Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Magic Beans

oflahero wrote: »

If you regularly lurk/post here, you can quickly become frustrated about feeling like a punchbag for posters (not necessarily you MagicBeans) who drop in just to tell you what a bunch of pr1cks cyclists are, because one cut them up at the lights that morning.

I lurk more than I post, usually on my iPhone so searching and quoting is a bit of a nightmare.

I'm not trying to pick on anybody. Although I have to say some of the posters on here need a good sharp shock to bring them around to the reality of what keeps you alive or dead on the roads. I cycled for years and I've driven for years and I can honestly say I was never involved in an accident with a vehicle when I was a cyclist and I have never been involved in an accident with a cyclist as a driver. Why is this? Am I some sort of superhuman being? Sadly no. I just protect myself and give due consideration to my fellow road users as my first priority. Far more important than being on time or having right of way. I know the ROTR and within my human limitations I follow them. A vast number of accidents are caused by people doing stupid or unexpected things, The ROTR are there to guide us, make some decisions for us and give a predictablity to our actions that will keep us safe.

All this talk about rules being enforced would be needless if the rules were observed. Wake up and smell the coffee people, you only get one life, Buddhists excepted, so keep safe and die in the saddle not on it.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

Whilst your prudence in seeking legal advice on a largely theoretical legal issue is arguably admirable, 99.9% of cyclists just get on with riding their bikes, the reasonable ones assuming that (barring contact with some overzealous garda having a really bad day) they'll be left alone to do so.

This is all well and good until they get left alone to do something that results in injury and death. Then it turns out that in the eyes of the courts, whatever about the Garda, they were doing something illegal at the time.

Or to look at it from another direction we have all these dead cyclists who went under left turning HGVs. Has any HGV driver ever been prosecuted in a situation where the cyclist was undertaking?

If not why not?

tomasrojo

Magic Beans wrote: »

All this talk about rules being enforced would be needless if the rules were observed. Wake up and smell the coffee people, you only get one life, Buddhists excepted, so keep safe and die in the saddle not on it.

Not to start the whole Karma Mandala spinning off again, but I think the reason this thread is staggering on is that following some of the rules might kill you.

They also sometimes contradict each other. For example (if I've understood the law as it stands correctly, which maybe I haven't), how can you use a cycle track (as required by a statutory instrument) that compels you to place yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV and also show due care and attention for your own safety?

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

You brought the left/right turning up by linking to the legislation to point out to me that my "travelling in queues" (everyone going straight) is wrong.

I pointed out that no, infact there is allowance for queues of slow moving traffic to go straight ahead without resorting to the turning left/right clauses as the slow moving traffic allows for "undertaking" when everyone is travelling straight.

Ok by way of clarification are you saying that, in your view as someone with special training, it is legal for motorists travelling in the same direction to drive two abreast?

That , in your view, it is legal for motorists who have no intention of turning to make two "queues" out of a single traffic lane?

You may be correct its just not an interpretation I was aware of.

Idleater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Has any HGV driver ever been prosecuted in a situation where the cyclist was undertaking?

Just to comment on this again, road users may not proceed without due care and attention. In such circumstances where progress cannot be made without disregard for safety then "undertaking" simply does not take place.

On my recent RoSPA exam, I was expected to filter when safe but preference was for overtaking to the right unless a left filter would be safer. Secondly I was expected to pick my point at which I would rejoin the main flow of the road and to pre-empt any traffic beginning to move during my manoeuvre.

In the case of going up the inside of a truck or indeed any larger vehicle, especially one with an indicator on, the pass is just not on so you should wait or go around the other side. Common sense says so. The irishStatuteBook does not reference common sense, it references circumstances under which manoeuvres may be made.

Idleater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok by way of clarification are you saying that, in your view as someone with special training, it is legal for motorists travelling in the same direction to drive two abreast?

That , in your view, it is legal for motorists who have no intention of turning to make two "queues" out of a single traffic lane?

You may be correct its just not an interpretation I was aware of.

no, my view was that it was permissible to overtake in those circumstances not to create two driving lanes.

mcmoustache

Magic Beans wrote: »

I'm not trying to pick on anybody. Although I have to say some of the posters on here need a good sharp shock to bring them around to the reality of what keeps you alive or dead on the roads.

You first post in this thread came across as a bit hostile which is why you got the response that you did. The thing is, most people on this forum are fairly respectful of the law except when following it becomes dangerous. Certain compulsory cycle lanes, for example, can be lethal. You might notice that those who admit to RLJing or cycling on the footpath get set upon here. See the reaction to Dearg_Lady earlier on in the thread when she said that she goes through red lights whenever she feels like it for evidence of this.

It's only some of the posters here who flout the law and they get harangued when they admit to it - which I think is perfectly fair. People who flout the law are in a minority here and I don't think that you should make sweeping generalisations about cyclists and, by implication, this forum's users because it's just plain wrong.

Magic Beans

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't think that you should make sweeping generalisations about cyclists and, by implication, this forum's users because it's just plain wrong.

You highlight where I said "some of the posters on here" and then accuse me of sweeping generalisations?

NamelessPhil

tomasrojo wrote: »

FURTHER EDIT: Do courts generally side with cyclists? Or do they assume the cyclist is probably an air-headed scofflaw? Or that cycling is so "dangerous" that injuries are like an Act of God. Not a rhetorical question. I have no idea, just my persecution complex to guide me.

If you've got time read the judgment in O'Gorman v MIBI [2005] IEHC 38, it's got everything, cycling in the hard shoulder, overtaking a parked lorry, estimated speed of a cyclist on a clapped out old racer, typos ("breaks") etc.

Man cycling along the dual carriageway on the hard shoulder between Midleton and Carrigtwohill tries to overtake a refuse lorry parked on the hard shoulder/verge and gets blown into the back of it by another unidentified lorry passing him in the traffic lane.

The judge does a good job of going through the engineer's report in estimating the speed of the cyclist and the approximate speed of unidentified lorry that caused the incident.

The judge makes no remarks on the legitimacy of cycling in the hard shoulder. The plaintiff lost the case because the judge decided that "...it becomes more and more likely that the plaintiff moved out when he should not have, and that he very soon realised the danger he had posed for himself by moving out rather than waiting for the lorry to pass, and pulled back into the hard shoulder and hit the back of the lorry. In that situation the plaintiff could not point to any negligence on the part of the driver".

The judge also states that is is with great regret that he dismisses the plaintiff's claim.

So, no persecution complex, no implication that cycling is inherently dangerous. I've searched the available judgments on the Courts Service site and I can't find any other cases that are as useful.

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

Just to comment on this again, road users may not proceed without due care and attention. In such circumstances where progress cannot be made without disregard for safety then "undertaking" simply does not take place.

I fully accept your point and it is what I am trying to illustrate. The issue here is that there is a subset, indeed possibly a majority, of cyclists who have the following expectations.

1. They are legally entitled to overtake same direction traffic on the left
2. They believe that other left-turning traffic should yield to them while doing so

These are expectations that in my view and those of my advisors, are not supported by the law.

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

no, my view was that it was permissible to overtake in those circumstances not to create two driving lanes.

Ok and I apologise if I am being pedantic. My interpretation of your argument is that, any driver can pass a queue of traffic going in the same direction provided they percieve that there is space for them to keep moving, the implication of your argument is that you are free to skip to the top of the first queue and then start your own queue.

It is not an argument I was aware of

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I fully accept your point and it is what I am trying to illustrate. The issue here is that there is a subset, indeed possibly a majority, of cyclists who have the following expectations.

1. They are legally entitled to overtake same direction traffic on the left
2. They believe that other left-turning traffic should yield to them while doing so

These are expectations that in my view and those of my advisors, are not supported by the law.

For (1), I don't know that it is possible for anything but a tiny minority of very fast cyclists to undertake fast moving traffic. In slow-moving traffic it isn't undertaking.

For (2), I don't know any cyclist who expects left-turning traffic to yield to them.

Also, I think you're overstating the authority of your legal advice. It's just an opinion, and fairly ambivalent at that (from what you've said).

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

For (1), I don't know that it is possible for anything but a tiny minority of very fast cyclists to undertake fast moving traffic. In slow-moving traffic it isn't undertaking.

As I've said before, if its moving slower than me, then it is, by definition slow moving traffic and Im allowed undertake it!

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

For (2), I don't know any cyclist who expects left-turning traffic to yield to them.

I agree, except I suspect that quite a lot of cyclists on cycle tracks expect left-turning traffic to yield to them. Watch cyclists emerging from the (legally dubious in itself) shared-use sidewalk cycle track on Lower Drumcondra Road going north crossing the mouth of Hollybank Road. Virtually no-one looks left or right, or indeed back over their shoulder towards the point where left-turning traffic would originate. Their approach to that point is also obscured by trees, so caution is definitely required, but none is usually shown.

I think there's a yield triangle painted there on the track, so that's covered the asses of whoever designed the track.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I agree, except I suspect that quite a lot of cyclists on cycle tracks expect left-turning traffic to yield to them. Watch cyclists emerging from the (legally dubious in itself) shared-use sidewalk cycle track on Lower Drumcondra Road going north crossing the mouth of Hollybank Road. Virtually no-one looks left or right, or indeed back over their shoulder towards the point where left-turning traffic would originate.

They'll either cop on or check out.

FWIW I don't know any cyclists who use offroad cycle tracks/paths/whatever either, except perhaps in the Phoenix Park.

tomasrojo

You get buzzed by buses on that stretch of road (I'm looking at you, Aircoach) if you don't use it.

I come through the maze of redbrick houses to the west now to avoid the road. I come down Hollybank, so I still see the cyclists emerging from the cycle track.

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

They'll either cop on or check out.

TBF, I suspect most cyclists dont expect motorists to just cut across a cycle lane to turn left, or rather, dont think that such an action is legal.

This happened to me recently heading south down from broadstone to Church st.in the cycle lane. A woman in the left hand lane indicated left and started to turn down a side road when she was about 20ft ahead of me. I didnt have time to pull out and around her so I slammed on the brakes and slowed. At this stage she seemed to yield just as I was reaching the back of her car, so I continued on slowly alongside, and she then completed her turn, blocking my progress.

She asked me why I hadnt gone around as 'she had indicated'. I replied that I didnt have time and that indicating alone does not give you the right to cut across other traffic and she still should have yielded... I guess I was wrong?

Positions reversed I certainly wouldn't have thought it safe or legal to pull across the cycle lane and cut off a cyclist when turning left.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I live in the city centre, and in my experience, you are more likely to be injured by a cyclist who thinks that a footpath is a road or a one way street is two-way; then you are by a motorist.

Especially those people who use Dublin Bikes.

Maniacs.

blorg

droidus wrote: »

TBF, I suspect most cyclists dont expect motorists to just cut across a cycle lane to turn left, or rather, dont think that such an action is legal.

This happened to me recently heading south down from broadstone to Church st.in the cycle lane. A woman in the left hand lane indicated left and started to turn down a side road when she was about 20ft ahead of me. I didnt have time to pull out and around her so I slammed on the brakes and slowed. At this stage she seemed to yield just as I was reaching the back of her car, so I continued on slowly alongside, and she then completed her turn, blocking my progress.

She asked me why I hadnt gone around as 'she had indicated'. I replied that I didnt have time and that indicating alone does not give you the right to cut across other traffic and she still should have yielded... I guess I was wrong?

Positions reversed I certainly wouldn't have thought it safe or legal to pull across the cycle lane and cut off a cyclist when turning left.

A motorist has to yield if crossing a continuous cycle lane into a side road. The cyclist has to yield if the cycle lane ends at the junction (even if it immediately starts the other side.)

Idleater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

My interpretation of your argument is that, any driver can pass a queue of traffic going in the same direction provided they percieve that there is space for them to keep moving, the implication of your argument is that you are free to skip to the top of the first queue and then start your own queue.

It is not an argument I was aware of

Imagine you were to try it out:
1) on a bicycle see shoaling
2) on a motorcycle
3) in a car
4) in a HGV

and tell me which ones you imagine being successful in pulling off the barge back into traffic manoeuvre in.

I'm not inventing any new rules here, I am merely pointing out the fact that progress can be made depending on what mode of transport you are using. I know when not to over or under take.
The more observant one is the more progress one can make either with a planned over/undertake or simple road positioning. To put this in context of my recent exam, on the entire 90 minutes I made 1 filter to the left (Phibsboro) and one filter to the right (Parnell square) passing in total 10 cars I'd say and ending up legitimately at the first in line at the red traffic light. The rest of the overtakes were legitimate single vehicle overtakes on dashed lines.

droidus

blorg wrote: »

A motorist has to yield if crossing a continuous cycle lane into a side road. The. cyclist has to yield if the cycle lane ends at the junction.

It was a dotted white line - no junction:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=church+st+dublin&hl=en&ll=53.35152,-6.273732&spn=0.001202,0.002167&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.351597,-6.273588&panoid=ZQpkoOGo5UPV30tfXyS_mA&cbp=12,185.58,,0,21.91

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

A woman in the left hand lane indicated left and started to turn down a side road when she was about 20ft ahead of me. I didnt have time to pull out and around her so I slammed on the brakes and slowed. At this stage she seemed to yield just as I was reaching the back of her car, so I continued on slowly alongside, and she then completed her turn, blocking my progress.

blorg wrote: »

A motorist has to yield if crossing a continuous cycle lane into a side road. The cyclist has to yield if the cycle lane ends at the junction (even if it immediately starts the other side.)

Aside from what's legal, if you pass inside cars that are indicating or turning left, sooner or later you're going to get creamed.

In the situation described I would stop and wait if I couldn't pass right. The motorist cannot assume to be giving way, they might have stopped for some other reason, like the side street being blocked, or spilling their coffee, or dropping their burger.

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

Aside from what's legal, if you pass inside cars that are indicating or turning left, sooner or later you're going to get creamed.

In the situation described I would stop and wait if I couldn't pass right. The motorist cannot assume to be giving way, they might have stopped for some other reason, like the side street being blocked, or spilling their coffee, or dropping their burger.

I agree, but TBF, I could see her in her mirror and knew she had seen me, the street was empty, and she had started the turn and then stopped, giving the impression she had seen me and was yielding, I was almost stopped and proceeded very slowly, so there was no real danger. More of a WTF moment.

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

I agree, but TBF, I could see her in her mirror and knew she had seen me, the street was empty, and she had started the turn and then stopped, giving the impression she had seen me and was yielding, I was almost stopped and proceeded very slowly, so there was no real danger. More of a WTF moment.

Sure, no harm no foul. The lesson is that anyone mad enough to give way to cyclists should not be expected to act rationally.

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

Imagine you were to try it out:
1) on a bicycle see shoaling
2) on a motorcycle
3) in a car
4) in a HGV

and tell me which ones you imagine being successful in pulling off the barge back into traffic manoeuvre in.

I'm not inventing any new rules here, I am merely pointing out the fact that progress can be made depending on what mode of transport you are using. I know when not to over or under take.
The more observant one is the more progress one can make either with a planned over/undertake or simple road positioning. To put this in context of my recent exam, on the entire 90 minutes I made 1 filter to the left (Phibsboro) and one filter to the right (Parnell square) passing in total 10 cars I'd say and ending up legitimately at the first in line at the red traffic light. The rest of the overtakes were legitimate single vehicle overtakes on dashed lines.

Then your point is not that it is ok to keep going past queues but it is that it is ok to keep going past them when you have a reasonable expectation of completing the manouevre or of being able to rejoin the traffic stream going in your intended direction if necessary.

That is not quite the same concept. It seems to me that to be lawful such manoevres must also conform to the other regulations regarding overtaking.

So what kind of vehicle were you using? - you don't appear to state.

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Then your point is not that it is ok to keep going past queues but it is that it is ok to keep going past them when you have a reasonable expectation of completing the manouevre or of being able to rejoin the traffic stream going in your intended direction if necessary.

That is not quite the same concept. It seems to me that to be lawful such manoevres must also conform to the other regulations regarding overtaking.

So what kind of vehicle were you using? - you don't appear to state.

I think you need to be a bit less literal and a bit more jurisprudential.

The purpose of traffic law is to establish safe and consistent common practice, not to codify every possible circumstance.

monkeybutter

Lights are only of use when you are at an angle when they are directed at you, so if a car is coming at a right angle to you, you are difficult to see, thus the high viz jacket. When a cars light flash across you, you are lit up like a christ mass tree.

As a vulerable road user, you have to take personal responsability, you can't rely on car drivers to always see you in the teeming rain, with oncoming traffic dazling them and you dressed like a ninja.

Defending an argument by saying show me a study done to prove this or that is weak unless you have a survery that actualy proves your own point.

dearg lady

tomasrojo wrote: »

following some of the rules might kill you.

They also sometimes contradict each other.

this is the crux of it. the important thing is to be safe and not endanger or obstruct others. thats it. Arguing over points of law is kind of ridiculous tbh.

Chips Lovell

monkeybutter wrote: »

Defending an argument by saying show me a study done to prove this or that is weak unless you have a survery that actualy proves your own point.

Really?

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

The purpose of traffic law is to establish safe and consistent common practice, not to codify every possible circumstance.

I agree so we need to clearly understand what practices it is that the law provides for and what practices it does not provide for.

Cyclists passing on the left is such a common circumstance that it is reasonable to expect that its practice and the limitations on its practice be covered.

With respect, in my view it is pedantic to dismiss the requirements for such clarifications as attempting to "codify every possible circumstance".

The alternative as I understand it, is some form of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, paddywhackery along the lines of "Ah sure what Judge is going to hold it agin you".