Incident between taxi and bike - Dublin city centre

dubscottie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2luswnXu164

Bicyclists bang on about car drivers etc.. This lad..

Lost control, speeding, face stuck in a garmin yoke..

Had he come off the bike and gone under a oncoming car it would be the car drivers fault right?? Or the poor roads, or the rain..:rolleyes:

galwaycyclist

dubscottie wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2luswnXu164

Bicyclists bang on about car drivers etc.. This lad..

Lost control, speeding, face stuck in a garmin yoke..

Had he come off the bike and gone under a oncoming car it would be the car drivers fault right?? Or the poor roads, or the rain..:rolleyes:

Uh no if he is cycling at a speed where he is no longer in control then clearly his behaviour would be at fault in the event of a crash. But fault in crashes is not decided purely on the basis of who is wrong and who is right.

Everyone has duty to avoid a crash even if the other party is at fault.

If the oncoming car driver saw that the bike was out of control and failed to react then they might still be deemed as also contributing - regardless of the fact that they did not create the situation.

But the fact that one party is on a bike has nothing to do with it - thats just how traffic law can work.

I'm struggling to see the direct connection between cycling the Wicklow gap and someone throwing a car door open on a city street

meathstevie

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is how does the cyclist know that? A taxi stopped in the middle of the road doesn't gain any specials rights. Cycle lane was free and as you've already quoted they are perfectly entitled to undertake. If the taxi driver doesn't pull in off the road and make it clear they are letting off passengers the bit quoted by Spook doesn't apply.

Personally I think any cyclist should be wary when undertaking traffic. But surely one of first things any child is thought about cars is to ensure its safe to exit the vehicle and that you don't door another person/cyclist/car etc.

The cyclist knows that by using proper observation of the vehicles/road users around him/her. Just like someone manoeuvring any other vehicle should do. The cyclist walloped an opening door of a stationary vehicle in front of him/her. When one does that with a motor vehicle or mechanically propelled vehicle it's called careless or dangerous driving at worst.

On a side note, the taxi driver is entitled to demand the name of anyone involved in this road traffic collision just like the other involved parties are entitled to demand his. Deliberately not disclosing your name/identity and leaving the scene of an accident is an offence colloquially know as a hit and run.

PeadarCo

meathstevie wrote: »

The cyclist knows that by using proper observation of the vehicles/road users around him/her. Just like someone manoeuvring any other vehicle should do. The cyclist walloped an opening door of a stationary vehicle in front of him/her. When one does that with a motor vehicle or mechanically propelled vehicle it's called careless or dangerous driving at worst.

On a side note, the taxi driver is entitled to demand the name of anyone involved in this road traffic collision just like the other involved parties are entitled to demand his. Deliberately not disclosing your name/identity and leaving the scene of an accident is an offence colloquially know as a hit and run.

As another poster said in a previous post if you open your car door without warning and another car takes it off you not only pay to replace your own door but you also pay to repair any damage the door did to the car. You can't just open the door whenever you feel like it.

Well to be honest the Taxi driver should be thankful the cyclist didn't make a big deal of it. Given how tight margins seem to be in the industry I doubt any increase in their insurance premiums would be helpful. Its the taxi drivers job to ensure that its safe for their passengers to exit their vehicle. Given that the failed to pull in off the road they quiet clearly failed to do this.

As I said before one of the first thing children learn is go ensure it safe to exit before getting out. Car makers have even gone to the trouble of installing child locks on the rear doors of most cars.

meathstevie

PeadarCo wrote: »

As another poster said in a previous post if you open your car door without warning and another car takes it off you not only pay to replace your own door but you also pay to repair any damage the door did to the car. You can't just open the door whenever you feel like it.

Well to be honest the Taxi driver should be thankful the cyclist didn't make a big deal of it. Given how tight margins seem to be in the industry I doubt any increase in their insurance premiums would be helpful. Its the taxi drivers job to ensure that its safe for their passengers to exit their vehicle. Given that the failed to pull in off the road they quiet clearly failed to do this.

As I said before one of the first thing children learn is go ensure it safe to exit before getting out. Car makers have even gone to the trouble of installing child locks on the rear doors of most cars.

On a side note; child locks' primary function is preventing doors being opened while the vehicle is in motion.

In the scenario above it's all about adults and they are responsible for their own actions. It's not a lot to expect from an adult to be a bit cautious when exiting a vehicle and unless one suffers from a degree of paralysis shifting your body position and turning your head a wee bit is not beyond the limits of expectation. If an unobservant taxi passenger opens the door into the carriageway and gets creamed by lorry I suppose would be the taxi driver's fault as well.

cdebru

dubscottie wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2luswnXu164

Bicyclists bang on about car drivers etc.. This lad..

Lost control, speeding, face stuck in a garmin yoke..

Had he come off the bike and gone under a oncoming car it would be the car drivers fault right?? Or the poor roads, or the rain..:rolleyes:

You must of put up the wrong video, I don't see his face stuck in a Garmin ?? He had a wobble, I don't see how the Garmin played any part in that ?

cdebru

meathstevie wrote: »

On a side note; child locks' primary function is preventing doors being opened while the vehicle is in motion.

In the scenario above it's all about adults and they are responsible for their own actions. It's not a lot to expect from an adult to be a bit cautious when exiting a vehicle and unless one suffers from a degree of paralysis shifting your body position and turning your head a wee bit is not beyond the limits of expectation. If an unobservant taxi passenger opens the door into the carriageway and gets creamed by lorry I suppose would be the taxi driver's fault as well.

If the adult suddenly decided to bolt from a vehicle you would have a point but if a taxi driver or any driver allows a passenger no matter what age to open a door it is the driver who is responsible, the taxi driver took the fare and had stopped the vehicle, the onus is on the driver to provide a safe place for passengers to exit or enter, and into a lane of traffic would not be a safe place.

meathstevie

cdebru wrote: »

If the adult suddenly decided to bolt from a vehicle you would have a point but if a taxi driver or any driver allows a passenger no matter what age to open a door it is the driver who is responsible, the taxi driver took the fare and had stopped the vehicle, the onus is on the driver to provide a safe place for passengers to exit or enter, and into a lane of traffic would not be a safe place.

I agree that the driver has to select a suitable place to let passengers in and out of the vehicle but that's where the driver's responsibility ends. Contrary to for example a bus it's the passenger who controls the movement of the door, not the driver. As for the cyclist in my opinion it's the same as for the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, you should ride in such a way that you're able to deal with all hazards in your way.

desertcircus

SeanW wrote: »

Discussing transport policy with some (but not necessarily all) cyclists seems to be like discussing religious freedom with an Islamic State rabble-rouser on crack, and yields the same results.

Though again I do apologise if I am generalising and you are not like most of the other cyclists on here.

When you've lumped a poster in with a group you describe as being as impossible to deal with as a jihadi on crack, the boat has sailed on the question of "if" you're generalising.

PeadarCo

meathstevie wrote: »

As for the cyclist in my opinion it's the same as for the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, you should ride in such a way that you're able to deal with all hazards in your way.

I'd agree with that but that doesn't excuse or exonerate anyone from breaking the rules of the road and harming other people.

To take an extreme example if a car B on the wrong side of the roads rams head on into car A, by your logic car A is at fault because the driver should have been driving is a such a manner that they could avoid it. Thats obviously ridiculous.

The only good thing is that in the grand scheme of things that in the OP's example nobody was too badly hurt.

cdebru

meathstevie wrote: »

I agree that the driver has to select a suitable place to let passengers in and out of the vehicle but that's where the driver's responsibility ends. Contrary to for example a bus it's the passenger who controls the movement of the door, not the driver. As for the cyclist in my opinion it's the same as for the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, you should ride in such a way that you're able to deal with all hazards in your way.

But in this case that is where the driver failed in his duty of care, he didn't pull in to a safe place to allow his passenger to alight, he stopped the vehicle with a cycle lane on the nearside of his vehicle, and it is not where his responsiblilty ends he is in charge of the vehicle and he is responsible for it, a door opening onto you is not a hazard any motorist or cyclist can always avoid it is completely dependant on your position and speed when the door opens.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

If the adult suddenly decided to bolt from a vehicle you would have a point but if a taxi driver or any driver allows a passenger no matter what age to open a door it is the driver who is responsible, the taxi driver took the fare and had stopped the vehicle, the onus is on the driver to provide a safe place for passengers to exit or enter, and into a lane of traffic would not be a safe place.

I think if i had a taxi I would activate the child locks if there are passengers who think it's OK to just bolt from the vehicle and worst of all, think I should be responsible. But of course I would stop in a safe manner!

galwaycyclist

Apologies if someone has posted this before

I did a quick trawl of the regulations

S.I. No. 33/2015 - Taxi Regulation (Small Public Service Vehicle) Regulations 2015
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2015/en/si/0033.html

(4) The driver of a small public service vehicle, where such vehicle is being operated for the carriage of passengers for reward or, in the case of a taxi, when standing or plying for hire, shall—

<snip>

(c) take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of persons in, on, entering or alighting from the vehicle,

In my reading, it seems to me that this places a duty on the driver to check that the way is clear before letting a passenger get out.

It seems to me that, in this case, the use of the word "persons" in this regulation would place a duty on the driver for the safety of a cyclist in a cycle track as well as a duty towards any passenger.

cdebru

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm no thats not strictly correct. Legally the term "cycle track" refers to something within a larger road that has been set aside for cyclists to use. It can be part of the "roadway" - that part of the road usually set aside for vehicles. Alternatively, a cycle track can be part of the "footway" - that part of the road usually set aside for pedestrians (aka footpaths).

Where a separate road has been provided for cyclists (or cyclists and pedestrians) then this is defined as a "cycleway" under the roads act.

Edit: Also cycle tracks are not legally defined as traffic lanes anywhere in the road signs legislation.

Eh I was referring to cycle tracks separated by a kerb from the roadway but not on the footpath not to cycleways.

What defines a cycle track on a roadway as a traffic lane are the lines, when you paint lines on a roadway they have specific meanings as to when traffic can cannot cross them.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think if i had a taxi I would activate the child locks if there are passengers who think it's OK to just bolt from the vehicle and worst of all, think I should be responsible. But of course I would stop in a safe manner!

In taxis the ones who bolt from the taxi are usually trying to avoid paying, I doubt they think it is OK but I also doubt they give a **** one way or the other.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

Eh I was referring to cycle tracks separated by a kerb from the roadway but not on the footpath not to cycleways.

What defines a cycle track on a roadway as a traffic lane are the lines, when you paint lines on a roadway they have specific meanings as to when traffic can cannot cross them.

Ah ok in the traffic signs regulations they only refer to the standard lane marking as creating a "traffic lane". Cycle track markings have different dimensions and different names or designations.

The definition of traffic lane does not include these cycle track markings. I am not saying this is right - I think the Irish regulations are sloppy in places (at best) - I am just telling you what it says.

There is some discussion here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136579&page=8
See post 118 on.

cdebru

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ah ok in the traffic signs regulations they only refer to the standard lane marking as creating a "traffic lane". Cycle track markings have different dimensions and different names or designations.

The definition of traffic lane does not include these cycle track markings. I am not saying this is right - I think the Irish regulations are sloppy in places (at best) - I am just telling you what it says.

There is some discussion here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136579&page=8
See post 118 on.

It is pedantry tbh, yes they are not a lane they are a track, but can you define the difference it would make if they were called a lane ? They are marked by painted lines and it is defined when and who can enter them, the regulations you pointed in the other thread don't include bus lane markings as a lane either.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

It is pedantry tbh, yes they are not a lane they are a track, but can you define the difference it would make if they were called a lane ? They are marked by painted lines and it is defined when and who can enter them, the regulations you pointed in the other thread don't include bus lane markings as a lane either.

No they dont but as you would see if you kept reading the thread they usually become standard lane markings at junctions. Do cycle track markings become standard traffic lane markings?

It makes a difference because the law on yielding to other traffic is written with respect to traffic lanes. There is nothing about yielding to other traffic if crossing a cycle track. This may be just sloppy and poorly thought out law-making or it may be something else.

The same regulations as drafted in 1997 also seem to have "dropped" the requirement to yield at zebra crossings.

Edit: There are also various examples of cycle lanes "on-road cycle tracks" that have had yield markings painted on them even though they are on main roads.. The apparent intent being to facilitate cars cutting across the cycle track. Has anyone here ever seen that done on a bus lane?

It suggests that neither the council officials involved, nor the garda*, view cycle tracks as like other traffic lanes.

* under the road traffic acts the garda are supposed to be consulted on regulatory traffic signs.

Edit 2: For completeness I should acknowledge that it may also be the case that some garda and local officials consider themselves to be above, or possibly outside, the law.

cdebru

First a lot of bus lanes in Dublin at least extend to junctions, and yes there are bus lanes with yields the entrance to Edmundsbury hospital in lucan has a yield painted on the bus lane, just for example you can clearly see it on street view there are others as well.

Secondly yielding is not dependent on traffic lanes, there are all kinds of positions where you must yeild irrespective of whether there are lanes or lines painted on a road, anytime you enter the roadway from a private residence, when turning right, when entering a main road etc etc, so right of way is not dependent on the, lane, track, path or whatever we are calling it being a " lane ".

A cycle track has the same status as a bus lane it is reserved road space, motorists can not drive along or across it except for access and they have to yield to traffic already in the cycle track the same as a bus lane, a non mandatory cycle lane would have pretty much the same status as bus lane outside of hours of operation.

You are reading too much into the whole name thing

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

First a lot of bus lanes in Dublin at least extend to junctions, and yes there are bus lanes with yields the entrance to Edmundsbury hospital in lucan has a yield painted on the bus lane, just for example you can clearly see it on street view there are others as well.

Secondly yielding is not dependent on traffic lanes, there are all kinds of positions where you must yeild irrespective of whether there are lanes or lines painted on a road, anytime you enter the roadway from a private residence, when turning right, when entering a main road etc etc, so right of way is not dependent on the, lane, track, path or whatever we are calling it being a " lane ".

With regret I think you are being disingenuous and trying to suggest I said something I didn't say. On boards this is usually a sign that someone knows they are losing the debate.

A cycle track has the same status as a bus lane it is reserved road space, motorists can not drive along or across it except for access and they have to yield to traffic already in the cycle track the same as a bus lane, a non mandatory cycle lane would have pretty much the same status as bus lane outside of hours of operation.

You are reading too much into the whole name thing

Sure - just show us the legislation.

roverrules

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are being disingenuous and trying to suggest I said something I didn't say. On boards this is usually a sign that someone knows they are losing the debate.



Sure - just show us the legislation.

I think one of the problems is that the two types of cycle track marking would need the driver ( not necessarily a taxi ) to act in two different ways, if it were a broken line marking then they could just pull up to the kerb as normal but if it were a solid line then to stay within the law they would have to pull up next to the line and open the door into the path of any cyclist overtaking on the left.

cdebru

roverrules wrote: »

I think one of the problems is that the two types of cycle track marking would need the driver ( not necessarily a taxi ) to act in two different ways, if it were a broken line marking then they could just pull up to the kerb as normal but if it were a solid line then to stay within the law they would have to pull up next to the line and open the door into the path of any cyclist overtaking on the left.

No they shouldn't stop at a mandatory cycle track during the hours of operation strictly speaking.

roverrules

cdebru wrote: »

No they shouldn't stop at a mandatory cycle track during the hours of operation strictly speaking.

Disagree, strictly speaking if a taxi doesn't stop where the passenger wishes to go would they not be guilty ( technically ) of false imprisonment?

Vic_08

roverrules wrote: »

Disagree, strictly speaking if a taxi doesn't stop where the passenger wishes to go would they not be guilty ( technically ) of false imprisonment?

If they took them to the next safe place to disembark; No.

If they took them to the Dublin Mountains to rape and kill them; Yes.

I had that line a couple of times from passengers who thought they could bully me into letting them off my bus at places that were not official stops for the scheduled service, amazingly I never did get the knock on the door from the Gardai about the false imprisonment charge. :rolleyes:

cython

roverrules wrote: »

Disagree, strictly speaking if a taxi doesn't stop where the passenger wishes to go would they not be guilty ( technically ) of false imprisonment?

Vic_08 wrote: »

If they took them to the next safe place to disembark; No.

If they took them to the Dublin Mountains to rape and kill them; Yes.

I had that line a couple of times from passengers who thought they could bully me into letting them off my bus at places that were not official stops for the scheduled service, amazingly I never did get the knock on the door from the Gardai about the false imprisonment charge. :rolleyes:

This. To take it one step further, would they be guilty of the same if the customer asked them to drop them off in the middle lane of the N7 (not M7!) 1km past the Rathcoole exit (hypothetical direction, there are any number of other similar options), but instead they went to the next exit and told them to walk back? Of course not, but the only real difference here is that some people think that cyclists should be de-prioritised behind everything else on the road, and as a result the cycle lanes are fair game to stop in.

cdebru

roverrules wrote: »

Disagree, strictly speaking if a taxi doesn't stop where the passenger wishes to go would they not be guilty ( technically ) of false imprisonment?

No, they have to find a safe legal place to stop, passenger doesn't have the right to exit the vehicle whenever they feel like it, its just most taxi drivers don't pay any attention to road traffic legislation as regards stopping.

cdebru

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are being disingenuous and trying to suggest I said something I didn't say. On boards this is usually a sign that someone knows they are losing the debate.



Sure - just show us the legislation.

With regret you are flaffing around trying to hold up an argument that doesn't exist and accusing people of being disingenuous,
You claimed right of way was based on traffic lanes its not, you asked if bus lanes have yields they do and I gave you an example of one.

The legislation is in multiple acts, it covers entering roadways, turning right, turning left, the rules on who can enter a cycle lane and when etc etc.

So give me an example of when a.motorist would be allowed to drive over a cycle track and not yield to cyclists in the track or since you believe bus lanes are similar when you can enter a bus lane and not yield to the traffic already in it ?

cdebru

cython wrote: »

This. To take it one step further, would they be guilty of the same if the customer asked them to drop them off in the middle lane of the N7 (not M7!) 1km past the Rathcoole exit (hypothetical direction, there are any number of other similar options), but instead they went to the next exit and told them to walk back? Of course not, but the only real difference here is that some people think that cyclists should be de-prioritised behind everything else on the road, and as a result the cycle lanes are fair game to stop in.

The main problem is lack if enforcement, we can have all the laws we like but if they are not enforced then they are pretty meaningless.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

The main problem is lack if enforcement, we can have all the laws we like but if they are not enforced then they are pretty meaningless.

The general attitude by enforcement is "not my problem, got enough on my plate, just let 'em ofterfcuk and if they crash into each other, civil matter, so still not my problem"
Ireland in general has all the rules in the world, in fact we have more and more stringent rules than places like Germany. Except no-one gives two sh*ts about it, it gets widely ignored and since enforcement is practically nil, it's all meaningless anyway.
So the old adage of "It's only a problem if you get caught" comes in.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

So give me an example of when a.motorist would be allowed to drive over a cycle track and not yield to cyclists in the track or since you believe bus lanes are similar when you can enter a bus lane and not yield to the traffic already in it ?

Edit: from memory this scheme involves something like 40 different locations where cyclists following the main road are expected to stop and yield to crossing traffic.