Cyclist question

Arathorn

Just a quick query, when there is two lanes and the left lane is for turning left and the cyclist want to go straight on, where shoud the cyclist be positioned? I would have assumed he should move into the lane going straight on but maybe not because it might be dangerous for him if he is in between cars ?

Anan1

I would have said the left side of the straight ahead lane too. That said, one should always yield to cyclists, no matter what they do.

Arathorn

Ya the reason I ask is because I caused a cyclist to fall off his bike expected him to turn left. Whatever the answer is I know I have no excuse I should have been way more careful, accepted full responsibility. The guy was fine and no damage to his bike, there was a garda there gave me a fine and 2 points, could have been a lot worse. Pride myself on being a careful driver, was just a moment of stupidity. Still feel awful about it

the_syco

If he was in the left of the left lane, and went straight on, he was in the wrong, provided that the lanes were marked, I think.

bazz26

Yep, according to the ROTR motorists are obliged to yield to cyclists and pedestrians no matter how wrong they may appear to be.

Arathorn

Well the lanes are marked but not that wide, either way I got too close to him, the gaurd said I was in the wrong so i'll take him on his word and put it down to experience and be more careful in future

MarkN

Don't be too hard on yourself over it. I cycle to work everyday and in your situation if I saw a car about to turn in front of me then I wouldn't give the driver the benefit of the doubt, I would slow down or stop. If he was in the middle of the junction though and you just pulled on top of him then it was pretty stupid but a mistake none the less - its not that easy to enter the right lane as you describe as there are cars usually coming for you if you are on a bike and try to do that. No doubt about it, the fact that I drive too keeps me a lot safer on a bike as I am used to predicting what other drivers will do.

antodeco

Arathorn wrote:

there was a garda there gave me a fine and 2 points, could have been a lot worse.

True OP couldve been alot worse, but I think getting 2 points is a little harsh. If you didnt do an illegal manouvere as such (yes cyclists have right of way) then I dont think you should have receive points. If you physically couldnt see the cyclist (completley out of view) would you still get points I wonder??

mikedragon32

the_syco wrote:

If he was in the left of the left lane, and went straight on, he was in the wrong, provided that the lanes were marked, I think.

Wrong.

If a cyclist is turning left OR going straight ahead, he should keep to the left. The cyclist should only move out if he is turning right.

Any car turning left must give way to the cyclist going straight ahead.

I was at the receiving end of a muppet turning left when I wanted to go straight ahead a few years ago at Leonard's Corner in Dublin. Unlike the OP he wasn't so repentant and refused to give any assistance at the scene afterwards preferring instead to hail abuse. Needless to say, he knows better now.

Arathorn

Ah no the guard acted very proffessional, just another question, when the fine comes out in the post does the letter say its from the guards? My folks would give me a hard time if they found out, dont live at home which is where the fine is being sent

Cappo

Well-done – not many posters admit to their mistakes – not been smart!

Alun

mikedragon32 wrote:

If a cyclist is turning left OR going straight ahead, he should keep to the left. The cyclist should only move out if he is turning right.

If I understand the OP's post correctly, I believe we're talking about a situation here where there's a separate lane for turning left only, and a lane for going straight on. You're surely not saying that in that situation a cyclist should stay on the left of the left-turn only lane and yet still go straight on are you?

I've done a fair bit of cycling in my time, albeit a long time ago, and I wouldn't even dream of doing anything like that unless I had some kind of death-wish ... I'd keep to the left of the straight-on lane as Anan1 said.

Any car turning left must give way to the cyclist going straight ahead.

Agreed ... several years of living in Holland taught me that at least, and most Irish drivers don't seem to have grasped that concept but I don't think that was what we were talking about here.

mikemac

antodeco wrote:

If you physically couldnt see the cyclist (completley out of view) would you still get points I wonder??

I don't buy that.
Car drivers have a blind spot but that's what your wing mirrors are for.
So in a situation like the OP's then you can check your left wing mirror before making a turn.
That's what my instructor showed me when I was taking lessons.

Most drivers don't do this though. I know from using my moped that on a road with two lanes the most dangerous place is to be is level with somone's back wheel as it's unlikely they know you're there.

antodeco

Arathorn wrote:

Ah no the guard acted very proffessional, just another question, when the fine comes out in the post does the letter say its from the guards? My folks would give me a hard time if they found out, dont live at home which is where the fine is being sent

Yup the letter says it, but I cant remember if the envelope does! Sure just tell them you've applied to the reserve force!

Actually, just make up a lie about how you sent them a letter regarding certain rules of the road you were unsure of, and its probably just a reply!

Arathorn

No I did physically see him but expected him to turn left, thinking back even if he was turning left I still would have left it too tight for him which is why I'm not argueing the point. Just passed my test 4 weeks ago and all

MarkN

Alun the roads are quite a bit busier these days as you know, being on a bike now compared to even 10 years ago is very different. Asking a cyclist to make a lane change like you say will either have the cyclist pull out in front of traffic wishing to turn left or result in the cyclist having to stop completely and wait til there is no traffic at all so they can cross the lane and that's not practical, the cyclist has as much right to be on the road as a car. If a cyclist doesn't make a hand signal to indicate a left or right turn then don't assume.

antodeco

micmclo wrote:

I don't buy that.
Car drivers have a blind spot but that's what your wing mirrors are for.
So in a situation like the OP's then you can check your left wing mirror before making a turn.
That's what my instructor showed me when I was taking lessons.

Most drivers don't do this though. I know from using my moped that on a road with two lanes the most dangerous place is to be is level with somone's back wheel as it's unlikely they know you're there.

Of course, if you can see him in your mirrors thats fine. But im saying if you CANT see him for whatever reason (was behind a car behind or on the path or bicycle lane that ended).

Alun

MarkN wrote:

Asking a cyclist to make a lane change like you say will either have the cyclist pull out in front of traffic wishing to turn left or result in the cyclist having to stop completely and wait til there is no traffic at all so they can cross the lane and that's not practical, the cyclist has as much right to be on the road as a car.

Well, I was assuming it was a situation where a left-turn lane peeled off the left side of the main carriageway, not one where an existing straight-on lane changed into a left turn only lane, so in that situation no lane change as such would be required, but I take your point regarding the other situation.

Victor

The rules are unfair on the cyclist, insisting he keep left, even inside left-turning traffic (where many cyclists get killed).

If someone (anyone) is turning left, don't try to pass them.

UrbanFox

I cycle in the Dublin suburbs and that is a daily adventure.

I notice with increasing irritation that cyclists are getting less consideration from motorists. Indeed, many motorists seem to be utterly ignorant of the concept of yielding and right of way in relation to cyclists. I say that as a cyclist who is quite happy to have his right of way taken off him on the basis that survival is preferable to rehab.

The manoeuvre that really cheeses me off is the motorist who drives up from behind you, overtakes and then turns left in front of you or stops dead in front of you and then delays turning left until you catch up ! If motorists would wait a few seconds and not overtake a cyclist but let them clear away first it would be a lot quicker.

BTW OP for what specific offence did you get points ?

Mr. Presentable

OP, I'm curious to know, was the cyclist undertaking you?

Stark

nipplenuts wrote:

OP, I'm curious to know, was the cyclist undertaking you?

What? Bad cyclist! You should have reversed back over him when you saw him getting up for his crimes. :rolleyes:

littlejukka

in that situation (as the cyclist) i would have looked over my right shoulder as i approached the junction in the left lane, and if there was a car behind me i would have indicated my intention to move to the right with my right arm extended.

if at that stage he continued and tried to overtake me and turn left in front of me there would be no excuse for his behaviour.

fair play for owning up to your error.

markpb

littlejukka wrote:

in that situation (as the cyclist) i would have looked over my right shoulder as i approached the junction in the left lane, and if there was a car behind me i would have indicated my intention to move to the right with my right arm extended.

I tend to indicate at most junctions that I'll be continuing straight on just to make it quite obvious to drivers behind.

DCCs pretty poor cycle lane design doesn't help the situation. As Alun said, cyclists should be in the middle lane but thats frequently more dangerous. On more than one occasion, the coronors court has cited DCC's continued use of left-of-left cycle lanes as being the primary cause of death but they don't let a silly thing like that get in the way of more red paint.

littlejukka

markpb wrote:

I tend to indicate at most junctions that I'll be continuing straight on just to make it quite obvious to drivers behind.

DCCs pretty poor cycle lane design doesn't help the situation. As Alun said, cyclists should be in the middle lane but thats frequently more dangerous. On more than one occasion, the coronors court has cited DCC's continued use of left-of-left cycle lanes as being the primary cause of death but they don't let a silly thing like that get in the way of more red paint.

i never use the straight on signal in city traffic. the majority of motorists wouldn't have a clue what it means.

in the situation the OP described he wasn't going straight on, rather he was moving into the lane to the right of him and then moving straight on, which would suggest that you should indicate right.

Arathorn

The offence was driving without reasonable consideration which is 2 points and a fine. If the guard had decided the offence was driving carelessly I would have been up in court and got 5 points.

BostonB

micmclo wrote:

I don't buy that.
Car drivers have a blind spot but that's what your wing mirrors are for.
....

A blind spot generally means one you can't see even in the mirrors. Hence its name

BostonB

Cyclists in general are unpredictable and usually don't obey the signals or lane restrictions. They also always expect everyone to yield to them regardless. So just expect them to do the unexpected, and always give them right of way, even if it means slowing down and crawling behind them till their they've made their turn or haven't. It will delay you at most a few minutes, and its not worth taking the risk.

Johnny Storm

UrbanFox wrote:

...I notice with increasing irritation that cyclists are getting less consideration from motorists. Indeed, many motorists seem to be utterly ignorant of the concept of yielding and right of way in relation to cyclists. I say that as a cyclist who is quite happy to have his right of way taken off him on the basis that survival is preferable to rehab.

I cycle and drive and IMHO you can see some totally demented behaviour by both cyclists and drivers. I 100% agree with you on the point about doing what is needed to survive.

copacetic

BostonB wrote:

Cyclists in general are unpredictable and usually don't obey the signals or lane restrictions. They also always expect everyone to yield to them regardless. So just expect them to do the unexpected, and always give them right of way, even if it means slowing down and crawling behind them till their they've made their turn or haven't. It will delay you at most a few minutes, and its not worth taking the risk.

I cycle and drive and it isn't 'cyclists' who are unpredictable it is people. As we see on here countless times most motorists don't obey the rules of the road either.

The difference is it is the cyclist who is going to get killed.

It the situation the OP mentions it is much safer for the cyclist to stay left and go straight on, weaving into the middle between a left turn lane and a straight on lane gives two different lanes of motorists the chance to knock you down. It would also hold up some motorists if the lanes are skinny which can cause silly and dangerous behaviour from them.

It is a common occurence for someone to overtake you and then pull across you to turn left, I'd say that and car doors opening in front of you are the most common way motorists knock cyclists down.

BostonB

copacetic wrote:

I cycle and drive and it isn't 'cyclists' who are unpredictable it is people. As we see on here countless times most motorists don't obey the rules of the road either.

The difference is it is the cyclist who is going to get killed.

It the situation the OP mentions it is much safer for the cyclist to stay left and go straight on, weaving into the middle between a left turn lane and a straight on lane gives two different lanes of motorists the chance to knock you down. It would also hold up some motorists if the lanes are skinny which can cause silly and dangerous behaviour from them.

It is a common occurence for someone to overtake you and then pull across you to turn left, I'd say that and car doors opening in front of you are the most common way motorists knock cyclists down.

Why are you giving cycling advice to a motorist?

Treat cyclists like taxis, buses and drunks. Give them a huge space and expect the unexpected. If in doubt stop and let them do crazy as far away from you as possible.

Equally why take a gamble on right of way when you are cycling? But thats advice for the cycling forum.

copacetic

I'm not I'm just saying that the cyclist in general cycles the safest way. It is motorists who are the dangerous 'crazy' ones. You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder for some reason?

In this case the cyclist doesn't sound like they took a 'gamble' on right of way, they were cycling along and get overtaken from behind and cutoff.

wingnut

I have been a cyclist and motorist for a good many years (all be it outside the captial). I would always move to the left of the straight ahead lane. I know it puts you in between too lanes of traffic but I find it much safer. I just check behind signal and move. I think it is a MASSIVE gamble to be on the very left and rely on the car to yield. In the perfect perhaps.

I do notice VERY few cyclists signal their intention. I put it down to people who just hop on a bike and do what they like.

Just to reiterate I am not on either side, there are good and bad cyclists and motorists.

masseyno9

OK, slightly off topic, but its been on my mind for a while and is kind of relevant but not worth starting a new thread over.

Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? I am specifically referring to the road from rathfarnham village to nutgrove shopping centre, and up towards the bottle tower pub. This is where i first noticed it, as i use the road every day, but have seen it elsewhere too. It is almost a daily observation at this stage.

Apart from being annoying (and possibly contra ROTR) it is more dangerous than being on the cycle path.

I say this as both a cyclist and a motorist. incidently its equally annoying when pedestrians stroll down the cycle lane ignorant of the fact its a cycle lane. Not a major deal but more of a display of open ignorance, which i hate!!

ok, rant over....phew!

BostonB

copacetic wrote:

I'm not I'm just saying that the cyclist in general cycles the safest way. It is motorists who are the dangerous 'crazy' ones. You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder for some reason?...

I don't get why you're giving cycling advice to a motorist for some reason.

You say that the big dangers are cars open their doors and turning left across in front of them. So where do you suggest the cyclist stays? On the left where alll these dangers are. Makes no sense to me. When I'm cycling and I know that others are likely to be confused, or overtake and pull across me. I stick myself in the middle of the lane and make myself 6ft wide so no one can get around me, at least until I'm past the junction.

As a road user, never assume other people can see you. Always assume everyone else is an idiot and give them an accordingly wide berth.

Victor

About Rathfarnham, IIRC that cycle path was added to the existing footpath by only adding red tarmac. It has pedestrians (3 year olds don't appeciate the change in colour - they've only been told keep off the road), a high kerb to fall off and obstructions like bus stops, signs and lamp posts.

http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123906_0357
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123924_0358
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_124408_0364

Now can someone tell me why cars park on the footpath? Why can't they stay on the road?

copacetic

BostonB wrote:

Always assume everyone else is an idiot and give them an accordingly wide berth.

I'm certainly taking this advice about you anyway, cheers.

BostonB

masseyno9 wrote:

...Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? ...

A lot of cycle paths are less than ideal so why not give them the benefit of the doubt they have a good reason not to be in them.

We had the discussion before and some posted they felt less exposed cycling in the traffic and even between the lanes of traffic. Due to the problems of people cutting across cycle lanes, pulling, stopping and generally not looking up their inside left for the cyclists.

BostonB

markpb wrote:

....On more than one occasion, the coronors court has cited DCC's continued use of left-of-left cycle lanes as being the primary cause of death...

Thats interesting. Do you have some links to that?

masseyno9

Victor wrote:

About Rathfarnham, IIRC that cycle path was added to the existing footpath by only adding red tarmac. It has pedestrians (3 year olds don't appeciate the change in colour - they've only been told keep off the road), a high kerb to fall off and obstructions like bus stops, signs and lamp posts.

http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123906_0357
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123924_0358
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_124408_0364

Now can someone tell me why cars park on the footpath? Why can't they stay on the road?

3 year olds shouldn't be out on that footpath unsupervised for a start. its right beside a main road.

Granted some cycle paths are terribly done, but i have regularly used the cycle in question and its fine. If you are worried about 'falling off' a high kerb you probably shouldn't be on a bike, and definitely not on the road, not to mind a cycle path. Bus stops, signs and lamp posts get in your way...can you not steer around them?

I'm not saying motorists are always right, infact the sheer muppetry on the roads every day is worrying, but just because you don't want to cycle on a path provided for you doesn't mean you shouldn't.

As i've said before i'm a cyclist too, so can see both sides of the coin, however will always use a cycle path if there is one, particularly that one as the traffic lanes are so narrow that if a motorist was trying to overtake a cyclist there would be a high risk of an accident.

Another one, (apologies for being off topic again) cyclists breaking red lights...if you (or i) ride on the road, you obey the rules.

littlejukka

masseyno9 wrote:

Bus stops, signs and lamp posts get in your way...can you not steer around them?

a dedicated lane for a certain type of vehicle on a roadway and you don't mind seeing it blocked, kinked and chicaned due to the ineptitude of the people who design it?

i would be intigued to see the results if a sign post, traffic light or buslane was planked in the middle of a regular traffic lane occupied by cars, busses, taxis and cyclists alike. can you not steer around them?

markpb

BostonB wrote:

Thats interesting. Do you have some links to that?

I think it was mentioned in a document in the dublin cycling campaign's website but I can't find it now, sorry.

mikedragon32

Alun wrote:

You're surely not saying that in that situation a cyclist should stay on the left of the left-turn only lane and yet still go straight on are you?

That's exactly what I'm saying!

It makes more sense than having the cyclist weave across oncoming traffic.

mikedragon32

masseyno9 wrote:

OK, slightly off topic, but its been on my mind for a while and is kind of relevant but not worth starting a new thread over.

Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? I am specifically referring to the road from rathfarnham village to nutgrove shopping centre, and up towards the bottle tower pub. This is where i first noticed it, as i use the road every day, but have seen it elsewhere too. It is almost a daily observation at this stage.

Apart from being annoying (and possibly contra ROTR) it is more dangerous than being on the cycle path.

I say this as both a cyclist and a motorist. incidently its equally annoying when pedestrians stroll down the cycle lane ignorant of the fact its a cycle lane. Not a major deal but more of a display of open ignorance, which i hate!!

ok, rant over....phew!

I travel the road a couple of times a week and in fairness to cyclists the quality of that cycle lane is appalling and also it's used by the residents of Nutgrove Avenue as parking, so why should the cyclist keep hopping up and down kerbs to accommodate the motorist?

Ciaran500

masseyno9 wrote:

Granted some cycle paths are terribly done, but i have regularly used the cycle in question and its fine.

Its much more work ride on a path like that. No cyclist would be comfortable cycling on that at 30+kph without worrying about someone walking out in front of them. Most bike paths you see are ok for leisure cycling but no where near the standard for commuting.

masseyno9 wrote:

If you are worried about 'falling off' a high kerb you probably shouldn't be on a bike, and definitely not on the road, not to mind a cycle path.

You can't drop an expensive road bike off a kerb like that, they're too lightweight to handle drops like that.

MarkN

Cycle lanes in general in Dublin are in a state. The surface is either in bits or there's glass everywhere. Pedestrians are the other problem but it has been mentioned.

If you're someone who goes into the opposite side of the road just to get past a cyclist then you're going to have a problem with a cyclist not using a cycle lane. But if that is you then you're a nervous driver and anything and everything is going to cause you panic and problems on the road IMO.

Ciaran500 wrote:

You can't drop an expensive road bike off a kerb like that, they're too lightweight to handle drops like that.

Exactly.

I know this isn't the cycling forum but masseyno9 you don't sound like much of a cyclist to me, I have a Giant road bike and one it's far too fast to be going past pedestrians and two it can't handle drops like you describe.

I cycle the Phoenix Park Monday-Friday and the amount of idiots that walk in the way on the cycle lane when there's a footpath just metres away but you don't see us cyclists waving and shaking fists and ranting on about it!!

Stark

masseyno9 wrote:

however will always use a cycle path if there is one, particularly that one as the traffic lanes are so narrow that if a motorist was trying to overtake a cyclist there would be a high risk of an accident.

That road isn't particularly narrow. Look at the pictures Victor posted, half the cars are out in the middle of the road already!

Also, if the road is too narrow, then you just have to hang back a bit until there's a gap in traffic coming against you. If you cause an accident by being impatient, that's your fault.

Steve

Sorry, I have to rant about this:

MarkN wrote:

the amount of idiots that walk in the way on the cycle lane when there's a footpath just metres away but you don't see us cyclists waving and shaking fists and ranting on about it!!

Ciaran500 wrote:

Its much more work ride on a path like that. No cyclist would be comfortable cycling on that at 30+kph without worrying about someone walking out in front of them. Most bike paths you see are ok for leisure cycling but no where near the standard for commuting.

Pot - kettle - black

So cyclists are avoiding cycle paths because of the right-of-way pedestrians. Motorists are still expected to keep clear of the weaving cyclists.

IMO 30kph is excessive and dangerous on a pedal bike simply because they don't have the stopping ability to deal with the unforseen.

@OP - sorry to hear that you got points because of a cyclist making an illegal manoever - unfortunately thats the way it seems to be.

@Cyclists reading this - the reason for the lack of respect from motorists comes from the group among you who to whom the ROTR do not apply and who show blatant disregard to traffic signals, turn restrictions etc... I know that you have as much right to be on the road as everyone else but with that right comes the responsibility to follow the same rules as everyone else.

In Switzerland, pedal cycles have number plates and (I'think) require insurance to use a public road. They also get fined and punished for breaking the law. I have witnessed on several occasions cyclists here scratching / denting / removing wing morrors from parked cars whislt trying to squeesze through a gap or cycling too fast for conditions - most times they continue (unidentified) on their merry way without a thought for the damage they did. Only once did I see a guy stop and leave a note on the car he damaged.

/rant

Many years ago while learning to drive, I asked my instructor how much room should you leave a cyclist. His reply stuck with me to this day:
"Enough room to fall off....".

Ciaran500

stevec wrote:

So cyclists are avoiding cycle paths because of the right-of-way pedestrians. Motorists are still expected to keep clear of the weaving cyclists.

We avoid the paths because pedestrians wander out into cycle paths and sometimes completely block cycle paths with out look. You won't find a cyclist doing that on a road unless he has a death wish.

stevec wrote:

IMO 30kph is excessive and dangerous on a pedal bike simply because they don't have the stopping ability to deal with the unforseen.

You're kidding, right?

Steve

Ciaran500 wrote:

We avoid the paths because pedestrians wander out into cycle paths and sometimes completely block cycle paths with out look. You won't find a cyclist doing that on a road unless he has a death wish.

From my experience (17yrs driving in Dublin) it appears some of them do:D
I'm not saying all cyclists are lile this - most are not - there are muppets though. Similarly, most pedestrians will look before crossing a cycle lane - there are also muppets.
If a cyclist hits the muppet pedestrian it's thier fault (and admittedly will probably injure themselves in the process) - therefore they avoid the cycle paths. If a motorist hits the muppet cyclist, it's also their fault but they do not have an option of not driving somewhere else.

Ciaran500 wrote:

You're kidding, right?

The speed itself is not an issue - inappropriate speed for the conditions is just as dangerous on a bike as in a car and, as you said earlier, if a pedestrian is liable to walk out then it's excessive.

Ciaran500

stevec wrote:

From my experience (17yrs driving in Dublin) it appears some of them do:D
I'm not saying all cyclists are lile this - most are not - there are muppets though.

Like anything there are ***** every where and they've nearly hit me at times aswell, just use a smaller brush when talking about us

stevec wrote:

Similarly, most pedestrians will look before crossing a cycle lane - there are also muppets.

TBH as long as I've been cycling I have never, ever seen someone look behind them when moving into a cycle lane connected to a path.

stevec wrote:

The speed itself is not an issue - inappropriate speed for the conditions is just as dangerous on a bike as in a car and, as you said earlier, if a pedestrian is liable to walk out then it's excessive.

Which is why people don't use them, cause you can't hit the same speeds as on the road safely. Cyclists shouldn't be forced onto the cycle paths where they have to go slower and use more energy just because they are there.