Cyclist yielding and a silly design

Iwannahurl

FIRST 11 POSTS EXTRACTED FROM YIELDING TO BUSES THREAD! - monument

corktina wrote: »

"The bus lane ahead was closed off just before the junction, after some sort of hazard was identified by a road safety audit of the scheme."

Build-out visible bottom right of the photo below. Note also the rather interesting Yield markings for cyclists.

corktina

are cyclists supposed to yield to cars turning left? or am I reading that wrong?

Iwannahurl

corktina wrote: »

are cyclists supposed to yield to cars turning left? or am I reading that wrong?

Correct. Perhaps also to vehicles turning right into the road where the silver car is exiting: there's a right-turn filter lane on the opposite side.

Would you often see such an arrangement in a lane for cars?

In my experience as a cyclist in that location you can have vehicles cutting across you from both directions, i.e. traffic coming from behind you and from the opposite direction. 'Tis fun.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Build-out visible bottom right of the photo below. Note also the rather interesting Yield markings for cyclists.

To the yield marking:

WTF!?!

Iwannahurl

Worth its own thread somewhere?

corktina

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Correct. Perhaps also to vehicles turning right into the road where the silver car is exiting: there's a right-turn filter lane on the opposite side.

Would you often see such an arrangement in a lane for cars?

In my experience as a cyclist in that location you can have vehicles cutting across you from both directions, i.e. traffic coming from behind you and from the opposite direction. 'Tis fun.

and then I guess once the bike is past the yield, cars have to give way?

miller50841

corktina wrote: »

are cyclists supposed to yield to cars turning left? or am I reading that wrong?

If the car or any vehicle for that matter is indicating to turn left why would anyone be mad enough to go up the inside putting themselves in danger.

These signs/markings are done because for some reason common sense doesn't seem to go well here.

If you check the Rules of the road if a vehicle or cyclist is indicating to turn right you Do Not Overtake so Undertaking rule would apply in the same way.

If the cyclist is in front yes give way to them but they must give way to what is turning in front of them.

The junction in the picture where the cars are coming out that have a filter must give right of way so not to pull out until the road is clear to do so.

_Kaiser_

miller50841 wrote: »

If the car or any vehicle for that matter is indicating to turn left why would anyone be mad enough to go up the inside putting themselves in danger.

These signs/markings are done because for some reason common sense doesn't seem to go well here.

I guess the markings are there because you WILL get people who will continue on regardless of personal safety or impact on others because they're in the "right"

It's the same attitude the "it's a limit, not a target" brigade have to justify dawdling on N/M roads and holding everyone else up behind them.

markpb

I'm not sure I'd agree with either of you from a legal point of view. Pretend for a minute it's two vehicular lanes, would you argue that cars in the left lane should give way to cars in the right lane turning left? Of course not but some motorists seem to think that cyclists should.

_Kaiser_

markpb wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agree with either of you from a legal point of view. Pretend for a minute it's two vehicular lanes, would you argue that cars in the left lane should give way to cars in the right lane turning left? Of course not but some motorists seem to think that cyclists should.

The real issue is what I mentioned above - poor junction design and road markings

The cycle lane should be off-side the driving lane, like they have in Holland and many other countries.. not shoe-horned amongst cars/buses/trucks, parking spaces etc

miller50841

What is needed here is take away all roundabouts because nobody knows or cares how to use them(indicate to show where they intend to go).

The Holland idea may work well in Holland but to bring that idea in here will only cause confusion and will cause accidents.

Look up the Killiney roundabout which has been changed a number of times over the last few years at tax payers expense. Some hotshot cyclist in the Dun Laoghaire council thought up a load of rubbish it's now from what I can see totally against the cyclist.

The cyclist now has to mount the footpath and ride with pedestrians.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would you often see such an arrangement in a lane for cars?

It should be pointed out that with cycle lanes and bus lanes, by definition these must allow the preferred modes to undertake other traffic, in exception to the road laws on undertaking that are very severe against other traffic in general. Indeed that's the whole point of such lanes and I am not disputing the need for them.

So you would NEVER see such an arrangement for cars because cars are not allowed to undertake each other, the road law banning motorists from undertaking are so severe that if you encounter a vehicle going at 50-60kph on a motorway RHS overtaking lane, theoretically they become a rolling roadblock because it is totally illegal to pass them on the left.

Yet since cyclists are exempt from this law in connection with the cycle lane, the local authority may have taken the view that it would not be safe or proper to allow cyclists to undertake other traffic that has explicitly signalled a left turn, so they decided that cyclists should yield at that point to allow other road users make those turns - an issue which would never arise but for the presence of the cycle lane. This may be because of a something specific to this area, such as an unduly large number of vehicles making left turns, that may lead to an unsafe situation.

The view taken may be a compromise view, e.g. "Yes, you can undertake as much traffic as you like on the straight, but at this junction in partricular you should recognise your position as an undertaking road vehicle and yield to those making left turns across your path."

bigar

Telling bicycles to yield for cars coming from behind makes no sense and is also contradicting what the bye-laws say for yielding.

Paragraph 22
(2) A driver approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws, and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws.

So if the bycicle is going straight on before the car arrives to turn left, it has right of way. Most drivers ignore the pedestrian part of this as well so it is no surprise they think they have priority over bicycles too.

Also interesting is

(5) A driver shall, before entering a major road by a road on which a Yield Right of Way sign has been erected, yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.

So if this sign is meant for the cyclist yielding for cars turning left, the bicycle lane would be considered a different (and minor) road from part of the road with the car lanes.
This truly makes no sense.

Victor

bigar wrote: »

Telling bicycles to yield for cars coming from behind makes no sense and is also contradicting what the bye-laws say for yielding.

Paragraph 22
(2) A driver approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws, and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws.

So if the bycicle is going straight on before the car arrives to turn left, it has right of way. Most drivers ignore the pedestrian part of this as well so it is no surprise they think they have priority over bicycles too.

Also interesting is

(5) A driver shall, before entering a major road by a road on which a Yield Right of Way sign has been erected, yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.

So if this sign is meant for the cyclist yielding for cars turning left, the bicycle lane would be considered a different (and minor) road from part of the road with the car lanes.
This truly makes no sense.

your quotes are from S.I. No. 294/1964 — Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.

You need to be looking at S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 and its amendments. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

Iwannahurl

I know the National Cycle Manual is not highly regarded in certain circles, but I think it might be worth pointing out that the strange Yield marking above does not seem to follow the guidelines:

Where cyclists are travelling straight ahead, they expect to have main road priority. Frequently this priority is compromised by traffic turning left. In this manual, various approaches to managing the left turn conflict have been set out, with the intention of maintaining cycling momentum and priority wherever possible. [Page 74]

This manual recommends that cycle facilities are re-established as on-road cycle lanes for the last 20 to 30m in advance of a significant left turn. The re-establishment zone provides time for vehicles and cyclists to observe each other and accommodate each other’s movements at the conflict point. This is as much to do with ensuring the safety of straight ahead cyclists as left turning cyclists. [...] The re-established cycle-lane must be continuous, clearly marked and legible so that vehicles weaving left across it know they must yield to cyclists who may be continuing straight ahead. [Page 84]

Where a single traffic lane with a kerbside cycle lane approaches a left turn, the straight ahead cycle lane should be continuous through the junction. Left turning motorists are expected to yield to any straight ahead cyclists before turning left. [Page 88]

Cookie_Monster

Like most of Ireland's cycle "infastructure" the key here is to just not use it and use the road instead, pulling into (or remaining in) the right hand straight ahead lane before that silly little brick island thing.


PS - whats the crazy looking blue sign in the top left meant to be, very much looks like a stay left to turn right drawing?!

Iwannahurl

The vast majority of cyclists, most especially the inexperienced or less confident ones, will stay in the cycle lane to go straight ahead.

Personally I can see little advantage in my turning across the left-turn vehicular lane, just after the build-out, into the straight-ahead lane, only to turn back in again a few metres on to continue on the cycle lane/path.

There's another junction just ahead, and yes, that's one of those stay-left-to-go-right arrangements indicated by the sign.

I believe I heard the overall design of this road scheme described as "incompetent" on local radio a few months ago. There are some aspects of the scheme that I am happy with, but overall it does seem to be a hotchpotch of make-it-up-as-you-go along Irish roads design with a few useful features thrown in apparently at random.