Left turning lane cutting across cycle lane

joeKel73

This is a common road design in the new traffic light junctions that are replacing roundabouts in Galway City. There's a slip road going to the left so traffic crosses over the straight-ahead cycle lane.

Who has right of way here?

There isn't a yield on the cycle lane but the lane boundary is dashed over that section.

Example - cyclist going from A to B below. The cycle lane is raised off the road before the junction but drops to the main traffic coming up to this junction.



I know to still assume drivers will cut across without indicating but would be good to know who has priority here. I met a car here today who wasn't sure, and I wasn't completely sure so we both stopped for a moment and I just waved him through.

De Bhál

My approach to go straight on would be to get down off the cycle lane earlier and move out into the traffic indicating with your arm that you're going straight ahead through that junction. Move back towards the left once through it.
I go through a similar set up without a raised cycle track going straight past the entrance to the omni centre in Santry every evening.
You have to be confident to move out that couple of feet into the line of traffic.

DaithiMC

De Bhál wrote: »

My approach to go straight on would be to get down off the cycle lane earlier and move out into the traffic indicating with your arm that you're going straight ahead through that junction. Move back towards the left once through it.
I go through a similar set up without a raised cycle track going straight past the entrance to the omni centre in Santry every evening.
You have to be confident to move out that couple of feet into the line of traffic.

Yes, this is my MO when going past a similar left turn on my commute where Pembroke Road turns off before Northumberland Road - it is in a Bus Lane but well before this I pull wide into the Bus Lane to make sure taxis or other cars a) see me and b) don't have the room to pull in on top of me.

I think its better that there is no yield sign on the road above where the solid white line becomes dashed - if it were there it would signal to motorists that they have the right of way and lead to more barging rather than behaving as they should when crossing any other left lane.

joeKel73

Pulling into the main traffic here would be fairly unsafe here because

1. The cycle lane is raised from the main road until just before this so you'd be coming down off a kerb.
2. The traffic in that lane can by very fast moving. Especially when then left slip road is empty or green at the end of it and motorists are racing to get through.

So, who has right of way; left turning motorists or straight-ahead cyclists?

joeKel73

J o e wrote: »

The traffic in that lane can by very fast moving. Especially when then left slip road is empty or green at the end of it and motorists are racing to get through.

...and I know not to push my luck and force my way across in front of racing cars. But when the slip lane is backing up and cars are moving a bit slower (or stopped!) across the cycle lane it would be good to know who has priority.

De Bhál

I find this type of junction layout very dangerous. If you cycle by a junction similar to this and your approach is to stay in the cycle lane you will get milled out of it eventually. That's a certainty.

De Bhál

J o e wrote: »

...and I know not to push my luck and force my way across in front of racing cars. But when the slip lane is backing up and cars are moving a bit slower (or stopped!) across the cycle lane it would be good to know who has priority.

I've no idea in your case as it's a raised cycle lane.

joeKel73

De Bhál wrote: »

I've no idea in your case as it's a raised cycle lane.

Well was a raised cycle lane, and dips to join the main lanes of traffic just before the junction...

Chips Lovell

If it's raised, how does traffic cross it when moving into the left turning lane?

rab!dmonkey

Traffic proceeding straight always has priority over traffic changing lanes.

From the diagram, it looks to me like the bike lane comes off the kerb before the filter lane starts, so you can simply keep on cycling straight and easily check over your shoulder for anyone who might be about to cut you off.

Feisar

I haven't a notion who has right of way here. When I'm driving I run a courtesy system parallel to the rules of the road that's main goal is to get everyone to where they are going safe and sound.

seamus

J o e wrote: »

So, who has right of way; left turning motorists or straight-ahead cyclists?

Short answer: Whoever is in front.

The same debate has been had here recently. It's a bit of a weird issue. There are two pieces of law in weird conflict:

1. A vehicle wishing to cross a traffic lane, must give way to all traffic in that lane. So if a vehicle wishes to cross a cycle lane, they must yield to all bicycles in that lane and wait for the lane to be clear before crossing it.

2. A cyclist must not overtake a vehicle on the left if that vehicle is indicating left and will turn left before the cyclist can overtake safely.

This creates an interesting problem: It's illegal for the cyclist to undertake the left-signalling vehicle, but the vehicle has to wait for the cyclist to undertake before proceeding.

In practice, the cycle lane in these cases will often have a yield symbol painted at the divergence point, but I don't know if this symbol has any legal significance.

In realistic safe use, take the lane if you plan on going straight through and if in doubt about whether a vehicle is going to turn across you, assume it will and hold back and let it turn.

I witnessed one moron this morning try to hold his line against a flatbed lorry which was clearly about to turn left (it had been indicating for ages), resulting in him having to swerve left into the turn and nearly hit a car. Of course he glared at the lorry driver like it was the driver's fault. Even if it had been the driver's fault, the intelligent course of action would have been to wait behind and not try to overtake a vehicle which weighs 5 tonnes and is clearly about to turn left.

joeKel73

Here's a dash cam from a car taking that left turn across the cycle lane so you'll see the situation a bit better;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYFClERwIwg

NamelessPhil

The Stillorgan Road in Dublin is full of these junctions and they're horrible!

Where there is a raised cycle track there is probably a yield sign at the end of it where it joins the road. That's the point at which I would look behind and check if there are any cars indicating left. If the road is clear and I then move onto the road I would have priority as I am going straight ahead and the car is changing lanes.

The car changing lanes is the one that loses priority and has to yield to traffic going straight ahead.

In contrast I have to travel Taylor's Lane hill in Rathfarnham every day. There is an on road cycle lane with a bus lane beside it at the top of the hill there is a left lane. There is no yield sign on the cycle track that goes straight ahead. I have never had a problem with cars trying to take me out of it probably because they have to cross a bus lane first to change lanes. I still perform the usual checks where the road splits just in case.

seamus

J o e wrote: »

Here's a dash cam from a car taking that left turn across the cycle lane so you'll see the situation a bit better;

That double-fun, the cycle lane switches from off- to on-road at the exact same time that it splits.

This is a perfect example of how road designers give zero consideration to the practical aspects of cycle lanes. Drivers will actually not see a cyclist on an off-road lane. Because the cyclist is not on the road, they will be subconsciously disregarded, and so a left-turning driver won't even consider that there might be cyclists come up behind them.

Solution: Disregard the cycle lane and ride on the road. You can't be ignored then.

joeKel73

seamus wrote: »

Solution: Disregard the cycle lane and ride on the road. You can't be ignored then.

The cycle lane and road stretch for over 1km before this, over the Quincentenary Bridge. Cycling on the fast-moving main road instead of the cycle lane for that stretch would be pretty dangerous and there'd be a lot of angry motorists willing to knock me back onto the cycle lane via their bonnet.

And joining just before the junction is still dangerous as cars are still sweeping left at a fair speed and definitely wouldn't expect a cyclist to come down off the raised lane.

Beasty

There's an unbroken on-road white line bordering the cycle lane for about 20m or so before it becomes unbroken - only there can the motor vehicle cut across, but they must yield to any cyclist in that lane - a cyclist in that lane clearly has right of way and a motorist must not overtake and cut back across unless it is safe to do so

galwaycyclist

J o e I am afraid the Irish law in this case is a bit of a mess.

seamus wrote: »

Short answer: Whoever is in front.

The same debate has been had here recently. It's a bit of a weird issue. There are two pieces of law in weird conflict:

1. A vehicle wishing to cross a traffic lane, must give way to all traffic in that lane. So if a vehicle wishes to cross a cycle lane, they must yield to all bicycles in that lane and wait for the lane to be clear before crossing it.

It is not established that the cycle lane is a traffic lane as it comes outside the definitions of traffic lane stated in the regulations.

There is also nothing in the regulations that states that drivers crossing cycle lanes or cycle tracks must yield to cyclists.

Does the law on overtaking on the left apply to a vehicle that looks like it is in a different lane?

Edit: There is a more involved discussion from a previous thread here

The law on these things in this country is a mess. Whether its down to malice, incompetence or hidden agendas is anyones guess.

Beasty

To be clear, the cyclist is on road and there is an unbroken white line before the junction. The motorist is overtaking the cyclist and turning left. They can only do so if it's safe, which means them should be able to get past the cyclist and then cut over to the turning lane on the left without endangering the cyclist. These are basic traffic rules and I don't think there's anything confusing or "messy" about the situation

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

These are basic traffic rules

So where are they stated with regard to cycle tracks? Evidence please.

Beasty

It's on the road - you don't need to refer to "cycle tracks" at all - just look at basic road law

MadYaker

I drive in Galway a lot, I hate these cycle lanes. I don't know who has right of way but I always check my mirrors before turning and if there is a cyclist I'll let them go.

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

It's on the road - you don't need to refer to "cycle tracks" at all - just look at basic road law

So now you are purporting yourself as someone who can offer legal advice to others without reference to the law or the definitions contained in the law?

tomasrojo

Looking at the video clip, it does seem to be a cycle track, albeit on the road at the point of maximum contention. Whether cycle tracks (as we seem to call all cycling infrastructure) are actual separate lanes in law does confuse me, I have to say.

Quite apart from theory, in practice I would treat this as a Yield scenario for the cyclist. Signal right as you approach the junction and see whether traffic behind is going to let you proceed. That feel like a safe approach to me.

joeKel73

tomasrojo wrote: »

Quite apart from theory, in practice I would treat this as a Yield scenario for the cyclist.

Yes from a practical point of view I'll be very cautious of traffic coming across. But unfortunately I go through 3 layouts the same as this on my work day commute, so over 700 times a year... so I'm highly likely to have an incident at some stage with a non-indicating motorist cutting across me and slowing down suddenly. When that happens it will be good to know where I stand (if still standing).

DaithiMC

tomasrojo wrote: »

Whether cycle tracks (as we seem to call all cycling infrastructure) are actual separate lanes in law does confuse me, I have to say.

As a motorist I treat continuous white lines and dashed lines as the Rules of the Road direct me to. I don't change the premise of this if I need to cross a cycle lane - or into a Bus Lane, which for the most part are continuous white lines. Its the same on the bike - thou shalt not cross unless its dashed (I recognise that the mandatory status of cycle lanes has been done away with but in general if I'm on the road and not in the cycle lane and the cycle lane is bounded by a continuous white line I won't cross it, and vice versa when I am in the cycle lane.

In relation to the junctions, well then it is a case of applying this logic together with a continuous wariness of what's around and an understanding of the unwritten rule of "might is right" when it comes to avoiding collisions.

MadYaker

I'm always afraid that some day I'll forget to check my mirror and end up nailing some cyclist.

tomasrojo

DaithiMC wrote: »

As a motorist I treat continuous white lines and dashed lines as the Rules of the Road direct me to. I don't change the premise of this if I need to cross a cycle lane - or into a Bus Lane, which for the most part are continuous white lines. Its the same on the bike - thou shalt not cross unless its dashed (I recognise that the mandatory status of cycle lanes has been done away with but in general if I'm on the road and not in the cycle lane and the cycle lane is bounded by a continuous white line I won't cross it, and vice versa when I am in the cycle lane.

In relation to the junctions, well then it is a case of applying this logic together with a continuous wariness of what's around and an understanding of the unwritten rule of "might is right" when it comes to avoiding collisions.

But there are cycle lanes that are "bundled" into a standard traffic lane, and motorists have no choice but to drive "in the cycle lane". It's confusing.

Stephen_C

tomasrojo wrote: »

But there are cycle lanes that are "bundled" into a standard traffic lane, and motorists have no choice but to drive "in the cycle lane". It's confusing.

Generally where cycle lanes are "bundled" into a traffic lane, where there is really only room for a car, they will have a dashed line which allows the car to drive in them if they are clear.

I'd be of the view that if there is no yield sign where you leave the raised section of cycle track then it is considered to be another straight ahead traffic lane once it becomes part of the road and normal rules of the road apply. i.e cars can only cross it when it is clear, cyclists have right of way.

With regards the rule mentioned before about cyclist not being allowed to undertake cars that are indicating left, I would interpret that as in the scenario where there is no cycle lane to the left of traffic or where the cycle lane is bundled and hence the car is already driving in it and the cyclist is filtering up the left side of traffic. In a situation where there is a clearly defined cycle lane I would expect the car to check for cyclists on their inside as they would when changing lanes.

Stheno

MadYaker wrote: »

I'm always afraid that some day I'll forget to check my mirror and end up nailing some cyclist.

Same here, I've two of those junctions every day on my drive into work

tomasrojo wrote: »

But there are cycle lanes that are "bundled" into a standard traffic lane, and motorists have no choice but to drive "in the cycle lane". It's confusing.

Yep also have this at one junction, the cycle lane is literally a third of the traffic lane and there is no room to move.

Stephen_C

I'd also add that I much prefer the layout above to some of the ones in Dublin where the cycle lane going straight ahead is kept to the left of a left hand filter lane right up to the traffic lights. Especially in situations where the traffic going straight has a red light and the filter is green.

A good example where both these scenarios can be found is on opposite sides of the road outside the Goat pub in Goatstown. Heading inbound the cycle lane moves to the right of the left filter lane and is very easy to negotiate. Heading outbound the cycle lane stays to the left of the filter for the Kilmacud Rd and is an absolute nightmare. I actually move out into the straight ahead traffic lane on this stretch to stay right of the filter lane.

Trojan

If it's an off-road cycle lane merging into an on-road cycle lane, and the traffic has a slip road, my strong preference would be to cycle in the traffic lane and not use the off-road cycle lane, for safety reasons. What I've done sometimes in similar setups is get into the traffic lane well back from the sliproad.

galwaycyclist

With regard to joining before the junction

J o e wrote: »

The cycle lane and road stretch for over 1km before this, over the Quincentenary Bridge. Cycling on the fast-moving main road instead of the cycle lane for that stretch would be pretty dangerous and there'd be a lot of angry motorists willing to knock me back onto the cycle lane via their bonnet.

And joining just before the junction is still dangerous as cars are still sweeping left at a fair speed and definitely wouldn't expect a cyclist to come down off the raised lane.

Whenever I used this road before it was recently rearranged I would always get off the cycle paths well before the junction. That requires a certain amount of determination. The lights at the previous junction do break the traffic up a bit so you can often time it get a gap not to far from the junction ahead. However it does mean coasting in the cycle path for a while to pick a gap.

I havent tried this yet with the new layout.

J o e wrote: »

Yes from a practical point of view I'll be very cautious of traffic coming across. But unfortunately I go through 3 layouts the same as this on my work day commute, so over 700 times a year... so I'm highly likely to have an incident at some stage with a non-indicating motorist cutting across me and slowing down suddenly. When that happens it will be good to know where I stand (if still standing).

I would be very cautious - I would not assume the cycle lane is any protection. The law on these things is not clear and in any case Irish driver training is not the most advanced either.

Finally even if the law were crystal clear - the Galway city garda do not have a good record when it comes to investigating crashes involving cyclists.

If anything were to go wrong you might find yourself having to fight any case largely from your own resources.

joeKel73

Trojan wrote: »

If it's an off-road cycle lane merging into an on-road cycle lane, and the traffic has a slip road, my strong preference would be to cycle in the traffic lane and not use the off-road cycle lane, for safety reasons. What I've done sometimes in similar setups is get into the traffic lane well back from the sliproad.

Come off the raised cycle lane onto a lane of fast moving traffic? The speed limit over that straight kilometer is 50kph but almost all cars are well over that.

joeKel73

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The lights at the previous junction do break the traffic up a bit so you can often time it get a gap not to far from the junction ahead. However it does mean coasting in the cycle path for a while to pick a gap.

Not bad advice... could use the same approach for timing when you reach the cycle lane, without having to come off the raised kerb.

DaithiMC

Stephen_C wrote: »

With regards the rule mentioned before about cyclist not being allowed to undertake cars that are indicating left, I would interpret that as in the scenario where there is no cycle lane to the left of traffic or where the cycle lane is bundled and hence the car is already driving in it and the cyclist is filtering up the left side of traffic. In a situation where there is a clearly defined cycle lane I would expect the car to check for cyclists on their inside as they would when changing lanes.

I would actually interpret this as being sensible in all situations - as with driving a car, if you are behind, then you should yield. In the case of left turning cars if they are ahead and indicating then I do tend to yield. It gets into semantics about "how far back is behind" etc. but the other rule I mentioned is that "might is right" and as a cyclist you will end up worse off irrespective of your views on what the law is.

galwaycyclist

J o e wrote: »

Not bad advice... could use the same approach for timing when you reach the cycle lane, without having to come off the raised kerb.

Yep. Or with regret, it may be better sometimes to stop and wait at the junction for traffic to stop on red before proceeding yourself. I dont think you'd personally need to to do that but if I was advising a novice cyclist thats what I would suggest.

bambergbike

Stephen_C wrote: »

I'd also add that I much prefer the layout above to some of the ones in Dublin where the cycle lane going straight ahead is kept to the left of a left hand filter lane right up to the traffic lights.

There may be worse designs out there. But this one is still pretty unpleasant and dangerous (regardless of the view one takes on the legal issue of who out to yield) for two reasons:

1) It rejoins the road at (rather than well before) the junction. [Result: cyclists not on motorists' radar.]
2) Turning traffic is not slowed down before the turn. [Result: Major speed differential between cars and bikes - if something goes wrong, it can go very wrong.]

Off-road cycle tracks may well be more pleasant than on-road lanes (when well-maintained and regularly swept), but they are plain dangerous when they rejoin roads right at junctions. If you're not going to integrate cyclists properly with traffic, you need to segregate them properly, so that turning traffic gets a red light when straight-on cyclists have green (this involves cyclist lights) or so that traffic turns and then immediately yields to cyclists (while sitting in a box provided for the purpose). In the current setup, cyclists are just not a key concern for drivers transiting the junction. That will be a worry for cyclists who find themselves sandwiched between a turning truck and another fast-moving high-sided vehicle like a bus going straight on. it's very clear from the dash cam footage that the design does practically nothing to slow the turning traffic before it crosses the cycle lane.

I think it's clear that the junction maximizes "flow" and "capacity" at the expense of minimizing safety, especially the safety of vulnerable road users.

joeKel73

bambergbike wrote: »

If you're not going to integrate cyclists properly with traffic, you need to segregate them properly

Don't get me started on how they handle the cycle lane through the other end of the junction....



[from video]

Stephen_C

I wouldn't say it joins the road right at the junction, there is a decent portion along side the yellow truck in the video that is on road before the junction, I've seen a lot worse. It doesn't help that in the video the car drives across the solid white line to take the turn though.

Stephen_C

DaithiMC wrote: »

I would actually interpret this as being sensible in all situations - as with driving a car, if you are behind, then you should yield. In the case of left turning cars if they are ahead and indicating then I do tend to yield. It gets into semantics about "how far back is behind" etc. but the other rule I mentioned is that "might is right" and as a cyclist you will end up worse off irrespective of your views on what the law is.

I think it goes without saying that if you are in a cycle lane and are behind or even alongside a moving car with a left indicator on you should probably yield and let them make their turn. But I think the law above is in relation to passing vehicles that are stopped in traffic. If I was approaching a juntion with no cycle lane and very little room to filter up the left of stopped cars indicating left I would probably wait behind them where as if there was a cycle lane and they were stopped in traffic I would continue to the traffic light.

bambergbike

Stephen_C wrote: »

I wouldn't say it joins the road right at the junction, there is a decent portion along side the yellow truck in the video that is on road before the junction, I've seen a lot worse. It doesn't help that in the video the car drives across the solid white line to take the turn though.

You're right, it does look much better in the plan than in the video. I think what bothers me about the video is more the speed than anything else, I've never been a big fan of slip roads in built-up areas.

J o e wrote: »

Don't get me started on how they handle the cycle lane through the other end of the junction....



[from video]

Stop making me all nostalgic for the days when I lived in Galway and got to haul my trusty steed across all sorts of obstacles on a daily basis.

Stephen_C

bambergbike wrote: »

You're right, it does look much better in the plan than in the video. I think what bothers me about the video is more the speed than anything else, I've never been a big fan of slip roads in built-up areas.

I used to cummute in the N4 from Lucan to the city centre, before the new m50 junction was bulit, and used to negotiate the slip roads at Liffey Valley, the m50 roundabout and city side of Palmerstown the whole time. The speed of traffic at junctions doesn't really bother me to much after that. You get used to making yourself look big.

rab!dmonkey

seamus wrote: »

That double-fun, the cycle lane switches from off- to on-road at the exact same time that it splits.

err... no it doesn't. For the length of the mandatory (on-road) cycle lane there is no left filter lane. Transitioning an off-road cycle lane to an on-road one like this is considered best practice.

beauf

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

err... no it doesn't. For the length of the mandatory (on-road) cycle lane there is no left filter lane. Transitioning an off-road cycle lane to an on-road one like this is considered best practice.

By who?

If they are going to do it they should do it long before the left turn comes up. So the cyclist is established in the space before the driver has to turn.

DaithiMC

Stephen_C wrote: »

I think it goes without saying that if you are in a cycle lane and are behind or even alongside a moving car with a left indicator on you should probably yield and let them make their turn. But I think the law above is in relation to passing vehicles that are stopped in traffic. If I was approaching a juntion with no cycle lane and very little room to filter up the left of stopped cars indicating left I would probably wait behind them where as if there was a cycle lane and they were stopped in traffic I would continue to the traffic light.

There are situations where it is ok to undertake according to the ROTR. If the traffic in the right hand lane is stopped or moving more slowly (and you are within the speed limit).

A road I commute down, Beaver Row is narrow and almost impossible to get down the left hand side of cars without going on the footpath - which a lot of people do, and, to be honest, I have done on occasion. I try to go down the outside do when I can and when opposing traffic allows.

Puggy

Joe,

The car driver needs some lessons, it looks terribly like they cut into the cycle lane over a continuous white line. The speed looked way to fast as well. Sounds like they didn't indicate as they moved into the right hand side lane at the traffic lights. I can see why your concerned at that junction:P

The junction looks horrible for cyclists and motorists, regardless of who has right of way. My approach, when I'm not angry, is that its really hard when a car hits you, so I try to avoid it at all costs. I'd always look over my shoulder and give any approaching cars the right of way if they force the issue. Easier said that done, but I guess maybe 50% of car drivers will also do the same. No point having the law on your side when your laid up.

Some examples from the Rules of the Road. Sorry could not find the Irish language version.

Taking care with cyclists
If you are at a junction where there is an advanced stop line for cyclists, you should allow cyclists to move off ahead of you. When turning left, all drivers, especially drivers of heavy goods vehicles, must watch out for cyclists and motorcyclists going ahead or turning.On left turns, watch out for cyclists and mopeds close to the kerb in front of you or coming up on your left. Do not overtake a cyclist as you approach a junction if you are turning left; the cyclist might be continuing straight ahead.

Page 122 Right of way at junctions
Motorists should watch for cyclists emerging from the end of a cycle track and mopeds and motorcycles emerging from junctions who might be difficult to see because of their small size. It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right of way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users.

Page 189 for cyclists
Keep clear of the kerb – riding clear will make you more visible and help reduce unsafe overtaking.

Oh and of course you are entitled to use the left traffic lane on that road, as the cycle track is not mandatory;

REMEMBER
Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.

CramCycle

DaithiMC wrote: »

A road I commute down, Beaver Row is narrow and almost impossible to get down the left hand side of cars without going on the footpath - which a lot of people do, and, to be honest, I have done on occasion. I try to go down the outside do when I can and when opposing traffic allows.

It is a horrible road, commute down it daily but going on the footpath there is not a good idea, the foot path is barely wide enough to walk, cycling on it is just plain rude (and illegal). When traffic is heavy, it is slow enough that any cyclist of any speed can slot into it after the road narrows. I admit though I am impatient and overtake on the right when the lights change at the end or in the middle as you will normally get a 60 second break of no oncoming traffic.

JazzyJ

I've seen a lot of intersections like this with signs stating that the cyclist has right of way, i.e. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kludge/3426299112/lightbox/, so it would sense to apply that for similar junctions across the board.

In practice, as a cyclist I'd be very very wary of cars - sign or no sign - and assume they'd try to cut you off. As a driver I'd keep an eye out for cyclists and give way to them - sign or no sign.

TOMs WIFE

I know this thread is a little old, but it's still valid.

DaithiMC wrote: »

as with driving a car, if you are behind, then you should yield. In the case of left turning cars if they are ahead and indicating then I do tend to yield. It gets into semantics about "how far back is behind" etc. but the other rule I mentioned is that "might is right" and as a cyclist you will end up worse off irrespective of your views on what the law is.

Puggy wrote: »

Some examples from the Rules of the Road.
Taking care with cyclists
...Do not overtake a cyclist as you approach a junction if you are turning left; the cyclist might be continuing straight ahead.

galwaycyclist posted this useful post :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86937090&postcount=59

The Road Safety Authority has stated the following in it's "cycle safely" publication:

Turning left
 Never cycle between another left turning vehicle and the kerb. Stay well behind it and let it go. Then turn and don’t swing out into the road.
 Never pass a vehicle on the inside when it may turn left.

Now that, to me, means that if I am driving along a road with a cycle lane on the left of me, and I am turning left, I am entitled to take the left without waiting and yielding for a bike behind me. Obviously I wouldn't cut across one if it was adjacent to me, but I'm not going to wait there like a dummy holding up all the traffic behind me that's going straight ahead.

However, some cars do this - literally wait to go left for ages to let loads of bikes going straight and a traffic jam quickly ensues.

How do people feel - would they accept the RSA advice as being appropriate - and as other posters have stated, if the bike is behind they should allow a car in front turn left, and if the bike is ahead, then the car shouldn't race up and cut it off.

Fighting Tao

There's always a chance that a vehicle will be turning left as they often don't indicate. Sounds like they never want bikes to pass motor vehicles on the left at all. Wouldn't expect anything less from the RSA.