The dangers of passing cars on the left

Bristolscale7

I saw a cyclist nearly creamed yesterday by a car. I was cycling down a street in a Dublin suburb about 20 meters behind another cyclist. She was going at a fair clip; the traffic was congested and moving slowly. The cyclist was passing cars on on the left, basically in between parked cars and cars going slow on the road. She was giving enough space not to get doored by a parked car. A car spotted an open parking space and suddenly turned into it without indicating (I don't think indicating would have helped because the cyclist was basically right up to the tail light when the car darted in for the parking spot). The cyclist's front wheel got clipped but she managed to react at the last moment and avoid being taken out. In the same situation I always take the middle of the lane. I suppose if you're going to pass cars when traffic is slow it is better to lane split than pass on the left, although I'm sure many posters will point out the dangers of lane splitting too.

cdaly_

If I'm on the left, I'll take it easy in case of unexpected turn offs. For travelling at speed, I always pass on the right.

buffalo

I presume you've posted in the Motoring forum on the dangers of pulling into a parking spot without checking your mirrors or indicating sufficiently?

Lumen

Pass on the left: higher probability of low speed accident.
Pass on the right: lower probability of high speed accident.

You pays your life insurance premium and you takes your choice.

(junctions are a special case)

Bristolscale7

buffalo wrote: »

I presume you've posted in the Motoring forum on the dangers of pulling into a parking spot without checking your mirrors or indicating sufficiently?

I'm not going to post on the motoring forum. I'd rather be flamed by my own kind.

Tenzor07

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I don't think indicating would have helped because the cyclist was basically right up to the tail light when the car darted in for the parking spot.

Sounds like the cyclist was in the car's blind-spot which the driver failed to check before making the maneuver..

ford2600

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Sounds like the cyclist was in the car's blind-spot which the driver failed to check before making the maneuver..

Your assuming they looked behind and/or checked mirrors. 180 degree blindspot probably

Inquitus

Being taken out by someone taking a right turn without indicating or looking happens plenty enough too, only safe way to negotiate these rush hour situations is to evaluate every dumb driving move that could occur and try and cycle accordingly.

Tenzor07

The AA is launching a campaign urging motorists to look out for people on bicycles and motorbikes – and is giving its 15 million members stickers they can attach to their wing mirrors to prompt them to be vigilant for those on two wheels

A million stickers have been printed and will be given to drivers free at every Halfords outlet in Britain and Ireland and by regional police forces. Drivers are being advised to place a sticker showing a cyclist inside a warning triangle on their left-hand mirror and another depicting a motorcyclist in their right-hand mirror.

Road tests have found that the stickers do not obscure the driver’s view, but remind motorists to check for cyclists when turning left and for motorcyclists when pulling out to the right.

No Pants

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Road tests have found that the stickers do not obscure the driver’s view

How does this work? I just looked at my mirrors and they're pretty much all glass surface.

Tenzor07

No Pants wrote: »

How does this work? I just looked at my mirrors and they're pretty much all glass surface.

The AA says that it has carried out road tests to confirm that motorists’ vision when looking in their mirrors is not impaired.

The sticker with the cyclist logo is designed for the left-hand mirror to act as a visual aid when turning left; the one with the motorcyclist goes on the right-hand mirror, to remind the driver to look out for motorcycles before pulling out.

Should be available in Halfords from Friday...

Bristolscale7

I wonder if I should go up to Halfords and ask for a few hundred stickers and then head off to the Liffey Vally car park to help out with the public safety campaign...

Mr. Grieves

I'm not sure how putting a reminder on the mirror reminds people who don't look at their mirrors to look at their mirrors. Would be more useful on the screen of their phone - better yet, in their Facebook feed. :rolleyes:

beauf

They have lane changing radar, is there anything similar for cars to detect cyclists?

Greenmachine

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The AA is launching a campaign urging motorists to look out for people on bicycles and motorbikes – and is giving its 15 million members stickers they can attach to their wing mirrors to prompt them to be vigilant for those on two wheels

A million stickers have been printed and will be given to drivers free at every Halfords outlet in Britain and Ireland and by regional police forces. Drivers are being advised to place a sticker showing a cyclist inside a warning triangle on their left-hand mirror and another depicting a motorcyclist in their right-hand mirror.

Road tests have found that the stickers do not obscure the driver’s view, but remind motorists to check for cyclists when turning left and for motorcyclists when pulling out to the right.

I would still be concerned about these obstructing the mirror.

bobcranfret

Greenmachine wrote: »

I would still be concerned about these obstructing the mirror.

Yes. Mirrors are there so you can see behind. Not for delivering quasi-subliminal messages.

Zen0

You don't need stickers on mirrors to make passing on the left safe. You need to be careful. If somebody in a car moving to your right suddenly pulls left, yes they may well be in the wrong, but it's the cyclist who ends up hurt. I can't believe the number of cyclists I see lashing down a cycle lane with slow moving traffic to their immediate right. If a car pulls left suddenly, the cyclist has no chance of stopping. In those circumstances on the bike, I slow down slightly and watch the "body language" of the cars ahead. You have to take some responsibility for your own safety. That's not excusing bad driving, it's defensive cycling. I often find that, having cleared the hazard zone, those same cyclists can't make a good pace on the clear road. Do my head in!

Tenzor07

beauf wrote: »

They have lane changing radar, is there anything similar for cars to detect cyclists?

A smart phone app being researched: LINK

Also some of the newer trucks have side warning radar to emit a sound if a cyclists is detected.

ragazzo

Weepsie wrote: »

This is pretty much how i got hit last year. I was passing a van which indicated only as i was at its door, absolutely nothing i could do by then.

saw the same guy outside a pub a few weeks later with his new van parked outside

You could have been in his blindspot at the time. You need to be aware that you are not always visible to trucks and vans.
You are traffic too and need to drive defensively and with the same attentive attitude as one might expect motorists to.

Not sure what the second part of your post means.
Did you pay for a new van and a few pints for the driver or are you perhaps insinuating that this guy drinks and drives.

ytareh

Last week a woman nearly swerved THROUGH ME to get into a parking space !I just saw her 'people carrier' front bumper veer left towards me in my peripheral vision .It was like she decided at the last possible instant to park in that space and snapped the steering wheel to the left .I had to jerk the bars left to avoid her .A cyclist travelling behind confirmed I was a tenth of a second from disater and that she only indicated after she started turning.I think stupidity is the biggest issue here .Also I reckon female drivers are dangerously nervous around cyclists on the road .

Zen0

Getting dangerously close to unsupported gender assumptions there. To be fair to female drivers, most of the really bad driving behaviour I see seems to come from adhesive male driving. Maybe out is you who makes them nervous.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Zen0 wrote: »

Getting dangerously close to unsupported gender assumptions there. To be fair to female drivers, most of the really bad driving behaviour I see seems to come from adhesive male driving. Maybe out is you who makes them nervous.

Those damn sticky drivers, when will they learn.

eeeee

ytareh wrote: »

.Also I reckon female drivers are dangerously nervous around cyclists on the road .

Zen0 wrote: »

Getting dangerously close to unsupported gender assumptions there. To be fair to female drivers, most of the really bad driving behaviour I see seems to come from adhesive male driving. Maybe out is you who makes them nervous.

Right at unsupported gender assumptions there I'd say!


There is no gender divide in homicidal driving tendencies in my experience, I almost get killed by both genders (Although I got knocked down by a male driver, and the next closest call was also male but it's 50/50 outside of that!) I have many, many unsupported car type judgements though which keeps it interesting. Like a spreadsheet of dickery in my head. Patterns are nice!

I will watch out for sticky male ones though

Zen0

Flippin mobile phone autocorrect. Meant to say aggressive, although those adhesive drivers are a nuisance also.

Scrumdog

Had a near miss yesterday myself. I was in my van stopped at traffic lights with indicator on to turn left. Lights turn green and I begin to make my left turn. Then a cyclist comes and passes me on the inside. It was more luck than anything that I didn't hit him. There was no other cars behind me so he would have had a clear view of my indicator. I'm a keen cyclist myself so I'm not just having a go at cyclists for the sake of it. Both motorists and cyclists should use a bit more common sense when using the roads.

ytareh

Scrumdog wrote: »

Had a near miss yesterday myself. I was in my van stopped at traffic lights with indicator on to turn left. Lights turn green and I begin to make my left turn. Then a cyclist comes and passes me on the inside. It was more luck than anything that I didn't hit him. There was no other cars behind me so he would have had a clear view of my indicator. I'm a keen cyclist myself so I'm not just having a go at cyclists for the sake of it. Both motorists and cyclists should use a bit more common sense when using the roads.

He was trying to go 'straight on'? Surely unless you were in a turn left only lane you would have been at fault legally here?

cython

ytareh wrote: »

He was trying to go 'straight on'? Surely unless you were in a turn left only lane you would have been at fault legally here?

In the event of a collision the blame would likely have been apportioned to Scrumdog alright, but since 2012 there is a basis in law for that not to be done, and the onus is now (rightly in many cases!) on cyclists not to overtake on the inside of a vehicle indicating left (which Scrumdog has stated he was):

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012. wrote:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

Personally, the only scenario in which I would potentially risk overtaking on the inside of a vehicle indicating left is when they are stopped at lights and I am certain that due to the pattern of the lights, and I can determine from other lights in the same circuit, I will be in front of the driver before they can move off (reasonable expectation to complete it before they turn, in contrast to the bolded bit above). And even then I'll be exercising every bit of care and wariness that I possibly can!

Alias G

Scrumdog wrote: »

Had a near miss yesterday myself. I was in my van stopped at traffic lights with indicator on to turn left. Lights turn green and I begin to make my left turn. Then a cyclist comes and passes me on the inside. It was more luck than anything that I didn't hit him. There was no other cars behind me so he would have had a clear view of my indicator. I'm a keen cyclist myself so I'm not just having a go at cyclists for the sake of it. Both motorists and cyclists should use a bit more common sense when using the roads.

Would be no harm to double check your left rear indicator bulb just in case.

No Pants

I tend to come out a bit and take the lane behind a vehicle with the left indicator on. Of course, if there's someone else intending to turn left who hasn't indicated...

ragazzo

Alias G wrote: »

Would be no harm to double check your left rear indicator bulb just in case.

Not really necessary as the indicator signal inside van will flash at a faster speed if bulb is not functioning.

A cyclist who cannot spot a van, with an indicator flashing whilst waiting to turn left at a red traffic light, is a liability and should think twice before throwing their leg over the bike.
Some of the ****e spouted by alleged cyclists on this forum is hard to stomach and is not really helpful in the overall picture.
Sometimes cyclists make mistakes and are wrong in their actions. Motorists make mistakes and are liable too. Neither mode of transport is 100% correct in every situation.
Whose fault will it be when somebody injures themselves falling from the high moral ground. Blah, blah, blah!

Alias G

ragazzo wrote: »

Not really necessary as the indicator signal inside van will flash at a faster speed if bulb is not functioning.

A cyclist who cannot spot a van, with an indicator flashing whilst waiting to turn left at a red traffic light, is a liability and should think twice before throwing their leg over the bike.
Some of the ****e spouted by alleged cyclists on this forum is hard to stomach and is not really helpful in the overall picture.
Sometimes cyclists make mistakes and are wrong in their actions. Motorists make mistakes and are liable too. Neither mode of transport is 100% correct in every situation.
Whose fault will it be when somebody injures themselves falling from the high moral ground. Blah, blah, blah!

I was merely offering some friendly advice to the guy. Given the number of vehicles that one encounters routinely turning without indicating, one can only conclude that at least a few of them must have a defective bulb. I don't think any cyclist in their right head will pass an indicating van on the inside with the exception of a few loonies. Besides which, you have no idea what model van he drives, so your opening sentence is unsubstansiated.

cython

Alias G wrote: »

I was merely offering some friendly advice to the guy. Given the number of vehicles that one encounters routinely turning without indicating, one can only conclude that at least a few of them must have a defective bulb.

Most of them that I see must have several defective bulbs so, as even then they are turning and I can see the side-mounted and even front indicator lights, there's not a glimmer off any of the indicators! One could also conclude (with virtually equal validity) that many drivers (and indeed other road users, but drivers/motorcyclists are the only ones with indicators ) are selfish and/or oblivious assholes.

Alias G wrote: »

I don't think any cyclist in their right head will pass an indicating van on the inside with the exception of a few loonies.

Stupidity is not a mental illness, but it is far more common in its incidence!

Alias G wrote: »

Besides which, you have no idea what model van he drives, so your opening sentence is unsubstansiated.

Virtually all modern cars and vans have this feature, so it's actually less unsubstantiated than the first few sentences of your own post. In fact IME cars with no indicators being used (as per the above) are far more common than those simply lacking this functionality.

DaithiMC

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I'm not going to post on the motoring forum. I'd rather be flamed by my own kind.

Aliens post on the motoring forum!?? :eek:

Bristolscale7

In the U.S. it is illegal to pass on the left (on the right in the case of the U.S.) on a single lane road. A cyclist passing on the right in the U.S. who got clipped by a car making a right turn, indicator or not, would
be culpable.

Basic summary is you can pass a vehicle on the right ONLY under the following conditions: (1) the car you are passing is about to make a left turn, (2) you are on a street with unobstructed pavement that is not occupied with parked cars and is sufficiently wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles, (3) you are on a one-way street and the street is wide enough for two lines of traffic and is unobstructed of cars, etc., (4) the movement of passing on the right is made under conditions of safety (vague I know), and (5) you can not pass on the right by going off the pavement or the main traveled portion of the roadway.

http://bikeaccidentattorneysblog.com/2013/04/19/is-it-legal-to-pass-cars-while-riding-a-bicycle/

ragazzo

Alias G wrote: »

I was merely offering some friendly advice to the guy. Given the number of vehicles that one encounters routinely turning without indicating, one can only conclude that at least a few of them must have a defective bulb. I don't think any cyclist in their right head will pass an indicating van on the inside with the exception of a few loonies. Besides which, you have no idea what model van he drives, so your opening sentence is unsubstansiated.

My point is that if one is driving with a defective indicator bulb then they will be aware of it and your friendly advice is wasted. Take out an indicator bulb and try it!
Make or model of van is quite irrelevant.

Thanks for your insight and conclusions but the problem is usually defective drivers rather than bulbs.

Alias G

cython wrote: »

!


Virtually all modern cars and vans have this feature, so it's actually less unsubstantiated than the first few sentences of your own post. In fact IME cars with no indicators being used (as per the above) are far more common than those simply lacking this functionality.

On modern vehicles perhaps but I've never had this feature on any car that I have owned and you won't find it on many older vans. I never suggested that it was the main cause for not indicating, merely that it was worth checking out given the occurence that the poster described.

Alias G

ragazzo wrote: »

Make or model of van is quite irrelevant.

.

The make and model is highly relevant as it is not a feature on many vehicles most than a few years old. My point was quite valid.

ragazzo

Alias G wrote: »

The make and model is highly relevant as it is not a feature on many vehicles most than a few years old. My point was quite valid.

It is not an added feature. It is due to a bulb being defective or missing and this speeds up the rate of flashing of other bulbs on the same side and the indicator symbol inside the vehicle. Indicator bulbs on the other side still flash as normal.

As I stated earlier.. Remove an indicator bulb and see what happens when you then indicate.

Kilometres off topic.. Move on!

Alias G

ragazzo wrote: »

It is not an added feature. It is due to a bulb being defective or missing and this speeds up the rate of flashing of other bulbs on the same side and the indicator symbol inside the vehicle. Indicator bulbs on the other side still flash as normal.

As I stated earlier.. Remove an indicator bulb and see what happens when you then indicate.

Kilometres off topic.. Move on!

And I daresay a majority of motorists wouldn't even be aware or notice this feature. Nothing wrong in my suggestion. Ready to move on when you are.

Scrumdog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias G
Would be no harm to double check your left rear indicator bulb just in case.


All bulbs are working fine. It's an 09 transit just for the record. I just posted to highlight the danger of doing this.

Alias G

Scrumdog wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias G
Would be no harm to double check your left rear indicator bulb just in case.


All bulbs are working fine. It's an 09 transit just for the record. I just posted to highlight the danger of doing this.

Dead right to highlight it, I guess I am just still suprised when cyclists are daft enough to pass a left turning vehicle on the inside like that. I would still contend that if someone had any small uncertainty of the functionality of their indicating bulbs after an incident such as that, it causes no harm to have a quick check.

spyderski

FFS, it's not a "new feature" - I know for sure VW Golfs did this in 1994, but have a feeling it goes back way before this. When a bulb is blown, there's less resistance on the electrical circuit, so the indicators flash faster. I would be pretty sure every car and van made in the last 25 years does this, whether by design or the nature of automotive electrics.

I'm actually astounded that people who drive cars DON'T know about this feature.

Unfortunately you are right in saying many motorists wouldn't even notice - and if they did they'd probably think "ooh my indicators are flashing faster - that's nice!"

Alias G

spyderski wrote: »

FFS, it's not a "new feature" - I know for sure VW Golfs did this in 1994, but have a feeling it goes back way before this. When a bulb is blown, there's less resistance on the electrical circuit, so the indicators flash faster. I would be pretty sure every car and van made in the last 25 years does this, whether by design or the nature of automotive electrics.

I'm actually astounded that people who drive cars DON'T know about this feature.

Unfortunately you are right in saying many motorists wouldn't even notice - and if they did they'd probably think "ooh my indicators are flashing faster - that's nice!"

Why would they. The vast majority of people wouldn't have any competency in electonics to even the slightest degree.

spyderski

They don't need competency in electronics. Just to know the basics of the operation of their vehicle.


.......actually, now that I think of it, most of the same people are amazingly good at texting and checking Facebook while driving - so maybe they have some competency in electronics after all.......

Alias G

spyderski wrote: »

They don't need competency in electronics. Just to know the basics of the operation of their vehicle.


.......actually, now that I think of it, most of the same people are amazingly good at texting and checking Facebook while driving - so maybe they have some competency in electronics after all.......

My point is that if your indicator starts flashing faster, it is not automatically intuitive for most people that it is a blown bulb at fault. I certainly mightn't have jumped to that conclusion up until yesterday, and I am more than capable of maintaining and operating my car. I would simply have relied on periodic bulb checks as any motorist aought to anyway.

07Lapierre

A good driver would not rely on indicators. A good driver should always drive as if there were no indicators working. In the same way a good cyclist should not assume that just because a car is indicating a left turn, that the car is actually going to turn left.

cython

07Lapierre wrote: »

A good driver would not rely on other drivers' indicators. A good driver should always drive as if there were no indicators working. In the same way a good cyclist should not assume that just because a car is indicating a left turn, that the car is actually going to turn left.

I presume that the bit I've added in bold was implied here. If not then it sounds like you are suggesting the driver should drive as if their own indicators are not working, which is simply outlandish, as they just shouldn't drive in that scenario, or should at the very least employ hand signals!

07Lapierre

cython wrote: »

I presume that the bit I've added in bold was implied here. If not then it sounds like you are suggesting the driver should drive as if their own indicators are not working, which is simply outlandish, as they just shouldn't drive in that scenario, or should at the very least employ hand signals!

There's nothing outlandish about driving defensively. I agree that Knowingly driving a car that has no working indicators would be pretty stupid and every driver should know the correct hand signals. But assuming that just because you've indicated your intention to turn does not give you right of way.

cython

07Lapierre wrote: »

There's nothing outlandish about driving defensively. I agree that Knowingly driving a car that has no working indicators would be pretty stupid and every driver should know the correct hand signals. But assuming that just because you've indicated your intention to turn does not give you right of way.

Ok, but indicator functionality has no bearing whatsoever on this. Legally, indication (functional or not) never confers right of way on either the driver indicating, or another driver observing the indication. Similarly a cyclist's hand signals confer no such right of way. However, what you said previously (without any additional context) suggests that a driver should always use hand signals, under the assumption that their indicators aren't working, which is pretty outlandish. Personally I prefer to assume that other road users and and will do the stupidest thing possible at a given point in time, and be pleasantly surprised when they prove me wrong. It has the same effect, but means that I needn't assume that my car isn't functional.

Ultimately, driving (and indeed cycling, since this is the cycling forum ) defensively is a different scenario to assuming that a reasonably critical (and legally required except in the case of maybe a few exceptions) component of the vehicle is not functioning, which is why I lean towards the above approach.

buffalo

07Lapierre wrote: »

But assuming that just because you've indicated your intention to turn does not give you right of way.

It does if you're in a motor vehicle turning left, and there's a cyclist behind you who wants to overtake on the left.

ragazzo

buffalo wrote: »

It does if you're in a motor vehicle turning left, and there's a cyclist behind you who wants to overtake on the left.

Does that not qualify as undertaking or a future job for the undertakers.