Taxis

[Dirkitech]

Tell me about it! Some of the stuff people post on there also leaves me a bit dumbfounded at times

 

Sure thing, here's the link - https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/if-you-are-driving-120km-h-in-the-fast-lane-should-you-move-over.892202/

 

It is a long read but it's interesting to see other peoples opinions on things. Probably best to speed read it, in the interests of time.

Thank you deefish

 

edit: wow, you weren't kidding how long it was!

[ChUkKy]

Nice one!!

 

Did you edit any of your language? 

None at all, raw and unfiltered... just the way I am 

[Eddy Gordo]

As far as I am aware it is keep left pass right over here as well

https://www.arrivealive.co.za/Rules-on-the-Road#part1_1

[Dirkitech]

For what it's worth, passing on the left is actually legal in certain situations. I agree that it is the correct thing to do to pull over and let faster cars pass in the passing lane, however I will decide when it is safe to do so, not the person behind me speeding (and I am well within the law to be making the decision on when it is safe). I know it's a long read, but this was actually discussed on MyBB last year. I'd encourage you to read the thread (not sure if I'm allowed to post a link to it here) and pay special attention to the posts by hj2k_x who is an attorney. As he also put it, it doesn't sound sensible for there to be a law one has to follow to allow others to break a law, does it? Again, I am not one of those who hog the right hand lane, I do pull over, but it is my decision on when it is safe to do so.

Okay so I skim read through the posts on that thread and to be perfectly honest, attorney or not, that username you mentioned sounds like a self righteous **** that applies the law in their own perception, just like passing lane hoggers justify their perceptions. Perhaps I missed a post of theirs whilst skimming, but it seemed contradictory to safe road use. I actually stopped reading entirely at page 13/18

[deefish]

Okay so I skim read through the posts on that thread and to be perfectly honest, attorney or not, that username you mentioned sounds like a self righteous **** that applies the law in their own perception, just like passing lane hoggers justify their perceptions. Perhaps I missed a post of theirs whilst skimming, but it seemed contradictory to safe road use. I actually stopped reading entirely at page 13/18

 

Yip, some of his posts do come off as such, however I try to look beneath what is presented and the meaning behind what he is saying. The point I agree with is, and perhaps I haven't said it explicitly, is lane hogging is unacceptable as long as all other provisions in the act (read: laws) are being adhered to. What I don't agree with is thinking that there is a law which must be enforced to allow others to break the law. That is simply not rational. Never have I heard of a person in South Africa being fined for that (doing 120km/h in any lane and not pulling over to allow someone else, who isn't in an emergency, to break the speed limit), other than for impeding an official police vehicle.

 

From a legal standpoint, or at least the bits that I remember from varsity, is that you also cannot extract a piece of an act as it suits you and read it out of context without taking into account the rest of the act, the spirit in which it was written, and what it was intending to achieve. In other words, to simply say there is a piece of the road act that says "keep left, pass right" and you must always follow that rule no matter what is doing just that and taking it out of context. You are completely ignoring the part of the act which explicitly states that you shall always adhere to the speed limit other than in an emergency (and some other situations for official emergency vehicles). My opinion is that if the act is actually interpreted in context and within the general spirit with which it was written, then if one is driving under the speed limit only then are they obliged to pull to the left (other than in the case of an emergency). 

 

I do also realise that I can't tell who is in an emergency behind me or not, which is why I always pull over and let a person faster than me past. But let's be honest with each other and drop the egos, most of the people speeding these days are doing so for no other reason than wanting to reach their destination faster, which is most certainly not an emergency. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

From a legal standpoint, or at least the bits that I remember from varsity, is that you also cannot extract a piece of an act as it suits you and read it out of context without taking into account the rest of the act, the spirit in which it was written, and what it was intending to achieve. In other words, to simply say there is a piece of the road act that says "keep left, pass right" and you must always follow that rule no matter what is doing just that and taking it out of context. 

From here on is where your and his interpretations of the intent of the law are flawed, IMO. 

 

The law pertains to YOU. YOU do not police the other person. You look after YOU, and therefore YOU need to:

 

- stay at or under the limit

- keep left pass right

- move aside for faster vehicles

- not jump stops

 

Etc etc etc

 

It does NOT extend to allowing you to stay in the RH lane when it is safe to pull into the LH lane just because you are under the limit / at the limit and the person behind you is faster, and therefore "it's within my right to stay here cos you shouldn't be speeding" That would mean that YOU are also breaking the law, by not moving over for a faster vehicle.

 

Not to mention the calibration errors between different speedometers can often result in a different reading on different cars, from the same manufacturers. Meaning he could be reading under 120 while you read at or over. 

[deefish]

From here on is where your and his interpretations of the intent of the law are flawed, IMO. 

 

The law pertains to YOU. YOU do not police the other person. You look after YOU, and therefore YOU need to:

 

- stay at or under the limit

- keep left pass right

- move aside for faster vehicles

- not jump stops

 

Etc etc etc

 

It does NOT extend to allowing you to stay in the RH lane when it is safe to pull into the LH lane just because you are under the limit / at the limit and the person behind you is faster, and therefore "it's within my right to stay here cos you shouldn't be speeding" That would mean that YOU are also breaking the law, by not moving over for a faster vehicle.

 

Not to mention the calibration errors between different speedometers can often result in a different reading on different cars, from the same manufacturers. Meaning he could be reading under 120 while you read at or over. 

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because as I mentioned, I can show you plenty of prosecutions related to speeding offences but absolutely none for where someone was doing the speed limit (apparently lane hogging) and another person wanting to break the speed limit was impeded (unless you are aware of some and can direct me to them?) other than in the case of impeding an official vehicle. Once a precedent has been set for that I will happily change my point of view For the time being, however, I stand by the fact that I believe it to be farcical to think there is a law which obliges me to allow others to break the law and if I don't then suddenly I am in a situation where I am breaking the law.

 

As I say, though, I think it's best to agree to disagree. Once precedent is set then I will change my opinion but until then I believe I am on the right side (see what I did there ) of the law.

 

Side note - please also don't take my posts the wrong way, I am honestly happy to debate this constructively and not all debates need to end in you agreeing with me or vice versa. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because as I mentioned, I can show you plenty of prosecutions related to speeding offences but absolutely none for where someone was doing the speed limit (apparently lane hogging) and another person wanting to break the speed limit was impeded (unless you are aware of some and can direct me to them?) other than in the case of impeding an official vehicle. Once a precedent has been set for that I will happily change my point of view For the time being, however, I stand by the fact that I believe it to be farcical to think there is a law which obliges me to allow others to break the law and if I don't then suddenly I am in a situation where I am breaking the law.

 

As I say, though, I think it's best to agree to disagree. Once precedent is set then I will change my opinion but until then I believe I am on the right side (see what I did there ) of the law.

 

Side note - please also don't take my posts the wrong way, I am honestly happy to debate this constructively and not all debates need to end in you agreeing with me or vice versa. 

Simple. If you refuse to move over for faster vehicles on a dual lane road when it is safe to do so, you are in contravention of the RTA. Just because you have not yet seen prosecutions for it, it does not mean that it is legal for you to stay there just to prevent someone else from speeding. You are STILL breaking the law by remaining in that lane when there is a faster vehicle behind you. You're just justifying doing so, and in the process, driving dangerously. 

 

I have personally seen an unmarked ghost squad car pull another motorist over for precisely this behaviour. I do not know whether he was ticketed or not, but it happened right next to and in front of me when he would not let another motorist past. 

[Eddy Gordo]

This happened to a friend of mine. Ghost car behind him, he didnt move and then rceived a fine for speeding as well as obstruction. I think the fine was around 2500

[Andrew Steer]

Me, I like to cruise just over 130kmph in the fast lane... I move over when I can, but much of the time there are cars in the inner lane doing way slower, say 100kmph, especially on two lane sections, so I enjoy the fast lane while I can, keep a sensible but snappy speed and get where I am going in a decent and pretty safe time...

I move over when I can, but I don't move over for flashing schmucks going 160 who want to inherently force me to slow down to 100 so they can drive what I consider really recklessly. I'm not policing the fast lane, I'm not blocking drivers, but I'm also not inconveniencing myself for someone behaving in what I consider a dangerous manner. 

Not everything is black and white... if you want to wag your finger at me, go ahead - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it 

[Patchelicious]

Me, I like to cruise just over 130kmph in the fast lane... I move over when I can, but much of the time there are cars in the inner lane doing way slower, say 100kmph, especially on two lane sections, so I enjoy the fast lane while I can, keep a sensible but snappy speed and get where I am going in a decent and pretty safe time...

 

I move over when I can, but I don't move over for flashing schmucks going 160 who want to inherently force me to slow down to 100 so they can drive what I consider really recklessly. I'm not policing the fast lane, I'm not blocking drivers, but I'm also not inconveniencing myself for someone behaving in what I consider a dangerous manner. 

 

Not everything is black and white... if you want to wag your finger at me, go ahead - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it 

 

Yeah, rather wave a "CSA sucks" sign at Andrew as you pass him, that will elicit a reaction

[sawystertrance]

Another one who thinks it's the "Fast Lane". No end to them..

[deefish]

Simple. If you refuse to move over for faster vehicles on a dual lane road when it is safe to do so, you are in contravention of the RTA. Just because you have not yet seen prosecutions for it, it does not mean that it is legal for you to stay there just to prevent someone else from speeding. You are STILL breaking the law by remaining in that lane when there is a faster vehicle behind you. You're just justifying doing so, and in the process, driving dangerously. 

 

I have personally seen an unmarked ghost squad car pull another motorist over for precisely this behaviour. I do not know whether he was ticketed or not, but it happened right next to and in front of me when he would not let another motorist past. 

 

I disagree. Given the context of the rest of the RTA you cannot take one piece of it and broadly apply it. My interpretation of it is that, given the context of other sections (namely those about speeding and the privileges given to emergency vehicles) I am obliged to pull over if someone behind me is travelling faster than me, however they should still do so within the speed limit.

 

The examples about ghost squad cars are also hard to fathom, and unless they were driving above the speed limit because of a legitimate emergency, they would be hard pressed to make the fine stick in court. This is where it gets tricky, though, because one would expect a ghost squad car to use their blue lights in the event of an emergency. Also, I'm sure you've seen some of the most obscure fines dished out by our traffic officers. Just because you got a fine, doesn't mean it was issued legally. Most people just don't have the money nor want to go through the hassle of getting it thrown out in court. 

[Andrew Steer]

Another one who thinks it's the "Fast Lane". No end to them..

I'm deeply sorry for any offence caused... 

[Andrew Steer]

Yeah, rather wave a "CSA sucks" sign at Andrew as you pass him, that will elicit a reaction

Hahaha... not likely I am afraid. Just engaging in sensible debate does not mean one is for or against anything. Sometimes we're just trying to get a better understanding of all sides. 

[Dirkitech]

Me, I like to cruise just over 130kmph in the fast lane... I move over when I can, but much of the time there are cars in the inner lane doing way slower, say 100kmph, especially on two lane sections, so I enjoy the fast lane while I can, keep a sensible but snappy speed and get where I am going in a decent and pretty safe time...

 

I move over when I can, but I don't move over for flashing schmucks going 160 who want to inherently force me to slow down to 100 so they can drive what I consider really recklessly. I'm not policing the fast lane, I'm not blocking drivers, but I'm also not inconveniencing myself for someone behaving in what I consider a dangerous manner. 

 

Not everything is black and white... if you want to wag your finger at me, go ahead - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it 

I'm wondering if you are aware how contradictory that entire paragraph is? The portion in red- are you a traffic officer? Since you're taking metro policing into your own hands.