying her because she was driving "a nice car", a court heard.
> 
> The celebrity botox doctor was convicted over the incident after she admitted performing the undertaking manoeuvre in heavy traffic as she drove from Galway to Dublin.


 
Article isn't really explicit enough in stating what the exact charge was.


----------



## SparkRite

Ok, some of this thread is bordering on the ridiculous, now I’m probably going to add to it.

I completed an advanced driving course a month ago and I asked the instructor specifically about passing on the left/undertaking  on multi lane roads. The answer I got was the standard ROTR quotes  given  in numerous posts earlier in thread.  The ROTR make allowances for slow(er)/queued  traffic in a lane to your right which may be passed on the left (undertaken). I then asked her what constitutes “slow moving traffic” or indeed “queued traffic”. Is it traffic moving at say, 5Km/H or 12Km/h or 18Km/h or indeed even 42Km/h et al. ?  Her reply was that the ROTR does not state a specific speed.  


So while passing on the left is not the preferable way to pass traffic, it is certainly allowed in certain circumstances. IMHO if some clown(s) is/are dawdling along in a lane(s) to your right then there is some justification if by you staying in your lane, driving at or approaching the speed limit,  you may pass them out . I would go so far as to say that possibly this could be successfully argued in court, but then again this is only my opinion. Common sense often has little or no place in law! 


 I fully concur with other posters that to change lanes to pass on the left is wrong and should be strongly discouraged.


Now to really put the cat among the pigeons.  Who the hell designed the lanes that filter/merge into the overtaking lane???  Two that spring to mind are at the “Red Cow” interchange and the “Palmertown/Lucan” interchange on the M50.  Who has  “right of way” there, undertaking traffic on your left or you merging on the right of oncoming traffic ( in to the overtaking lane)??


Tell me where that is covered in the ROTR ??
  Only in Ireland……….


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Coincidental timing of this particular court case...
> 
> 
> 
> Article isn't really explicit enough in stating what the exact charge was.



Good to see; undertaking is dangerous.


----------



## Purple

SparkRite said:


> I fully concur with other posters that to change lanes to pass on the left is wrong and should be strongly discouraged.


Agreed.

Ref the Red Cow ect, while it's stupid it's not a motorway so exiting and entering on the right is allowed. It's dangerous and it's bad road design but it's allowed.


----------



## Ceist Beag

SparkRite said:


> Ok, some of this thread is bordering on the ridiculous, now I’m probably going to add to it.
> 
> I completed an advanced driving course a month ago and I asked the instructor specifically about passing on the left/undertaking  on multi lane roads. The answer I got was the standard ROTR quotes  given  in numerous posts earlier in thread.  The ROTR make allowances for slow(er)/queued  traffic in a lane to your right which may be passed on the left (undertaken). I then asked her what constitutes “slow moving traffic” or indeed “queued traffic”. Is it traffic moving at say, 5Km/H or 12Km/h or 18Km/h or indeed even 42Km/h et al. ?  Her reply was that the ROTR does not state a specific speed.
> 
> 
> So while passing on the left is not the preferable way to pass traffic, it is certainly allowed in certain circumstances. IMHO if some clown(s) is/are dawdling along in a lane(s) to your right then there is some justification if by you staying in your lane, driving at or approaching the speed limit,  you may pass them out . I would go so far as to say that possibly this could be successfully argued in court, but then again this is only my opinion. Common sense often has little or no place in law!
> 
> 
> I fully concur with other posters that to change lanes to pass on the left is wrong and should be strongly discouraged.
> 
> 
> Now to really put the cat among the pigeons.  Who the hell designed the lanes that filter/merge into the overtaking lane???  Two that spring to mind are at the “Red Cow” interchange and the “Palmertown/Lucan” interchange on the M50.  Who has  “right of way” there, undertaking traffic on your left or you merging on the right of oncoming traffic ( in to the overtaking lane)??
> 
> 
> Tell me where that is covered in the ROTR ??
> Only in Ireland……….


Very good post Sparkrite. I completely agree on your take on staying in your lane if someone is dawdling along at 60km/h in the middle lane. That said though I very much doubt the court would see it my way if some garda having a bad day decided to pull me over as a result. And I'm pretty certain I would be laughed out of court if I tried to adopt Purples' ridiculous definition of overtaking meaning I need to change lanes as part of a manoeuver!


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> And I'm pretty certain I would be laughed out of court if I tried to adopt Purples' ridiculous definition of overtaking meaning I need to change lanes as part of the manoeuver!


http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/overtaking.html

This link was one of the reference documents on the Wikipedia page on overtaking. It gives instructions/advice on how to overtake. It specifically talks about changing lanes as part of the manoeuvre. If you are driving along in a lane and passing cars in the other lane you are not overtaking them; you are driving past them. That applies if you are passing them on the outer or inner lane. If you  are driving in a lane at a constant speed within the speed limit you are not performing a manoeuvre every time you pass a car in another lane. 
When you are on a motorway in a right hand lane do you say to yourself "That's a manoeuvre... that's another manoeuvre" each time you pass a car on your left?... No?... well why would you think it's any different when you pass a car on your right?


----------



## Ceist Beag

Good luck with that argument if you ever get brought to court for this scenario Purple! "I wasn't overtaking the car m'lud, I was merely driving past it".


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Good luck with that argument if you ever get brought to court for this scenario Purple! "I wasn't overtaking the car m'lud, I was merely driving past it".



You are being silly, to say the least.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> You are being silly, to say the least.



Explain Purple. You are making an argument that staying in the left lane and passing a car in the middle lane is not against the rules of the road because, in your view, you are not overtaking/undertaking the car in the middle lane, you are merely driving past it because you have not made any manouever. I disagree with your interpretation, how is that being silly?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Explain Purple. You are making an argument that staying in the left lane and passing a car in the middle lane is not against the rules of the road because, in your view, you are not overtaking/undertaking the car in the middle lane, you are merely driving past it because you have not made any manouever. I disagree with your interpretation, how is that being silly?



Because you haven't addressed any of the issues I have raised but have just made glib comments.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> Because you haven't addressed any of the issues I have raised but have just made glib comments.


 
Purple this is getting absolutely ridiculous now. If you are in Lane 3 (an OVERTAKING lane) you are OVERTAKING anything that is in Lane 2 no matter how you got into Lane 3.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple the link you included was clearly explaining how to overtake safely when changing lanes in order to do so. You are taking this as a definition of the word overtaking meaning that changing lanes is required in order to overtake. Nowhere in that link does it state that overtaking only occurs where changing lanes is required.


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> Purple this is getting absolutely ridiculous now. If you are in Lane 3 (an OVERTAKING lane) you are OVERTAKING anything that is in Lane 2 no matter how you got into Lane 3.


Ceist Beag described overtaking as a manoeuvre. If you haven’t done anything, i.e. are staying in the lane you are in at the same speed, how are you performing a manoeuvre?
The rules of the road presume that when people know that overtaking means passing a car in front of you, not passing a car that’s in a different lane. In order to pass a car in front of you, you must move into a different lane. The rules of the road state that you must move to the right, not to the left, in order to perform that manoeuvre. 
Suggesting that someone should move across three lanes of traffic in order to pass a slow moving vehicle on their right and then move back across to where they were is patently ridiculous. How on earth can that be safer than staying where they are at the speed they are travelling at? No judge in the developed world would sanction someone for staying in their lane and just driving on. The notion is utterly stupid.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Ceist Beag described overtaking as a manoeuvre.


You love playing with words Purple. I have edited my original reply now to clarify I was not calling overtaking a manouevre!



Purple said:


> No judge in the developed world would sanction someone for staying in their lane and just driving on. The notion is utterly stupid.


The point is that we have been told this has happened, even on this thread (and in other threads previously). I agree as it happens that the notion is stupid but I would not be prepared to make the argument you are making that it cannot be deemed overtaking/undertaking because I had not changed lanes.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> Ceist Beag described overtaking as a manoeuvre. If you haven’t done anything, i.e. are staying in the lane you are in at the same speed, how are you performing a manoeuvre?
> The rules of the road presume that when people know that overtaking means passing a car in front of you, not passing a car that’s in a different lane. In order to pass a car in front of you, you must move into a different lane. The rules of the road state that you must move to the right, not to the left, in order to perform that manoeuvre.
> Suggesting that someone should move across three lanes of traffic in order to pass a slow moving vehicle on their right and then move back across to where they were is patently ridiculous. How on earth can that be safer than staying where they are at the speed they are travelling at? No judge in the developed world would sanction someone for staying in their lane and just driving on. The notion is utterly stupid.


 
The rules of the road do not persume anything. 

Lane 2 and 3 are clearly defined as overtaking lanes and should only be used to overtake. 




> *Lane 1*
> The normal 'keep left' rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking.
> 
> *Lane 2*
> On a two-lane motorway, *use this for overtaking only* and move back into lane 1 when you have finished. You may also use this lane to accommodate traffic merging from the left.
> On a three-lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is slower moving traffic in lane 1.
> 
> *Lane 3*
> If you are travelling on a three-lane motorway, you must use this lane only if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues and you *need to overtake* or accommodate merging traffic. Once you've finished *overtaking*, move back to your left and allow faster traffic coming from behind to pass by.


----------



## Purple

RonanC said:


> The rules of the road do not persume anything.
> 
> Lane 2 and 3 are clearly defined as overtaking lanes and should only be used to overtake.



I agree. It doesn't say that you cannot drive faster in the left hand lane than a slow moving car in a right hand lane though.
You will notice, in the link you posted, that when overtaking is mentioned it is done so in the context of changing lanes;


> Lane 1
> The normal 'keep left' rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking.
> 
> Lane 2
> On a two-lane motorway, use this for overtaking only and *move back into lane 1 when you have finished*. You may also use this lane to accommodate traffic merging from the left.
> On a three-lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is slower moving traffic in lane 1.
> 
> Lane 3
> If you are travelling on a three-lane motorway, you must use this lane only if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues and you need to overtake or accommodate merging traffic. *Once you've finished overtaking, move back to your left* and allow faster traffic coming from behind to pass by.


----------



## PetrolHead

Having read some of the posts above I hope I never come across certain AAM board members on the road.... maybe their user names' might be a clue in spotting them by their car colour... 

Anyway.... I think a little answer wiki might be in order...

1 - You must always overtake on the right.
2 - Passing a car to its left is only acceptable when the traffic situation dictates (slow moving traffic has been mentioned above but I would add into this heavy traffic conditions traveling at up to the speed limit where you maintain the speed of your lane rather than perform the more dangerous manoeuver of changing lanes).
3 - It is correct to travel in left most lane of a multi-lane highways (dual carriage ways, motorways, etc.) not including the hard shoulder.
4 - Motorway driving requires awareness of the road and traffic conditions around you (left, right, front and behind) including such things as upcoming junctions, merging traffic and traffic traveling on other lanes.
5 - Being securely surrounded by a metal box does not exclude you from showing common courtesy to those around you (would you cut off that other person; push in front of them; block their path or wave rude gestures at them if you were both pedestrians on a pavement?).


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> You love playing with words Purple. I have edited my original reply now to clarify I was not calling overtaking a manouevre!
> 
> 
> The point is that we have been told this has happened, even on this thread (and in other threads previously). I agree as it happens that the notion is stupid but I would not be prepared to make the argument you are making that it cannot be deemed overtaking/undertaking because I had not changed lanes.



No, we've been told that cars have been stopped doing this. We have not been told that drivers have been fined or prosecuted.


----------



## Purple

PetrolHead said:


> 1 - You must always overtake on the right.
> 2 - *Passing a car to its left is only acceptable when the traffic situation dictates (slow moving traffic has been mentioned above but I would add into this heavy traffic conditions traveling at up to the speed limit where you maintain the speed of your lane rather than perform the more dangerous manoeuver of changing lanes).*
> 3 - It is correct to travel in left most lane of a multi-lane highways (dual carriage ways, motorways, etc.) not including the hard shoulder.
> 4 - Motorway driving requires awareness of the road and traffic conditions around you (left, right, front and behind) including such things as upcoming junctions, merging traffic and traffic traveling on other lanes.
> 5 - Being securely surrounded by a metal box does not exclude you from showing common courtesy to those around you (would you cut off that other person; push in front of them; block their path or wave rude gestures at them if you were both pedestrians on a pavement?).



I agree 100%


----------



## PetrolHead

Purple said:


> I agree 100%



Ahhh.... now it all becomes clear.....

I think the prolonged debate within this thread is actually a result of the same point being argued from different directions.


----------



## Purple

PetrolHead said:


> Ahhh.... now it all becomes clear.....
> 
> I think the prolonged debate within this thread is actually a result of the same point being argued from different directions.



It could be people not really reading what's being written.
I've been making that point (about it being safer and legal staying where you are rather than moving across three lanes and back again) for ages (and pages).


----------



## mandelbrot

Best. Thread. Ever.


----------



## RonanC

Purple said:


> It could be people not really reading what's being written.
> I've been making that point (about it being safer and legal staying where you are rather than moving across three lanes and back again) for ages (and pages).



All your opinion just to be clear


----------



## Bronte

PetrolHead said:


> I think the prolonged debate within this thread is actually a result of the same point being argued from different directions.


 
You mean some were talking about going to Naas and others were talking about going to Dublin?


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> You mean some were talking about going to Naas and others were talking about going to Dublin?



All I know is that I’m having great fun posting on this thread


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> All I know is that I’m having great fun posting on this thread


 
Huh? I'd like to know the rules of the road, and my knowledge is getting worse with each posting. To figure out this thread the other day I had to take a piece of paper and draw cars on it, put in 3 lanes and the middle bit and work out the side of the road and who drive where and in what direction. My kids have a carpet road thingy that you play pretend drivers on, that would probably have worked better but it doesn't have motorways nor dual carriageways. But it would have felt more real as I found it hard going working it all out on paper.  Paper is fine for figures but not so much good for understanding driving.

I was thinking it might be a good idea is someone on here put up images so we could all understand. With cars passing out etc. You could have the purple car seeing as you're central to the story being the worst bad driver on here.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> You could have the purple car seeing as you're central to the story being the worst bad driver on here.



You cut me deep...


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> Huh? I'd like to know the rules of the road, and my knowledge is getting worse with each posting. To figure out this thread the other day I had to take a piece of paper and draw cars on it, put in 3 lanes and the middle bit and work out the side of the road and who drive where and in what direction. My kids have a carpet road thingy that you play pretend drivers on, that would probably have worked better but it doesn't have motorways nor dual carriageways. But it would have felt more real as I found it hard going working it all out on paper.  Paper is fine for figures but not so much good for understanding driving.



Take your kids carpet road thingie and place the purple car in the left most lane (the driving lane). Imagine that car is travelling at 95kmph.
Place another car in the middle lane, that car can be any colour. 
Now imagine the car in the middle lane is moving slowly, say at 80kmph. I know they shouldn’t be there but they are.
There’s other cars on the road, but not too many, so place a few cars in the right most lane as well. Imagine they are driving at 100kmph.

Now, the purple car catches up with the slow moving car in the middle lane. What does the driver do?
Does he;
a)	Continue to drive along in his lane at 95kmph, passing the car in the middle lane.
Or
b)	Slow down, change lanes into the middle lane, behind the slow moving car. Then change lanes again, into the right most lane. Then, having passed the car in the middle lane, change lanes again moving into the middle lane in front of the slow moving car. Then change lanes again, back into the left most lane where he started.

I’m arguing that option A is safer and legal. 
I don’t think making unnecessary manoeuvres, i.e. changing lanes 4 times, is the safest option.

I’m also arguing that “overtaking” is when you change lanes to pass a car in the same lane as you rather than passing a car in a different lane, i.e. it requires a manoeuvre. If you read any description of how to overtake it will talk about indicating and changing lanes.


----------



## SparkRite

Oh Dear God............here we go again............

Purple have you even read what has been posted previously????

If you have, (and I strongly suspect you have) how can you *possibly* claim what you do is legal???


----------



## Joe_90

I feel like a Troll, having started a row and not contributing myself. 



RonanC said:


> *Legally -* A
> 
> 
> *What we should do -* Lane 1 -> Lane 2 (Flash lights twice) -> Lane 3 (quick beep) -> Lane 2 -> Lane 1 (Look in rear view mirror and see driver look confused while continuing in Lane 2)



Think that this is the approach.

I have since found out that you can "drive" in the fourth lane on a motorway ie a long slip road as its deemed to be a lane of its own, so if you are leaving the M50 you can get over to the slip lane early instead for crossing 4 lanes to exit.  Don't think the Boyz in Blue would look favourably on someone moving out to lane 2 though.  

Happy Motoring everyone, was driving the #scoobydoo on the M50 today in the sunshine and AC/DC was playing, people could have been driving in any lane they wanted it was a lovely day.


----------



## Purple

SparkRite said:


> Oh Dear God............here we go again............
> 
> Purple have you even read what has been posted previously????
> 
> If you have, (and I strongly suspect you have) how can you *possibly* claim what you do is legal???



I've read what's you have posted and I have read the rules of the road. There is a specific section in the rules of the road about overtaking on a motorway. It specifically says that you should only overtake on the right the text is;



> Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are.



In the next sentence it goes on to talk about overtaking saying;



> If you intend to move from a slower lane to a faster lane, adjust your speed first.



Then it says;



> Before you start to overtake, remember 'mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre', and look in your blind spots. Check that the way is clear (behind and ahead) and signal well in advance.



Now tell me, if everything above talks about changing lanes in the context of overtaking, and specifically states that you are performing a manoeuvre when you are overtaking,  telling you to “_remember 'mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre'_”... why do you still insist that staying in the lane you are in and driving within the speed limit constitutes overtaking? Your whole argument is constructed on a false premise.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> Take your kids carpet road thingie and place the purple car in the left most lane (the driving lane). Imagine that car is travelling at 95kmph.
> Place another car in the middle lane, that car can be any colour.
> Now imagine the car in the middle lane is moving slowly, say at 80kmph. I know they shouldn’t be there but they are.
> There’s other cars on the road, but not too many, so place a few cars in the right most lane as well. Imagine they are driving at 100kmph.
> 
> Now, the purple car catches up with the slow moving car in the middle lane. What does the driver do?
> Does he;
> a) Continue to drive along in his lane at 95kmph, passing the car in the middle lane.
> 
> I’m arguing that option A is safer and legal.
> I don’t think making unnecessary manoeuvres, i.e. changing lanes 4 times, is the safest option.
> 
> .


 
Finally understanding this thread, I think, it was much easier with the kids and certainly far better than the effort I made on paper. I can categorically state that a) is the safest and legalist option and my kids agree. 

Maybe Purple you could do the experiment in real life on a quiet Sunday with the other posters who disagree with you on the Naas motorway and then we could have some concrete conclusions and persuade the other posters that they're misunderstanding the rules of the road. They do that sculky racing on the motorways down in Limerick on a Sunday so I reckon it must be a safe time for the experiment. Before noon as nothing seems to move in Ireland before then. 

It's amazing how so many people can get things so wrong. Maybe they're ignorant because they started driving before we had motorways.

Joe 90 I know what AC/DC is but what is a Scooby Doo (yes I know the cartoon dog but my kids make plaits out of a thing they call scooby doos - long strings of plastic that they twist)


----------



## Joe_90

#scoobydoo aka Subaru


----------



## Bronte

Joe_90 said:


> #scoobydoo aka Subaru


 
Of course, how did I not know that. (Bronte will now google a Subaru - no I won't coz I at least  know it's a make of car.  And therefore no interest at all). But it's probably good to know that's what they are called by the experts. I actually thought you meant some kind of motor bike.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Now tell me, if everything above talks about changing lanes in the context of overtaking, and specifically states that you are performing a manoeuvre when you are overtaking,  telling you to “_remember 'mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre'_”... why do you still insist that staying in the lane you are in and driving within the speed limit constitutes overtaking? Your whole argument is constructed on a false premise.



Jeez Purple you're like a dog with a bone! Why, oh why would any website give you instructions on how to overtake where no manoeuvre is required? Don't you understand that everything you are reading is intended as a guideline on how to safely overtake *where a manoeuvre is required*? What would be the point of giving guidelines to overtake by simply remaining in your lane? "Keep driving straight ahead, yes that's it, go on keep going, ok now you have overtaken that car, keep going..."! Show me any legal definition of overtaking stating that overtaking only occurs where changing lanes is required and I will gladly eat humble pie but stop quoting guidelines on how to overtake safely as if they are a definition of overtaking.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Jeez Purple you're like a dog with a bone! Why, oh why would any website give you instructions on how to overtake where no manoeuvre is required? Don't you understand that everything you are reading is intended as a guideline on how to safely overtake *where a manoeuvre is required*? What would be the point of giving guidelines to overtake by simply remaining in your lane? "Keep driving straight ahead, yes that's it, go on keep going, ok now you have overtaken that car, keep going..."! Show me any legal definition of overtaking stating that overtaking only occurs where changing lanes is required and I will gladly eat humble pie but stop quoting guidelines on how to overtake safely as if they are a definition of overtaking.



RSA website on overtaking (first point);



> How to overtake safely
> 
> Make sure the road ahead is clear so you have enough distance to allow you to overtake and get back to your own side of the road without forcing any other road user to move to avoid you.



It doesn’t say anything about passing in the next lane but you consider that overtaking.
It doesn’t say anything about sticking your backside out the window either, is that overtaking as well?


----------



## Ceist Beag

LOL Purple - what is the first line in your quote from the RSA website! It isn't "Definition of overtaking" is it! Thanks for proving my point!


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> LOL Purple - what is the first line in your quote from the RSA website! It isn't "Definition of overtaking" is it! Thanks for proving my point!



Eh?
I'm not sure what you are saying/asking.
The section is called "Overtaking"
The first line on that page is _"Only overtake if it is safe for you and other traffic"_


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> Finally understanding this thread, I think, it was much easier with the kids and certainly far better than the effort I made on paper. I can categorically state that a) is the safest and legalist option and my kids agree.



Yes, it really is that simple.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Eh?
> I'm not sure what you are saying/asking.



I'm simply saying you have not provided a definition of overtaking yet which proves that changing lanes is required.

I found a really good post over on Boards.ie on this very subject, it is very informative and I think comes to the same conclusion that you and I agree on Purple (that it is safer to remain in the driving lane in this scenario) but it also agrees that overtaking can mean passing whilst remaining in the same lane. 



			
				Boards.ie said:
			
		

> Problems caused by Slow drivers & Drivers overtaking nobody in multilane roads
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by shedweller
> I may be mistaken but don't the rules of the road state that you can overtake on the left if the traffic in the right hand lane is moving slowly (or words to that effect)
> On Multi-lane roads, There is the Driving lane, which is always on the Left and overtaking lanes on the Right. Vehicles in the overtaking lanes are overtaking.
> 
> The First rule of the Road I learn which is Law, That "you drive on the Left" and it is Law. Second as part of the same paragraph is causing inconvenience to others, such as eradicate driving and failing to progress (inconvenience to traffic). That is covered in Section 17 (1) in the 1964 Road Traffic General By Laws. That bit is covered both ways such as tailgating, persistence flashing lights, etc.
> 
> Quote:
> [broken link removed]
> S.I. No. 294/1964 — Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.
> 
> Obligation to drive on the left and to use traffic lanes
> 17.—(1) A driver shall drive as near to the left hand side of the roadway as is necessary in order to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or a pedestrian, approaching traffic to pass him on his right and overtaking traffic to overtake him on his right.
> Slow Drivers overtaking nobody while driving on the overtaking lanes are breaking the Law for failing to drive on the left and for inconvenience to traffic behind them.
> 
> Quote:
> [broken link removed]
> Overtaking
> 
> 19.—(1) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
> 
> 
> (2) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) unless he can clearly see a portion of the roadway which—
> 
> 
> (a) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and
> 
> 
> (b) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
> 
> 
> (3) A driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.
> 
> 
> (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this bye-law, a driver may overtake on the left—
> 
> 
> (a) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled his intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after having overtaken, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
> 
> 
> (b) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after having overtaken, to turn left at a 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.
> Section 19 (1) covers both the overtaking vehicle coming from behind on the driving lane, as well as the driver of the vehicle in the overtaking lane overtaking nobody.
> 
> The last bit 19 (4)(c) is vague and is widely open to interpretation by the Gardai, DPP & Judiciary. It does favour the driver in the driving lane (as by Law) overtaking the improper driver of the vehicle driving in the overtaking lane breaking Irish Road Traffic general bye law 1964 for failing to drive on the left if the Judge is aware of 19 (1) and the is also aware that the driver accused of overtaking on the left did not adjust his/her speed or changed lanes or did anything different when approaching the large slow moving traffic who where in the overtaking lane overtaking no vehicles in the driving lane therefore did not perform any manoeuvre, just drive as he did before he pass out slow drivers who where breaking law in the first place in three different offences.
> 
> This part of the law 19 (4) was meant to mean multi-lane urban traffic as there were far too little multi-lane roads in the Rural areas when this law was put into effect in 1964. On Motorway or 100kph multi-lane road a driver can legal driving slowly @60kph in compare to traffic approaching him from behind who are travelling at 120kph or 100kph. @60Khp may hold up traffic behind him therefore creating Slow-moving Traffic. Slow-moving Traffic is open to interpretation by Gardai, DPP & the Judiciary.
> 
> I have no problem with slow moving traffic on normal roads, but driving at speed much less for Motorways is dangerous especially when that driver is driving on the overtaking lane overtaking nobody and the driving lane is free to drive on. 60kph is fast and dangerous in urban speed limits but slow in Motorway/rural 100kph roads.
> This is depended on the view or mood of the judge on the Day in Court. A person mood or view varies interpretation of events or vague written word.
> 
> Third offence for slow drivers on overtaking lanes is Failing to pull over to let go traffic they they accrued behind them for driving without due care and attention.
> This have been sited many times by Gardai on drivers of Farm Vehicles and other vehicles when they build up traffic behind them on single lane roads. There is no reason why gardai cannot use this on Motorways and Multi-lane roads where there is no obvious right hand turn ahead.
> 
> So that three offences that Slow drivers on Overtaking lanes are breaking compare to possible just 1 of the Vehicle overtaking on the driving lane overtaking vehicle/s who are driving on the overtaking lane.
> 
> 
> A Statement by the Road Safely authority about slow driving.
> Quote:
> Noel Gibbons Road Safely Authority
> 
> “The Rules of the Road states that you must keep up with the pace of traffic flow, while obeying the speed limit. It also says that while you must keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking,” a spokesperson said.
> I have no problem drivers driving slow on problematic roads, but driving slow or varying their speed for no good reason on main good wide main road and holding up traffic is a Major problem and will cause crashes, as proven by David Solomon in the US in research in the 1950 and 60's that most accident happen when drivers of vehicle do not travel at median speeds to others traffic will have a high chance of involvement of an accident.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve
> 
> Slow drivers of Vehicles who caused huge tails back not only cause problems for other normal motorist, they cause major problems for City/Town tailback and traffic congestion to the urban areas they enter and cause major problems for emergency vehicles by having huge tail backs and creating a dangerous environment and driving conditions for drivers of emergency vehicles causing unnecessary delays in reaching a crash site, house or building fire, or hinder life saving personnel from reaching their patience who need emergency help to reach a hospital.
> 
> I do not normally agree with Judge Mary Devin interpretation, but I do agree with her view with slow drivers who never check their rear view mirror and who never let traffic they built up pass by pulling over.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> There is no question about her, She has humour. Reminds me of my late elderly neighbour.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Times
> November 2011
> A motorist caught using a mobile phone for a fourth time while driving was fined €500 and banned from driving for two years at Castlebar District Court. When told it was the accused’s fourth offence, Judge Devins said “The phone must be glued to his ear.”
> Last edited by limklad; 18-09-2012 at 18:51.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm simply saying you have not provided a definition of overtaking yet which proves that changing lanes is required.
> 
> I found a really good post over on Boards.ie on this very subject, it is very informative and I think comes to the same conclusion that you and I agree on Purple (that it is safer to remain in the driving lane in this scenario) but it also agrees that overtaking can mean passing whilst remaining in the same lane.



Finally it's cleared up;



> _It does favour the driver in the driving lane (as by Law) overtaking the improper driver of the vehicle driving in the overtaking lane breaking Irish Road Traffic general bye law 1964 for failing to drive on the left if the Judge is aware of 19 (1) *and the is also aware that the driver accused of overtaking on the left did not adjust his/her speed or changed lanes or did anything different when approaching the large slow moving traffic who where in the overtaking lane overtaking no vehicles in the driving lane therefore did not perform any manoeuvre*, just drive as he did before he pass out slow drivers who where breaking law in the first place in three different offences._


Accused of overtaking is not the same as overtaking. 
... and while I'm being pedantic it's Umble Pie, not Humble Pie


----------



## Ceist Beag

I'll have Steak and Kidney pie as a compromise to close this one out!


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> I'll have Steak and Kidney pie as a compromise to close this one out!



It was great fun though.


----------



## Silvera

Brendan Burgess said:


> Maybe the Gardai should start pulling in people who are driving in the outside lanes when not overtaking.
> 
> Just a quiet word with them about the rules of the road might solve a lot of problems.
> 
> Brendan



While that approach is needed, the gardai would be kept going 24/7 pulling over 'middle and outside lane hoggers'. 

What is needed is driver education.
Clear consise advertisments showing drivers what is required on motorways and dual-carraigeways. The latest RSA tv about motorway driving doesnt spell things out clearly enough imho. For example, the advert says "never use the hard shoulder, except in an emergency". Now while that is correct advice, I believe the advert should state (also state?) - "it is an offence to stop on the hard shoulder, except in an emergency". 

Also, I believe that Sunday newspaper adverts/diagrams could be more effective imho, because 

a - more older drivers read Sunday papers (and many older drivers have sparse knowledge of motorway driving and/or never sat a driving test)

b - newspaper adverts allow people more time to study same and 'figure it all out' / 'let it sink in'.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Bronte

Since this thread started I've been on the main road into Dublin from the south (N7/N9 I think).  So I did an experiment because this thread came to mind as I wondered once again why everybody was driving in the middle etc. 

I managed to pass out 9 cars in one go in the middle lane while being in the slow lane.  That's my record for now.


----------



## delgirl

Brendan Burgess said:


> Maybe the Gardai should start pulling in people who are driving in the outside lanes when not overtaking.
> 
> Just a quiet word with them about the rules of the road might solve a lot of problems.


They do actually do this - my OH was pulled over for driving at the speed limit in the overtaking lane of a dual carriageway, while the left lane was empty.

He was told that he could cause an obstruction to emergency vehicles and was to drive in the left lane unless overtaking.

Have to say I was delighted he was told off!


----------



## johnwilliams

any chance the rsa do a video on the correct way to do this and post it on rte etc  like they did for the roundabouts


----------



## delgirl

From July UK drivers who hog the middle lane will receive on the spot fines of £100 and penalty points!


----------



## Smoneen

And this is exactly what the RSA should be considering for the M50 instead of floating the idea of more tolls to reduce congestion. Lane hogging on the m50 is horrendous. If they are so concerned about the peak time congestion on the on & off ramps they should also be installing traffic lights on all exits. Sandyford is fantastic since the lights were introduced. I know the thoughts of 3 more charges of €1.50 each way will definitely be a deal breaker for me. An extra €9 per day for the pleasure of getting to work would be a killer for someone who has a daily 170km round trip.


----------



## W200

One piece of driving advice from the distant past seemed to have stuck in the minds of a lot of drivers . Remember that old radio and TV add about " *getting into the correct lane in time if making a right or left turn " *This manifests itself regularly on my daily commute where drivers enter the M4 at Leixlip and immediately enter the right hand (overtaking) lane because they are planning to turn right at *Kilmainham. *Hellor high water will not budge them from this lane . There are probably many examples of this behaviour every day which in my opinion is simply down to lack of driver knowledge as motorway driving is relatively new to Ireland.


----------



## Purple

W200 said:


> One piece of driving advice from the distant past seemed to have stuck in the minds of a lot of drivers . Remember that old radio and TV add about " *getting into the correct lane in time if making a right or left turn " *This manifests itself regularly on my daily commute where drivers enter the M4 at Leixlip and immediately enter the right hand (overtaking) lane because they are planning to turn right at *Kilmainham. *Hellor high water will not budge them from this lane . There are probably many examples of this behaviour every day which in my opinion is simply down to lack of driver knowledge as motorway driving is relatively new to Ireland.



Yep, I saw a woman in a mini (the big one that looks like a van) this morning on the M50 accelerated as she changed lanes right to left the whole width of the motorway at Tallaght this morning. She was heading North and exited at the Tallaght off-ramp. She would have ended up behind the same car if she had waited 'till the lane was clear and changed lanes one at a time.
Unnecessary and dangerously aggressive driving for absolutely no gain.


----------

