Cyclist/ Bus incident at Portland Row

Tombo2001

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-trapped-under-bus-following-accident-in-city-centre-35009380.html

I hope the cyclist is ok; she appears not to have serious injuries, but no doubt is shook up and traumatised.

Its the comment section that gets me.

No info is given apart from
(I) the bus is turning left
(ii) the bike had a flashing light

and yet the default response in nearly every comment is that the cyclist is to blame.

Really, why would you ever get on a bike if that's the attitude people have.

Collie D

I counted two negative responses from 12 comments

Chuchote

Collie D wrote: »

I counted two negative responses from 12 comments

A selection of the comments:

I'm not blaming anyone and I have sympathy for both the bus driver and the cyclist but I think that 11 pm and indeed any time after dark is too late for cycling in the city centre. I'm glad she's ok.

Wonder had she lights on the bike

I really hope the girl is ok. But this accident once again shows how vulnerable cyclists are. There is a real need for everyone to kop on. We could have been reading about a cyclist killed under a bus. Is a death going to be needed before we stop this war between cyclists and everyone else on the road. Cyckists have to begin following the rules of the road. And a simple and really safe first step would be to stop undertaking.

Every poster is unfairly jumping down your throat but you make a very valid point - undertaking a car/bus/lorry or whatever is nuts (especially approaching a left turn junction) and gives no-one any chance...and I'm a cyclist/pedesrtian/car driver - Jesus what's the big rush???!

Glad she's ok but cyclists need to be more warey [sic]. Speaking as a cyclist I see a lot of dangerous behavior. Right of way is one thing but when you are exposed as you are on a bike the smallest collision can be devastating.

"But there is a thing called "driving with due care and attention" you know"

It stands to reasson that there is therefore such a thing as cycling with due care and attention, or walking with due are and attention. If cyclists are keeping left like they are meant to do then they are easy(ier) to see beacuse they are in the section of road that you expect to see them in. But when they weave across in front of you in city traffic from the right unexpectedly then all the due care and attention in the world wont help. Likewise if youre turning left you dont expect them to try and pass you on the left in the same way you wouldnt expect a motorist to overtake you when you are turning right. I suppose you could use the old RSA soundbite "expect the unexpected" to respond to that one....

I'd agree with many of those who comment that it's insane to cycle up on the inside of a bus, truck, van or car that's indicating and clearly about to turn left. But the assumptions seem to blame the cyclist automatically.

Carawaystick

Chuchote wrote: »

I'd agree with many of those who comment that it's insane to cycle up on the inside of a bus, truck, van or car that's indicating and clearly about to turn left. But the assumptions seem to blame the cyclist automatically.

Of course it's also insane for a driver of a bus,truck,van or car to turn left while a cyclist is undertaking. Its definitely careless driving, and potentially dangerous driving, both of which are criminal offences.

Chuchote

Nice piece with advice for drivers:

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/victoria-hazael/drivers-need-know

mr spuckler

Carawaystick wrote: »

Of course it's also insane for a driver of a bus,truck,van or car to turn left while a cyclist is undertaking. Its definitely careless driving, and potentially dangerous driving, both of which are criminal offences.

serious question, as someone strongly pro cyclist!

IF a vehicle is indicating left coming up to a junction, what legal onus is there on a cyclist? i understand that the driver has to execute due care regardless but would expect that a cyclist (starting behind the vehicle), who moved up the left side of the indicating vehicle, would not be deemed to be blameless yet do not know what offence would apply, if any?

Misguided1

[QUOTE=

IF a vehicle is indicating left coming up to a junction, what legal onus is there on a cyclist? i understand that the driver has to execute due care regardless but would expect that a cyclist (starting behind the vehicle), who moved up the left side of the indicating vehicle, would not be deemed to be blameless yet do not know what offence would apply, if any?[/QUOTE]

I had this thought myself this morning while watching a car indicate left and then about 10 bikes undertake the car even though the car had reached the junction first. What complicates the issue is that at this particular junction, there is a green arrow allowing road users to go straight (bikes therefore have a green light) but the car cannot turn left until it gets the filter light to go left. My view is that the bikes should be outside the car turning left rather than undertaking it.

techdiver

Misguided1 wrote: »

I had this thought myself this morning while watching a car indicate left and then about 10 bikes undertake the car even though the car had reached the junction first. What complicates the issue is that at this particular junction, there is a green arrow allowing road users to go straight (bikes therefore have a green light) but the car cannot turn left until it gets the filter light to go left. My view is that the bikes should be outside the car turning left rather than undertaking it.

I cycled to work for a good few years in Dublin (I now don't live in Dublin any more) and unfortunately much of the negative attitude towards cyclists in Dublin is somewhat warranted. I followed the rules of the road to the letter at all times, and often kept note of the number of cyclists who didn't that I met on my morning commute.

One morning in particular, I encountered 30 different cyclists on my route. Of that 30 only 5 did not skip the lights at some point, even at potentially dangerous junctions. Also, one gripe of mine was the number of cyclists who do exactly what you talk about above. My view is if you are sharing a lane with a car and they indicate to go left whilst ahead of you, you either yield of go on the outside of them. The number of self righteous cyclists who just zoom up the inside regardless and then gesticulate as if they have a right to do what they pease angered me.

All of the above is not to say that there aren't idiot motorists too, they are plenty of them. I have been squeezed off the road a number of times by busses/taxis passing and then cutting into a stop in front of me, or a driver passing ,me and then turning left cutting me off.

neris

Carawaystick wrote: »

Of course it's also insane for a driver of a bus,truck,van or car to turn left while a cyclist is undertaking. Its definitely careless driving, and potentially dangerous driving, both of which are criminal offences.

its not always the easiest to see a cyclist up the inside of a truck or bus even with numerous mirrors. Its probably more difficult to see on a truck as your higher up. Theres debate in the UK at moment about introducing legislation for city trucks that the bottom panel of the passenger door is nearly all glass to give the driver a better view at the lower levels

ted1

neris wrote: »

its not always the easiest to see a cyclist up the inside of a truck or bus even with numerous mirrors. Its probably more difficult to see on a truck as your higher up. Theres debate in the UK at moment about introducing legislation for city trucks that the bottom panel of the passenger door is nearly all glass to give the driver a better view at the lower levels

Fish eye lenses with displays on the dash that also utilise body heat detectors. Not overly expensive but very effective.

buffalo

mr spuckler wrote: »

serious question, as someone strongly pro cyclist!

IF a vehicle is indicating left coming up to a junction, what legal onus is there on a cyclist? i understand that the driver has to execute due care regardless but would expect that a cyclist (starting behind the vehicle), who moved up the left side of the indicating vehicle, would not be deemed to be blameless yet do not know what offence would apply, if any?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88740818&postcount=39

buffalo wrote: »

0332/2012 again - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

(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.”,

Summary: cyclists can undertake except when it'd be a silly idea, like the vehicle is indicating and about to turn left, or is unloading people or objects.

techdiver

Carawaystick wrote: »

Of course it's also insane for a driver of a bus,truck,van or car to turn left while a cyclist is undertaking. Its definitely careless driving, and potentially dangerous driving, both of which are criminal offences.

neris wrote: »

its not always the easiest to see a cyclist up the inside of a truck or bus even with numerous mirrors. Its probably more difficult to see on a truck as your higher up. Theres debate in the UK at moment about introducing legislation for city trucks that the bottom panel of the passenger door is nearly all glass to give the driver a better view at the lower levels

ted1 wrote: »

Fish eye lenses with displays on the dash that also utilise body heat detectors. Not overly expensive but very effective.

Undertaking a lorry or bus is a dumb idea at any time.

Check the below out to see how big a blind spot they have!

mr spuckler

thanks buffalo - a quick scan of the SI doesn't specify what penalty applies, if any?

Leroy42

Don't have the details of this accident, but I know that junction well (use it everyday) and 1 possible course of events highlights the problem with junctions such as these.

That junction has a pedestrian light on the left turn and a filter light to let traffic start going straight whilst the vehicles turning left have red whilst they wait for the pedestrians.

The cycle lane goes up the left of these vehicles (rightly as they are stopped) but what happens when the filter light turns green. The cyclist is caught moving up a vehicle about to turn left and they are going straight on.

As I said, I have no idea if this is what happened in this case.

tomasrojo

techdiver wrote: »

Undertaking a lorry or bus is a dumb idea at any time.

Check the below out to see how big a blind spot they have!

Vampire cyclists have to be especially careful.

Moflojo

Do not pass high-sided vehicles on the inside.


Protect yourself at all times.

Sorry for shouting. I've no idea what happened in the incident in question nor do I want to speculate on it, but as cyclists we should always obey these golden rules.

It's not about being right or being legal, it's about self-preservation. The majority of fatal and serious collisions between cyclists and vehicles involve high-sided vehicles such as rigid and articulated lorries and, to a lesser extent, buses and vans.

If you're not sure whether it's safe to pass on the inside, just stop and wait.

If you're an experienced cyclist and you see a fellow cyclist about to pass a high-sided vehicle on the inside, give them a shout - at the very least it might attract the driver's attention to the situation.

mrcheez

Collie D wrote: »

I counted two negative responses from 12 comments

add another one

Poor woman cycling in some towns let alone cities needs to be banned

lolz

flatface

Poor woman cycling in some towns let alone cities needs to be banned

Ah here, the ban should be extended to wealthy women too

ted1

techdiver wrote: »

Undertaking a lorry or bus is a dumb idea at any time.

Check the below out to see how big a blind spot they have!

Sometimes lorries overtake and then cut across. Not bothering adding life saving devices because undertaking is dumb is even dumber.
My suggestion removes the blind spot

Chuchote

Misguided1 wrote: »

I had this thought myself this morning while watching a car indicate left and then about 10 bikes undertake the car even though the car had reached the junction first. What complicates the issue is that at this particular junction, there is a green arrow allowing road users to go straight (bikes therefore have a green light) but the car cannot turn left until it gets the filter light to go left. My view is that the bikes should be outside the car turning left rather than undertaking it.

It's generally safer to cycle along the inside in this case rather than risk being sandwiched between the stationary-or-about-to-turn car and an oncoming lorry or other vehicle.

ted1 wrote: »

Fish eye lenses with displays on the dash that also utilise body heat detectors. Not overly expensive but very effective.

Is that a thing?

There seems to be an assumption in these posts that the cyclist was overtaking on the inside. May I point out that drivers coming in from a country run have often been travelling fast on motorways, and as they near home they can forget to slow down as much as they would if they were doing a trip completely through the city. I have found myself doing this - driving at 80 on a street coming into town, because I'd been driving at 120 on the motorways and my sense of correct speed was off kilter. (I'm not saying the driver was doing this, any more than any of those talking about cyclists undertaking are suggesting that the cyclist was doing that.)

The general rule that should be used when cycling is "Did your mother not teach you a titter of sense?"

The general rule that should be used when driving is "There are crazy people everywhere, watch out for them."

brocbrocach

Why is it so disproportionately often women?

Rogue-Trooper

mr spuckler wrote: »

thanks buffalo - a quick scan of the SI doesn't specify what penalty applies, if any?

Serious injury up to a maximum of death if found guilty............

Laneyh

I don't suppose we'll ever reach a point where cyclists and motorists alike will demand proper segregated cycle lanes. There will always be bad drivers and bad cyclists but at least if they're separate cyclists won't be at risk of serious injuries

brocbrocach

brocbrocach wrote: »

Why is it so disproportionately often women?

Well, it will probably upset the commenters on the Independent but here's the most popular theory, that covers precisely this issue (getting squeezed by something big turning left): http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

In this particular case we don't know what happened, but worth noting that the cyclist was under the front of the coach, not the side.

cdaly_

Leroy42 wrote: »

Don't have the details of this accident, but I know that junction well (use it everyday) and 1 possible course of events highlights the problem with junctions such as these.

That junction has a pedestrian light on the left turn and a filter light to let traffic start going straight whilst the vehicles turning left have red whilst they wait for the pedestrians.

The cycle lane goes up the left of these vehicles (rightly as they are stopped) but what happens when the filter light turns green. The cyclist is caught moving up a vehicle about to turn left and they are going straight on.

What happens in this case is that the cycle lane is incorrectly marked to the left of a left-turn lane. The cycle lane should be moved to the right of the left-turn lane.

So bad design puts cyclists at risk.

Dermot Illogical

Chuchote wrote: »

It's generally safer to cycle along the inside in this case rather than risk being sandwiched between the stationary-or-about-to-turn car and an oncoming lorry or other vehicle.

It's never safer to go left of a left-turning vehicle when you're proceeding straight ahead. Go to the right of it, or hold back.

brocbrocach

cdaly_ wrote: »

What happens in this case is that the cycle lane is incorrectly marked to the left of a left-turn lane. The cycle lane should be moved to the right of the left-turn lane.

So bad design puts cyclists at risk.

I'd say 90% of junctions in Dublin are designed like this. Don't know if I'd call it bad design though as otherwise you'd be forcing the cyclist to cross a lane of fast traffic before the light. Not ideal at all.
In fact the pedestrian light on the road to the left often stops the left-turning green from coming on at the same time as the onward green, which gives cyclists a 10 second window to filter up the left of the cars and cycle through the junction.

People saying cyclists should never filter up the left are in cloud cuckoo land.

Dermot Illogical

brocbrocach wrote: »

People saying cyclists should never filter up the left are in cloud cuckoo land.

I've read back, but can't see where anyone said that.

terrydel

Chuchote wrote: »

A selection of the comments:














I'd agree with many of those who comment that it's insane to cycle up on the inside of a bus, truck, van or car that's indicating and clearly about to turn left. But the assumptions seem to blame the cyclist automatically.

I'd say only the first of those is negative/unreasonable in any way.

brocbrocach

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I've read back, but can't see where anyone said that.

Twas shouted for us all to learn from:
"Do not pass high-sided vehicles on the inside."

Chips Lovell

That's not the same thing.

Leroy42

brocbrocach wrote: »

I'd say 90% of junctions in Dublin are designed like this. Don't know if I'd call it bad design though as otherwise you'd be forcing the cyclist to cross a lane of fast traffic before the light. Not ideal at all.
In fact the pedestrian light on the road to the left often stops the left-turning green from coming on at the same time as the onward green, which gives cyclists a 10 second window to filter up the left of the cars and cycle through the junction.

People saying cyclists should never filter up the left are in cloud cuckoo land.

It is terrible design. You are making the cyclists go up the left on cars that are stationery, only for the light to change and then cars then turn. When the light was red the cyclist was doing everything perfect, light turns green and suddenly they are in danger.

Why have the pedestrian light produce the filter at all. Safer thing is to simply stop all the traffic and then the green light for all directions.

It has simply added danger into a situation where it didn't need to exist.

Moflojo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, it will probably upset the commenters on the Independent but here's the most popular theory, that covers precisely this issue (getting squeezed by something big turning left): http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. Very interesting point regarding pedestrian guard rails being a source of danger.

JBokeh

As someone with a rigid truck licence and an articulated one, I wince every time I see someone go up along the left of a truck, or even just ride to the right in their blind spots.

Bus in the picture would have had a relatively low driver position compared to most big vehicles too, and likely a glass door on the passenger side, but it would still be hugely unwieldy to drive around a city. The proposed "city cab" design they're trying to get on 8 leggers would have a similar design, which IMO is totally useless, not fit for purpose on sites/ quarries, and still won't stop people going up the inside

P_1

Know the spot well and it's not a nice left to take at all. Hopefully the cyclist recovers quickly.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

If there is a cycle lane then the cyclists have right of way regardless of who was at the junction first. The vehicle turning left has to cross the cycle lane so it is only fair to wait till any approaching cyclists have passed through before making the turn.

However at a regular junction without a cycle lane the cyclist should take up a position behind the left turning vehicle and wait their turn to go through the junction.

I certainly see your point, but in practice it's best to wait behind in both cases, if it's a large vehicle with extensive blind spots.

I'm not sure whether using a cycle track substantially alters the legal situation if a case goes to court either. Does anyone know of cases where a driver was found guilty of careless driving or such like for injuring or killing a cyclist in a cycle track (e.g. a cycle track that "invited" the cyclist to pass a left-turning vehicle on the inside)? ("A grey area", as Deedsie said.)

Lumen

Blanket rules make for poor safety.

Passing HGVs on left is often perfectly safe. If you can't assess whether it's safe then don't do it, but that applies to every situation including getting on a bike at all.

Women often get squashed because they're attempting to respect the rules around keeping left and using the cycle lane. This is a classic example of why cycle lanes are a bad idea.

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

Blanket rules make for poor safety.

Very true. It's also true that there are times it's safe to pass an HGV. But I'm so very cautious of whales - HGVs of any sort, including buses, coaches, vans and those brutes of cars that for some reason timid little Mr Pooters and Mammy Murphys like to drive at the moment, that I'll normally stay behind them or step off my bike and take it onto the pavement to walk around them.

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

Passing HGVs on left is often perfectly safe.

Completely disagree with that statement. It's rarely safe, and never perfectly safe.

Passing a high-sided vehicle is a catch 22 situation: The safest way to get around the vehicle is to do so as quickly as possible before the vehicle pulls off or changes direction, but you can't go too quickly because you're cycling towards a giant blind spot - you simply can't see what's on the far side of the vehicle.

Lumen

Moflojo wrote: »

Completely disagree with that statement. It's rarely safe, and never perfectly safe.

Passing a high-sided vehicle is a catch 22 situation: The safest way to get around the vehicle is to do so as quickly as possible before the vehicle pulls off or changes direction, but you can't go too quickly because you're cycling towards a giant blind spot - you simply can't see what's on the far side of the vehicle.

OK. Well I do it all the time and have NEVER had an issue (in about eight years of daily fast commuting through Dublin city centre traffic).

So I'm either deluded or awesome, or maybe it's just not that hard to do safely.

Chuchote

Passing trucks (site is American so replace 'right' with 'left' in all cases):

http://iamtraffic.org/resources/interactive-graphics/what-cyclists-need-to-know-about-trucks/

Trucks make wide turns. They cannot physically make a right turn from the right curb, so they will often leave a large, inviting opening on their right prior to a turn. They will also move straight into the intersection before starting to turn. When a truck turns right across your path, it is almost impossible to escape its rear wheels. So don’t get caught in a spot where this can happen! Be aware of what kind of situation can lead to a potential crash and avoid it.

mr spuckler

passing any moving slowly vehicle on the inside as you approach a left turn, regardless of whether they're indicating or not, is very risky.

however, passing a stopped or slow moving truck where there is plenty of space and no upcoming left turn is quite often not dangerous, once you have your wits about you and are aware of whether the truck is inching left or the possibility of someone crossing in front of the truck.

it's all about applying common sense in those situations - like lumen i've been commuting in the city for years and never had an issue.

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

So I'm either deluded or awesome, or maybe it's just not that hard to do safely.

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

Chuchote

For me, common sense involves keeping well away from things that can kill me.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

For me, common sense involves keeping well away from things that can kill me.

that list is pretty much endless

Lumen

Moflojo wrote: »

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

People who are stupid or lack common sense should probably walk or take the bus rather than cycle or operate a motor vehicle.

I think there's more value in explaining the specific reason why passing long vehicles can be dangerous and letting people apply it sensibly.

As for passing high-sided vehicles that's just a case of "don't go pelting into a space you can't see properly" which is as close to common sense as you can get.

Roadhawk

Not to throw fuel on the fire but did the bike have a front light?

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

Not to throw fuel on the fire but did the bike have a front light?

Not to add to Roadhawk's fuel, but did the bus indicate

radia

With all this talk of undertaking, let's also not forget the possibility that the cyclist had already stopped at the junction when the bus subsequently arrived and pulled up beside her.

traprunner

Moflojo wrote: »

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

This blanket rule/law that you say is for people 'who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim' results in people getting killed! The blanket rule is that law is that cyclists can pass/filter on the left. You do realise that?

Moflojo

traprunner wrote: »

This blanket rule/law that you say is for people 'who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim' results in people getting killed! The blanket rule is that law is that cyclists can pass/filter on the left. You do realise that?

I don't fully understand what you're saying, but the "blanket rule" that I advocated for earlier in the thread was "Do not pass high-sided vehicles on the inside."