rules of road for cyclists

Builderfromhell

I'm Hoping some of you might clarify the following for me and hopefully others;

1. I'm cycling on left passing stopped at red light at junction. The lane I am in is for vehicles going straight and/or turning left. I get to front of traffic and then look round to see if first car is indicating to turn left. No indicator so I feel I'm safe to take off from here when lights change. Problems arise when;
a. car hadn't indicated but then races ahead and turns left.
b. lights change to green before I get to front of traffic. Car, no indicator, turns left as I come up on inside. If I had seen indicator I would have gone to middle lane to go straight.

2. Other question is, I have been involved with minor accidents with cars over the years. Usual thing, doors opening in traffic or when parked, cars changing lanes, Cars overtaking me and then cutting corners thereby forcing me off road etc. The question is, if/when I get hit badly and end up on the ground what is the legal situation. Do I take insurance details, look for witnesses, call the Gardai? Do cyclists have the right of way in most situations?

Don't want to make post to long but I hink you get the gist.

cyclopath2001

Builderfromhell wrote: »

a. car hadn't indicated but then races ahead and turns left.

Car would be overtaking illegally in that case.

Builderfromhell wrote: »

b. lights change to green before I get to front of traffic. Car, no indicator, turns left as I come up on inside.

Passing on inside when there is no cycle lane is questionable (as is a car passing a cyclist in the same traffic lane). But a car starting from a stationary position must give way to any moving traffic.

Failing to indicate and a general misunderstanding of the overtaking regulations are common faults on the road.

Builderfromhell wrote: »

Do I take insurance details, look for witnesses, call the Gardai?

Yes if you intend to take action.

Builderfromhell wrote: »

Do cyclists have the right of way in most situations?

No.

Sean02

It is clear that this senario is responsible for almost all of fatal and serious injuries to cyclist. Studies have shown that women cyclist are more likely to be involved as they tend to abide by the law by stopping at the white line at junctions wheras men tend to take few extra yards for a quick getaway perhaps. Whats needed is more box junctions for cyclists so that they are out of that dreaded blind spot and visable particuarly by goods vehicles.
This situation is so serious that recently Ken Livingstone Mayor of London issued 1000's of special blind spot lenses free to truckers. I sent a copy of this initiave to Minister Gormley urging him to look at this life saving idea.
In the meantime take care.

Builderfromhell

Thanks for the replies guys.
Another Query.
Cycling in traffic jam. Do you overtake traffic on inside - between car and pavement where sometimes gaps are narrow.
Or do you overtake on outside - often loads of space if no oncoming cars.

My understanding would be that strictly, by the letter of the law, both options would be illegal and one should simply join the traffic queue.

I'll maybe look up the rules of the road for cyclists. Obviously the same rules or guidelines cannot apply.

beans

On your last point, I'll try to overtake rather than undertake wherever possible, as I feel it's safer.

seamus

Yep, where there's no cycle lane and a questionable gap on the left, I'll usually move to the outside and go that way.

Re: Junctions; If you arrive at a junction where there's a good chance that traffic might push ahead and cross your path or otherwise obstruct you, then take control of the lane. It takes a bit of getting used to (you usually need to be familiar with the junctions) but if you move out into the middle of the lane in plenty of time, you prevent anyone from overtaking you and either blocking your path or crossing front of you.
A good example of this is Rathmines heading into Rathgar - the cycle lane continues along the left edge of the road, but the roadway splits into straight-only and left-only. So I move into the middle of the road (well the left edge of the straight-only lane) to prevent anyone from turning left in front of me.

penexpers

Builderfromhell wrote: »

Or do you overtake on outside - often loads of space if no oncoming cars.

Is this not called filtering?

Gavin

Overtaking on the outside can be dangerous. On a two lane road, drivers have a bad habit of not looking in their right wing mirror before pulling a maneouver. They may be stuck in a queue, get impatient and decide to pull an illegal u-turn. Whack.

Of course, going up the inside, you may get doored as well. Whack. I'll usually go for the inside, slowly and move out around cars too close to the kerb.

Marathon Man

Verb wrote: »

On a two lane road, drivers have a bad habit of not looking in their right wing mirror before pulling a maneouver. They may be stuck in a queue, get impatient and decide to pull an illegal u-turn. Whack.

That is one of my greatest nightmares.

roadmanmad

There is a big difference between the 'rules of the road' and what is legal.

To understand the difference, read the rules. Anything with 'must' is effectively legal and 'should' are good practices that may not win you a case in court. For cycling there are very few musts.

The issue in the thread was recently discussed on this forum. Again I advise, if they indicate, do not go in front of them. Remember a 15kg bike is no match for a car or truck, particularly when the driver can claim they did not see you. This is their best and most effective defence in court. By claiming that a cyclist was not within the field of vision is excellent at placing the responsibilty back on the cyclist, i.e. case not proven.

This is less about right and wrong and more about making your presence felt. CyCling assertively without being aggressive or annoying drivers is much more effective.

Builderfromhell

roadmanmad wrote: »

There is a big difference between the 'rules of the road' and what is legal.

To understand the difference, read the rules. Anything with 'must' is effectively legal and 'should' are good practices that may not win you a case in court. For cycling there are very few musts.

The issue in the thread was recently discussed on this forum. Again I advise, if they indicate, do not go in front of them. Remember a 15kg bike is no match for a car or truck, particularly when the driver can claim they did not see you. This is their best and most effective defence in court. By claiming that a cyclist was not within the field of vision is excellent at placing the responsibilty back on the cyclist, i.e. case not proven.

This is less about right and wrong and more about making your presence felt. CyCling assertively without being aggressive or annoying drivers is much more effective.

Thanks roadmann.
That makes sense.
I'll look for that other thread on same subject.