Turning left at T-junctions

Psydeshow

Quick question; so there is a T junction near where I work, at the T junction there is a filter lane to turn left. What is the law regarding a cyclist turning left there if there are cars there already?

Basically a guy in work is complaining because a cyclist came up along the inside of his car just as he was turning left. Having a bit of an argument as to whether this is legal or not. He says the cyclist should have stopped behind him like a car or gone to the right hand side of him and turned left from the outside where he could see them.

Can't find anything that specifically says the code of conduct in that situation so figured I'd throw it out to everyone since I cycle that stretch quite a lot, would be good to know.

Chips Lovell

Cyclist was in the wrong. I wouldn't want any motorist overtaking me while taking a corner, so a driver should expect a cyclist to do the same.

seamus

Same rules apply as to any other vehicles. A cyclist may only overtake on the left if

- They are turning left a short distance ahead and the vehicle on their right is not
- The vehicle on their right is turning right and they are going straight ahead
- Traffic is moving in queues and the traffic in the lane on your right is moving slower than the traffic in your lane.

Yes, the cyclist should file in behind the car before the turn. As for overtaking on the right mid-turn, this too is technically illegal because it's illegal to overtake at a junction.

It's worth noting for your own safety that overtaking on the left at a junction is the number 1 cause of cyclist deaths in this country. So just don't do it

Haleakala

If the cyclist undertook, just as the driver was turning left, then it's a silly cyclist.

The driver would be in the wrong where he passes the cyclist to then immediately turn left across the cyclist's path.

Generally I'll take the lane and cycle behind a car as it's going around a turn like that. Typically it's easy enough to match the speed, car behind clearly sees you, and you can move to the left of the lane when you know it's safe.

Chips Lovell

Haleakala wrote: »

If the cyclist undertook, just as the driver was turning left, then it's a silly cyclist.

Agreed. The legality is secondary to the potential fatality in this case.

on_the_nickel

el tonto wrote: »

Cyclist was in the wrong. I wouldn't want any motorist overtaking me while taking a corner, so a driver should expect a cyclist to do the same.

Oh I had that yesterday.

Narrow road, downhill, so I was doing about 55kph, this tool overtakes on a blind corner.

20 yards ahead, he turns right, into a sideroad.

The air turned blue.

droidus

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the cyclist should file in behind the car before the turn.

- Traffic is moving in queues and the traffic in the lane on your right is moving slower than the traffic in your lane.

Unless there is a cycle lane and traffic in the other lane is moving more slowly?

Beasty

droidus wrote: »

Unless there is a cycle lane and traffic in the other lane is moving more slowly?

Technically maybe, although this was a filter lane, and I'm not sure if they run cycle lanes around corners in such circumstances

Regardless of this, for the sake of safety, I would suggest it is inadvisable to do this at a left turn as drivers typically expect people to be overtaking them on the right and you could easily be in their blind spot even if they are using both wing mirrors

Captain Havoc

Beasty wrote: »

Technically maybe, although this was a filter lane, and I'm not sure if they run cycle lanes around corners in such circumstances

Regardless of this, for the sake of safety, I would suggest it is inadvisable to do this at a left turn as drivers typically expect people to be overtaking them on the right and you could easily be in their blind spot even if they are using both wing mirrors

I missed a whole car in my blind spot taking a corner last week, nothing happened except beeping and I felt like an asshole.

Psydeshow

Thanks for the replies guys.

The discussion in the office turned into a a bit of a silly one,with a lot of cyclist bashing, and we were arguing whether it is actually illegal to do this.

In this specific example the lane of traffic turning left is very short, about a car length, with the majority turning right. Any cars turning left will usually come to a complete stop before turning as their visability is cut off by the cars turning right (the angle of the road is funny). Just to give the full picture of the road.

It's obviously silly thing to do, though hadn't known it's the number one cause of death: good(?) to know.

Is there somewhere with a comprehensive rules of the road for cyclists actually? the section on the road safety authority's website is a bit...short

droidus

Beasty wrote: »

Technically maybe, although this was a filter lane, and I'm not sure if they run cycle lanes around corners in such circumstances

Regardless of this, for the sake of safety, I would suggest it is inadvisable to do this at a left turn as drivers typically expect people to be overtaking them on the right and you could easily be in their blind spot even if they are using both wing mirrors

Yeah, they do, I can think of several. Theres a couple on the N2 heading South I think.

Theres a similar situation at Bride St. turning left onto Bride Rd, though its not a filter lane. I regularly take the cycle lane round the corner when traffic is stopped or moving slowly.

Overtaking on the right will usually leave you between lanes and in an incorrect road position. Taking the lane is probably more sensible.

OP - Was there a cycle lane at the junction in question?

Psydeshow

nope no cycle lane, iif you go onto google maps actually, look at Cork and the junction of Lee road, Sundays well and Western road, it's that junction at the bridge there. If I was more technically minded I could link to it, but I'm not...so I can't

Doctor Bob

Beasty wrote: »

Technically maybe, although this was a filter lane, and I'm not sure if they run cycle lanes around corners in such circumstances

It's more common to see cycle lanes following the left turning lane only than to see a cycle lane following the straight ahead alignment through the junction. (This obviously applies only in a scenario where a main road turns into a side road rather than a side road meeting a main road- in the case mentioned by the OP, this detail isn't clear.)

Is the answer to this question not dependent on whether or not the traffic was moving? I note the OP mentions cars there already. Sounds to me like there may have been a queue. (I find it hard to believe that nobody here filters up the left side of a line of stationary cars! )

(I'm not disputing the safety issue, btw; the OP was asking about the legal position.)

Psydeshow

it's the meeting of two relatively busy roads, if you look up Sundays well and western road on google maps you'll get the street view of it (again don't know how to link to that apecifically).

99% of cars are turning right and the traffic is generally backed quite a bit up the road.

But as you pointed out, it's more the actual legal position I was wondering about rather than anything else.

cdaly_

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Sounds to me like there may have been a queue. (I find it hard to believe that nobody here filters up the left side of a line of stationary cars! )

Filtering up the left side of a queue is fine (from the safety POV) so long as you only do it to behind the front vehicle and then take the lane or do whatever is the safe thing at that point. I would only filter past the front car if the light was red and I know I'll have time to get in front of it before the green. Otherwise I'll take the lane behind the front car.

droidus

cdaly_ wrote: »

Filtering up the left side of a queue is fine (from the safety POV) so long as you only do it to behind the front vehicle and then take the lane or do whatever is the safe thing at that point. I would only filter past the front car if the light was red and I know I'll have time to get in front of it before the green. Otherwise I'll take the lane behind the front car.

Its wouldn't disagree with this from a safety point of view, but legally speaking, if there's a cycle lane around the corner are you entitled to overtake during the turn itself?

My definition of slow moving traffic is 'any traffic that I can overtake' btw.

Doctor Bob

cdaly_ wrote: »

Filtering up the left side of a queue is fine (from the safety POV) so long as you only do it to behind the front vehicle and then take the lane or do whatever is the safe thing at that point. I would only filter past the front car if the light was red and I know I'll have time to get in front of it before the green. Otherwise I'll take the lane behind the front car.

Likewise.

OP- would this be the location?



http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.895361,-8.505355&spn=0.000876,0.003079&t=h&z=19

Psydeshow

wierd that link only came up when I hit 'reply'. Anyway yeah thats the one, we're arguing about turning left onto Lee road from western road, the majority of traffic is going right onto Sundays well. And there aint no cycle lane (hardly any in Cork, and where they are tends to be prett-y random)

tomasrojo

I haven't seen anything to suggest that cycle lanes are legally separate lanes of traffic. You'd think they would be, but I don't think they're legally defined as such, and I don't think they've been established as such in court.

CianRyan

Well a cycle lane with a solid white lone is separate, no?
Seeing as cars are only permitted to enter a cycle lane with a broken White line?

tomasrojo

CianRyan wrote: »

Well a cycle lane with a solid white lone is separate, no?
Seeing as cars are only permitted to enter a cycle lane with a broken White line?

But many of these "mandatory" lanes (i.e. mandatory for cars to stay out) cannot be used in that way, because they occupy a portion of a standard traffic lane -- there isn't enough room for a car to stay out of the cycle lane.

Even if there were room to stay out, it doesn't mean that the cycle lane gives the cyclist the usual road-user rights he would enjoy in a standard traffic lane. There have been a few cases, as far as I know, where an undertaking cyclist on a cycle lane has been killed or injured at a junction but the driver was not found guilty of dangerous driving. Which leads me to believe that using a cycle lane at a junction is being treated as old-fashioned, do-at-your-peril undertaking.

Not a legal opinion. I have no legal training whatsoever. I'd be very pleased to hear that there has been a case where a user of a motorised vehicle has been convicted or even prosecuted for dangerously encroaching on a cycle lane at a junction.

Beasty

@tomasrojo

Do you think a similar analysis may apply to hard shoulders, or would they constitute a separate "lane"?

Fortunately I rarely come across cycle lanes, but do end up "undertaking" a lot of traffic coming up to various roundabouts on the old N1

tomasrojo

I think approaching a roundabout on the hard shoulder would count as undertaking too. But I'm just speculating. I'll be quite happy to be corrected.

That said, as far as I know, you aren't explicitly legally permitted to use hard shoulders on a bicycle, but you aren't explicitly forbidden either. So it's a kind of limbo, but since cycling on the hard shoulder between junctions is safer (usually) than cycling on the road, and since it's been a common practice for decades, I presume it's implicitly permitted. But if you were to be injured at a junction, I wouldn't bet on any ruling going your way.

I wish we had an Irish equivalent to this:
http://ukcyclerules.wordpress.com/

Doctor Bob

Psydeshow wrote: »

wierd that link only came up when I hit 'reply'. Anyway yeah thats the one, we're arguing about turning left onto Lee road from western road, the majority of traffic is going right onto Sundays well. And there aint no cycle lane (hardly any in Cork, and where they are tends to be prett-y random)

Looking at the image I posted, the left turn lane looks ridiculously wide, i.e. easily wide enough to accommodate a car and a cyclist side by side with plenty of space in between. (Lots of room for a good cycle track too, but that's a debate for another day.)

In light of this, one wonders how the dispute arose? I suspect two possible causes. The less likely one, due to the low volumes, is that left turning cars double up at the junction, leaving little space inside for cyclists.

More likely is the influence of parked cars on the bend. There's a slight setback of the kerbline at the start of the bend where there seems to be a pedestrian crossing (are the traffic lights active here? If so, it's strange that the lights are in advance of the stop/yield lines- standard [legal] junction design has the stop line before the signals...), and in the Streetview of the location (click the link I posted) there's a line of parked cars snaking around the bend just after the setback. This results in what appears to be quite a narrow gap between the back right corner of the hindmost car and the white line on the right side of the left turn lane (or, more likely, the left side of the queue of right turning cars?); a narrow gap that arises due to the fact that the back right corner actually projects beyond the line established by the kerbline as the setback isn't as wide as a car. In other words, a pinch point is actually introduced by the decision of the Council to provide car parking on the bend. Indeed, if the first (or first few) parking space(s) were unoccupied, the problem might be exacerbated by the cyclist having to deviate from his line halfway around the bend for an unanticipated parked car.

Obviously I'm getting away from the legal point you raised initially, but I was curious to know the actual detail of the event. It seems, as others have said before, that in this case discretion would be the better part of valour for the cyclist, but the primary culprit (IMHO) is poor junction design- or, at a more fundamental level, the very Irish belief that car parking should be provided wherever possible.

A simple solution (seeing as nobody asked ), in light of the very low volumes of left turners, would be to remove the left slip entirely, square off the junction, and provide dedicated parallel kerbside car parking on Lee Road for the nearside corner houses. This would have the added advantage of improving sight lines for left turners, thus minimising the chances of conflict with cyclists heading west through the junction on Sunday's Well Road/Lee Road.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo, CianRyan,

It's my understanding that mandatory on-road cycle lanes are considered traffic lanes, but advisory ones aren't.

tomasrojo wrote: »

But many of these "mandatory" lanes (i.e. mandatory for cars to stay out) cannot be used in that way, because they occupy a portion of a standard traffic lane -- there isn't enough room for a car to stay out of the cycle lane.

I'm wracking my brains trying to think of places where mandatory lanes are within general traffic lanes, but I confess I'm stumped. Dublin is obviously littered with advisory ones inside traffic or bus lanes - indeed, their very, um, 'advisoryness', is often a result of insufficient space to provide mandatory lanes and traffic lanes together side-by-side - but all the mandatory ones I know are adjacent to full width traffic lanes, not inside them. Where are you thinking of?

Lumen

It's not necessarily unsafe to over/undertake immediately before a bend. Without video footage it's impossible to make a judgement about the safety of this manouvre.

Cars are slow to pull away and generally make a lot of noise doing so. They also can't move sideways. This makes them easy to negotiate in slow moving traffic.

Cyclists are often (in % of deaths terms) killed by HGVs turning left. The risk factors are not the same with cars.

IMO the biggest risk is coming off the bike (e.g. on a wet greasy bend) and going under the wheels of the car following.

calerbass

Psydeshow wrote: »

Quick question; so there is a T junction near where I work, at the T junction there is a filter lane to turn left. What is the law regarding a cyclist turning left there if there are cars there already?

Basically a guy in work is complaining because a cyclist came up along the inside of his car just as he was turning left. Having a bit of an argument as to whether this is legal or not. He says the cyclist should have stopped behind him like a car or gone to the right hand side of him and turned left from the outside where he could see them.

Can't find anything that specifically says the code of conduct in that situation so figured I'd throw it out to everyone since I cycle that stretch quite a lot, would be good to know.

You always should stay behind the vehicle and not ride on the left as the vehicle is turning left, this is one of the main reasons why cyclists get killed at junctions by trucks. The truck driver cant see them when he turns left.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

tomasrojo, CianRyan,

It's my understanding that mandatory on-road cycle lanes are considered traffic lanes, but advisory ones aren't.



I'm wracking my brains trying to think of places where mandatory lanes are within general traffic lanes, but I confess I'm stumped. Dublin is obviously littered with advisory ones inside traffic or bus lanes - indeed, their very, um, 'advisoryness', is often a result of insufficient space to provide mandatory lanes and traffic lanes together side-by-side - but all the mandatory ones I know are adjacent to full width traffic lanes, not inside them. Where are you thinking of?

Hi DoctorBob,

I've rethought what I wrote, having just read your post, and it occurs to me that the mandatory lanes probably all go advisory when the lane narrows, or when you reach a junction. So I think you've cleared it up; all cycle lanes at turning points tend to be advisory, so cycle lanes are not separate traffic lanes at junctions. That also seems to mean that in this scenario you are effectively passing turning traffic on the inside in a manner that is not permitted by law, since you are not in a separate traffic lane.

tomasrojo

This is the only mandatory lane I can think of that doesn't go advisory at a point where traffic seems unable to avoid crossing:




For those unfamiliar: buses in particular seem to take this corner at foolish speeds, but even at more moderate speeds buses encroaching the cycle lane seems unavoidable.

hbr

Psydeshow wrote: »

nope no cycle lane, iif you go onto google maps actually, look at Cork and the junction of Lee road, Sundays well and Western road, it's that junction at the bridge there. If I was more technically minded I could link to it, but I'm not...so I can't

http://maps.google.ie/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.895361,-8.505124&spn=0.001061,0.00224&t=h&z=19

Oops! Doctor Bob beat me to it.

_sparkie_

so just to clarify, if i am in a cycle lane which is on a 4 way junction and i am going straight ahead. do i have the right of way to go straight ahead of the cars turning left at the junction?

tomasrojo

_sparkie_ wrote: »

so just to clarify, if i am in a cycle lane which is on a 4 way junction and i am going straight ahead. do i have the right of way to go straight ahead of the cars turning left at the junction?

Do you mean do you have right of way when you're on a cycle lane trying to go straight ahead when the cycle lane places you to the left of left-turning traffic?

I don't think you do. In practice, whatever about legal technicalities, you should not place yourself to the left of left-turning traffic when trying to go straight on. At the very least, place yourself somewhere around the middle of the left-turn lane so you can't be forgotten about.

I've heard such designs are meant to "remind" motorists of cyclists trying to go straight on rather than confer right of way on cyclists. This is probably post-hoc rationalisation. I think they copied the design from countries that do give cyclists right of way when passing on the near side, such as Denmark or the Netherlands.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

Hi DoctorBob,

I've rethought what I wrote, having just read your post, and it occurs to me that the mandatory lanes probably all go advisory when the lane narrows, or when you reach a junction. So I think you've cleared it up; all cycle lanes at turning points tend to be advisory, so cycle lanes are not separate traffic lanes at junctions. That also seems to mean that in this scenario you are effectively passing turning traffic on the inside in a manner that is not permitted by law, since you are not in a separate traffic lane.

I was out and about yesterday - Sandymount, Ranelagh, city centre, Ballsbridge areas - and I was paying extra close attention to the line markings. It's exactly as you describe- where space gets tight, solid white lines all of a sudden become broken. Same old story- the infrastructure is better where it's required less (mid-block, wider roads) and disimproves where it would be required more (narrower roads, junctions).* Then again, the point is somewhat academic in that many motorists seem to treat solid and broken white lines in the same way, i.e. having no bearing on their driving.

I'm off out again today, and this time I might bring the camera. I may even detour to Inchicore- I'm not very familiar with your old friend, the two-way on-road cycle lane. Might be time to get acquainted.

*Obviously you and I have quite different views on infrastructure, viz. vehicular cycling and all that; my point is that, if one takes infrastructure as a given, then at the very least the offer should be consistent, not put in wherever possible as long as it doesn't get in the way of traffic.

One other thing I wanted to mention after re-reading this thread yesterday:

Psydeshow wrote: »

He says the cyclist should have stopped behind him like a car or gone to the right hand side of him and turned left from the outside where he could see them.

The bit in bold is categorically, unequivocally wrong. The fact that the driver even considered that suggests that his whole argument starts from flawed premises.

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The bit in bold is categorically, unequivocally wrong. The fact that the driver even considered that suggests that his whole argument starts from flawed premises.

Which bit of the bold bit is wrong? Motorcycling bicyclists might disagree.

_sparkie_

tomasrojo wrote: »

Do you mean do you have right of way when you're on a cycle lane trying to go straight ahead when the cycle lane places you to the left of left-turning traffic?

thats what i mean. from left to right the lanes are cycle lane, left turning cars and finally cars going straight ahead. if the road gets a full green light can i go ahead or should i wait for everything to turn left before i set off?

cdaly_

_sparkie_ wrote: »

thats what i mean. from left to right the lanes are cycle lane, left turning cars and finally cars going straight ahead. if the road gets a full green light can i go ahead or should i wait for everything to turn left before i set off?

I can't say what the law is but you should get out of the cycle lane, occupy the left turn lane and go straight ahead.

In the case where there is a left filter light first, you should do the same but move over at the front of the lane into the straight ahead lane to await your green.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

]Obviously you and I have quite different views on infrastructure, viz. vehicular cycling and all that; my point is that, if one takes infrastructure as a given, then at the very least the offer should be consistent, not put in wherever possible as long as it doesn't get in the way of traffic.

Ah, I'm trying to keep a more open mind about that. I've changed my mind about other things!

Doctor Bob

Lumen wrote: »

Which bit of the bold bit is wrong? Motorcycling bicyclists might disagree.

The reason I say it's wrong is that coming around the right hand side of a car that's making a left turn puts a cyclist in a pretty vulnerable position if both the car and bike turn simultaneously, giving rise to a situation where the cyclist would have to cross in front of the car to get into position on the main road. The cyclist would essentially have to engage in two 'scissors' movements in this scenario, instead of none if he kept left or sat behind the car. I doubt many motorists would see overtaking in a bend as the appropriate alternative to what happened.

(What's a motorcycling bicyclist? Someone with experience of both modes? While I don't doubt that the knowledge gained from one could usefully inform the other, it would be a mistake for a cyclist to think like a biker.)

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The reason I say it's wrong is that coming around the right hand side of a car that's making a left turn puts a cyclist in a pretty vulnerable position if both the car and bike turn simultaneously, giving rise to a situation where the cyclist would have to cross in front of the car to get into position on the main road. The cyclist would essentially have to engage in two 'scissors' movements in this scenario, instead of none if he kept left or sat behind the car. I doubt many motorists would see overtaking in a bend as the appropriate alternative to what happened.

(What's a motorcycling bicyclist? Someone with experience of both modes? While I don't doubt that the knowledge gained from one could usefully inform the other, it would be a mistake for a cyclist to think like a biker.)

You are generally more visible when overtaking than undertaking. In this specific case I assume the filter is of the amber flashing variety, which is basically a yield. The driver will therefore be looking right to confirm all clear, and the cyclist will cross his field of vision. Much better than diving down the left hand side to which the driver will be paying no attention until he accelerates through, as confirmed by the driver. When people accelerate away from junctions they seem to go blind for a second or two - this is a big problem with ped crossings situated directly after roundabout exits. I've seen it many times.

Motorcylists are trained to overtake not undertake. Generally that's how our roads work. Cyclists are sort of exempt from this convention on grounds of slowness.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

When people accelerate away from junctions they seem to go blind for a second or two - this is a big problem with ped crossings situated directly after roundabout exits. I've seen it many times.

Definitely; especially bad on roundabouts, but noticeable at other junctions. I often cross a little away from the junction, but I presume most pedestrians would object to the extra distance, so there's no point in relocating the crossings.

tomasrojo

As for the overtaking/undetaking at the head of the queue, I presume it's wisest to do neither and just queue up, or at least place yourself behind the car at the head of the queue?

rab!dmonkey

tomasrojo wrote: »

As for the overtaking/undetaking at the head of the queue, I presume it's wisest to do neither and just queue up, or at least place yourself behind the car at the head of the queue?

For myself it depends on the road conditions. If there is a steady stream of traffic in the road I'm trying to join, usually that means I think I can find an opening before a car can, so I'll move to the front of the queue via the right-hand side (as that's where they ought to be looking for approaching vehicles/a gap) of the queued cars.

If I can see that traffic is intermittent on the road I'm trying to join and a gap suitable for a car could emerge at any moment, I'd probably get behind the first car in the queue.