Close Encounter

Mr. Presentable

blorg wrote: »

No, you are simply wrong on this one. The law on speed limits specifically applies to "mechanically propelled vehicles":



The law has always stated that speed limits apply only to mechanically propelled vehicles, which excludes bicycles.

There are laws that apply to both motorists and cyclists, but this is not one of them.

With all due respect, if there is a wrong it is with ROR. The piece I quoted is directly therefrom.

I was not quoting statutes, but ROR. My belief may indeed be wrong, but it is founded on what the rules of the road say.

tomasrojo

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Just out of curiousity blorg, does the law state that bicycles are not mechanically powered? Like I said, just curious, as it could be argued that bicycles are mechanically powered (cogs, chains, etc), just as it could be argued that cars are chemically powered (petrol, diesel, etc).

DFD*

*DissectingFuelDichotomies.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html#zza24y1961s3

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—


( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,


( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,


but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

So not bicycles, per se.

concussion

nipplenuts wrote: »

With all due respect, if there is a wrong it is with ROR. The piece I quoted is directly therefrom.

I was not quoting statutes, but ROR. My belief may indeed be wrong, but it is founded on what the rules of the road say.

The ROTR are a guide to safe driving and provide good representation of the Road Traffic Act but they are not law.

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Just out of curiousity blorg, does the law state that bicycles are not mechanically powered? Like I said, just curious, as it could be argued that bicycles are mechanically powered (cogs, chains, etc), just as it could be argued that cars are chemically powered (petrol, diesel, etc).

DFD*

*DissectingFuelDichotomies.

It does. Notwithstanding that bicycles may be 'biologically powered' or even 'chemically powered' if you get to a cellular level, SI 194/1994 (as I can't find a more specific definition in RTA 1961 )defines an MPV as

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means any vehicle (with or without bodywork) having a positive ignition engine or a compression ignition engine and at least four wheels, and which is intended for use on the road and has a maximum design gross vehicle weight of at least 400 kilogrammes and a maximum design speed equal to or greater than 50 kilometres per hour; with the exception of agricultural tractors and machinery and public works vehicles;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/si/0194.html

while the Road Traffic Act 1961 states

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—
( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,
( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

and continues

"pedal bicycle" means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;
"pedal cycle" means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;
"pedal cyclist" means a person driving a pedal cycle;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html

While pedal-cycles do not have to abide by speed-limits they could be prosecuted for dangerous cycling or something similar.

Tayto2000

Back on topic from the rules duel...;)

Sounds like a pure classic SMIDSY, very common with cyclists (and motorcyclists) since they're coming towards the vehicle with their narrowest profile presented. The quick glance to check the road is clear just doesn't register them sometimes...

The driver's at fault here, but as I had drummed into me on motorbike training, it's no fun being in the right and dead - we were taught to ensure that a car about to pull out has stopped and has seen us, and get ready to stop in case it hasn't. Eye contact is no good - watch the front wheels for movement.

Wouldn't condone abuse after crashing, but I can understand it, it's a the fight or flight reflex... the person is very likely to go into shock immediately afterwards as well...

blorg

nipplenuts wrote: »

With all due respect, if there is a wrong it is with ROR. The piece I quoted is directly therefrom.

I was not quoting statutes, but ROR. My belief may indeed be wrong, but it is founded on what the rules of the road say.

There are rules that apply only to motorised vehicles. Motorised vehicles must have tax and insurance. Bikes don't. Speed limits are in this same category. Most rules as you intimate do apply to all on the road.

Not all the ROTR apply to all vehicles, the rules for joining a motorway do not for example apply to horses.

Another example: the rules for using a horn do not apply to bicycles, as the use of a horn on a bicycle is in fact illegal (you are only allowed use a bell.)

cdaly_

irishmotorist wrote: »

I reckon I'm often obscured by lamp posts etc. for the drivers first glance and by the time I get to the car, they think that their initial look that showed nothing is still valid.

Or quite possibly the car itself. I note, when driving my wife's car, it has these huge A pillars that will happily hide a whole car at a junction never mind something the size of a bike...

I don't think OP deserves some of the comments that he's been getting here. He came on to ask an honest question and has, no doubt, learned a lesson from the experience. I hope the cyclist has too.

+1

buzzingnoise

alanucc wrote: »

Clarifying a few things:

Yes I did stop and ask if he was ok - to be greeted by abuse

As to how I pulled out - I pulled out at a reasonable pace, wouldnt say I crawled out or darted out.

The cyclist was going pretty quickly, the junction is at the bottom of a long slope.

I uploaded an aerial photo of the junction. Notice that there's a house on the corner as well which restricts view, and the road loops slightly heading south.

http://i43.tinypic.com/10curdf.png

Legal fault aside, if I was in his shoes, I wouldnt assume anything approaching a junction like that.

Alanucc, if you had pulled out on me and caused me to come off the bike I would have called the cops. You pulled out onto a main road, into traffic (ie:a cyclist, they are people too) with any regard for their safety. I'd like to think that you could be prosecuted for endangering traffic. You should hang your head in shame. That poor cyclist is at home tonight picking stones and glass out of his knees, elbows and backside. I hope he got your number plate.

Diarmuid

lyders wrote: »

That kind of sarcasm is not necessary.

That wasn't sarcasm. Well not totally.

But don't think you represent the majority of people. Given enough of a shock I think a majority will respond verbally in a pretty unequivocal manner.

irishmotorist

As far as I remember, the Rules of the Road are different to the traffic laws of the country. The Rules of the Road are not legal documents, rather a guide on best practice. In a court, the law is the law. ROTR are there to help us all make sense to each other. For example (off the top of my head and maybe a bad example) the ROTR tell you how to indicate at a roundabout. I don't know if there is a particular law saying "Indicate left for the first exit, Indicate left for the 2nd exit after passing the first exit and Indicate rightuntil you pass the exit prior to your intended exit and then indicate left for each subsequent exit".

tomasrojo

irishmotorist wrote: »

As far as I remember, the Rules of the Road are different to the traffic laws of the country. The Rules of the Road are not legal documents, rather a guide on best practice.

I think that's correct. The ROTR just sums up in layman's language the contents of the Roads and Road Traffic Acts and any relevant statutory instruments, with some extra advice on best practice (though the advice for cyclists is not very good some of the time).

I think the Highway Code in the UK does have some legal force though. Something about it being adopted by parliament rather than simply being written by civil servants. I can't explain this nuance very well, because I don't actually understand it!