The Rules of the Road vs. the Road Traffic Acts

[mathepac]

There are certainly no severe limitations coming down to the level of detail quoted for that Aviva policy.

IMHO the Aviva contract wording seems very restrictive and unreasonable from the perspective of the reasonable customer.
I still hold a lot of sympathy for OP on the merits.

An appeal to the Ombudsman perhaps ?

Not in the least bit severe, restrictive or unreasonable. I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't know and obey the Rules of the Road, knowledge and observance of which is a requirement for driving on Irish roads out of respect for the safety of other road users.

Section 4, Page 40 deals with vehicle safety and the driver's responsibilities. In general terms in states:

"There are minimum standards set by law for the condition of your vehicle.
You must know these standards and make sure your vehicle complies with the law. This section sets out the basic information you need to know. For further information on the testing of your vehicle please see www.rsa.ie

As a driver, you must make sure that your vehicle is in good working order. You must ensure that the steering, brakes, front and rear lamps, indicators, reflectors, rear view mirrors, safety belts, speedometer, tyres, windscreen wipers, horn and silencer are checked regularly."

Specifically, in relation to tyres, it states

"Tyres

Tread depth: Do not allow your tyres to wear down too much. Most vehicles on the road must have a minimum tread depth of 1.6mm over the main treads. For motorcycles and vintage vehicles the minimum tread depth is 1mm. However, make sure you replace your tyres before they become this worn.

Pressure: Regularly check the pressure of every tyre, including the spare tyre, and pay attention to the recommended pressure levels. See the manufacturer’s specifications for correct inflation pressure.

Checking for damage: Regularly examine your tyres for cuts, cracks and bulges, which could cause unexpected ‘blow-outs.’

Before you get a flat tyre: Check your vehicle and make sure you know how to change a wheel, that you have a spare wheel and repair kit to hand.

Replacing tyres: For your safety, only fit new and e-marked tyres bought from a reputable dealer. Do not mix radial and cross ply tyres on any one axle. Tyres must be the same on any axle.

Temporary use (space saver) spare tyre or repair kit: Only use these tyres to complete a journey or make a journey to a tyre dealer. Do not travel at a speed in excess of the recommended speed stamped on the tyre."

Appealing on the grounds you specify would make any driver who has had a claim rejected on the grounds of ignoring basic, well-documented safety measures look even less worthy of holding a licence or insurance certificate than they already do in my eyes.

I take it the objectors to the insurance comapny's understandable stance haven't read the Rules of the Road either.

 

[Leo]

Rules of the Road, knowledge and observance of which is a requirement for driving on Irish roads out of respect for the safety of other road users.

The rules of the road are partially an interpretation of the law used as a guide in driver testing. Quite a bit of the content has no basis in law. Drivers on Irish roads need to be familiar with the law, as laid down in the Road Traffic Acts. A driver can not be prosecuted for contravening the RotR. The RSA themselves clearly state that they do not see their remit being constrained to what is set down in legislation. That has led to them being forced to correct or rescind advice that was contrary to the road traffic acts a number of times over the years, most recently when they advised that motorised scooters were perfectly fine to use on Irish roads.

 

[SparkRite]

I cannot 'for the life of me' see what quoting the ROTR has to do with whether the OP has third party indemnity or not.

As @Leo correctly pointed out they are not law, but mainly advice towards better/safer driving practices .
The only connection I can see is that, in general, if you adhere to them you are less likely to fall foul of the law.

 

[mathepac]

or fall foul of the fairly straight-forward T&Cs in your insurance policy document.

How many times must drivers be given the same information about tyres, tyre-depth, overall condition and tyre-safety before it sinks in? It seems that the subject of the thread failed to spot the information twice, or chose to ignore it.

@Leo I'll ask the same question I asked the last time this came up "Why are Irish and UK drivers not examined on their knowledge of Road Traffic Law as part of the theory test?" My observation the last time was that if they are issued licences based on their knowledge of the Highway Code or the ROTR, then that is sufficient. If they must have expert knowledge of Road Traffic law, then make that a condition of issuing a licence.

Only lawyers make an in-depth study of laws, otherwise, there is no need for them, which might be a good thing some of the time. If one arm of the State or its agents adjudicate that the ROTR information is the standard for the award of a licence, then surely the State is an ass (not for the first time) to hold drivers to a higher level of expertise than the ROTR after granting a licence, while the State fails to specify that such will be the case.

 

[Leo]

@Leo I'll ask the same question I asked the last time this came up "Why are Irish and UK drivers not examined on their knowledge of Road Traffic Law as part of the theory test?" My observation the last time was that if they are issued licences based on their knowledge of the Highway Code or the ROTR, then that is sufficient. If they must have expert knowledge of Road Traffic law, then make that a condition of issuing a licence.

Driver testing is managed by the RSA, so using their own publication as the basis of the test is quite convenient for them as well as being a nice little money earner for them. Remember back in 2014 when the state finances were strained they justified sitting on €20M reserves by claiming their recent 5 year strategy had saved the state nearly €2B!! Funny how they don't claim credit when the stats go the other way.

Only lawyers make an in-depth study of laws, otherwise, there is no need for them, which might be a good thing some of the time.

Lawyers do a lot more than study the law. I'm no lawyer and I've read the Road Traffic Acts, for the most part they are quite straightforward and easy to understand.

If one arm of the State or its agents adjudicate that the ROTR information is the standard for the award of a licence, then surely the State is an ass (not for the first time) to hold drivers to a higher level of expertise than the ROTR after granting a licence, while the State fails to specify that such will be the case.

The state polices road traffic offences as per the Road Traffic Acts, not per the RotR. I don't ever recall any person or body suggesting that anything else was ever the case. Road traffic legislation changes a lot more frequently than the RotR, drivers need to be aware of how these changes might impact them, as in every other aspect of life, ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

[mathepac]

Driver testing is managed by the RSA,

On behalf of and as agents for the State and their testers decide on the suitability of a permit-holder to be issued a licence based on their driving abilities and their knowledge of the ROTR as examined in the theory test. This then is deemed sufficient for them to take to the roads with the big red "N" on their cars. No other knowledge or expertise is required other than that tested.

Lawyers do a lot more than study the law.

Good for them.

I'm no lawyer and I've read the Road Traffic Acts, for themostpart they are quite straightforward and easy to understand.

Good for you

The state polices road traffic offences as per the Road Traffic Acts, not per the RotR. I don't ever recall any person or body suggesting that anything else was ever the case.

I've never suggested anything else, but as has already been pointed out in this thread, following the ROTR is the most likely way to keep safe and legal as a road user., whether cyclist, pedestrian, driver or other.

Road traffic legislation changes a lot more frequently than the RotR, drivers need to be aware of how these changes might impact them, as in every other aspect of life, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Any specific examples where the ROTR lag behind motoring or road user legislation?

From my point of view, I use the three Cs drilled into me when I did my UK driving test to guide my behaviour on the road - "Care, Courtesy and Consideration" that and compliance with the ROTR.

 

[mathepac]

BTW, on another point, are you a fan of Richard Shakespeare's Henry VI ? i.e. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

I don't believe I've ever advocated killing anyone, even drivers who ignore the ROTR or the T&Cs in their insurance policies.

 

[Leo]

I've never suggested anything else, but as has already been pointed out in this thread, following the ROTR is the most likely way to keep safe and legal as a road user., whether cyclist, pedestrian, driver or other.

So when they said it was perfectly legal to use motorised scooters on the road, that was fine? You might tell that to the people who had theirs seized.

This then is deemed sufficient for them to take to the roads with the big red "N" on their cars. No other knowledge or expertise is required other than that tested.

Try using the ROTR as a defence in court.

Any specific examples where the ROTR lag behind motoring or road user legislation?

Every time an amendment to the RTAs are enacted. It can take years for the print version to be updated.

 

[mathepac]

You seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about this topic for some reason. Is it moi?

So when they said it was perfectly legal to use motorised scooters on the road, that was fine? You might tell that to the people who had theirs seized.

I did say "most likely", not perfectly anything. Even the ROTR [EDIT: should have typed Road Traffic Acts] aren't perfect, not are the interpretations perfect, which is why we have grades of lawyers and courts and judges to appeal prosecutions taken by Gardai, and decisions and interpretations made lower down the legal food chain.

Try using the ROTR as a defence in court.

Nah, I'd probably hire a legal eagle for that to find the loop-holes and imperfections in the ROTR [EDIT: should have typed Road Traffic Acts].

Every time an amendment to the RTAs are enacted. It can take years for the print version to be updated.

I don't remember hearing or reading that, do you have any examples?

Again, my point is that I don't find it in the least unreasonable, OTT or onerous that an insurance company would require a policyholder to keep their vehicle in a manner or state of repair specified in the policy document or documents produced by the manufacturer, such as a service and safety schedule, or by agents of the State such as the RSA or the NCTS, for example.

 

[Leo]

You seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about this topic for some reason. Is it moi?

No, I'm just amazed any tome that people quote the RotR in a manner suggesting they govern how people should behave on the road while in fact they have no legal basis whatsoever. It's as meaningless as quoting an etiquette guide as evidence in an assault case.