Rules of the Road question

mikemac

Any advice appreciated.
Firstly, I don't cycle to work, I drive a scooter. My question involves the cycliets I meet everyday.

Everyday I turn left at a major junction.
It's left from the North Strand onto Seville Place if you know the area.

I usually filter to the top of the queue and indicate left.
If traffic is moving obviously I'm careful I don't pull across any cyclists going straight on to Amiens Street as I turn left.

This morning I was waiting to turn left and about 10 cyclists were along the cycle lane.
I couldn't turn left as they all passed me on my inside. THis made me hold up the cars behind me which caused them to start beeping.

So my question is-if you are at traffic lights and want to go left but a large number of cyclists are flying up on the inside and going straight on, who has right of way?

Who will be in the wrong if I indicate and turn left and a cyclists goes straight on and hits me?

Alkers

The cyclists have right of way. If you ever get driving lessons you will be instructed to look in your left mirror as you turn on the indicator to look for cyclists, if there is one there, you've to let them pass before you can turn left. The cars beeping were in the wrong.

daymobrew

Simona1986 wrote:

The cyclists have right of way.

Sometimes you should give up your right of way for your own safety and as a courtesy to other road users. It can also be good for 'PR'.

In the situation described, I think that the cyclists were inconsiderate of the OP and other road users. They were lucky that the OP was so patient (on their behalf - thanks!). Other road users might not be so knowledgeable and could turn without waiting. Your right of way doesn't unbreak broken bones.

Alkers

Agreed, if the op was being beeped at I would have let him passed.
Still, it's not bad driving on the cyclists behalf, it's bad driving by the cars beeping.

Civilian_Target

Actually - you have right of way. When approaching a junction, left turning cars have right of way until a cyclist actually enters the junction, at which point it's illegal for him to stop.

The answer is to cycle closer to the pavement so they can't undertake you...

GreeBo

Civilian_Target wrote:

Actually - you have right of way. When approaching a junction, left turning cars have right of way until a cyclist actually enters the junction, at which point it's illegal for him to stop.

The answer is to cycle closer to the pavement so they can't undertake you...

exactly
you will notice that cycle tracks turn into cycle lanes just before until just after junctions.
This means that you can legally drive in them.
If Im turning left I make my way into the lane as soon as its legal.
At that point you have right of way as you are in the lane.

Iób

Traffic going straight ahead has right of way over turning traffic. This includes pedestrians walking through the junction. By not turning through a line of cyclists you are obeying the rules of the road. Cars beeping at you trying to get you to disregard the rules of the road should be reported to the police.

blorg

I&#243 wrote: »

Traffic going straight ahead has right of way over turning traffic. This includes pedestrians walking through the junction. By not turning through a line of cyclists you are obeying the rules of the road. Cars beeping at you trying to get you to disregard the rules of the road should be reported to the police.

Is that not only if they are already crossing the road?

daymobrew

I&#243 wrote: »

Traffic going straight ahead has right of way over turning traffic.

The situation the OP described was cyclists from behind him undertaking him on the left.

micmclo wrote:

I couldn't turn left as they all passed me on my inside.

I still consider what I said earlier to be a polite way for cyclists to deal with this situation. I prefer a 'defensive' attitude. I've been cycling for 20+ years (and easily 20k+ miles), with lots of it through the city centre and on busy back roads. I don't think my lack of accidents is just luck.

John_C

But what you said earlier wouldn't have helped in this situation. Even if a cyclist did stop, there were nine more who presumably wouldn't have so there was no benefit to stopping. Also, the car turning left had stopped to wait so there was no potential for an accident.

The rules of the road aren't clear for a car turning left accross a cycle lane. Sometimes the cycle lane has a yield triangle and sometimes it doesn't but there's no way for the car driver to tell.

The only advice I can give is to not deliberatly cause an accident. Don't turn your car into a lane of cyclists and don't cycle your bike into a turning car just because you had right of way.

Capt'n Midnight

If the cycle lane is on the road then you would have to cross over the cycle lane to turn left.
* You have to yield to traffic already in a lane you are entering
* You have to yield to someone already crossing a junction.
* where all else is equal a cyclist is a 2nd class road user but motorists are only 3rd ones
* at most other types of junctions traffic going straight through has right of way over traffic turning across it's path UNLESS the turning traffic is on a major road and the straight through traffic is on a minor road.

Depending on who you believe 70% of cyclist/motorcyclist accidents are caused by cars crossing their path without indicating. It happened to me, replacement forks are a different colour

Civilian_Target

Unfortunately this is not the case. Cyclists coming off a cycle lane into a junction are obliged to yield their right of way to left turning cars. Take a look at the road markings next time you're there - if it's dotted to the right or there's a horizontal line on the lane you're obliged to yield to cars, and it's always present.

GreeBo

Civilian_Target wrote:

Unfortunately this is not the case. Cyclists coming off a cycle lane into a junction are obliged to yield their right of way to left turning cars. Take a look at the road markings next time you're there - if it's dotted to the right or there's a horizontal line on the lane you're obliged to yield to cars, and it's always present.

Horizontal line yes I agree, implying that your lane has ended
but broken line just means that its now legal for other vehicles to travel/park in that lane unless there is a sign to indicate otherwise.

However, there are many roads where the cycle lane continues across the junction sometimes with out white lines (its just the red colour) sometimes with lines.

Then you have situations like in Rathmines where the car is trying to turn onto a minor road (at the swimming pool for example) and there will be a constant stream of bike lane traffic until 10am...does the motorist just wait?
I move into the bike lane as soon as it is legal for me to do so and then turn.

Morgan

Civilian_Target wrote:

Unfortunately this is not the case. Cyclists coming off a cycle lane into a junction are obliged to yield their right of way to left turning cars. Take a look at the road markings next time you're there - if it's dotted to the right or there's a horizontal line on the lane you're obliged to yield to cars, and it's always present.

That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't it suggest that in situations where a car turns left into a cyclist that it's the cyclists fault for not yielding? If it is the case then it's a great reason not to be in a cycle lane.

GreeBo

Morgan wrote:

That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't it suggest that in situations where a car turns left into a cyclist that it's the cyclists fault for not yielding? If it is the case then it's a great reason not to be in a cycle lane.

cycle lanes are pretty much death traps anyway

1) frequently used as extra car parking space
2) contains all the crap on the road including man holes/drains
3) if you are on a lane that is part of the road cars are too close
4) if you are on a shared path/lane you have peds walking all over the bike lane
5) if you are on a "private" bike lane its perfect, until you have to cross a road whereby cars ignore you as they have not even noticed your presence some 10 yrds away from their road.

so what is the solution?

daymobrew

GreeBo wrote:

cycle lanes are pretty much death traps anyway
..snip..
3) if you are on a lane that is part of the road cars are too close
..snip..
so what is the solution?

The links from David Healy led me to a PDF which found that cycle lanes often have the effect of encouraging passing of cyclists closer than would otherwise be the case.

Having said that, I am a fan of on-road cycle tracks, my favourite ones being on the Navan Road between Ashtown and New Cabra Road.

Last weekend on the Lap the Lough cycle we were on a main road as we went across the top of the lake. No cycle track. We had some cars that gave us a huge wide bearth and others that tried to shave your right calf.

John_C

Civilian_Target wrote:

Unfortunately this is not the case. Cyclists coming off a cycle lane into a junction are obliged to yield their right of way to left turning cars. Take a look at the road markings next time you're there - if it's dotted to the right or there's a horizontal line on the lane you're obliged to yield to cars, and it's always present.

There's places where they're not present but the big problem is that a car doesn't know if they're there or not. So the OP was correct to stop and wait to see if the bikes yielded.

Iób

Civilian_Target wrote:

Unfortunately this is not the case. Cyclists coming off a cycle lane into a junction are obliged to yield their right of way to left turning cars. Take a look at the road markings next time you're there - if it's dotted to the right or there's a horizontal line on the lane you're obliged to yield to cars, and it's always present.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coming off a cycle lane". The location in question has a cycle lane as part of the road, cyclists don't come off the lane.

Broken white line means cars can go into cycle lane. Solid white line means they can't. Neither marking indicates right of way.

That's the answer to the OP's question.

What cyclists should do is a different matter. These cycle lanes can put you in the very worst position on the road.This is precisely because traffic might turn left in front of you. If there is a risk of this happening you should occupy the full lane so that motor vehicles cannot pass you and turn left in front of you. Read Cyclecraft.

(Cyclists are legally obliged to use the cycle lane whichever type it is. However, as a rational person, I will put my safety before the law.)

Victor

daymobrew wrote:

Last weekend on the Lap the Lough cycle we were on a main road as we went across the top of the lake. No cycle track. We had some cars that gave us a huge wide bearth and others that tried to shave your right calf.

At lights, I had a car pull up next to me and stop withthe front left wing under me.

Civilian_Target

Morgan wrote:

That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't it suggest that in situations where a car turns left into a cyclist that it's the cyclists fault for not yielding? If it is the case then it's a great reason not to be in a cycle lane.

Yep. That's exactly it. You must yield your right of way entering a junction from a cycle lane.

Usually I pull out and occupy road space unless I'm turning left, prevents me from being turned upon!

Victor

Civilian_Target wrote:

Yep. That's exactly it. You must yield your right of way entering a junction from a cycle lane.

Where does it say that?

RainyDay

Am I correct in thinking that the several motorcyclists who used the cycle track along the Navan Road during rush hour this evening were breaking the law?

Alkers

I think a lot of the thread is relying on the difference between a cycle track and a cycle lane If they were driving along the road in a red area with a continious white line they were breaking the law, if it was a broken white line they are alright by the law (I think). This is such a stupid system, what's the point in painting a road red with white bikes on it if anyones allowed to drive in it???

daymobrew

RainyDay wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that the several motorcyclists who used the cycle track along the Navan Road during rush hour this evening were breaking the law?

Probably. Some spots the line is clearly a solid, continuous one, other spots it could be seen as a broken line.

GreeBo

daymobrew wrote:

Probably. Some spots the line is clearly a solid, continuous one, other spots it could be seen as a broken line.

If its mainly a solid line then the broken areas are usually at a junction or the entrance to a house or something.
If its a solid line then it is illegal to have any part of your vehicle in it.

cyclopath2001

Simona1986 wrote:

what's the point in painting a road red with white bikes on it if anyones allowed to drive in it???

To understand the point you must first know that the word 'facility' as used in the term 'cycle facility' has the American meaning as in 'prison facility'.

Cycle lanes and tracks are currently provided for the convenience of motorists.

blorg

This might be the sort of cycle lane people are talking about, solid white line all the way up to the junction. Who has right of way here?



Just this morning (not at this junction) I was going along the cycle lane straight on and got turned into. There is only one lane at that point, and of course the person who I was alongside and who turned into me was not using their indicators. (If they had I would have dropped back.) So one way or the other it probably pays to be extra-careful; I was once informed by someone who overtook me at speed just as I was turning right, clearly signalled and with me on the middle line, that "right of way doesn't mean much if you're dead, and if I had hit you it would be you that would be dead, not me."

And there does seem to be a general perception that cyclists just never have right of way. Last night on the Clontarf road going towards Howth (the bit between the two cycle lanes) I was going along around 45km/h and the light turned orange when I was maybe 2 metres from the line (serious tailwind which converted to that famed and dreaded headwind that I have heard so much about on the way back.) Now I really didn't think stopping was going to be safe; I have been very nearly rear ended and had drivers yell torrents at me when I have stopped suddenly even at a red, never mind an orange. So I went on, and then this guy makes a quick right turn from the other side right in front of me, and as I am screeching to a halt makes this tut-tut gesture that I can only imagine means "shouldn't be breaking the light." Just doesn't enter his head that (1) he is also breaking the light and has no excuse for doing so as he was _already_ stopped (stop if it is safe to do so); (2) he is disregarding the proceeding straight/turning rule. And no, he did not have a filter light (he wouldn't have been in such a hurry if he did.)

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote:

This might be the sort of cycle lane people are talking about, solid white line all the way up to the junction. Who has right of way here?

Nobody.

It's not a matter of right-of way, it's a matter of the law on overtaking and a good measure of common-sense.

You should not overtake if, to do so, causes danger or incovenience to anyone else. The law applies equally to motorists and cyclists.

robfitz

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Nobody.

It's not a matter of right-of way, it's a matter of the law on overtaking and a good measure of common-sense.

You should not overtake if, to do so, causes danger or incovenience to anyone else. The law applies equally to motorists and cyclists.

Here's a clearer photo of that juction on Drummartin Road.

The cycle facility at that junction is very dangours, a cyclist should never possition themselves to the left of left turning vehicles. A road traffic designer is negligent for designing such a cycle facility.

This juction is on my way home from town, I never use the cycle facility and always cycle in the right lane.

GreeBo

robfitz wrote:

Here's a clearer photo of that juction on Drummartin Road.

The cycle facility at that junction is very dangours, a cyclist should never possition themselves to the left of left turning vehicles. A road traffic designer is negligent for designing such a cycle facility.

This juction is on my way home from town, I never use the cycle facility and always cycle in the right lane.

if im on a road liiike this I will move into the middle of the left turning lane and cycle straight through
that way the cars have t o see me and cannot just run me over (well not as easily)

blorg

Yes I often do that myself; however on the particular one in the photo there is a left-turning filter that goes independently of straight on so you would want to be moving into the ASL box immediately ahead of the right-most lane. I generally do this although I confess if traffic is light I will just stay in the cycle lane and make sure to look behind me before I set off.

The junction where I was turned into was further back - Roebuck Road. Here there is only one lane and if traffic is heavy it can be difficult to move out into the traffic lane (besides which technically you are breaking the law by doing so.) So here I foolishly relied on cars using their indicators (I know well that is stupid.)

robfitz

blorg wrote:

however on the particular one in the photo there is a left-turning filter that goes independently of straight on so you would want to be moving into the ASL box immediately ahead of the right-most lane.

Yes but the ASL isn't correct, it should begin before the traffic lights and not after. See where the white line parellel to the kerb stops that's where the ASL should begin, also it should be 4-5 meters deep and go across to the middle of the roadway.

blorg wrote:

The junction where I was turned into was further back - Roebuck Road.

Yes Roebuck Road juction isn't nice.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

Here's a clearer photo of that juction on Drummartin Road

That's got a RRM022 marking. Any cyclist who does not stay inside of it would be committing an offence. Even if this means having to traverse a line of left-turning cars. That said, any car that would overtake at that junction could be breaking the law if doing so causes inconvenience or danger to a cyclist.

It would be difficult to prove negligence against the council unless it could be shown that they had either broken the law or ignored codified design standards. AFAIK, the councils operate with unwritten 'best practice' guidelines.

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,

(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or

10. (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 the roadway ahead of the driver—

( 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.

robfitz

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That's got a RRM022 marking.

Yes but there is no associated RUS009 or RUS009A anywhere along the section of the road marking before the junction.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would be difficult to prove negligence against the council unless it could be shown that they had either broken the law or ignored codified design standards. AFAIK, the councils operate with unwritten 'best practice' guidelines.

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

Also I raised this very juntion as an example of a bad and dangerous design durning a presentation I gave to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Transportation Strategic Policy Committee a few meetings ago.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

Yes but there is no associated RUS009 or RUS009A anywhere along the section of the road marking before the junction.

Shurely shome mishtake? A council ignoring the law?

robfitz wrote:

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

Not relevant, as I understand that the city council is not bound by the guidelines and prefers to follow 'best practice', whatever that might be.

blorg

robfitz wrote:

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

I was really quite amazed that such a document exists. Don't know _exactly_ what the point of it is though, I would be surprised if even 1% of Dublin's cycle tracks meet those guidelines. 0.1% even.